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: A Bill Fails, A New Opportunity is Created

The struggle to pass the most recent Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 421) is over. The Assembly Appropriations Committee stopped the bill yesterday when it refused to release the bill from the committee’s Suspense File.

Because the bill was stopped, some registrants are breathing a sigh of relief. For if the bill had passed, they would have been identified as a registrant on the state Megan’s Law website for the first time.

Because the bill was stopped, some registrants are in shock, perhaps in tears or worse. For if the bill had passed, they would have been eligible to petition for removal from the registry and the Megan’s Law website.

The day after the Appropriations Committee’s decision, there is a lot we do not know. For example, we do not know why the author of the bill agreed to extensive amendments of that bill only a week ago.

From the perspective of registrants, the amendments weakened the bill considerably. For example, the automatic removal of those convicted more than 30 years ago was eliminated and the number of years for those convicted of possessing child pornography must register was doubled.

The fact is even the original version of the recent Tiered Registry Bill was built on a flawed foundation. Instead of empirical evidence, the bill was based upon myths such as the myth that registrants re-offend at a high rate.

The fact is that the original version of the Tiered Registry Bill was created by a group of law enforcement organizations and district attorneys. The group subsequently created a coalition when it obtained support for the bill from organizations representing a broad spectrum of views including victims’ rights organizations, Equality California and the ACLU.

Once formed, the coalition believed they had the political power to get the bill passed. The coalition warned off others that sought meaningful changes to the bill including changes that reflected the results of decades of research conducted by subject matter experts such as Karl Hanson, Jill Levenson and others.

In the end, the coalition did not achieve its goal of getting the Tiered Registry bill passed. As painful as that failure is, it provides registrants with an opportunity. An opportunity to create a new bill based upon a solid foundation — empirical evidence.

We have 16 months in which to do that. To draft a bill that can be introduced in the next legislative session set to begin in January 2019. To find a legislator brave enough to speak the truth about the registry and to fight for justice. To build a coalition of like-minded organizations.

We need YOUR help to do that! Please join us in that effort by Showing Up – Standing Up – Speaking Up at monthly meetings, conferences and protests. We are indeed all in this together.

— by Janice Bellucci

Read all Janice’s Journals

Join the discussion

  1. CA RC

    Can we sue in Federal like Colorado did?
    Judge Matsch found Colorado’s sex offender registration & notification scheme
    (1) IS punishment & violates the 8th Amendment
    (2) violates procedural due process as to one plaintiff who had twice unsuccessfully petitioned in Jefferson County to discontinue registration for a juvenile adjudication
    (3) violates substantive due process

    • American Detained in America

      It’s time for this organization gets behind the movement to abolish the registry, not continue supporting a bad bill until the very end and then only afterwards admit the bill was flawed. I’m very disappointed and can only hope Janice and the others see that it’s time to go after the registry as a whole just as they did in Colorado rather than the “baby steps” approach they’ve taken. The final version of this bill was practically worthless to us registrants and yet Janice continued to urge us to show support, even though it would hurt more registrants than it helped. If someone truly believes the registry is not needed, that it is indeed punishment, please support the growing trend to have the registry abolished, not just tiered.

      • Mike

        I completely agree. I was totally in support of this tiered effort, but after seeing it fail – even with all the ridiculous amendments – it’s probably time to consider other alternatives rather than these incremental steps that get nowhere.

        So we try again next time with a “better” bill? And then what? It passes when this one didn’t? I look at Colorado as an example of what could happen here if we applied serious effort into abolishing the registration process.

        Yet instead, the focus is on another bill. And another bill. Oh, one more bill! This time for sure. It’ll get better, just wait!

        Right.

      • Tim L

        Tieranny OR Tyranny same same. Pull your collective heads out! Databases of many sorts. Used to maintain political advantage for both parties. Nothing worse than to split tax pie with a third party. Do you actually think it a coincidence first NSA database was erected in UTAH??? Not Arlington or Manassas. Get real about purpose! Not about the sex offender– THE use of database!

    • anthony jones

      JANICE IT IS TIME FOR A PROP!

      Subject: Engaging a state proposition ballot measure/aka PROP to REVERSE the state legislatures denial of the bill to create an S.O.R tier system in CA.!

      The S.O.R in Ca. Is a giant cash cow to the state-politicians-law enforcement agencies- politicians- the sex offender industrial complex;

      Behold this cash cow!
      There are over 100.000 people on the S.O.R in CA. It is estimated that the state collects in taxes-fed money close to $40.000 for each individual on this registry[correct me if the $$$ is wrong?]

      Lets do some math? $40.000 X 100.000 = $4 000 000 000

      Now you do the math? If %40 on this cash cow could have got a petition to get off of it, home much would this cash cow have shrunk -who-how many would of have been crying?

      The state legislatures were only protecting their cash cow-cronies who profit from it, under stand a tier system would have started shrinking their cash cow-stopped its expansion- would have blown a big hole in there saying everyone on the S.O.R were all dangerous predatory child molesters!

      THIS PRO WOULD FLY!
      This prop already has multi million of voters from the get go-donators to it.

      100.000 on the S.O.R- with each having an estimated 25 friends-relatives-they would all vote-donate!-the CA. The public has now become aware of the insanity of the CA. S.O.R

      A crowd fund site could be put up for funding for the PROP-or use Janice’s/ORG web site to collect funds?

      This Prop mode would be Exposing the insanity of the current S.O.R- the vicious, corrupt big money game the legislatures are playing to keep the current non tier S.O.R.system’, Plus you could have the parents of children’s who are on the S.O.R PLEAD for reform of it?

      I look forward to bring my many ideas to the table if this Prop is engaged.

      Keep up the good fight/Anthony Jones

      • Nondescript

        Yeah, I was told by an ex Los Angeles DA ( family friend) a long time ago that there was / is an incentive to get as many people registered as possible. Each new person they can register brings in more Federal money. Yes, the Federal Government pays the States to find new registrants! That’s why there is an ever increasing drive to add penal codes that trigger registration and the do as their told legislators are all in on the scam as well.

        • James A

          Urban legend: the feds do not pay California to register people (much less the $40,000 shown here). California is a non-SORNA compliant state.

    • Fred Skylar

      Yes, my heart sunk when the August 8th article posted about San Diego. Those people know exactly what they’re doing. It’s not a matter of convincing them that offenses like a gay encounter in the 1980’s, or exposing oneself 30 years ago are ridiculous to keep on the list for life. I think they want as many people incarcerated or on a list, prevented from getting an education, forced into homelessness, as possible. Actual child protection is not on the top of the list for them.

      Why did the author of the bill last week suddenly agree to all kinds of amendments? Isn’t it obvious someone made him an offer he couldn’t refuse?

      Is there a point in waiting till January 2019? Can we sue them now?

  2. anthony jones

    TIME TO EXPOSE THE S.O.R IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!

    A bill was just shot down to allow level 1 sex offenders to petition to be removed from the S.O.R under the cry it would cost multi multi $millions in cost to the state to do so. in reality the state would of lost $ multi millions to keep level 1’s on the registry

    Can someone please contact an investigative journalist at a major Ca news paper that an investigation needs to be done on the real $$$$ the state would be losing if level 1 were removed from the registry- i have heard it is almost $40.000 yearly to keep a S.O on the registry

  3. Harry

    I want to thank Janice and her team for the work they are doing for RCs and families. However, for me I am 69 and by the time something like this get into practice, I will, most likely, will be off the registry because I will be dead. As a gardener, I the best way to get rid of weeds is pull them up by the roots. Trimming the weeds off makes them grow more. lets pull the registry up by the roots and we will not need tier system. It would far more beneficial, as an organization, to start using media systems to get the facts out to the public. We need to inform the ‘soccer moms’ that their child will have far more likelihood ending up on the registry than being sexually abuse. We need to pound the court system with the truth.

  4. michael

    Im glad it FAILED… Supposedly was going to SAVE the TAXPAYER a TON OF $$ on the bloated registry, But on the other hand it SAVED US RSO’s a MASSIVE TON of $$ that we DONT have to PETITION and fill attorney’s pockets, and fill SHRINK’s pockets with money for BS Assessments.

    It should be AUTOMATIC Based on 2 things….
    the # or years, say 10-20-30
    and as long as you have committed NO SEX or (possibley regular) crime period…..

    none of this other LAME BS like filing a petition, getting a atty, fighting a DA that just wantes more notches on the lipstick case etc etc..

    to the LAME GOVT: If you dont like sex offenders on the streets pass laws changing the amount of time they are in the slammer.

    Quit punishing FOREVER someone that did something 10-20-30 +++ years ago.

    Do you punish your dog that peed on the floor 10 years ago if he hasnt done it anymore ? no that is CRUEL and UNUSUAL Punishment.

    • JAB

      And don’t you think it’s cruel and unusual punishment for people that plead guilty and agreed to register but 20 years later they decide to do this thing called an Internet? We’re in the same boat as you. We peed on that lawn 25-30 years ago and then they decide to come up with this crap and will continue to add more crap as the years go on.
      Thank you Janice for this well written summary of everything. We will definitely be going to these meetings and fighting with you.

      • Michael

        I’ve been on it going 30 yrs for mistameanors in Calif I’ve drank myself into Cirrhosis over the shame of it and I have not reoffended. Wish I can go back and tell myself a few words but I can’t. I agree with everything the above gentleman jab said. I live in Oregon but I WILL HELP!

    • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

      What could have been an essentially “zero-cost” reform of the Registry, i.e. letting everyone off after so many years crime-free in the community, became extremely expensive because of their ignorant misconceptions about what was needed to make it “safe” for the community. And whoever went to town revising the bill in its last iteration bloated the costs to the taxpayer enormously. Of course, that was the idea, I’m sure. This was a ‘poison pill.’ Not only unpalatable to the Bill’s sponsors but fiscally a dead-letter.

    • Not really

      How many letters or phone calls to legislators were from registered citizens like this that helped kill it?

  5. Anonymous Nobody

    I appreciate that tone of your post here — yes, we need a 100% turnaround in OUR approach. We need to set this year’s IDIOCY from US aside. The movers and shakers here need to turn their own thinking upside down — it was appalling hearing anything about this bill all year from US other than what you said here.

    All the readers here were denied this truth — you should have been telling them the truth. I called the mindset here over and over on it — but no one would listen but a few of the readers here. So, in the end, the approach we took failed miserably — we better learn a lesson and never be such stupid cheerleaders again. Even the original bill was a MAJOR failure for us, for all the reasons I went to a lot of trouble to point out. This was a failure whether it ended now or whether it was passed into law. We were scared little mice afraid of speaking out in our own best interests. We were so desperate that we would take anything, no matter haw bad for us it was, anything at all.

    Instead, this angle in the post, which is more along what I have said all along, should have been followed. If it had, even with a loss now, WE would have been in a MUCH, MUCH stronger position to go forward and argue for something real — if for no other reason than because our demands would have been heard, the process of the politicians starting to consider that and get comfortable with it would have been started, we could have planted a point of view for them to rally around going forward. But we did not make those demands, they have never been heard, the process to start bringing the politicians around was not started. So next time, we are not already started, we have yet to start. Instead, the lawmakers have never even heard the ideas that we should be promoting, because we failed to take this opportunity to expose them to it. I argued this was the time, which is where we could go before them directly and speak, this was the time to make sure they heard those ideas, not instead to let this bill contain the discussion, the entire things was opened up for discussion bu this bill – -we missed the best opportunity we had in decades! We should no understanding of the bigger picture, we took no overview of things, at least no knowledgeable one. And the ideas are not wild ones, they are merely sanity.

    For god’s sake, even the LA Times said the original bill was not anywhere near what it ought to be, for a number of reasons, only one they said being that a lot of offenses caught up in this should have been dropped. But we didn’t say that. We didn’t fight for that. So we did not get any headlines about that. We didn’t fight at all, we accepted terrible crap designed with and loaded with ulterior motives to do a lot less that suggested on its face, and served as idiotic cheerleaders against our best interests — and every amendment that made it even worse, we accepted until the very last ones, when we didn’t even reject them, we simply went silent, leaving nothing but the resonating sound of our cheerleading! So of course we got even more amendments, what else would you expect!? And you won’t listen.

    We were too busy being afraid, afraid to speak our piece, afraid to speak truth, afraid to speak humanity, afraid to speak minimal, basic fairness, afraid to speak about mass psychosis imposing this on us, imposing PUNISHMENT no matter they the lying courts say.

    REAL means dropping all offenses from California registration for which the Feds do not require registration — that should be readily sellable, and the Feds provide the political cover. REAL means applying HUMAN (humane, but more, human) time frames if we must have tiers — 10 years minimum, and that actually increasing the time for some offenses, is insane, and we supported insanity. Ten years would be more the maximum for the worst offenses — a civil commitment is another matter, but registration beyond 10 years is NOT acceptable, 20 years is not acceptable; even 10 is highly challengable for even the worst offenses since research pegs five years as the mark for recidivism of ANY offender, including sex offenders and not only the lower level ones, not 10 years.

    REAL means no big assessments other than your tier time has been served; all the tier time is based on should be your offense, an assessment only to lower your tier. REAL means you just stop registering when you reach your time, you don’t have to apply, notify, or have a hearing, you did your time, end of registration, end of discussion. BUT EVEN THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT, IT SHOULD BE MERELY THE TIME FROM THE OFFENSE, NOT HOW MANY YEARS YOU ACTUALLY REGISTERED, AND IN CALIFORNIA; IT SHOULD BE LIKE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NOT LIKE A SENTENCE. (Hey, if you sat out your 10 years in another country, so what. You have not had any further offense, drop it. Even if you simply managed to avoid registration, so what, drop it, you haven’t reoffended in that time. Maye those I have mentioned who previously were relived of registration bu getting 1203.4 relief didn’t know they needed to start registering again, so haven’t. So what, drop them — because, it seem so abhorrent to me that you can give them relief and then later through no fault of theirs, you can take it away — no matter anything else, that taking away HAS to be reversed. Once given, they cannot be allowed to take that relief back! Under that action, even a great bill for us isn’t worth the paper its printed on!) I’m sure you can produce some offenders who reoffend at the 10-year mark, the 20-year mark, maybe even the 40-year mark — that is the 2+% we talk of, you can’t be punishing the 98% for that, and you can’t be getting all out of joint over 2% of that, you can’t let anecdotes rule the day.

    We will NEVER get something decent as long as we simply accept. As a rule, we should NEVER simply accept, as we did this year. We should oppose and demand better, much better, we should make a lot of noise over our point of view, not noise to cheerlead a bad bill. Anything less is a sign of weakness, and a sign of weakness will be handled like sharks smelling blood. And it was. We have now marked ourselves as weak. We didn’t even play poker.

    And REAL means making these demands, over and over and over, until they start setting into politicians’ minds, until they start finally agreeing. One of the rules of persuasion is that if you say it often enough, they will start to agree with it. We have REFUSED to even say it! WE have been f-ing imbeciles, holding back, listing to the enemy, letting OURSELVES be the ones with the wool being pulled over our eyes. We have been followers, following those who hate us most and letting them have control, convinced they now really care about us, just want the best for us, Jackie Lacey is our friend, no a devious prosecutor designing a bill to completely undermine us. Next time if her turn to cheerlead OUR bill, and not watered down to suit her anymore than she watered anything down to suit us, instead just shut us out of the discussion, and so we responded by cheering her crap on, we let her fake us out, we let her persuade us.

    Of course the appropriations committee nixed this. One of the points I have made all along was that we have big arguments against this bill because of its costs., costs that are completely unnecessary — this bill was setting up a HUGE bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that would serve as a powerful, major lobbying force against us going forward. That bureaucracy was one of the big points it was being done this way, not to help us but to make sure we were undermined going forward by a huge, permanent lobby!

    And stop listening to everything the ACLU says. Unfortunately, for decades I have seen the ACLU constantly reach settlements of all kinds that are dramatically insufficient, and calling it a win (like Donald Trump would), and dropping that matter. Gee, they did that with the homeless on Skid Row in LA some years back, and refused to do any more, and so things only got worse for the homeless. Finally, one lawyer broke off in dismay and she has individually carried the legal fight for the homeless and against a settlement by the ACLU that was no better than then a piece of sh@@. The ACLU would not do anything more about the situation, they settle for a little ditty and leave it at that, think they have solved a problem but the problem remains and only gets worse. That is what we have been following here, the BS ACLU approach that fails. And it failed again. If the ACLU were ones to follow on this, they would have been out there since day one in the mid 1990s when Bill Clinton took this registration national. But not a peep from them (and when I personally contacted them, they just insisted they had no interest, its not something they care about. And I believe them. Any interest on their part is clearly very minimal, they only want the absolutely worst fixed, all else can remain — but that is not acceptable.) If the ACLU cared, they would have been heavily involved in fighting registration even before Bill Clinton came along — but that effort seemed to die off in the 1980s, the ACLU changed and no longer cared about us. And what involvement they are showing now — only at the level of very bad bills and anything good, even necessary, completely compromised out of it — just cave in, predictably, the other side will always demand more and more because they know you will yield

    Nevermind the amendments to this bill, the original proposal itself was sorely bad for us.

    And gee, you still insist those registering for more than 30 years would get people off “automatically” under the original bill. No, they would not. There were standards for them, and they would be reviewed. AND, the bill specifically said for ONE conviction, so if you got misdemeanor indecent exposure and two counts, that’s two convictions, you would not qualify for that relief — the bill did not time it 30 to years from your LAST conviction, it specified ONE conviction. How many times you offended should not matter if it has been 30 years since an offense! But under this bill, it completely mattered. AND the bill was decidedly linked to length of registration IN CALIFORNIA. It should not be linked to how long you register — or even to whether you ever registered — if you have not committed an offense in the time frame, then you don’t have to register, end of discussion. That viewpoint is NOT unreasonable. If the time frames mean anything at all, that viewpoint is actually required.

    • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

      Excellent polemic! I agree with much of what you say but I do think that our willingness to entertain a tiered registry, up to a point (I would say about when that last revision came along) was not incorrect. Perhaps that process was even essential in clarifying what should be our next step (especially since we are told 2018 holds no promise for a recapitulation of a tiered registry attempt). That next step should be more adversarial, i.e. lawsuits.

      • American Detained in America

        I don’t always agree with you, but this is an area in which you and I are 100% in agreement. Even though I would have still been Tier 1 with the last revisions, I was never crazy about this bill. Then when I saw how bad those revisions were, I was openly urging others on here not to support the bill. It wasn’t just about me, it was about all of us who are suffering because of the registry. The time has come to quit pushing for a tiered registry but to push for complete abolition. The recent decision in Colorado shows signs that the tide is turning. ACSOL can either get on board to work toward abolishing the registry or keep failing registered citizens by supporting tiered registry bills that would help very little.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          I would love complete abolition. However, the realities are that the federal government has a minimum requirement imposed on the states. That is why I say “conform to federal.” Once done, when we are at the minimum — going to which the politicians can take political cover behind the federal requirement by saying they are merely conforming for efficiency — we can then turn all our guns at the federal level.

          And simply “conforming to federal” would do better for many people than the tiers. The federal government does not require registration for I think most of those offenses for which California requires it. So, all those offenses could stop registering, not after 10 or 20 years, not after proving registration in California, not after asking for permission, not after anything — just stop immediately, and people newly convicted of those offenses would never have to start registering.

          And, the federal government does not require lifetime registration. It has its own minimum time frames for the offenses it requires to register, so just go to those since we can’t go less. That is the best those who would still have to register can get at the state level.

          Simply “conform to federal.” We instead went with the enemies phenomenally complicated and evilly detailed and completely based on ulterior motive plan.

          This idiotic tier proposal we were supporting called for much longer time frames than the federal government requires, and for many more offenses to be subjected to registration than the feds require, and even then you had to ask permission and under the standards of a COR! The main thing this tier proposal did — even the original version — was to build a huge bureaucracy, exactly what the proponents wanted. The biggest expansion of their budget and number of people as possible, and under the FAKE guise of doing something for US.

          I pointed out all along that the tier proposal was just the CORs in disguise, and that with it designed as that, you better expect the prosecutors would fight you tooth and nail to block you form any relief, just as they do with a COR. They can support your bid for a COR, but they never do; they were not going to handle these tiers any differently, that’s why they had details and standards written into the bill.

          And if you refused to believe that early on look at the amendments, how much they merely accented that that was going to happen. Many people here were not going to get the relief they were promised, and additionally they were going to have to spend lots of money on lawyers to not get it — this bill was lawyer full-employment bill. Tiers can never be optional, as in this bill, when your time is up, you simply stop registering, you can’t have to ask permission, you can’t even have to notify — they already know your time is up, no notification is needed.

          I am sure plenty of votes were lost on this bill simply because of what everyone here was thinking we would do — get this passed and then go back year after year for 20 more revisions to it to finally get it to an acceptable level. The last thing the politicians want on this topic is to vote on even more reductions in registration later. They want it done one fell swoop or forget it. They don’t want a garbage bill like this one that guarantees it coming back for more voting over and over and over again.

          Conform to federal.

          As for the courts, we can’t get more than an occasional little ditty there. They have already proven that across the board and on everything. The state high court is very conservative, and so is SCOTUS, the latter of which is going to become dictatorial right wing and fanatic with Trump’s next appointment. We can’t even get any help at SCOTUS now, and it is only going to be even harder going forward.

          • kind of living

            @ Anonymous Nobody ,,,, , , I must research your ideas as I try to everything else , thank you for your input , it is welcome to me , rather than on going pushing for tiers ,

          • Robert Curtis

            The beauty of having the DA’s Association and the Police Chief’s Association on record supporting the idea of a tiered registry is huge! We can use that for leverage in promoting our version of an actually reasonable form of the tiered registry in a State Proposition for electorial vote. If those that pushed and supported Prop 57 would also help us forward this proposition we can accomplish this. Crazy but because of them failing to pass SB-421 the door is open now more than ever to get a more viable version passed by the people.

    • Counting the days

      100% agreement.

      • kind of living

        I salute you guys , we need to not support any registry tiered or any other scam , and put the registry in the trash can with the spying moralist witch hunters spreading more fear , saying there is no hope if we don’t have some kind of registry , and no whipping post to whip

  6. Jack

    Janice. I really think the Colorado ruling is your opportunity here. At the very least, it provides the framework for the argument needed in court.

  7. Eric

    In the meantime I would like to look into a revision of the current registration requirements for California. Particularly #13 that states, “If I have more that one residence address that I regularly reside (regardless of the number of days or nights I spend at each address) I must register in person…with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction.” This is incredibly vague. Does the word ‘have’ mean it is my property or just a place I frequent? What is the definition of residing? Is that visiting, sleeping, or what? This could mean if I attend a bible study in someone’s home, play cards at a friends on Fridays, do regular maintenance work at a property, or have girl friend I occasionally stay with, I would technically have to register all those places. Is that correct???? Arizona and Utah define ‘residing’ as a place you stay at for several consecutive days. So I could stay at my girlfriends without having to register if I live in AZ. The key word is ‘have.’ Does that mean the residence is my property? If not, then technically every SO would have dozens of registered addresses, and could in fact be picked up for violation for visiting a friend’s home. Webster defines ‘have’ as to hold, own ,or possess. How does one change the reg requirements to make them more livable???

    • Anonymous Nobody

      That point came out of a court case — go read that case and you will get some answers (sorry, it would take me hours, and in 100 degree temps in here now, to hunt the name of the case down). A registrant landed in prison for violating that point, and the point was not even explicitly written into 290 at that time! The court ruled it was implicit in the meaning of “residence.” After that case, the prosecutors made sure the Legislature added that language, directly from the opinion in that case, into 290, which effectively blocked other appellate courts or the state high court from making a ruling contrary to that case.

      That language, as explained by the appellate court ruling, does not require it be anything more than maybe a girlfriend’s or boyfriend’s home where you might stay say once a week most weeks, maybe on Saturday nights. That was the situation for the guy sent to prison out of that case. He did his registration, but he had no idea he was supposed to register at his girlfriend’s home too in a adjacent town because he stayed over once a week on most week. Hey, no one had that idea except the prosecutor in that area!

      • TS

        I think that is why they say so many consecutive days or cumulative days in a year. That is where I would put that onus on the letter of the law since it is in writing.

  8. Q

    I’m thinking it’s probably a good thing it failed to make it out of suspense. As Janice says the bill was built on the false premise that if you wind up on the registry you will commit the same crime again, and again. One must consider that this whole sex offender “problem” was built on a false premise in the first place. It’s nothing more than one big lie. If one were to sweep away all the beliefs about people forced to register, all the laws and intellectual rhetoric both for and against the registry, all that’s left is a railroad job based on a lie. I’m not one bit surprised the original bill was changed beyond recognition by these people with the minds of children that hold power. Early on I was thinking of this bill as yet another costly gift from these nice people in the form of yet another mine field those seeking relief would have to navigate.

    Now a question to the group. Is anyone aware of a scholarly study breaking down the numbers that will remove any doubt that this is all about money?

    • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

      “Is anyone aware of a scholarly study breaking down the numbers that will remove any doubt that this is all about money?”

      I’m not but then, I don’t think that it is all about money. It’s about ignorance, bigotry, fear and a very creepy obsession with inflicting punishment. Any money is incidental to the social distortions that drive this public appetite and most of the money that does drive this hysteria flows from the taxpayer to the government with the primary exception to this being the media which has profited enormously. It has helped to drive the appetite and feed it, as well.

      • Timmr

        I agree, although greedy politicians take advantage of the fear and the rest are too afraid of looking like coddling sex offenders to oppose it. Look, there is really no interest from the public in this tiered bill or the Colorado case. It is not a national story, let alone a headline. Most people hearing about it wonder why all the fuss about the John Wayne Gacys they think we all are. They are saying shouldn’t we all be in jail for the rest of our lives? Aren’t we so lucky? Our true sides are invisible and we are not telling our stories enough.
        I think from now on I will use my real name. I am not feeling afraid or ashamed much anymore. I want to be myself. I am tired of being a villian in a fairy tale made up by others.

        • Q

          I agree with you and poster boy, but I can’t seem to shake the feeling that this is more about money. All else, the things you and poster boy mention seem to be borne of greed and fear. I;m sure both of you have read the post “assembly committee stops tiered registry bill.” It seems the logic for not taking the bill out of suspense that it would cost the state/taxpayer millions. Even though the logic is flawed, which leads me to believe prejudice plays the predominant role in the decision, there wasn’t any mention of what the registry has already cost the state/taxpayer and will continue to cost the state/taxpayer.

        • Timothy Moore

          Wish a pod of us could all go out for a good porter, sparkling water, whatever to our taste, glasses resting on the railing or poles casting for a fish dinner, forgetting for a time the lugubrious waters of the registry, sailing on a bright ship to Catalina.

          • kind of living

            @ Timothy Moore ,,, , great plan , the fishing sounds great , as well as the fish dinner , sailing away and forgetting for a min all the turmoil , but why just a day or 2 , why not some in some way create community’s that help open doors to living a life that , opens many doors that helps RC’s in many ways . we could have lots of fun ,as well as become more active on more fronts , this takes money that I don’t have , but a great investment for those that do . but fish dinner ? hell yes I am on board with that Skipper

            • Timothy Moore

              How does one start something like that? I am not too good on the planning end. I like ideas, or physically getting my hands dirty in the actual work, building a house, planting a garden, that’s my thing.

              • kind of living

                @Timothy Moore , ,,,, Gardening is in my blood also ! I have tried many times to give a basic lay out , and for what ever reason it was poo pooed, I don’t have the bucks to start one , but to something like this work you need management so you can make money from it to cover cost , I but I have been beet up on this issue to many times to run it all down again , Timmr is one of the few that even gave a thumbs up on this matter , for the most part , all I can say is that I lived on a few communes , and 2 of them made big money as well as helped many , 1 of them that was pulling down over 2 million bucks after cost , and they pulled up and moved on after the freedom movement changed at the far end of the movement , I am know shaker or mover , but was able to be part of feeding many people , as well as many other jobs , these ideas are hard for me to sell because I am no manager or sales person , I am just an RC that forgets his place in the pecking order

          • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

            Let me know. It’s been years since I’ve been to Catalina and, despite the distance from S.F., I would enjoy it.

            • Alexander

              What is the law in regard to taking a vacation *within* the state of CA? Do we have to register while taking a vacation away from our registered home (I.e. Staying at hotel)? (Catalina sounds nice BTW.)

              It’s been quite a LONG while since I’ve taken a vacation or even spent the night outside of my home because I’ve been afraid of breaking the law because of having to register while I stay a few nights in a hotel room. If having to register for a few nights vacation while staying in a hotel room is necessary, I’d rather not go through the trouble — as I can imagine that registering at the police department would cancel-out any relaxing and/or stress relieving benefit of the vacation. So I’d rather save the money.

              • TS

                @Alexander

                See under the Legal tab above the state by state registry requirements for how long you can vacation in one spot before you have to register in the state of CA.

                • someone who cares

                  TS and Alexander ~ I think the question is being missed, and I have been trying to seek an answer to find someone who can chime in here. The question is, IF you live in California and are registering in California, do you have to let anyone know that you will be vacationing for two weeks in, for example, Catalina, or San Diego, or any other place WITHIN California? Out of state visitors have to register after I believe 10 days, but we are talking about people who live and register in California. I don’t think there is or should be a requirement, but I would like to confirm. If you visit another State, there is a link to all the State’s regulations for “visitors”. Please, this seems to be a pretty simple question that should have a pretty simple answer.

                  • TS

                    @someone who cares

                    There is no in vs out of state visitor registry requirement; they are the same as stated in CA law and the spreadsheet above.

                    When you change jurisdictions, which is what you do when you leave a city or county jurisdiction for another, you have five WORKING days to enjoy it before you have to register by CA law, which is seven calendar days overall.

                    If this is wrong, someone here will correct it and this will stand corrected.

                    • someone who cares

                      TS ~ I hope someone can verify this as I am still not convinced this applies to vacationing. PC290.010 states “If the person who is registering has more than one residence address at which he or she regularly resides, he or she shall register in accordance with the Act in each of the jurisdictions in which he or she regularly resides, regardless of the number of days or nights spent there”. Emphasis is on “has more than one residence address”. A hotel is hardly a residence address and I don’t regularly reside there, unless I take a vacation every few months and stay in the exact same hotel. I know, these are the things that make us live in fear since nobody really can say for sure what the above means.

                  • Nondescript

                    @someone who cares

                    My husband was told by a detective at the Los Angeles Police station this when he inquired about going on a vacation- ” you can go wherever you want for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks without telling us- you could be considered absconded” You should contact a registering detective at your police station and see what kind of answer they give you and ask for the penal code that supports their answer. There is nothing in pc290 pertaining to temporary lodging of California registrants. Just a lot of ambiguous language about “regularly” residing.

                    • Timothy Moore

                      They just told me if for some reason they find me gone for 14 days, they will assume I have absconded. Absconded? The only way that can happen is if I am still in custody. I finished probation 12 years ago. They say some damaging things about this registry without being aware of it. Just ask them a question.

                    • TS

                      @Timothy Moore

                      Using your precedent, then you are still under some sort of civil commitment or punishment scheme through the registry, which we know is not punishment in some eyes; therefore, how can you abscond (using the definition of it)?

                      They also have to show the mens rea behind any vacation for the duration and show the intent to abscond.

                      Of course, the root wording of assume can apply to them too when they try to make it stick.

                    • AJ

                      Let’s not forget that they would be punishing innocent (and legal!) behavior. If the rules say you can be gone for periods of “14 days or less,” there is ZERO legal basis for LE to form any opinion until day 15. Of course, they will play the old game of arresting you, jailing you, making you post bond/bail, etc., etc.

                      I would try hard to get that in writing! Is there a way to email somebody if you have questions about RC laws?

                    • Timothy Moore

                      AJ, I don’t know if there is an email, but it would be a way to get things in writing. We could do a FOIA, but if an email works, fine. Always get things in writing if possible.

            • Timothy Moore

              Ah, Emerald bay is a calm lagoon on the east side, you can see a coin 80 feet down in the water. Is there any reason to meet in old law buildings all the time? Maybe some discussions in the fresh air would bring some fresh perspective on fighting the registry. If not, a good spell of peace, food, drink and conversation and a sense of human companionship without the judgment for a moment would be worth it. I haven’t been there since my offense. It is not far for most in California. I wish I had the spare change to rent a boat for a group of us.

  9. New Person

    Janice and Team,

    I’m sorry the bill didn’t pass. It was a step at chipping away at the 70 year old registry.

    With that said, a new bill would be nice, but curious as to who would actually create it – the police officers or ACSOL? I konw ACSCOL has no part in the construction of the tiered bill, but rather just someone in the stands hoping it passes.

    Also, could ACSOL challenge the existence of the registry like Colorado did? Frank Lindsey has been attacked just because he was on the registry. That plays into the Colorado statute that the people are administering added punishment. There is the fact that you’ve been fighting residency restrictions as well, winning with re:Taylor as proof of punishment via banishment. Then there’s in-person registering. It is at least one a year, but can be more with a change in housing, employment, schooling, or vehicle. (Which, btw, has been deemed monitoring after custody by the Colorado case.)

    There has got to be a way you can state the Registry as one scheme, not a bunch of little ones so that it can survive. Kinda like one breech in a contract negates the whole contract. We now have several states who have identified the registry unconstitutional by violating their own constitution via long standing statutes, Ex Post Facto, or proof that 6 out of the 7 MM factors were deemed punitive in the Colorado case. We can cite all these cases.

    Plus, use our own state Constitution with Article 1, Section 1 (right to pursue and obtain privacy) and Article 1, Section 7b (immunity must be equal for all or none at all, in reference to 1203.4). I mean, you probably can do a class action suit just with all the registrants who have 1203.4 and state that CA has denied the capacity de-register on two folds – equal immunity as well as the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. That could help out a lot of registrants right now while you’re still conjuring up a new bill.

    Seriously, though… Article 1, sec 7b states equal immunity. There are some people who cannot qualify for the 1203.4, registrants included. But for those who did qualify and earned it, why was their immunity provided by the 1203.4 statue partially revoked? (Art. 1, Sec 7a is equal protection) California goes even further than equal protection by applying it to equal immunity in subsection b of section 7, Art. 1.

    ===========
    (excerpt from 1203.4)
    the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.
    ===========

    Nowhere “as noted below” does the exception of de-registering exists. Therefore all the other immunities must still apply to registrants who do qualify for the 1203.4. In Doe v Smith, Snyder, and the Colorado decision, in-person registry was deemed punitive as it was a disability.

    Negation of privacy has been deemed unconstitutional by Colorado, but as a free Californian, 1203.4 is a venue to de-register (a way to pursue and obtain privacy). Welp, this is akin to the Colorado case where the individual met all the requirements to de-register, but the state would not acknowledge it. Here, the 1203.4 states an individual has earned the immunity from all penalties and disabilities, which would include de-registering. The state of California has removed the venue to pursue and obtain privacy at this juncture with no court hearing. The next venue is to wait additional years for the CoR where one has to prove above innocence – which is, again, akin to the Colorado case.

    Remember, the CA Constitution states it is an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Once out of custody, then that right must be restored. The 1203.4 is a certificate you are no longer under custody, but also rehabilitated. Thus the negation of removal from the registry from 1203.4 is unconstitutional by Ca constitution. But that occurred because registrants who were granted the 1203.4 were not given the same immunity under that statute like all others. Immunity covers both punitive and regulatory penalties and disabilities b/c it never stated relief from punishment.

    Janice and team have already proven that presence restrictions are unconstitutional because it’s a form of banishment, then why can’t they use Art. 1, Sec 1 and Art. 1, Sec 7b? The “lifetime” registry is the negation of privacy for life – thus negating the right to pursue and obtain privacy.

  10. B.Wat

    The hell with the tiered registry, lets go for the whole enchilada! I’m like Harry, I’ll be 65 in a few months and on this God Damm list for 30 years. Janice, I really appreciate everything you and your team has done for us, but it’s time to quit fiddle fucking around with these clowns in Sacramento. If they are too afraid of their jobs,to help us and,do what they know in their hearts is right, then let’s file a class action suit against these unconstitutional laws and TAKE OUR FREEDOM BACK! Several States have filed suit, and found sympathetic Judges, why can’t we give it a shot! Janice let us know what you need, to get this done, and I’m sure we can find a way to come up money to do it!

    • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

      It probably should not be a “class action” but I agree that we should be putting together a major lawsuit.

      For one thing, this will bring lots of public attention to the issue – not all of it good, certainly – but essential in beginning to de-program reasonable and rational people and to build a consciousness among non-Registrants and Registrants, alike. Our country is frequently noted for the extent to which it has become polarized and yet, it’s still mostly uniform in its hysterical regard for sex offenders. We need to make that issue hew to the wider cultural shifts in what could only be seen as a marked improvement over the current uniformity of contempt we receive. I would be happy to change the minds of cultural conservatives and, no doubt a few of them (particularly those adversely affected by sex laws) are in our camp but, in general, this is already an emerging litmus issue for membership in either of the two major camps.
      We compromised enormously – I would say “too much” – with the tiered Registry proposal (as if we enjoyed any real influence) but even that horrid reinterpretation went down in failure. Okay, so now it’s time to sue!

  11. Ross

    I agree, though I refute classifying Karl Hanson as a “subject matter expert.” Did Hanson not create the Static 99??

  12. G4Change

    If this has already been explained, then I apologize for asking: Why do we need to wait until 2019? Can’t we try to pass another bill in 2018?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Although it is technically possible to introduce a bill at this time, it is very difficult to do so on any topic. For a topic that is as controversial as ours, the legislators are sure to vote against a bill that establishes a tiered registry in “election” years, that is, years that end in an even number. A new session of the legislature will begin in January 2019 and that is not an election year. Therefore, it is our target for the introduction of a new tiered registry bill, written by our community, that reflects empirical evidence instead of myths. Such evidence establishes clearly that even those convicted of a violent offense is unlikely to re-offend if he has lived in the community (outside of jail or prison) for 17 years without re-offending. And for those convicted of non-violent offenses, the same is true after much shorter periods of time.

      • TS

        Would love to know what the empirical data says about 17 years other than it is longer than the others. Where is the source for 17 years? Some lame test or other exam by someone who is looking to line their pockets and can influence the system? What is the justification? No one can reasonably justify these time markers other than they make people feel safe allegedly. Frankly, it sounds like a marker to show the worse the offense, the longer someone has to suffer or be punished because it will appease the masses, e.g. public and legislatures. 1-5, 5-10, 10-17, or 15-25 years are arbitrary numbers given the data shows 1-3 and 1-5 years for recidivism rates. Time markers are only good for so long before they have lost their effectiveness because each person is different. That’s been the entire problem with our judicial system in looking at what mandatory sentences should be levied.

        The aftermath too is much longer than just the time mentioned because it does not just go away magically once the time is over. Men, women, children, families are impacted in the aftermath too, which is a much much greater weight on people afterward. So, before people start throwing out the use of empirical data going forth, research and then put scientific data numbers to what offense may be should held to. If you don’t, it only looks like appeasement. Uneducated and/or ignorant legislative members will continue to do what they do best, instill fear and hysteria to appear to be the uneducated/ignorant public’s savior in keeping supposed monsters at bay.

        The Quakers are the reason for the penitentiary system because they believe people should serve their penance locked up, but they never gave a duration to serve. It has only gotten worse and worse as the days gone on because people want to appear hard on people, when they themselves usually are hiding something they would be ashamed of, e.g. Foley, Hastert, and Weiner.

        As this goes forward, off ramps or escape clauses need to be put into place for people at all places regardless of the offense within reasonable amount of efforts to prove they can be productive in society, not because of time markers. If they are not, then the effort really is moot because all it does is recycle what the currently paradigm is in different clothes. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig. People should be allowed to rebuild and move on with reasonable effort unless it is proven they are truly the supposed monsters people assume they are. Usually, those are few and far between, but do exist. Therefore, lumping everyone in with the few is a disservice to the human race. Period.

        While you are at, look at the CO case and see what can be done in CA. If you can file and start that ball in motion before the next legislative session, it will really put the legislature on their heels when it is pointed out to them they are not following the oath of office they chose to take when elected by not protecting and defending the Constitutions of the US and CA. It has been already point out here there are violations of the CA Constitution within the registry and ML website, e.g. privacy. Press on that and take the legislature to task for passing unconstitutional laws and then continuing to add to them, which is illegal.

        Here is the specific verbiage of the CA oath of office, first paragraph:

        “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

      • American Detained in America

        I’m sorry, but I have to ask this, why are you continuing to advocate for a tiered registry instead of for abolishing the registry? If you truly believe the registry is unconstitutional, then please change your strategy and advocate for abolishing the registry. The decision in Colorado shows that it is a fight we can potentially win.

        • MS

          I’m sure somebody else has already suggested, mentioned, or at least thought this but if not: I’m guessing that the recent decision by the federal judge in CO might have opened the door (although maybe only a very small crack) for an attack on the registry as a whole. Since this happen in federal court in CO maybe it makes sense for at least some resources (motions, letters, lawsuits, funds) to be redirected to CO in some way? If there was a big enough win in Colorado (at a high enough level in Federal court) perhaps it could be the beginning of the end to the registry in all 50 states?

          Judge Matsch needs to be thanked publicly for the phenomenal courage. God bless him having the courage, decency, moral compass, compassion, or whatever the force or forces were for standing up for what he believed. Regardless of the impact, or lack thereof, in the near future, I think he deserves to receive a few million thank you cards from registrants and their family members from all over the US. He did something that he must have known would be unpopular in many peoples eyes. Even if he just received a few thousand that could really touch his heart and remind him he did the right thing.

  13. USA

    New Person, great comment regarding PC 1203.4! I obtained mine years ago and I’ve had detectives/when changing cities ask why I was still required to register! Great point! I’m personally tired of hearing everyone complain when they don’t get their way. Everyone stating they are glad the bill didn’t pass must be a tier 3! Very sad

  14. Jack

    Just did some research to see if any pre Reagan appointed federal judges are still around in California. Turns out there’s one. His name is Manuel Real and he’s been there since 1966. He’s the only one you could go to in hopes of an actually impartial ruling in this matter, if Janice decided to file a lawsuit. Given that Mr. Matsch was pre Regan as well, I think he’s the only hope we have. It won’t be long before he either dies or retires too. He’s the district 12 judge in LA if you’re interested Janice.

  15. Robert Curtis

    Here’s the answer. Get a catchy name for the tiered registry act..ie public accountability and protection Act. Make a Proposition for voters to vote into law…define the crap out of how law enforcement and the DA’s Association was pushing for such a tiered registry anyway so it is needed. Although our registry bill will take a great deal of the DA’s fire out of it for voters to really vote for it it’ll have to have reasonable substance to it. Most don’t realize the far reaching punitive nature the registry is so defining even a slight part of what RSO must now do will seem extensive thereby reducing requirements down to a more reasonable level. Perhaps 5 years for misdemeanor no contact level 1. 10 to 15 for level 2. and 20 to life for level 3. This way ALL of those on the registry can petition at some point to getting off.

    • kind of living

      @ Rob <<<< they already have a catchy name for that , its called (the unconstitutional act)

  16. Lacy B irons

    Do u guyes have mettings in modesto area?

  17. Jack

    @ Robert, something like that is definitely the least we should settle for now, since we know the tiering system in and of itself is unconstitutional. I believe in the less authoritarian states such as Vermont, removal from the registry is automatic at least for level 1 and 2 registered citizens.

  18. wonderin

    In my view, people would sooner give up religion than the registry and for the same reasons.

  19. Fred Skylar

    I knew there was trouble when the August 8th article posted about San Diego. San Diego City Attorneys know what they’re doing. It’s not a matter of convincing them that offenses like a gay encounter, or exposing oneself 30 years ago are ridiculous to keep on the list for life. They want as many people incarcerated or on a list, prevented from getting an education, homeless, supporting the Prison Guard Unions, etc. as possible. Actual child welfare is way down the list for them. Watch how this unfolds over the coming months, then tell me I’m not right on the money.

    Why did the author of the bill last week suddenly agree to all kinds of amendments? Isn’t it obvious the San Diego Gangsters made him an offer he couldn’t refuse?

    Is there a point in waiting till January 2019? Can we sue them now?

  20. Chris F

    I have some concerns on your plans going forward.

    Knowing the legislature will not stick its neck out during an election year in 2018, wouldn’t this be a good time to focus on hitting the registry at its core, especially with all of the recent wins nationally?

    This legal attack on the core registry could accomplish two goals.

    1) It would potentially start the long process of declaring the registry unconstitutional and, if successful, would force legislature to create tools for the judiciary in regards to sex offenders instead of bypassing the judiciary with blanket rules against all that committed any type of sex crime.

    2) It would light a fire under legislature to come to the table and work with us next time (2019) instead of allowing the most important parts of any future bill to be tossed out.

    After typing this, I’m having second thoughts though on number 2, but instead of deleting my post, I’ll just continue and see what others think.

    Legislators won’t work with us, election year or not. They’ve proven this time that even a problem with the budget is all it takes to stop the bill. They’ve proven they can’t undo half a century of piling on addition after addition without looking soft on crime. The legislators won’t admit anything they did was wrong in the past.

    The only way to stop an out of control legislative tyranny is in the courts. Period.

    Those who haven’t read up on “Bills of Attainder” can get all they need to know here:

    http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/05/Dick-63-Stan-L-Rev-1177.pdf

    It’s time to get fed up with the status quo.

    It’s time for someone to collect a group of the most sympathetic registrant examples to challenge the registry on all of the major Constitutional violations and strike while the fire is still hot.

    Bills of Attainder: It is clearly a “Bill of Attainder” for the legislature to target a named and politically powerless and unpopular group with “pains and penalties” beyond that determined by a judge during the fair sentencing portion of the trial where it is the duty of the judge, not legislature, to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public and tailoring it to the individual and circumstances.

    Separation of Powers: As above, it is the Judiciary that controls punishment, rehabilitation, and protecting the public. The legislation’s role in protecting the public is meant to provide laws for the general public and not trespass on or over-ride the Judiciary role during trial.

    Substantive Due Process: As in the Colorado case that was successful, and was begged for a challenge by SCOTUS back in 2003 in Connecticut DPS V Doe, Substantive Due Process is denied to sex offenders because legislature assigns additional restrictions to liberty and punishments beyond the supervision period without it being part of the fair sentencing portion of trial or any other fair proceedings with the judiciary. The time on the registry, and its restrictions, are all arbitrary and pertain to the lowest common denominator of offender and are not legally tailored to the individual or the circumstances.

    Cruel and Unusual Punishment: See the Colorado ruling for this. Now that the registry clearly meets most of the Mendoza-Martinez factors it is hard to say the registry isn’t punishment. Legislature isn’t allowed to punish, as that is exclusively the job of the Judiciary.

    What’s the biggest hurdle?

    I can’t imagine any lawyer, even Janice, wants to be known as the one that toppled the entire registry. The uneducated public will unfairly place blame for any future crime committed by a former sex offender on the removal of the registry. Even groups like the ACLU don’t want that on their conscious, regardless of if it is the right thing to do. The general public, and especially victims and their families, will never believe the truth that the registry is actually causing more harm to families than good, and that any violation of the constitution will cause a cascade effect of bad laws and unfair treatment of people.

  21. totally against public registry

    I’m with everyone showing interest in bringing down the whole REGISTRY. We should fight on this front and nothing less! It is a waste of effort and time to keep trying to introduce a new bill. Bills are at the discretion of these supposed legislators and politicians who don’t want to shake the boat. The only way to bring down something is to go at it head on with full force. I think it was a blessing that the Assembly Appropriations Committee dropped SB 421 since the writer of the bill wasn’t sure of his own stance on the issue.

    Janice and Team, thanks for all your efforts and the efforts of all who showed up and spoke up for SB 421 but it’s time to maybe change course

  22. TS

    @Chris F

    As long as it is not facially and not in a class action mode, this is a good way to consider a path forward as I see it.

    Make the list of those who are impacted with their own personal stories long and drawn out, just as the three in CO did. Doubt you could all of the CA registrants, but those who are lively here would be willing to provide testimony as well as others associated with them. Sure, it is a large case with a lot of witnesses, etc, but if that is the way it works, it appears to be the way forth.

    I will say now, the CO ruling makes me wonder about the Women against Registry (WAR) class action case in MO and thoughts on moving it out. There was word it was being filed the last half of ’17. Reconsideration perhaps? Anyone know? Maybe Vicki can chime in here.

  23. Mark

    I love all you arm chair quarterbacks who have so much negative to say. I would like to hear what you are doing personally and on a daily basis to fight for the rights of all registered citizens…or are you just complaining like so many I know. Thank you for all those who understand that this battle was never going to be easy and that there was always a risk involved. I imagined the headlines reading one day “California finally adopts a tired registry after 70 years” followed by challenges to the registry followed by a California legal decision one day agreeing that the registry itself was cruel and unusual punishment. Oh, time to go. I need to get off my ass and get back to figuring out what I can do to help with the next battle on behalf of all registered citizens. Stay strong you who have faith!

    • John4

      Mark, enjoyed your post, thank you!!

    • Chris F (@Mark)

      Ok, I’ll start.

      1) I spend probably 20-30 hours per week researching legal papers and current cases nation-wide to learn how to best fight the registry and learn more about the US Constitution and its history of changes to interpretation.
      2) I comment on 5-10 news articles each week (some weeks are much more) trying to educate people on the true facts about those on the registry and the unconstitutional laws. (MSN disabled comments, so it use to be more)
      3) I’ve spent over $100,000 on legal help and provided my writs for free to others as well as using what I’ve learned from them to guide others.
      4) I spend 2-10 hours on this web site each week trying to help others with advise or opinions based on my research and accumulated knowledge

      I’m almost broke now, and lucky to have a working and supportive wife because we also have two young kids. I’ll be off the registry in 7 months, and hopefully can get a real job again after that, but not holding my breath. I’ll continue supporting this cause even if I can’t do it financially because I truly believe the registry needs to go for the safety and future of my own kids.

      I’m of the opinion that what Janice does is great for us. But, while all these laws should be challenged one by one as they come up, it is also time for a bigger challenge to the entire registry scheme.

      • Janice Bellucci

        ACSOL is open to filing a lawsuit similar to the lawsuit filed in Colorado. Please note, however, that the case has already taken 4 years and could be appealed. Also note that the plaintiffs in the case have changed during that time. In order to filing such a lawsuit, we need willing plaintiffs and financial resources. Who is ready to step up for such a case?

        • James

          Dear Ms. Bellucci:

          I’ll send a check, small (ish) but something, right now. I have been a little tardy in my contributions. I apologize.

          I know that life is difficult for us, that money is always short, and yet, and yet, if each of us donated just a dollar a month, with a hundred thousand plus of us, every possible law suite could be funded.

          So help out if you can, stuff a fiver or a ten in an envelop or more…but do it.

          For your own sake.

          Thanks

          Best Wishes, James

        • Rodney

          I am currently living on Social Security retirement income so I cannot contribute money, but, I’ve had my share of employment and housing rejections because of my S.O. status. They are documented and I would be willing to step up as a plaintiff. I may need to dig through my files but I’m certain I can come up with valid hardships my status has caused me. My commitment offense was also questionable. It occurred while using drugs with an adult female who cried attempted rape after I called 911. I don’t know if that is the kind of background you are looking for but I’m willing.

        • Chris F

          Way to go Janice and team!

          I hope that there are some mailing lists for registered sex offenders in California that can be contacted, and that it is brought up in meetings and some type of press release. You guys know what you are doing so I’ll assume so.

          That’s great to hear!

        • AlexO

          I’ll be sure to send some money your way via the donate link.

          I’m newly off supervision so I’m not sure if I would be the more ideal candidate for something like this. I’m sure there are literally thousands of people out there that are well beyond my point in terms of length of time, for I’m sure far lesser charges.

        • New Person

          Janice and team,

          Thank you so much!

          Curious, would those who earned the 1203.4 (case dismissal) be similar to third plaintiff who completed his juvenile requirements and the courts wouldn’t allow him to de-register? Because the 1203.4 law states that all penalties and disabilities from the offense would be relinquished if one qualifies for it. And Ca Constitution Art.1, Sec 7b states that immunity must be equal. The 1203.4 is also known to have designated a person “rehabilitated”, but that distinction isn’t shared upon the registered citizens.

          so after completing and earning a 1203.4, then one has to try to get the CoR. But the 1203.4 already stated you’re rehabilitated. So one has to be even more rehabilitated than rehabilitated?

          I know one person on this website who’s earned the 1203.4, but then was fired from her employment once her employer discovered she was a registrant. That person is NPS and she’s not on any ML website. NPS also has tangible evidence she was fired b/c she was on the registry.

          I hope NPS does contact you. My fear is that eventually I hope to land a job, but get fired once someone stumbles upon my registering.

          • AlexO

            You don’t. You don’t ever know if any money you donate to anyone will actually go directly to the cause you want. You simply have to trust it will be used appropriately.

            Besides, Janice and her people can work multiple fronts. She can work on this lawsuit while also working on a tiered registry. Both will take years to do and it would be nice to have a backup rather than all eggs in one basket.

        • Alexander

          I’m all for donating to a cause that will help *all* RSOs for a lawsuit that will help EVERYONE. But how do I know that a donation would not be used to fund a tiered registry that will merely divide and conquer whilst helping some at the expense of others? Based on personal conversation with both current and former ardent supporters of ACSOL/CARSOL, there are a few of us still rattled at how the “tiered registry” evolved into something worse that it is/was.

          But yes, a lawsuit that would help everyone who has been offense-free for an X number of years — without making current law worse for anyone — would be supported. (Meanwhile, supporting legislation — like the tiered registry — that makes it better off for some, but at the expense of others [i.e. raising penalties for current RSOs], would NOT at all be appreciated.)

        • TS

          @Everyone

          Listen to the NARSOL phone conference call from today. Informative. Very informative.

        • GRR

          I’m very interested in knowing what it would entail. I not going anywhere for four years and I’ll be registering for the 29th year in a few months. 1988 – 288(a) 3 months work fur-low, 5 years probation, expunged 1994 not on website 60 years old.

        • Timothy Moore

          You’re right, even the courts in our favor offer slow, incremental change, and it is sometimes reversable. It is like building a snowball with powdery snow. More increments from different directions until critical mass is achieved. Legislative, judicial and educational fronts working to better our lives. I can see that being a good thing.

  24. B.Wat

    It’s time to put your money where you’re mouth is guys, I’m in! What do you need from me, Janice?

    • steve

      What exactly would you be looking for in plaintiffs and could we go as John Does? I have plenty of instances of my family being affected, property damaged, harassed in my own yard…. Let us know…Thanks.

  25. Nondescript

    Hi Janice. If you need plaintiffs, we would be eager to assist in any way. My husband was convicted of 1 misdemeanor, adult related offense , 3 month jail sentence, 3 years probation. Has been registering for almost 20 years. I was one of his “victims”. The incident which led to his conviction was forgivable and forgettable but for me to be further victimized by the State with random and aggressive compliance checks, restrictions on our travel is not tolerable anymore. I told the police on the last home visit in February I would pursue legal action if they bother me again. And I will. We live in Los Angeles. Where do I send money?

    • TS

      @nondescript

      You would be an excellent plaintiff in a lawsuit going forward. Exactly the type of story needed to be told.

  26. ReadyToFight

    @Janice Bellucci
    Hi Janice, I can only speak for myself here but first I’d like to say that even tho I lost hope in the second draft of the Tiered bill for us to get something that was fair to everyone. But one thing I’ve never lost is my confidence in your abilty to kick ass and take names.
    I also believe in our ability to come together as RC’s and move as one.
    I’m willing to donate to attacking the Registry.
    I’d like to see a cash goal that we can all work towards to establish such a movement.
    Thank you for everything you do.
    And thank you to everyone at ACSOL

  27. HOOKSCAR

    On SSI also. Wish I could afford to be involved. You have all my support because I know for a fact that Janice et all will be kicking some liars butt. Like I have said before, grabbing my 🍿 and 🍹, and am going to enjoy this show.😎

  28. AJ

    There’s a big button reading, “Donate,” which appears at the top right of every(?) page on this site. That’s all one needs to do. You can donate via credit or bank card, or via PayPal. Since PayPal is an option, I’m guessing one can even donate via a bank account, so those without plastic can still kick in. There appears to be no minimum requirement, either, as you type in the exact amount to donate.

    If you can even give a dollar, I’m sure it would be helpful and appreciated.

    (@Mike: Donating is one way I contribute towards positives for us all…and I’m not even a CA resident.)

  29. kind of living

    @ Janice , ,, , Why not pin what your saying/and asking up on the message board ?

  30. USA

    Great idea! When I plead 20-21 years ago, you simply registered annually and none of these new laws existed? In summary, I don’t think it’s very fair for the new laws to affect those who paid their debt so many years ago (expunged battery/expunged). It’s ridiculous!

  31. USA

    Wow! Florida is now facing a huge and dangerous hurricane! Yet, sex offenders are banned from visiting or taking shelter in shelters? Surreal. The sheriff is a very angry man. They seem to want these people to either die or suffer. Search it online. Florida sounds terrible!

    • kind of living

      splcenter.org/news/2012/03/2…

      • kind of living

        SPLC filed a law suit against Polk County sheriff Grady Judd : plainly see this guy is a frigging punk ass over compensating for some thing

  32. Timothy Moore

    Well my crime may not bring any sympathy from the court nor should it, but my family’s effort to rebuild ought to be a positive thing going forward in a case against this registry, which hampered healing at all juctures. One of the spouses of a registrant ought to be a plaintiff, I think. Maybe my wife could. Sometimes they even get the worst end of the deal. My wife possibly failed to get a teaching job because of my status. She also has been confronted by neighbors accusing her of enabling a sex offender and worse. I keep a recording (in a couple of places) of a neighbor’s voicemail message, threatening to shame my wife with exposing me to the community by posting fliers all over the neighborhood. The language was very crude and visceral and hateful. She sounds certifiably insane, but I think the registry is made to enable the insanely paranoid and unstable elements of society, and those are probably the few who actually access it. Sane people don’t bother with it. I am not on the government official website, so I don’t know how she obtained the offense information on me. Several other avenues are available, there is no real protection in the laws even when there is officially supposed to be.

  33. USA

    Timothy, very sorry to hear that! Is your offense expunged? The confrontation sounds like harassment! What state do you live in? I recommend everyone buy RING (doorbell). Simple to install and download app. If someone comes to your door or rings it, it records them! Furthermore, you can be gone and speak to them (compliance checks). I had a neighbor mad at friends parking in front of his house (he came over) slurring his speech/cussing etc. I walked outside and it recorded the entire situation (I then sent the video to my email where it’s saved). Threats etc are considered harassment and illegal!

    • TS

      @USA

      Doesn’t RING record to a cloud server though and not a home computer? If so, doesn’t that mean it should be downloaded and kept for a record and wiped from the cloud?

      • David Kennerly

        Yes, it stores to the cloud, although the subscription is quite cheap: $30/year for one device.

        I do recommend the Ring and I own the Ring Pro. My biggest complaint about the Ring Pro is that the audio levels at the doorbell are extremely low. Apparently the original and probably the newer version of the original, both of which are much bigger than the Pro, have much greater audio volume. The original, however, has some really significant performance issues in other areas that outweigh the audio problem.

        Within one week of installing the Ring Pro, I caught a guy trying to jimmy my front gate, which is approximately 15′ tall). I got an alert on both my phone and my computer so responded immediately and asked him what he wanted. He looked both surprised and surly, in a stupid criminal sort of way, as if he had just been insulted, then left. He was just a low-life thief trying to steal two Amazon boxes that were on the inside of the gate.

        The doorbell is not only activated by someone ringing the doorbell, it is also motion-activated. You can define the area of the camera view which should trigger a notice and it can then send you an alert. It will record it.

        I do recommend this device, despite its shortcomings, and certainly for anyone on the Registry.

        I am lucky as my house is something of a fortress with a very high fence between it and the sidewalk/street (the only real way to gain access to the house is from the front).

        I also wanted to know if any “compliance check” robots came calling in my absence (or slumber). So far, no.

        I’m a big believer in recording everything that comes in-or-out of my house or simply passes by.

  34. Friendly Advice

    In down for the cause. I will donate. I would love to join a legal action. I also have to say that USA is absolutely right about the Ring doorbell. EVERYONE should have one. Leo’s came knocking in March for compliance checks this year and I only spoke to them through Ring. They hated it! But guess what – I’m not on probation. And there’s no law that says I even have to answer. One of them even pointed to it on their way to the door. They know they’re being watched.

  35. New Person

    @ Moore,

    If they’re tracking you down like so, then they are admitting monitoring beyond what the law states, which is a trait of probation/parole as well as documented that it’s a restriction of travel.

  36. returninghome

    Sounds like we need a fresh start in 2019 aimed at creating less, not more, registrants…whether a Prop, a law suit or a new bill. Again, just reading everyone’s comments – a flawed law will be just that, flawed. I await ACSOL’s decision.

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 *