ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: [details]

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

California

CA: Governor Brown Signs Equality California-Sponsored Bill to Reform California’s Sex Offender Registry

[Equality California]

Sacramento–California Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a bill to reform California’s sex offender registry, creating a tiered system that will make the registry a more effective tool for law enforcement and bring California’s system in line with the rest of the United States. SB 384 was authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and co-authored by Senators Joel Anderson (R- Alpine), Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), and Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley). The bill was sponsored by Equality California, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the California Sex Offender Management Board and was endorsed by the California Police Chiefs Association and various county sheriffs.

“California’s sex offender registry is broken, which undermines public safety,” said Sen. Wiener. “SB 384 refocuses the sex offender registry on high-risk offenders and treats low-level offenders more fairly. I’m grateful for Governor Brown’s support. I want to thank the broad coalition behind this bill, including law enforcement, rape crisis centers, and social justice advocates. With this reform, our law enforcement agencies will be able to better protect people from violent sex offenders rather than wasting resources tracking low-level offenders who pose little or no risk of repeat offense. Our sex offender registry is a tool used to prevent and investigate crimes, and these changes will make it a better and more effective tool for keeping our communities safe.”

Read more

Text of bill

 

Join the discussion

  1. cool RC

    Great! Next Goal is to actually remove the registry totally!

  2. mk

    good. I cant believe it. Although i do not see this helping my hub, Im sure it will help others.
    Good for them. Glad things will change. Hope it does not make it worse for my hub ….

  3. SBC

    Bravo been waiting for this for long time. Sorry to those this law my not be helping but hang there still time to make changes. Good fortune to all eventually.

  4. David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

    SF Gate (San Francisco Chronicle) reports that anyone with a victim under ten would be a Tier III. Has anyone else heard of that interpretation? I’m not seeing it within the bill language.

    “Crimes like rape, sex crimes against children 10 and younger, repeated sex crimes and sex trafficking minors, put a sex offender in a third tier that requires them to be on registry for life. That tier has an estimated 8,200 people.”

    http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-law-sex-offenders-Jerry-Brown-12259564.php

    • AlexO

      As far as I’m aware, the bill does not have this language specifically. Outside of various codes themselves that specifically mentioned age, the only other reference to age consideration is for those convicted of an offense that may not specifically require registration but may be considered depending on factors, including age. Though this itself isn’t specific and seems to leave it largely to the judge.

      • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

        I think that’s about right, Alex. It’s also true that this final bill gave tons of latitude to judges and D.A.s. so who’s to say how it will be interpreted? [Answer: us, pretty much]. It was just so specific about Tier 3 qualifiers in this article which makes me wonder where they got that? Perhaps the Legislature and this bill’s supporters – perhaps even Brown, himself may be overselling/misrepresenting it to the press and pressure groups to get them off their backs?

    • dph

      Yes, they were one of the 1’s first NorCal Paper to put out David K.
      It does say ten…where does this gal get her FACTS CHECKED From?
      It wasn’t the Bill, who did she talk to? Tough article for a person to cover, but let’s get ALL THE FACTS STR8..
      I’m GLBTQ. Deadlines? Get it right, YOU ARE CORRECT MR> KENNERLY, that reporter is not, it’s 14 as we already knew this. For months, years, etc. I had to read it 3x David to make sure too. You’re not lost.

      • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

        It does raise the question that, if SFGate is stating this as if it were fact, who have they been speaking to who might have told them this? In which case, is this going to be a general guideline? Of is it a false assurance to make the pill go down easier for the rabid public?

    • Relief

      The SFGate numbers are wrong. CASOMB and others have said around half are 288(a) alone which is around 50,000. Tier 1 at 65,000? Implying around 65,000 misdemeanors?
      Maybe 8,200 current registrants are at “Tier 3” but that’s without CP and without STATIC 99Rs.

      More likely approximations:
      25-30,000 – Tier 1
      45-55,000 – Tier 2
      15-25,000 – Tier 3

      If CASOMB put out these bogus numbers of “65,000 in Tier 1”, then we should hold them to it! Saying only “8,200 are Tier 3” will make anyone of the likely 25,000 in Tier 3 seem very dangerous SVPs to the Public. This is bad propaganda and unfair to CP/SARATSO ppl.

      • AP

        Tier 1 is not just for misdemeanors. Read Section (1) (A) again. It states “or for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.”

        • Relief

          @AP: Yes, there’s at least 6 contact felonies that would be Tier 1. (Sometimes referred as Hofsheier-type offenses.) Based on the Jan 2015 Cal Supreme case decision, DOJ v Johnson, we estimated around 5-7,000 affected, which will now be Tier 1.
          So, an expanded estimate for Tier 1 is ~70% Misd and ~30% Felonies but still ~25-30,000 total in Tier 1, based approximately on the number now on the “not posted count on ML” which is a good starting point for estimating Tier 1.
          As currently enacted, Tier 2 will most certainly be the largest Tier as even most out of states will be in this one.

    • Tim Moore

      The statute is 288.7, intercourse or sodomy with a minor under 10 if the offender is 18 years or older. That is probably what the author is refering to — much more serious than a lewd act (non intercourse) with a child under 14 or 288 (a ).

      • AlexO

        That seems logical and I’m sure you’re exactly right. Though I dispute the numbers they gave under the current bill language. 8200 for T3 seems way too low for the current codes in it.

        • Tim Moore

          We need to check everything politicians say. They are often not good on details, but rather experts on gauging the emotional effect on their constituents of what they say.

          • Matt

            We don’t need to check anything they say. They lie 100% of the time. No exceptions. They just proved it with that bait and switch they performed on PC 290.

  5. K

    Wait… So a felony 311.11(a) (possession of child pornography) would warrant a lifetime requirement?

    • Paul

      Correct. Tier III…lifetime registration and inclusion on Megan’s Law website.

    • AlexO

      At the moment, yes.

    • AW

      Where have you been? Old news.

    • Jm

      That’s correct. A misdemeanor 311.11(a) however is tier 1 however.

    • Stay outraged

      This had BETTER get this nullified and rolled back to T1. There is TOO MANY people with this charge that will languish, twist in the wind and possibly snap and send a message.

  6. concerned registrant

    I just text searched “high-risk offenders” in the article and it came up four (yes 4) times! This focus on “high risk” sounds good in theory, but in actuality “risk” is quantified by the highly flawed Static-99R (which the bill covers up as “SARATSO”). The bill puts too much weight on the Static-99R when it only claims to quantify “risk” at “time of release” from incarceration. Unless you’re an offender recently released from incarceration, the Static-99R does NOT even claim to quantify CURRENT risk.

    Even the Static’s most recent Coding Rules say “risk” is about halved (-50%) for ever 5 years offense-free. And reevaluation is needed every 2 years. The damn Coding Rules even specifically say the score is only good for 2 years. So why is the Static-99R being used to label “high risk offenders” for LIFE???

    Read the damn “Coding Rules” for yourself. Page 13:

    http://static99.org/pdfdocs/Coding_manual_2016_InPRESS.pdf

    “The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

    Again, if you’ve missed it the first time, EMPHASIS: “Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

    Static-99 is only good for TWO YEARS! But the damn bill is going to use the Static-99R to label people for LIFE! And the Static-99R is enough to put people into Tier 3, regardless of whether an offense is violent or not!

  7. jtc3

    WEll, it’s finally happened…at least it’s A BASIC START…for those that are STILL Continually Punished even post Registry still on after decades and two offenses…as time moves on….THE A TEAM will seek amendments and removal of some of the facades on there to PLEASE The John Q Public. We will see…what happens after it settles down.

    BE PATIENT ALL !

    • Matt

      Being patient, and complacent, is what got us into this mess. Sheep are always shocked during the last ten seconds they spend in the slaughterhouse.

  8. dph

    WEll, it’s finally happened…at least it’s A BASIC START…for those that are STILL Continually Punished even post Registry still on after decades and two offenses…as time moves on….THE A TEAM will seek amendments and removal of some of the facades on there to PLEASE The John Q Public. We will see…what happens after it settles down. I had given up…hope and all. A Team deserves MANY THANKS for time spent well with CASOMB meeting after meeting, fight after fight, SAC from LA so many days and hours in The Capitol. BROWN signed.

    BE PATIENT ALL !

  9. George S.

    This IS a step forward. Congrats to those involved. Now time to fight the STATIC 99 aka SARATSO tool. Someone at the meeting a few months ago called the mentions and concerns regarding the STATIC 99 an “obsession.” But I feel that the concerns surrounding the STATIC 99 aka SARATSO tool are extremely valid. Imagine the slippery slope this so called risk assessment will lead to. 10 questions might be mildly predictive for someone a year or two out of jail. But relying on the STATIC’s 10 questions more than a few years after release is pretty absurd and seems to defy logic. I guess the “risk” component is more of a feel good rather than results thing. IF the STATIC is really as good as CASOMB and SARATSO makes it out to be, then why have those with low scores register at all? I suspect the numbers are being dishonestly represented. Risk based registry sounds good, but not when it’s based off spurious statistics that measure/lump all offenses together.

    • Tim Moore

      This reasoning has always bothered me: A is a part of group X. 51% of group X re-offends, therfore A is likely to re-offend.
      Low end thinking. The only things this reasoning should be applied to is like labels on consumer products (this product known to cause cancer) or if applied to people only to suggest a particular treatment plan during probation or parole to help them not re-offend.

      • concerned registrant

        Even the very highest scored Static people never reach 51 percent reoffense. Not even close. And just a reminder: the Static 99R only has reoffense rates not exceeding five to 10 years “prediction.” Even more troubling: only figures for within five years have been “analyzed” in an unpublished study for California. So of course the clear logical fallacy is that why is the Static 99 being used to label someone’s ostensible “risk” for any more than 5 years after release if they’ve been offense-free during that time?

        And certainly, why did CASOMB and SARATSO, under this logic, see fit to use the Static 99R to wrongly label someone’s *lifetime risk* when the Static 99R is (allegedly) only good for not more than a few years after release? It is because CASOMB and the SARATSO committee are committed to getting into the business of crime fortune telling (think “Minority Report”). So I agree, this Static 99 business — with the power it’s given — is a slippery slope that may very well lead to greater declination of civil rights.

        The flaw is right in its name: “static.” People aren’t static; they are dynamic and change with experience/time. The Static 99 tests ignore the maturity/experience/time components.

        In this bill, CASOMB covered the Static 99R under “SARATSO tool.” To be blunt: ‘SARATSO tool’ is nothing more than the cheap air freshener used to cover up the smell of a turd. The turd in this case being the Static 99R. And if the Static 99R goes away, the cheap air freshener (‘SARATSO tool’) will easily cover up another Static-like turd.

        • Alan Campbell

          Haha, I love the STATIC-99/R being a “turd” analogy. It’s funny because it’s true. And yes, they label it under “SARATSO tool” so that they can change it up, Ex Post Facto, after CASOMB and the SARATSO Committee do more “research” — “research” co-authored by none other than Karl Hanson (who is in conflict-of-interest when he writes “studies” that “validate” his very own STATIC-99/R creation). The STATIC-99 sham is kind of like a house of cards waiting to collapse. The only thing keeping the STATIC-99/R from losing its questionable credibility is the bureaucrats that continue to hold it up, either because of their misunderstanding to the limited nature of the STATIC-99/R and/or because they only seek the political benefits of having something that claims to be a “risk assessment,” even though said risk assessment is just junk. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. But yes, a turd!

  10. RP

    Now that CA has paved the way, it can become safer for other states and politicians to visit this issue of reform.

  11. 7mot

    Janice and Chance
    What steps can we help with to make sure that the entire registry is thrown out before this Law goes into effect? What can the RC do to make sure we all get free and can live normal lives?

    • AlexO

      Janice mentioned in another thread that soon she and her team will meet to discuss long term strategy to challenge the registry as a whole. But she cautioned to be patient as this will likely take years, especially if we expect it to reach SCOTUS. She also said they’d need plaintiffs and lots and lots of money. So hitting that donate button and possible volunteering to be a plaintiff are some of the things we can do to help.

  12. Edie

    I don’t see this in the text but pretty sure I heard Janice mention in her recent conference call that out of state convictions would be Tier 2. All of them? Could someone please clarify?

  13. Doug

    Thank You Janice !

  14. Ostracized Witch

    Likewise, this is a start to someday banning the public view of the Registry, or of it’s demise entirely. Non-touching offenses such as looking at child porn, Felony Indecent Exposure, are they a Tier 3 lifetime? If so, this must be addressed soon.

  15. mike r

    All this crap is just smoke and mirrors.No one drops immediately, just shuffles people around and makes about half of the registrants appear to be high risk when they are actually very low level offenders, still places the burden on us to prove we are not dangerous… oh and guess what no body has even mentioned this, but that petition already exist for removal, it’s called filing suit!!!!!A matter of fact, it is an even stringer petition since the court isn’t restrained by mandated consideration factors as is in this bill….I just filed a extraordinary petition to be removed that has a much better chance of prevailing then this so called wanna be petition that will put thousands of dollars in the pockets of lawyers and corrupt officials…If you have the money or the experience to file their stupid petition then you obviously have the money and experience to file suit without their conditions for granting relief…..Smoke and mirrors, follow the money and the recent trend in decisions coming out of the courts and you will see the real reasons behind this travesty of justice that everyone is calling a first step in the right direction..this could actually make it worse since now they will be able to claim “they have the ability for a hearing in court so there’s no due process claims and just gives the courts more tools to deny any challenge, either in their little wannabe petition, which as i explained, each and everyone of us already has access to the courts without mandated consideration conditions. So for anyone planning on filing one of these worthless petitions, bambard the courts with real petitions of your own. I really hope you take a look and see that you have a fundamental right to access OUR courts without their ” permission” !!!Who are they kidding, these people never seem to amaze me….

  16. mike r

    For our forefathers, no right was as fundamental as the capability to access the legal system, i.e., to be the beneficiary of a rule of law that protects one’s rights against the most powerful. Inherent from the beginning was the idea that a right requires a capability of securing a remedy. That remedy must necessarily be found in a justice system. Thus, rights cannot exist and have meaning if the system cannot be accessed, and if it fails to provide a fair and just hearing, and result. All of “rights” law assumes the existence of government, of justice, and of access to it. The core idea of “access to justice” has been referred to by terms such as “access to the courts” and/or “the right to a remedy”; and/or a basic “common law right.” Whatever the language used is, in 39 of our state constitutions, there is some form of the following language:
    All courts shall be open; every person for injury done to his goods, lands, or person shall have remedy by due process of law; and right and justice shall be administered without self denial or delay.
    These remedy clauses are directly traceable to Magna Carta, and frequently appeared in the legal documents of the Colonies, even before the Revolution. They were assumed to be fundamental although not explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    Access to justice provisions appeared in many of the original 13 Colonies. In Virginia, it was taken for granted as so basic a doctrine of the Common Law and Natural Law, that specification was unnecessary. However, when the preparation of the Bill of Rights occurred, it was modeled upon Virginia’s Declaration of Rights of 1776, and thus the usual “access to justice” clauses were not included. One of the purposes for the Ninth Amendment (“the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) was to be certain that this doctrine, which was so self evident that it was omitted and thus not enumerated, clearly had to be defined as part of our fundamental constitutional heritage. Thus, the Ninth Amendment’s intent was to include these undeniably basic, common law values by a specific (albeit unenumerated) Constitutional clause, protecting unstated individual rights.

    In reviewing constitutional law, from the earliest days of this Republic, the values and principles of access to justice are present, and it is consistently defined as a fundamental right. But in headnote terms, it is sometimes couched as due process of law. At times, it is classified as a privilege and immunity. Or its denial may be termed a violation of equal protection of the law. The right itself has been categorized as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

    http://www.seanet.com/~rod/marbury.html

  17. mike r

    Petition for relief when “they” allow you too. Hate to tell them, I have a fundamental right so ingrained in the constitution that it is the actual controversy and issue that prompted the Magna Carte, and our constitution and bill of rights. Access to the courts is the reason the constitution exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Permission to petition the court,,with preconditions even. Give em a friggin break…………

    • mike r

      Apparently people don’t understand our constitutional history or how our basic rights were created in the first place……………

  18. Tommy hilfiger

    Here we go !!

  19. dohow

    This day has been long overdue; as much as I am delighted by the news, I will not forget about those who still face tough obstacles with the new bill. I have posted on numerous occasions stating my belief in Jesus Christ. I have been praying about this bill and the Lord delivered……I just prayed about the Governor signing the bill within the last 48 hours just to find that the bill was signed on Friday. Regardless of my status, everything that has taken place regarding my case is credited to God. I am excited about the law but I have no intentions on waiting for 2021. I expect to be removed a lot sooner. I believe in prayer, but more than anything my relationship with God along with prayer. At the end of the day, I will encourage all of you to continue researching all aspects of your cases; you may find something in the language that may not coincide with the sentencing; that is how I found out that my “failure to register” felony sentence was not consistent with my initial case. Consequently, I had the failure dropped to a misdemeanor and eventually expunged. At the end of the day, give your hearts to Christ and he will change your lives.

  20. 1984

    No matter what one calls it, colors it or shapes it a cow pie is a cow pie.
    There is no data that supports registration as being valid under the premise of public safety. Or anything of importance. Everything else I have to say is derogatory and has been said one way or another.

    Our government has made laws based on lies, created a large money drain and given power to those that should never have it. If I continue it only gets worse.

    Ban the registration it is not legal.

  21. mike r

    I,I 1984,, everyone bombard the courts with your own petitions just to show these idiots they are useless and
    that they have no power of who accesses the courts right now, or ever……………

    • Gralphr

      Can anyone point me in the right direction to a template i can use for an example to petition for registry relief? Im in indiana and i have the ability to petition next month due to having been on the registry 10 years offence free.

  22. mike r

    I wonder, are you guys going to have a right to a jury, an appeal process? I am not trying to be pessimistic about this, I am just trying to get it across to everyone that you do not need anyones permission to file a petition and be givin a right to a fair and just judicial process. it is the foundation of our constitution that we the people have access to the courts for redress. why would anyone wait to file, and file under special mandated consideration rules, without an appeal process, and without a right to choose if you want a jury trial? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever…..Oh and people, you better file before this goes into effect or the court is just going to claim you have access to the courts and due process on their terms, just like they did in Minnesota. it will be much hatder for a ruling like that to stand since there we still be no expert testimony or evaluations from anyone except a corrupt DA , But it will be much easier for the lower courts to pass the buck without worry of any type of professional or civil repercussions causing extensive delays on decisions in individual cases. Acvess to the courts is your god givin right people, don’t let them convince you that you somehow need some special permission for doing exactly what “they” are allowing you to do….it’s a sick, repugnant, and a complete lie that these overlords are peddling, I feel for anyone that buys this snake oil….Why would anyone go through there farce, faux, judicial process, you would still have to lawyer up, file petitions with the court clerk, and argue your case, only youbwill be strapped with their conditions and a judge who’s hands are tied and predetermined through mandated considerations? I never really thought about how deceptive this bill really is when it came to these hearings, I knew there was something just not right but it just sank in and hit me that these idiots are attempting to do exactly what the constitution was created to prevent. to give the average person the right to an unconditional fair and just judicial process. There is no right more fundamental in our history of western society!!@@!

  23. mike r

    If I seem like I am ranting on about this just realize I am extremely angry and concerned with what these elite are trying to pull off. They are attacking the very fabric of our civilized society and are most basic and fundamental right that has ever been granted to us….Millions of people have bled and waged wars to protect the right to access to the courts, and with one swipe of a pen these aholes are trying to usurp that power….This is extremely serious, and an attempt to take complete control of over their sheeple. I really hope Janice, and every righteous and well intended lawyer or civil rights leaders, take notice and does some thing about this affront at the very core of civilized society…..Despicable, repugnant to the constitutional values, and udderly deceptive, and down right dangerous for all Americans…………….This isn’t even about the registry anymore, this is an attempt to totally supersede our fundamental right to access the courts and to fair and just judicial processes………………I really hope others wake up and see what I am seeing and take action, such as I have, and file in courts without delay………Just my opinion………

  24. mike r

    Another thing I have to get off my chest, and bring to the forefront…..We all now have a major, and irrefutable issue and violation of our procedural due process rights, and separation of powers issue( that’s a hole other argument that has to be addressed)…………………..Procedural due process>>>>>>>>>>;They(law makers or anyone besides god him/herself) can not dictate when or why we can petition the courts. They can not put conditions on the procedural due process and our right to a fair and just judicial process, they can not set time tables on when or who can file petitions in our courts, they can not tie a judges hands and dictate what evidence he must consider during our procedural due process, they do not have any authority to dictate to anyone, who, when or how we may access our courts (not their courts) in any way whatsoever without it becoming a procedural due process violation. I really hope others see this, it is so blatant that if it wasn’t so serious it is almost comical. This is like some cartoon or something it is so far detached from reality…………..I bet when I bring this issue up in front of a judge when I go to court,he is going to fall off his bench laughing at how arrogant and belligerent these lawmakers have become…………This bill is unconstitutional in so many ways, but to so blatantly attack our procedural due process rights, or as it is known as ” access to the courts”, and fundamental constitutional foundation is a fatal error and they will be laughed out of court just like the justices did when that state attorney didn’t fully understand our fundamental right to our reputation, I believe it was, and laughed about how he should read the constitution before coming to court………..Oh I can’t wait to bring this up……

  25. Eric

    Equality California, yes, most of us are equally screwed.

  26. Not sure

    288(c) is Tier 3. Did I read this right?

    • NPS

      Yes, it is listed in the tier 3 offenses. However, it is a wobbler. Get it reduced to a misdemeanor, and it will be a tier 1.

      • Not sure

        Thank you. But I’m concerned because the Bill doesn’t mention wobblers. I got it reduced to a misdemeanor but I’ve been on the registry for 25 yrs, hope this counts.

        • NPS

          I believe Janice stated (in the phone conference) that reductions to misdemeanors will make an RC Tier 1. You should be good. If anyone qualifies for the reduction, do it.

          • Not sure

            Thank you. And a big thank you to Janet and Chance for all their hard work and persistence. Not everyone will benefit from this bill but a lot will and above all it raises awareness in the public about the injustice of the registry and the plight of the registrants and their families. I pray for everyone to have faith in Janet and Chance.

      • DLP

        Is a 288(c)(1) handled the same as a 288(c)? Tier 3?

        • Not sure

          I am not sure. Mine is 288(c) but I don’t know what 288(c)(1) is. Sorry I don’t know the answer. Maybe Janice or Chance can tell. I hope not Tier 3 for you.But if it is, I hope it can be reduced. Good luck.

  27. Matthew

    For a reduction should I go to my old county or where I am living at now? Counties are close

  28. Ace Chen

    ….
    Is felony possesion/distrib. of child porn tier 3 or tier 1? Or both?

    It’s directly stated in tier 3’s description that felony 311.11 (possession/distribution) would be tier 3. However, it is implied less directly under tier 1’s description that felony 311.11 qualifies for tier 1, unless I misunderstood something.

    I will say: I’m not the most experienced bill reader. More specifically, I don’t know what nor where section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 is. There was some mention of that.

    Otherwise, is this, per chance… a cushy loophole?? Perhaps one that senator Weiner purposely slipped in there?

  29. Question

    which tier would be a person with 288 (a) from deadline NBC with no other history? Thank you

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.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - 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 *