ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

ACSOLCalifornia

Tiered Registry Bill Resurfaces in Amended Form

Although believed to be stopped, the Tiered Registry Bill has been revitalized by its author Sen. Scott Wiener. The bill has a new number — SB 384 — as well as new content. This was accomplished through the “gut and amend” process available to state legislators.

“As compared to the prior bill, SB 384 significantly reduces the number of people who would be assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 and therefore eligible to petition for removal from the registry in 10 or 20 years,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “For example, the new bill would assign people convicted of felony possession of child pornography to Tier 3, which would continue their existing requirement to register for a lifetime.”

SB 384 is similar to the final version of the former tiered registry bill in that it will take effect on January 1, 2021. The bill could be modified before its effective date.

In order to become law, SB 384 must be considered and passed by two committees (Public Safety and Appropriations) and the full Assembly, then return to the Senate for a concurrence vote. All of these steps must be accomplished no later than September 15.

ACSOL board members will consider today the organization’s position on SB 384. Input from registrants, family members and supporters is encouraged via this website.

SB 384 – Sep 2017

Join the discussion

  1. Janice Bellucci

    The ACSOL board of directors has voted to remain silent regarding SB 384, the new Tiered Registry Bill. As a result, the organization will not send a letter of support or a letter of opposition regarding the bill. In addition, ACSOL will not testify either in support or in opposition to the bill during the Public Safety Committee hearing on Monday, September 11. Instead, we will attend the hearing in order to observe what is said by the members of that committee as well whether any amendments are passed. It is expected that the hearing will be televised and others can watch it on TV.

    • Timothy Moore

      The reasons?

      • Eric

        I would guess they are very disappointed in this bill and recognize it as regressive and disastrous, but bills are subject to amendments and makeovers, sometimes they open doors for other things. So although the bill looks horrible, they are watching to see what happens. That is my guess.

    • Harry

      I know, I am spitting in the wind with my opinion. This bill will pass, because the way it came back like a phoenix. The deals have been already made, the only thing left is procedural showboating. Again, thank you Janice and ACSOL for your support of ALL the RCs and their families.

      • Eric

        But what doesn’t make sense is that they will be spending millions of dollars in shuffling 110,000 people’s paper work around and it won’t do much of anything. 90% of the people will be the same. If it saved money for the state I could grasp that, but it doesn’t save money, it doesn’t make anyone safer (actually more people will be unemployable and homeless thereby making things less safe) and it helps only a handful of RSO’s.

    • AlexO

      Thank you for the update. That’s how I’ve felt these last two rounds as well. Nothing much to support given the uncertainty if things can be changed down the road, but also hard to really go against as it’s somewhat movement forward.

      I just hope that if it does pass, positive changes really can be made to it before it fully goes into effect. Or the whole thing goes away in the next three years through positive SCOTUS ruling from the CO case or something similar.

    • Lake County

      Thank you Janice. I originally supported this Bill, but this version just isn’t worth it. Everyone knows the registry needs to be fixed, but the starting point needs to be better than what this new version of the tiered registry offered. Maybe we need to take a new direction. I always advocated starting with small changes to the registry, but with all the recent cases supporting our view that the registry is punitive, now may be the best time for Californians to take on the constitutionality of the registry. It’s a big project, but with all of our support, I’m confident you could put up a winnable case. If it just comes down to money, just set a financial goal and we will likely find a way to come up with the needed donations.

  2. Eric

    Why is the assembly looking at something that will cost tons of money in bureaucracy to do almost nothing?

    • DavidH

      Eric,

      You probably nailed it! I would guess they needed some funding to clean up their house that they’ve perhaps neglected over the years, and this is nothing more than an infusion of funds without having to directly ask for funds.

      Certainly the spirit in which SB 421 was drafted is lost. No one ever thought it was for fairness, but we accept that they grew an unmanageable monster that needs whittling down; So how does moving all the non contact types to tier 3 help the whittling process???

  3. Rodney

    Bills, laws, legislature, and lawsuits aside; when I was smoking crack and having [consensual] sex with an adult female, I didn’t know anything about sex crimes or the sex offender registry; but I did know that smoking crack was a crime and I did know the female was not my wife, who was away with the kids, and I did know that I was disrespecting them and myself. I had placed myself in that compromising situation. No one forced me to do what I was doing. I am responsible for everything that happened to me that night. I am responsible for being on the sex offender registry. No! My punishment does not fit my crime and I spent years wallowing in self pity until I was finally able to completely accept that I had done this to myself.

    Some of us haven’t learned to accept responsibility for placing ourselves in the compromising situations that placed us on the sex offender registry. I can appreciate everything being said because I understand where the anger and frustration come from; but I also hear us talking as if someone owes us something when no one owes us anything. The sooner we accept responsibility for the actions that placed us on the sex offender registry and stop talking as if someone falsely accused us and they therefore owe us something, the sooner our outlooks and attitudes will evolve and we can heal mentally. Non attorneys trying to interpret the revised bill and giving advice is dangerous, unproductive, and causes some on this site a lot of needless anxiety.
    As always, this is just me speaking for me.

    • Unforgiven citizen

      Will said Rodney!

    • Not Really

      Yeah. Right. If everyone just blames themselves for the over-breath of the registry we can all have a kumbaya moment and shut-the-fu*k-up.

      Tell me, Rodney, why is Janice and everyone at all4consolaws fighting so hard? Is it because they never took responsibility for… what?

      Hello? Could it be because they respect the Constitution?

    • Eric

      That’s ridiculous. 90% of SO crimes are not worse than armed robbery, car jacking, purse snatching, selling drugs to children, and drunk driving. Drunk drivers kill 12,000 children a year. That is a horrible statistic, and I bet over half of our elected official have been guilty of having a few and getting behind the wheel. I never touched anyone, have no criminal history prior to my incident or after. I was polygraphed, psycho analyzed, and took psychosexual exams and competed programs, all came out with positive evals. I made a mistake around my human sexuality. Don’t tell me I deserve to be punished and harassed for life, unable to find decent housing, or have normal relations with a woman because I made a poor choice around my sex drive.

    • kind of living

      what ever man , so you have no point that truly belongs to you? you think we have no reason to complain ! lol because we don’t know how to take responsibility ? so we should just fall in to place and suck up every bill that comes along , well again you cant speak for any of us , or what we have takin responsibility for or when . your narrow point of view that looks like it fell out of a text book, might infect others and have them feeling they should be punished forever seething with guilt{ forever} , already took responsibility years ago and tried to move along , mistake / a crime that must be paid forever , well I don’t want to be punished any more ! and we are not asking for anything that should not already belong to us already , we did our time years ago , and they used an unconstitutional law after our plea , pushed for ever by moralist , now more laws keep coming , enough is enough , your nothing new , as I am nothing new , but the one thing that will never change is trying to cover a wrong with another wrong , the registry is wrong .. it gets many of us “KILLED” crimes committed against us every dang day , you don’t have a better grasp of what’s going on in our life . or what happened in our court cases , seems to me that the judge in CO knows what the law says , others are looking closer at it as well , and what they are not saying is that we need more stupid unconstitutional laws to fix the problem , at least the judge in CO has a “set” and willing to call it like it is , this tier system is going to create more division , as well as more punishment for many , the drama this is causing is counter productive in ending the registry

  4. TM

    Hi Janice and all,

    Although I would be one of the few people benefited by this bill, I do not think it should be supported by ACSOL or anyone interested in RSO rights. Many people will be in wore shape and, as mentioned throughout, it serves to further legitimize the registry. I agree with those who believe the answer lies in the courts. Many decisions have gone in our favor recently. Ultimately it will probably depend on reeducating the courts and public at large. It’s my understanding that in order for registries to be constitutional (borderline, or at least the current argument), the rights of registered citizens must be outweighed by public safety. This is clearly not the case. The prospect of drafting another bill in 2019 is of course another that should be pursued, but it is likely to have a similar fate.

    That’s my 2 cents.

    • Timothy Moore

      TM. I believe that registrant rights and public welfare are not in opposition . In fact we find the registry laws are tending to decrease public safety by destabilizing the lives of former offenders and their families. Restoring rights to those who have learned their lesson is the best way to achieve a more civil society.

      • TM

        Hi Timothy,

        That is correct and the point of my comment, so we agree, thanks for responding.

        • Timothy Moore

          My pleasure. Yes, we have to stop feeding the myth it’s a choice between rights and safety. That is a construction of the other side to justify the registry.

  5. Counting the days

    I want to say something, but can’t seem to find the words. The anger that is in me is being pushed down to avoid doing something that will surely put myself or someone else in harm’s way. I read some here say you must accept your actions. I do everyday. I have never turned away from accepting my actions. But to be used as a mat, a punching bag, a mutt to be kicked , well I don’t have to accept that. I might sound negative, and not be as “forgiving” as others here to the actions taken by this government. But maybe that’s because I have lost EVERYTHING I held dear. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. I will go into that night, but not quietly.

    • Not Really

      I hear ya. When sentenced to a year in jail and 3 years probation, I was then told I would have to register as a sex offender.

      “For how long?” I asked.

      Judge: “Life, as I understand it.”

      Court Clerk: “No, it is until completion of probation.”

      Judge: “All right, until successful completion of probation.”

      That was in 1980. So I successfully completed probation, but they lied. I could still accept the police keeping an eye on me, but they kept adding more and more collateral consequences ex post facto until I held them on contempt. And still do.

      • RK

        This is what happened to me, I was told during my plea agreement that this was only for probation, had never heard of the phrase ‘registered sex offender’ this was in 1992.

        I’ve often wondered if I could withdraw my plea.

    • Rodney

      Good job Counting The Days. If no one knows no one can help. All I can do is share the contact information below. If there was a way to do it privately I would have. My intent is not to disrespect you or to minimize what you said. My intent is to do what I can regarding what I heard you say. Please do not misinterpret this note.
      To anyone who is offended by my response I apologize ahead of time.
      https://www.mentalhealth.gov/get-help/immediate-help/index.html
      National Lifeline – 1 800 273 TALK (8255) or Live Online Chat
      Trained crisis workers are available to talk 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Your confidential and toll-free call goes to the nearest crisis center in the Lifeline national network. These centers provide crisis counseling and mental health referrals.

  6. Jack

    Exactly it’s ok to be angry about something like this. You can only push people so far after all. I thought I was at my limit years ago. But I guess that wasn’t the case.

  7. Matthew

    Anyone know the steps of getting a 17(b) for 311 in 2012?

    • AlexO

      Are you talking about 311.11 (cp)? There are lots of codes for 311

      If so, we’re you granted probabtion and did you complete it without infractions? Did you pay off your restitution? If yes, than you should be able to get the reduction and expungement (in 2014 they moved 311.11 to a no-expungment list but convictions prior should be grandfathered in). Go to the courthouse clerks office and ask for the 1203.4 expungement and 17b forms. Fill them out and schedule a court date (the clerk’s should be able to help with that as well). Both are just about guaranteed if you completed probabtion without messing up.

      • Matthew

        yes sir. Sorry it was 311.11(a) and completed everything.

        • Follow the $

          I used recordgone.com for exact same charge and same year of conviction. Contact them about getting it based on constitutional grounds as the legislature removed it from wobbler category in 2014. Took about 4 months start to finish.

          • MS

            If you took a plea deal (convicted) before Jan 1st 2014, you can still have a conviction for possession expunged if you didn’t serve time in prison. Have it reduced to a misdemeanor first, then expunged…or have it done at the same time. This way your record shows you had a misdemeanor expunged rather than a felony. I was arrested in 2012 and convicted in 2013. Since it was before 1/1/2014 I was able to have it expunged because when I took the plea deal the law (as it was at that time) would allow for me to have it expunged later. I hired recordgone to do the work and it was granted. Once it has been reduced…you can send a letter to the DOJ showing the reduction has been granted and they will then remove you from ML website.

          • Matthew

            Thank you for the info. Wish me luck please

  8. KM

    Just a thought, but an organization like this (ACSOL) isn’t going to hold much weight in regards to its support or opposition. In fact, legislatures will probably be inclined to do the opposite of what ACSOL promotes or supports.

  9. Robert Curtis

    Better solution would be to get a Proposition op for vote by the people coming election day. A catchy name like, “Child safety against sex offenders Act” might sell but have it more reasonable that these watered down bills.

  10. Chris F

    If anyone cares about an outsider registered citizen from Texas’ point of view, here it is.

    I’ve spent the last 7 years reading everything I can on the registry and constitutional law. While at first it was in my spare time, the last 3 years I’ve been un-employed and my research has exceeded the time I would spend on any real job.

    You just have to trust me that the tide is most definitely turning no matter what happens with this bill. I’ve researched other historical situations where the constitution was ignored for undesirable classes of people. The commonality among all of them is that what’s happened the last two years with judges finally outright siding with us is what happened in all the other situations. This IS the turning point. Be patient, don’t give up, and keep up…no, increase, the things you are doing to spread the word and help the cause. It’s time to double down.

    The TRUTH will come out. The federal courts are finally showing they won’t just accept the word of our opposition without question. The state courts won’t follow suit (Other than a few). They NEVER did in previous similar battles in our nations history. Elected state judges can’t do it any more than elected state politicians. The federal cases, or state cases that reach SCOTUS are where the victories will be and they are adding up.

    • pgm111

      I agree with you Chris. I intend to mimic the recent Colorado case here in California. The Ninth Circuit should be very amenable to a due process, 8th and 14th amendment claim.

      I say all of us must attack, attack, attack vigorously at every opportunity. Recall the prison yard? SOs are always the smartest bunch as a whole. Let’s use our collective brain power to further our cause.

      The ACSOL website is a very good resource but it would be helpful if we can persuade Janice to create a new tab or section of the site to function as a portal for all the legal resources we need to craft motions and help our local attornies. Collectively, we know much more than 99% of the defense attornies out there.

      Janice, please think about how we can aggregate the best thinking on this entire subject matter – registration scheme, endless court-mandated therapy that goes nowhere, etc..

      Let’s create a blueprint for effective legal action in the federal courts. We must be willing to crowd-fund the expenses and provide a profit incentive for Janice to file these cases everywhere! Yes, Janice needs money! That is okay and fair.

      We should attack this problem with a marketing campaign to ALL SOs in the country. This is our tribe in this fight and we can prevail if we are organized and tenacious.

      Janice, does this website allow for posters and readers to receive emails whenever there is a new post or comment? I find myself returning to this site and hinting around for insightful commentary. Perhaps we start with a well-functioning WordPress site with a team of moderators and the functionality to collect emails and contact info so that we initiate and sustain a dialogue, update members more effectively and ask members for financial support.

      Janice, in my opinion you need a more expansive, comprehensive marketing plan.

      I want to hear from others. I await your comments.

      – Paul

      • TS

        @pgm111

        Why are you starting with the Ninth? Shouldn’t you start with the Fed District for your area first?

        • pgm111

          For the record, I am in the Ninth Circuit – San Francisco.

          I wholeheartedly agree with those who have cautioned against a rush to file poorly crafted motions and I also agree that we should collaborate with each other, share expenses and file class action with a small team of highly competent and knowledgeable attornies.

          Let’s do this in the Ninth otherwise, I will relocate to New York state where I can fly under the radar until this whole mess goes away.

      • Chris F

        Careful. The worst thing that can happen is for some people to file bad pro-se or even lawsuits by bad lawyers. Those will cause rulings against us and be ten times harder for good cases to get through later.

        We need a careful approach, with only the least offensive sex offenders that are off probation and parole that have spotless records since. It can be pro-se, but only if done with well written and cited arguments. The Colorado lawyer will be filing more cases. Janice has also said she will if she gets the right plaintiffs.

        • TS

          @Chris F

          That is exactly right! People need to be careful about filing pro-se as was mentioned on the NARSOL call. It would be much better if the plaintiffs put together their cases with one atty to split the cost and build the case. If multiple attys file for multiple plaintiffs with good cases, then the difference will possibly be made. The homework has to be done and properly. Don’t be in a rush to file just because you can and then set back the movement.

          The CO case is a benchmark to see that and understand the path forward. Calhoun in CO did some damage when he filed his case pro-se years ago, had it heard and set back the movement in CO.

        • Timothy Moore

          Chris, would Colorado be accepted as a precedent by any judge, yet. Wouldn’t the appeal process have to play out first? Your thoughts.

          • Chris F (@Timothy Moore)

            From what lawyers have told me, it is all counted but given much different weight.

            A state court likes to see state court cases giving precedent, not federal stuff other than SCOTUS, but they will take it into consideration.

            A federal court likes to see federal court stuff but will also take state stuff into consideration. A judge doesn’t like to re-invent the wheel or do tons of research if it has already been done by a reliable party.

            As far as waiting until appeals deals with it, not really needed. Appeals generally look for errors in the way the law was applied and don’t re-open all issues to examine again. Of course, an appeals court ruling in our favor is helpful, but not needed. As a matter of fact, you can even quote dissenting judges from cases that were lost for us if it helps describe the injustice and that’s better than nothing or just using your own words and arguments.

            I’m no lawyer though, but I don’t often see legal advise given on here as it may leave them liable for their answers without compensation. Janice will give very basic advise at times though.

  11. David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

    I agree with your take completely, Chris. The tide IS now turning and it’s not going to stop. There is now the momentum to ensure that. Also, you are right that the states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reform by the federal courts and SCOTUS. Think of Jim Crow. What we are up against is populist majoritarian authoritarianism. Elected judges and prosecutors are a very bad thing because most people don’t possess the wisdom, the intelligence or the sense of justice to make it work.

    • Timothy Moore

      Think of Roe vs. Wade. Abortion is supposedly Constitutional, but some states have functionally made it hard to get one safely. I don’t want to argue abortion here, but it is a good example of how states can deflate court mandates. Some think that is a good thing, others do not. You need to focus on the culture in addition to the legal if you want long term change. Most people could care less about the constitution unless they are being violated in some way. But they care about what other people say within the sphere of their clique. I know you both know that, because you both work towards changing attitudes of those around you through your comments. Change will happen from the top down, but it won’t last unless it comes from the bottom up.

  12. Illinois Contact

    AlexO (or anyone who knows): Would the 17(B)/1203.4 procedure work if you were convicted in another state for felony CP possession (in my state there is no misdemeanor for this crime)? I guess you would first register in CA when you moved there. Would I be designated felony or misdemeanor 311? What’s the difference in CA for CP felony versus misdemeanor conviction? My conviction was in 2006, probation only, lifetime registration (automatic with CP in my state), no subsequent problems. And then after registering start the expungement procedure. I probably would need a lawyer to help with this (Chase?).

    • Hopeful

      In ca a cp felony is not expungeable if u did time in state prison. I have a felony 311.11a from 2013 and just met with a lawyer last week and he confirmed that.

      • Not Really

        That goes to What is Child Porn. Maybe you could prove it would be a misdemeanor and not a felony in California, because of the type of images. I not sure what the difference is or how it could be done, but there should be a way IMHO.

        • Follow the $

          If you served prison time, it is not a wobbler and cannot be reduced. Only if you served in county jail or probation would you be eligible and your conviction must be prior to 2014. And especially now since all CP is felony I would assume the state would not give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it misdemeanor unless it was prosecuted that way in your state.

      • MS

        in CA possession can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor. It’s up to the DA how to charge but it usually comes down to what county you are in. Santa Clara County for example always charges it as a felony regardless of the details. Regardless…it’s still a “wobbler”. If you have completed probation, submit the paperwork or hire an attorney and pursue a 17b (reduction) from a felony to a misdemeanor. If you served time in prison, expungement isn’t available to you but I believe the reduction still is. Get it reduced and then get yourself removed from the ML website.

    • Follow the $

      The 17(b) and 1203 are only for violations and convictions of California Penal Code and not applicable to out of state violations. You would need to research what options you have in the state in which you were convicted.

      Since it was a felony in your state, CA would treat it as felony here. You would be subject to disclosure on Megan’s Law website and lifetime registrant now and if current bill passed a Tier 3 lifetimer as well.

      • John4

        I see the discussion on 17b and 1203.4. If one should obtain this Would anyone happen to know where exactly would one be placed if this bill passes. Thank you.

        • Mr. D

          @John4 – if u earn your 1203.4 I believe your requirement to register would end under the new tiered registry bill. Tier assessment is based on convictions in this example you would no longer have a conviction .

          • NPS

            Mr. D.,
            I was going to refute your statement, but you raised an interesting omission.

            Right now, under 290.007 Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.

            However, in this proposed bill, that code is missing. It goes from Section 4, 290.006 to Section 5, 290.008

            Janice? Care to weigh in here?

            • AlexO

              I believe they only list the sections that had a change. Most of the sections had a simple change of an expiration date added followed by sections in blue that will replace them. If 290.006 stays as is, there’s no reason to list it.

            • Follow the $

              @Mr. D…since there is no proposed change to 290.007 it is not amended in this bill. It stays as currently written if this bill passed and from my interpretation you would not be granted relief with a 1203.4.

              • John4

                Follow the $… thank u for your help regarding the 17b/1203.4. Given the fact it does not relieve one from the duty to register, would u happen to know if it places one in tier 1. Many thanks again for your help.

                • Follow the $

                  If your are eligible for the 17(b) and 1203.4 and you successfully got your felony reduced to a misdemeanor, you would likely be Tier 1 as it appears they are lumping all misdemeanor violations in that tier.

                  • AlexO

                    Maybe. Some of the codes in the bill specifically refer to a felony while others simply state the code as a blanket sweep. Though if you’re eligible for the 17b and expungment, there’s zero reason not to get it.

                    Both are pretty much guaranteed to be granted and are easy enough to file for that you can probably do it yourself (I know several people that have). And registration notwithstanding, it will make your record look better and would allow you to answer “no” on most applications asking if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony.

        • NPS

          John4,
          You need to take it to the clerk recorder at the courthouse.The clerk will give you the date and department number of where you’ll have the hearing. Be sure to have three copies; one for the clerk, one for yourself, and one for the DA because they have to be served with the motion.

        • Follow the $

          If the misdemeanor violation of the code under which you were convicted is not specifically listed in section describing Tiers 2 and 3, you would be Tier 1.

          And Mr D has an interesting point. If the code regarding continued registration requirement even with a 1203.4 has been removed, would those of us who received that benefit have our registration requirement removed? I think someone with a more thorough understanding of the proposed bill or law should weigh in here because that would be huge. I am also going to read more.

      • Not Really

        Does the bill change that? It looks like it may be possible to earn a Certificate of Rehibiliation after 5 years or more.

        4852.03. (a)  The period of rehabilitation commences upon the
        line 7 discharge of the petitioner from custody due to his or her
        line 8 completion of the term to which he or she was sentenced or upon
        line 9 his or her release on parole, postrelease community supervision,
        line 10 mandatory supervision, or probation, whichever is sooner. For
        line 11 purposes of this chapter, the period of rehabilitation shall constitute
        line 12 five years’ residence in this state, plus a period of time determined
        line 13 by the following rules:
        line 14 (1)  An additional four years in the case of a person convicted
        line 15 of violating Section 187, 209, 219, 4500, or 18755 of this code,
        line 16 or subdivision (a) of Section 1672 of the Military and Veterans
        line 17 Code, or of committing any other offense which carries a life
        line 18 sentence.
        line 19 (2)  An additional five years in the case of a person convicted
        line 20 of committing an offense or attempted offense for which sex
        line 21 offender registration is required pursuant to Section 290, except
        line 22 that in the case of a person convicted of a violation of subdivision
        line 23 (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, or of Section 311.3, 311.10, or
        line 24 314, an additional two years.
        line 25 (3)  An additional two years in the case of a person convicted
        line 26 of committing an offense that is not listed in paragraph (1) or
        line 27 paragraph (2) and that does not carry a life sentence.

        • AlexO

          You can still get the CoR. It just won’t end your duty to register anymore.

          CoR itself doesn’t nullify the registration. It’s getting the CoR and then applying to the current 290.5 that does it. This bill removes all the current language of 290.5, and replaces with new language that states if you’re T 1 or T2, you can file for relief after X period.

          With this bill, T3s have no way off unless you’re T3 only because of your Static-99

  13. B.Wat

    Lake County, Good post! I agree with what you are saying. If it comes down to getting the money, to fight for real change, I’m sure we can all, and I mean everyone, donate to help Janice, challenge, these unconstitutional laws in court, and not leave it up to our fearless leaders in Sacramento, to do the right thing! Just look what the Bernie Sanders campaign did in 2016. They raised 8 million dollars, buy just donating, an average of $27.00 each!!

  14. Stephen

    Question if this bill passes why wait an extra 5 years to get off the registry in California why not move to Oregon or Washington State where they have a tiered registry set up already?

    • Stephen

      Oregon tier1 offenders petition after 5 years to get off the registry tier 2 offenders petition after 10 years but must reclassified to tier1 to get off registry tier 3 offenders life Oregon only list tier 3 offenders on registry
      Washington state tier 1 offenders petition after 10 years to get off registry tier 2 offenders petition after 15 years to get off registry tier 3 offenders life Washington state lists everyone on the registry

      • Timothy Moore

        The big question is which registry protects the public better? Not to my knowlege has any state measured the effectiveness of these registries to prevent offending.

  15. mike r

    Take responsibility???Was that whole post like satire comedy or something? lmfao is what that was…

    • Stephen

      Not being funny or anything just stating facts if you have done your time why wait an extra 5 years in California

  16. HopingForHope

    Quoting from the SFGate report:

    “Critics of the bill said too many crimes were included in categories that allowed sex offenders to eventually come off the registry, including rape by force, rape of an unconscious person and lewd acts with a child. After amendments to the bill, people convicted of those crimes will still register as a sex offender for life, Wiener’s office said.”

    288(a) would fall under lewd acts with a child, but as I read this new bill (and I’m no attorney), it appears 288(a) would fall under Tier 2. True? Also, if this becomes law, would notification on the Megan’s law siite begin immediately, or when the rest of this takes effect in several years?

    Thank you!

    • Timothy Moore

      2 or more separate convictions of 288 (a) would end up on tier 3, as would lewd acts involving PC 272, contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

  17. USA

    This is truly great news! There are many people who have paid their debt to society, had their charges reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17 B, expunged etc. The registry is far from perfect, but change must occur. There is a small percentage that won’t prevail, but we need to look at the big picuture.

  18. Jack

    @hoping for hope, no 288a is tier three. 288 is tier three if you had it occur on two occasions brought and tried separately.

  19. HopingForHope

    Stephen- I have lived in another state for more than 26 years, and unfortunately, it’s the long arm of the law that gets you. Even though you have lived half your life somewhere else, your current state will conform to California law if that’s where you were registered. You do not get to pass GO just because you move. Doesn’t work that way.

    • Stephen

      Jack how can they make a 288(a) tier 3 in this bill when most people have a 288(a) what happened to slimming down the registry

  20. Laura

    My husband just showed me a copy of this bill and I must say that we are both quite disappointed. We hope this bill does. It is a risky piece of legislation!

  21. registry no more

    I just read an interesting comment from a member. Is it true that once your conviction has been expunged, you are no longer required to register once the tiered bill comes to law? I was convicted of voyeurism, upskirting adult females. Apparently, I had captured a minor, 17, and was charged with 647.6. It has been 3 years going 4 since that day I was arrested. I was granted early termination last month after serving 1year and 3 months out of my 3years probation. I filed for my expungement as soon as I was granted. The judge was an excellent judge. He used common sense and law to make his decision. He went against the DA, who did not agree with my request, stating “I was a danger to society.” Most judge would agree with the DA but this judge use reason and sound mind. The judge basically ask if I have been convicted since then and the DA said no. The judge ask how is he a danger to society then? In an instant, he granted my request. I choked up and did not think my request would be granted. My wife was crying with tears of joy. Sorry for getting off course but if it is true then I would no longer register as a sex offender? Is that true? Can someone verify. Thank you.

    • Not Really

      You would be Tier 1 anyway. Tier 2 if a subsequent conviction of 647.6.

      Tier 2=
      “or Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for
      that offense that was brought and tried separately.”

    • Follow the $

      Sorry to say that’s an incorrect interpretation by the other commenter. This proposed law does not change 290.007 which deals specifically with 1203.4 expungement and that it doesn’t relieve you of you requirement to register. Only sections of the law being changed are spelled out.

  22. Robert R.

    I am glad our board has decided to remain silent with regard to this bill.

    It helps a few, but does more harm to some.

    The bottom line is that every individual case should be evaluated on it’s own merits. This is in our mission statement.

    The cops, the DA’s and therapists know. If a person is in society for 20 years without incident, putting their info on the internet and processing them at the station is a colossal waste. And there is no proof that the website and/or registration proctects the public.

    The public feels that the website makes them safe, but we all know that it is a rare instance when the victim is a stranger to the perpetrator.
    The entire approach is wrong!!

    I wish our organization spoke more about legitimate methods of prevention.

    We would increase our credibility if we spoke more about our commitment to change (Never harming a person.) and prevention. The public gets nauseous when we speak only about our rights.

    I feel the answer lies in educating the public regarding legitimate prevention methods and our recidivism rates, And the colossal waste of a registration for life and the Website.

    And lastly all the collateral damage the website creates. Women Against the Registry does an excellent job I must say.

    Lastly my personal opinion is that this bill has a good chance of passing, but it is not reform. It is more of the same old ideas. It’s not supported by fact. It is for show. It does nothing.

    • Timothy Moore

      I agree with you on advocating for legitimate means of prevention, say like supporting a bill to fund a hotline for potential offenders, or something like a bill for Circles of Accountability. Then we can work on getting legislators to quietly defund registry operations. Without the hope of more funding, the registry idea will die, especially if real solutions are taking its place and getting the money. What do you think of that?

      • Robert R.

        Those ideas are good. In Germany people can ask for help without fear of repercussions.

        There is an organization called Darkness to Light. Check out their website. They know that the offender isn’t lurking in a park. It is somebody close. They know the website is NOT the answer.

        • AlexO

          They actually made it even harder to get help pre-arrest about 2 years ago, here in California. Before, you could seek help for viewing CP and a clinician could choose accept you without reporting. Then, two years ago, California changed the law that if a clinician finds out someone views CP, they are now obligated to report the person or risk losing their license.

          Our rehab program actually had a man who came into the program voluntarily (unlike most of us, he was able to break out of his bubble and recognize he had a problem, AND had the strength to seek help with such a taboo subject). A year after he joined, the program this law changed. Thankfully, he was grandfathered into not needing to be disclosed. But accepting anyone new under the same circumstances would be really difficult.

          We’ve even brainstormed on how someone could by-pass this law and be able to find help by subterfuge such as “I keep having thoughts about this” or “I dreamed I was viewing this”. So complete BS that everyone knows is BS, but said so that the person could seek help, and a clinician could provide it, all without breaking the stupid new law. Our program admin was very angry about the passing of this law.

  23. Not Really

    If your only registration requirement is for 290.006, you can petition to have the felony reduced to a misdemeanor. “But people who need to register as a sex offender because of a judge’s order ARE eligible for sentencing under Proposition 47. You are only ineligible for Prop 47 sentencing if you were convicted of one of the offenses specifically listed in the Sex Offender Registration Act.45”

    https://www.shouselaw.com/prop-47.html#2.1

    Penal Code 290.006 – Court order of registration for offenses committed out of sexual compulsion or for sexual gratification [does not affect eligibility for Prop 47 sentencing]. (“Any person ordered by any court to register pursuant to the Act for any offense not included specifically in subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall so register, if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.”)

  24. mike r

    I’m glad you, and the members of the board, have recognized the fallacy in this bill, and the harm it will do. It is really encouraging to hear from someone on the board state their opinion and actually converse with the people on this forum. I know people are busy but it doesn’t take long to reach out on here, and give some insight into what these organizations are doing or their positions and opinions.

  25. Laura

    What I meant above is we (my husband and I) hope this bill dies.

    By far, it is obviously worse than the last amendments. Unless this civil rights organization has some type of foolproof, clever, trick up its sleeve to have the new law struck down in our court system, it is a risky bill. I say this because each RSO should be scrutinized carefully. And each person should be given an individualized assessment. Arbitrarily lumping crimes into tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 makes no sense when there is no individualized assessment determining whether someone should be required to even register in the first place! The tiers are too arbitrary. Then on top of this mess, this bill is giving the Static 99 way too much power.

    My husband and I have talking about this bill for the past 12 hours or so now. So it’s time to sleep lol. Take care all.

  26. Has Had it...

    I’ve had to read this 3 times and walk around the block to make sure this wasn’t a bad dream.

    I have a 311.11a. First I was hopeful because I was in Tier 1, then I was saddened to hear I’ve been moved to Tier 2, now I’m Tier 3?? Along with monsters to rape and kill children? WTH? I don’t see how this is a good thing at all.

    Can someone explain why I’m a Tier 3 now? I never touched anyone.

    • Not Really

      Get it reduced to a misdemeanor and then it won’t be a Tier 3 because it must be a felony to be a Tier 3.

      “(U)  A felony violation of Section 311.11.”

      https://www.wklaw.com/relief-from-sex-offender-registration-for-possessing-child-pornography/

      • AW

        Could we please stop saying “just get it reduced to a misdemeanor.” Some of us did prison time and are not eligible. Also, this will not be available if your felony conviction for CP was in 2014 or after. If you’re lucky enough to have received only probation prior to 2014, then this is an option for you. Otherwise, it’s not. My only remedy, a COR, will be gone with this new bill.

        • John4

          AW…… it was this site that I learned about a 17b reduction and 1203.4 dismissal which helped me tremendously. Had we gone with your demands of “stop saying” I’d still be on the web. I’m sure There are many registrants who don’t know exactly what a wobbler is. Thank u all for helping me!!

      • TM

        I would discuss this offline or you will start to see even more offenses move up the tier chart…

        • Not Really @ Rodney

          I don’t understand. Wobblers are recognized as such, and it is assumed they do not carry the same weight as felonies. I’m sure the lawmakers understand this. If they wanted the punishment to be as severe as felonies, they would have made them felonies. But I think they see the differences in 311 cases and intentionally provided an out for some. What’s more, a 17(b) hearing is an effective way to filter who is granted the motion. So it wouldn’t be a blank check. All of this is intentional, is my bet.

  27. JSCLASER

    Can someone please answer my question.

    If I am zip code only right now and if this law passes I know I will be tier 2. Will this show my address and a blue dot on the map? If so, scrap this bill immediately.

    • AlexO

      For the moment, T2 is zip code only, so your position would remain the same. Though full address or zip code only is a superfluous distinction in this day and age of the internet. In most cases, a simple Google search will reveal a persons address, even if you’re not listed in the White Pages.

  28. Jack

    @jsclaser yes tier 2 is on the website.

  29. Has Had it...

    For the last Appropriations Committee I strongly urged everyone I knew (who knew my situation) to call and plead for them to release the bill. This time I’m not telling anyone and will not call myself. This is just insane. It gets worse with each amendment. If this bill passes I will be in a no better position than when I started with. Registrants with felony 311’s are the most screwed. And please don’t tell me to get it reduced. Thank you.

    • AlexO

      With the current wording, it seems only a few of the 311 will be effected by reduction, while the majority are just blanket.

      • Not Really

        We can know precisely. There is a graph in the middle of the page.

        311.1 = Wobbler
        311.2 (b) Felony
        311.2 (c) Wobbler
        311.2 (d) Felony
        311.3 (a) Misdemeanor (first offense); felony (second and subsequent offenses)
        311.4 (a) Wobbler
        311.4 (b) Felony
        311.4 (c) Felony
        311.10 Wobbler
        311.11 Wobbler

        6 wobblers or misdemeanor vs. 4 felonies.

        Since the bill would not take effect until 2021, it is possible to get the wobblers (most of the sections, 60%, not “a few”) reduced to misdemeanors and then they would not be included in Tier 3 when it becomes law. My guess is that would be a vast majority of of 311 registrants.

        • AlexO

          Well you’re assuming on that. Some parts of this new bill specifically state Felony, such as 311.11. So getting that one reduced seems like it’ll move you down to T1. But others, like my 311.4a, seems to be blanket (simply stating 311.4) without specifying misdemeanor or felony. So at least for the moment, it doesn’t seem like a reduction would matter. Obviously I and everyone else are hoping that a reduction/inherent misdemeanor will not be treated so harshly.

          • Follow the $

            Remember only 311.1 and 311.11 convictions before 2014 are wobblers. Amended PC 1203.4 removed this benefit for any violations of 286, 288, 288a(c), 288.5, 289(j), 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, 311.11 or any felony violations of 261.5(d). If you were convicted prior to 2014 AND SERVED NO TIME IN PRISON…go get your reduction then expungement.

            • Not Really @ Rodney

              I don’t understand. Where do you read 17(b) PC is nullified in PC 1203.4? I don’t see any mention of PC 17(b) at all.

              PC 1203.4 is used to dismiss the conviction for most purposes. 17(b) is to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor, not dismiss it. The conviction would stand but as a misdemeanor it would make that difference in what Tier the offense and land one in.

              PC 1203.4:

              (b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

            • Timothy Moore

              So you are saying these offenses listed are eligible for reduction and expungement if sentenced before 2014? I don’t believe it. I guess I should go ask my lawyer that promised me an expungement after ten years. He wouldn’t pass up the chance to get another n x $1000 more if it is true. The online expungement services say PC 288 is not expungeble. The sentencing was 2000, and no prison, but after Gardner we all needed more punishment to make politicians seem like they were doing something, to provide group catharsis, to appease the gods or something.

              • Mr. D

                @ Timothy Moore – Which 288 offense are you referring to as it relates if it’s considered a wobbler or not?

                • Tim Moore

                  I was wondering if all the offenses mentioned by follow the $ were wobblers before PC 1203.4 was amended. For me my former lawyer said mine could be expunged in 10 years, but not get off the registry. I should look him up and ask him. I think I have it in writing, too.

          • Not Really @ Rodney

            AlexO, none of these sections apply to me. I only suggest the possibility of further research. I looked at it because 311 was a search hit so many times in this thread and so many were certain they all would be Tier 3. It didn’t make sense. Maybe I got it all wrong, but I suggest taking a closer look if anyone was convicted of these.

          • Not Really

            AlexO, none of these sections apply to me. I only suggest the possibility of further research. I looked at it because 311 was a search hit so many times in this thread and so many were certain they all would be Tier 3. It didn’t make sense. Maybe I got it all wrong, but I suggest taking a closer look if anyone was convicted of these.

        • TM

          See my comment a few lines above

  30. American Detained in America

    I tried to warn you people, now I hope you listen to me. Scott Weiner is NOT on your side, he doesn’t have your best interests at heart, nor the best interest of the state. He is simply trying to make a name for himself by taking on the tiered registry. Under the previous version, I would have been Tier 1 and still was warning against it, now this one would have me Tier 3 with no hope of ever getting my life back. I have no victim(internet sting), I didn’t do what I was accused of in the first place(I even went as far as told them I believed they were law enforcement), and the state even has me as low-medium risk only because I’m homeless. Now hopefully you people will catch on, our only real hope is absolute abolition!

  31. Matthew

    To be honest, it seems like Senator Weiner is trying to get this bill passed regardless of how he amends it. It really sounds like he is trying to get it passed either for 1) someone he personally knows 2) Someone that is financially supporting him is in need of this bill being passed. Why else would he take this route and amend to where it is pretty much the same as before with minor changes. I think this bill is focusing on a select few in his inner circle and he is trying to clear them. What else would only certain charges be classified in the tier?

    • Laura

      To Matt and American Detained In America:

      I know what I’m about to say isn’t popular: but read the bill and see how many times you find this: Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.

      Again, read it and find how many times you see the following words: “Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.”

      If you remember about two years ago, Sharper Future — California’s largest CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program — was all over the news for trying to quietly open a “treatment” center in San Francisco (which is Scott Wiener’s district). For some strange and mysterious reason, Scott Wiener seemed to take flak from Mary Perry Miller for mishandling the opening. Here is the e-mail:

      http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=71280

      Remember, CASOMB’s co-chair is Tom Tobin. Tom Tobin is also the CEO of Sharper Future. Yes, public corruption in plain view. Conflict of interest aside, If I were to guess, Tobin is trying to influence Wiener to introduce this bill NOT for public safety. But rather, judging from the amount of times this ‘tiered’ registry bill wants a person to complete a CASOMB program (Sharper Future), Tobin may or may not be pulling strings to get this bill passed. Yes, my husband and I discussed this too: there might be corrupt motive?

      If you think about it, finishing a program like Sharper Future might cost us maybe $10,000. Say 100 registrants finish his program. That’s one million dollars right there.

      That’s potentially a lot of money for Tom Tobin.

      Your feelings about our theory?

      • Matthew

        I think we are on the same page. I knew there had to be a reason in which he is pushing so hard for this bill to be passed.

      • Something Interesting

        While I can’t argue with what you are saying, have you noticed that Tom Tobin has been absent from all the hearings? Why hasn’t he been all over interviews?
        Also Sharper Future mainly sees parolees, which means the state covers that $10,000; not like the people who are on probation and have to pay for the ridiculous cost of treatment from the other ‘certified treatment program’ themselves.

        • Laura

          Just because Tom Tobin has been absent from the hearings, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have interest and is pulling strings behind the scenes. A comparison can be made with how in some hearings, it is suggested that we not attend: because it will show unpopular parties interested in the passage of a particular legislation.

          I think in recent months, Tom Tobin knows people are more aware of this dual CASOMB-Sharper Future relationship that he’d much rather keep a low profile to keep his cash cow running. I’m going to guess that Tobin isn’t an idiot and he knows full well that his conflict of interest would generally be despised should it be exposed by media outlets.

          As for Sharper Future servicing mainly parolees, that is true. But, if I am not mistaken, they also service private clients — as we’ll as some on probation. So I guess the point my husband and I were discussing is that is is probably no confidence that Sharper Future happens to be the states’s largest “CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program.” And why this tiered registry bill, right from the beginning, mentioned that RSOs complete such a program three times in this bill. The emphasis is quite clear.

          In fact, it wa CASOMB who drafted this will. And despite numerous amendments, one of few things have remained: the requirement or urgency to complete a CASOMB-certified program. Remember, Tom Tobin is co-chair of CASOMB so his agency had direct impact on the wording of this bill. The foundation has been build — and there is no longer a need for him to involve himself.

          With Sharper Future as, by far, the state’s largest CASOMB provider, it’s common sense that Tobin will get most of the business for those seeking to petition.

          It’s corruption, no?

          • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

            So, my question is: if the program that one attended more than twenty years ago (at the Center for “Special Problems”, S.F.), and whose group leader was Tom Tobin, himself who then threw one out of the group therapy component of the program (but continued to see another, equally ersatz counselor, one-on-one), does that count as a successful program completion? 🙂

            • Laura

              My husband was mandated to attend Tom Tobin’s “treatment” scam as well. He was discharged with no violations; but yet he, nor anyone else who discharged (that he knows of), never received any type of certificate indicating that he “successfully completed” the program. So how would someone prove “successful completion?”

              I am going to bet that this might be of issue for many who seek to petition. The DA may very well dig and criticize “treatment” records, even if many years back (and regardless of offense-free behavior), in hopes to keep a person registering. Those unpaid intern’s Sharper Future notes may very well come back to haunt those forced into the Tom Tobin “treatment” scam.

        • Unofficial Advisor

          OK interesting theory. I just looked back at previous tiered registry bills, circa 2006/2008, and they were also originally drafted by CASOMB. And even back then, Tom Tobin was still vice chair of CASOMB. What’s interesting about the older bills is that they also include requirements, or that a judge consider, to whether a petitioner finished a CASOMB treatment course. So at this point why would Tobin need to involve himself, for risk of being exposed by bill opponents, when the CASOMB treatment clauses have survived amendment after amendment even since the 2000s? Should Wiener’s bill pass, Tom Tobin’s SF company could easily cater to petitioners by merely revising client contracts to reflect out-of-pocket transactions. I would guess Tobin would continue to exploit unpaid interns and use polygraphs under such a possible circumstance? Laura, your crazy conspiracy theory may be more truth than fiction!

        • Tim Moore

          Intriguing, but Tobin is not the dictator of CASOMB. There are several other board members that would have to go along with the scam. What are they getting out of it? Why are the minutes of CASOMB hearing unavailable to the public? Isn’t that a violation of the Brown Act or something. They are a public body. If they are meeting in secret, that is a violation. Anytime a quorum is present, it is officially a public meeting and it has to be announced. If the minutes are available somewhere, how does one obtain them? I tried to find them on the CASOMB site and couldn’t.

  32. Unofficial Advisor

    Well, if this so-called “tiered registry” (lol) dies, I think we dodged what many might have come to regret. As a now avid chess player, what some are failing to see is unless registration schemes are declared a form of punishment, the tiered registry may very well be amended in years to come to include more and more offenses into tier 3, until we are back to where we are now (but perhaps worse, as I shall explain). What is being discounted by most is how this “tiered registry” is setup so that it is one-step from complying with AWA. AWA would give California federal funding for its registration scheme, under the condition that tier 2s must register every 6 months and tier 3s must register every 3 months (compared to the one year that it is now). Just be forewarned that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.

    • steve

      Enough of this AWA scare tactic to promote your beliefs. Everyone in California is in agreement that AWA is bad and none of them want to include juveniles like AWA mandates. The only way AWA happens here is if Republicans take over otherwise it ain’t happening.

      • Laura

        The “unofficial advisor” does have a point with regard to more offenses being included in the 3rd Tier if this bill were to pass. I mean look… tiered registry hasn’t even passed and the politicians are already adding more offenses in the 3rd Tier. It’s like full circle — and in a few years we are near back to where we are now. My husband an I talked about this all yesterday.

        This tiered registry is barely a tiered registry as someone said above.

    • Matthew

      Another reason why anyone is able to reduce or do whatever they can to lessen the charge, do it!

  33. bill

    so i get 4 emails from someone from a chat room 6 years ago and i get convicted of possession of child porn, 311.11. I am given a felony conviction and 6 months in county jail for a first offense. It has now been 5 years since I was released no issues. I was told that you should get a COR prior to getting my wobbler reduced to a misdemeanor anyone have any information that might help me.

    • AlexO

      I think something was lost in the communication.

      Generally you want to get a 17b reduction to wobblers, then expungment, then CoR. The first two are usually done at the same time and both can be done as soon as you’ve completed probation successfully. The CoR you have to wait 8-10 years post conviction to file for.

      Since your conviction was prior to 2014 and you were granted probation which you’ve completed successfully, you shouldn’t have any issues getting the reduction and expungment.

    • D

      If I remember right, I don’t think you can get a COR until you have your conviction expunged, which I don’t think you can do until it is reduced. Just would suggest getting the reduction and expungment as soon as possible.

      • AlexO

        You don’t need a reduction to get an expungement. It just looks a lot better if you do as then someone looking at your recorded sees a dismissed misdemeanor instead of a felony.

  34. Pedro

    WE can talk and complain all day long among ourselves. But until we all come together and become a powerful lobby group to change elections we’re watching the same super bowl wanting different results.

    Janice how and what do we need to become a powerful lobby? Is it money? Marches? numbers? etc.

    I’ve been in this game for 36 years and have enormous empathy for all you young brothers and sisters. The one thing I know is we grow larger every year in-spite of the tougher laws. I had a 288(a) felony that was expunged by the prosecuting attorney after he became a judge. He knew the deal and and false accusations we made so I would not have to serve time in prison. Go figure! I still have hope that before I get to heaven i’ll be off this God forsaken registry. Gods Blessing and praying for all…

  35. Aero1

    If you’re not a violent sexual predator you have nothing to worry about ..THE END 😂

    • AlexO

      You’re probably right at the end, but what about the current bill makes you say that?

  36. TG

    I think the question is largely moot. What are the chances this thing can pass through the necessary committees in three days?

    • AlexO

      Not much different than other bills. They sometimes jam these things through multiple rounds in a single day.

      Janice is already preparing to battle the bill after it’s signed into law (she made a statement in the above opening that the bill can be modified prior to going into effect).

  37. ExpatRFSO

    I think I am still one of the few that will benefit from this. (Federal conviction in CA of CP in 2003, discovered in 2001). Somebody tell me if I am wrong:

    Tier Determination:
    (1) (A) A person is a tier one offender if the person
    is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c).

     (A)  A person who is required to register pursuant to Section
    290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is
    assessed as equivalent to a California registerable offense
    described in subdivision (c)

    Meghan’s Law Website:
    PC 290.46
    (2)  This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and
    offenders:

    (U)  A felony violation of Section 311.11.

    PC 311.11 was a misdemeanor in 2001.

  38. DavidH

    Tomorrow is the big day

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. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *