ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


California RSOL Lobbying in Sacramento

California RSOL will lobby newly elected members of the state Assembly in Sacramento on January 29 and 30. Thirty-nine new members were sworn in earlier this month. There are a total of 80 members in that legislative body.

“It is important to meet with the newly elected state legislators this month in order to educate them regarding the true facts regarding registrants,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of California RSOL. “In the past, state legislators have passed laws based upon fear and misinformation that have diminished public safety and denied registrants their civil rights.”

An important objective of California RSOL this year is passage of a tiered registry bill that would allow some registrants to leave the registry after 10 or 20 years. California is 1 of only 4 states that has a lifetime registry for all registrants regardless of the severity of the offense or the current risk of the individual.

“In a time of declining state resources, it is important that resources be used efficiently to monitor only those who pose a current danger to public safety,” stated Bellucci. The California registry includes individuals convicted of non-contact offenses such as public urination and sexting a loved one as well as consensual teen sex up to 50 years ago. According to a recent psychological study, anyone on the registry who has not re-offended in 20 years has the same probability to commit a sex offense as anyone not on the registry.

A tiered registry has not yet been introduced, however, one is expected to be introduced in the Assembly no later than March 2013.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great idea!

CA’s law is draconian. It even imposes the lifetime registration on a person if they move to another state- even to one where their crime would not even have been a crime at all!

This being the case for me, I often think of myself more accurately as a ‘geographical offender’ rather than a sex offender, since geography would appear to be the most relevant aspect of the crime.

What about the ones the court has already found not a threat to society and has granted a 1203.4? Just wondering if they have a chance?

VERY good point.

This is a VERY important point that is just plain getting way overlooked. In fact, 1203.4 used to be the legal standard for being able to stop registering. Until the mid-80s, felons who got probation could stop registering once they got 1203.4. Then the law was changed to increase the standard for felons, but misdemeanants could still stop registering once they got the 1203.4 relief. The standard for misdemeanants was raised in the early 1990s.

In fact, Janice, please, 10 years CANNOT be the minimum standard. Geez, the minimum now is SEVEN years for some misdemeanor offenses: for 314.1 indecent exposure, and for various of the 311 section offenses regarding child porn one can get a certificate of rehabilitation after SEVEN years and stop registering. You are proposing to increase that to 10 years per the tier. Please, you can’t be arguing to increase it — you simply have to argue to decrease it, that is, even seven years is too long.

In fact, since that 10-year standard you are pushing is coming from the federal requirement, why not argue also to require SOR ONLY for those offenses required by federal law — conform all to federal standards. Misdemeanor indecent exposure, and many other offenses for which SOR is required in Calif., is NOT required to register under federal law, so just drop it altogether from registration, not even the seven years. And in budget-conscious Sacramento now, consider how much money could be saved by dropping these minor offenses from SOR, not just at the state level, but at all the municipalities, schools, etc., around the state — multiple registrations for individual SORs, all requiring staff to do it and more staff to track it and chase people down.

Also, re the tiers, one should be able to stop automatically, not need to file an application asking for it, as has been the proposal. You should not have to do anything — your time is over, they know your time is over, you simply stop. Rest assured, if you allow the law to require SORs to apply at the end of the time for their tier, that application is going to come back to bite you in the ass — do not accept that. And gee, lower level offense, if retaining in SOR, should automatically be the lowest tier, not even require any assessment — every time you add an assessment of tier, an application, any contact, you are asking for trouble — and trouble WILL come down the line, I can guarantee you that.

I believe that AB625 would have implemented a tiered system. Are their any drawbacks to to AB625? Someone in another forum claimed the devil was in the details and was happy it did not pass citing exp post facto issues, but offering no details.
Could some of us actually be worse off in a tired system?
What are politician’s arguments against such system? I tend to believe it is because certain entities, public and private, have a vested interest in the status quo.

Once in a blue moon you get an asshole like Phillip Garrido pop up in the news and they use it to justify the need for continued lifelong monitoring to be applied to all sex offenders. Those of us who have chosen a rehabilitative path forward should have just as much disgust and hatred of those few who haven’t, because they are the reason life is a living hell for the rest of us.

I don’t think anyone will be worse off having a tiered registry … No matter what charge a registrant has been convicted of … It’s not possible as today it is a lifetime requirement what could be worse than that?

What could be worse is being placed under greater restrictions
When released in 1994 registering annually was a relatively minor inconvenience.
The Los Angeles map with blue dots but no names made me unpopular with my neighbors.
Meagan’s Law web site made me unpopular with my boss.
What could be worse? Again, greater restrictions applied retroactively based on some new system.
Family targeted
GPS tracking
Residency restrictions
SEX OFFENDER on my driver license
Pink License Plate

You name it. The government will do what it wants to whomever it wants. I just want to be prepared. They are in the process of disarming the law-abiding American public, 2nd Amendment or not, because of the terrible misdeeds of the few. Just think what they will do to us.

I applaud a tiered registry… And has been pointed out, the devil IS in the details. We often hear and talk about those on the current lifetime registry for some very minor infraction.

My offense wasn’t a “misunderstanding”. It wasn’t minor. I did do it… And I’m not the same person I was when I offended in 1993. For these purposes, the ways I’ve changed aren’t important, but the changes are there and acknowledged by those who have no reason to.

My question is how does a tiered registry, of itself, serve in this instance, where we don’t have a clear understanding of what the tiers might mean and the standards that might be used.

Those standard need to be openly discussed as well.

Just sayin’

Good questions. The bill has not yet been written, however, California RSOL has stated its preferences such as the focus should be on current risk and not original offense. We were told that was a problem with AB 625, last year’s tiered registry bill. We also don’t want judges to have discretion regarding whether and when to release someone from the registry because right now they are not doing a good job overall when considering applications for certificates of rehabilitation. The bill, once introduced, will be available to all. We expect that to happen within the next 60 days.

Now I am not an expert here, but I have been in the business world for 20+ years and getting what I want out of someone (a boss, a coworker, a client, my staff, etc.) have always been a part of my job. So for all of the politicians that like to scream “sex offender!” in an effort to get votes… What does a tiered system get them that will not be interpreted as going soft…? My suggestion, use language as close to the AWA wording on tiers as possible. Why, the point is the tier, not wording. Give the other side the ability to say they were tough on the dirty sex offenders. Give them the ability to say “This is one more step in getting state law in line with federal law, namely AWA the most advanced and toughest federal law governing sex offenders.” AWA has a tier, make that the base, minimize the appearance of the changes you make and let their want to scream “sex offender!” work against them. Remember they do not have a stake in this other than to get votes and to point at some “good work” they did. Give them the talking points that make them look good to voters.
• This puts us in line with AWA
• This fixing flaws in the California code that brings us to the modern age
o Current California code dates back to the 1930s, a time before internet and advancement in the field of mental health.
• This will give law enforcement the ability to focus their efforts on sex offenders in a uniform way. Making is harder for the (fill the most deviant name) of the world.
These mean nothing to a person educated on the topic, but give politicians nice sounds bites, providing them the positive spin…Just my thoughts.

Fish in a Net, the problem with AWA is the tiers are based on original offense and not current risk. If you did something horrible a long long time ago in a galaxy far away, under AWA you are stuck for life. Conversely, if you were convicted of a minor offense and yet currently exhibit numerous “high risk” factors, you will walk right under the radar undetected. We don’t want to be in line with AWA. It has some people with decades-old offenses registering every 90 days.

http404 – I see what your are saying. I think I failed to make my point clear. I am thinking that the tiers, number of year to offence in mirrored. Then a tempering with risk assement (to include year since conviction/offence). The end intent is that at first pass it “looks” equal or same. Let’s face it the politicians won’t actually read the bill…Just need to give them the thought that it (or their vote for it)can be spun in a positive light to the voters…

February 22 is the last day for bills to be introduced.

After that, if there isn’t a sponsor yet to drop a “spot bill” down, it will become necessary to shop around for an ally who has an extra one they won’t be using, or get it tacked on as an amendment to something (slim chance).

I wish you the best of success, even if for this year it only means opening the door for some dialogue on the issue. What DOESN’T get passed relating to this subject is just as pertinent as what DOES, at least when it comes to historically adverse actions in Sacramento.

From what I know … And it may not be much but I’m trying to learn every day, every moment … A tiiered registry as RSOL is wanting to forge ahead with and try, at least in California (one of four states who don’t have one) is a level of registrants I’m not sure what level 1 means, nor do I know what level 2 means … As for level 3 … Again not sure. From what I’ve read and researched anyone with a conviction 20+ years .. Would (hopefully) fall into the category of those (like reports i have seen) to be no more liable to commit another offense than you or I who haven’t been convicted. My fiancé at the age of 19 with someone 20 … Was in 1987 … He was 19 … We are in 2013 … There will be justice … A tiered registry will be a God send.

We had a good first day of meetings in the offices of the newly elected members of the Assembly. Members and/or staff appeared interested in our issues, in general, as well as the possibility of a tiered registry. There is a lot more to do tomorrow and beyond, but this is an important first step in presenting the facts and debunking the myths regarding registrants. During our morning training session, Jack Wallace of the CA Sex Offender Management Board joined us to discuss the Board’s views on a tiered registry including both static and dynamic risk assessment tools. Thank you, Jack!

Be careful of what we wish for, to a certain degree.

Currently, most of the registrants on the Internet are of a level that allows their full address to remain off public view. Only individuals who visit the law enforcement station can view them on a CD or internal system.

However, a tiered registry may add that all registrants have to list their address. This is bad for the registrants and their families. Though tier level legislation would also provide for a relief from registration at some finite future date as opposed to lifetime inclusion, such disclosure of formerly-private addresses can actually become detrimental and cause job loss, loss of housing, and ultimately create a worse situation than Jessica’s Law’s residency restriction limit.

One only needs to look to Nebraska where hundreds of lower-level registrants suddenly had to appear on the public Internet, and many lost their jobs, residences, and even families as a direct result. So please be careful when talking to the representatives. Thanks.

@Eric Knight – confused by what you wrote “… most of the registrants on the Internet are of a level that allows their full address to remain off public view.” huh?

Am I missing something, I don’t think so (?). I’ve read, researched and diligently sought to learn on the subject of registrants and how it affects their lives, and the exact opposite I find to be true.

I’m from California, so Megans website will obviously be my information. It will show:

Full address: 158
Total registrants: 167

What am I missing? The full address is always larger than the TOTAL registrants in the city, in this case only 9 don’t have to share where they live.

Please explain where you are coming from? Thanks!!

Correction: The total number of registrants is always larger than the full address listing.

In CA there is a large number of registrants that aren’t even on the Megan’s Law web site. They are in an “other” category that is still law enforcement only. This is for the lower level CA offences that don’t even qualify federally or in other states.


You are right. The current breakdown is here:

Full Address 41,376
ZIP Code/Conditional 12,079
Transient 6,676
In Violation 16,761
Incarcerated 20,068
Deported 10,109
No Post (Undisclosed) 25,082
Excluded 4,898

That surprised me. I was going by anecdotal data from 6 years ago when it was the other way around (Full vs. Zip). It was also before Jessica’s Law started to be implemented for parolees which increased transiency from about 100 in the entire state to the current 6,600.

My guess is that Calif upped the registration penalties for many offenses, but I could be wrong. I wonder if there is a county by county breakdown on the categories, though. Red State counties would seemingly have more exposure than Blue State counties.

That’s 137,049 ?!?

@Fish: Some categories overlap with others.

Low risk factors such as probation granted under 1203.4 (amenable to treatment; passed treatment program; low risk at time of sentencing; etc). This would help if this could get into the decision making process. How about a certificate of rehabilitation. From what I’ve read lately, it has been legislated nearly out of reach if the petition wasn’t filed before 1998. Am I missing something or did they “legislate” the case that offenders simply can’t be rehabilitated. Making progress on demonstrating the laws as written are full of inaccurate statements and preambles. If these laws could be changed to remove such wording, that would be a great help. I believe in Oklahoma, they essentially declared a state of emergency and their constitution gave them carte blanche ease to slam in some very draconian laws.

Thanks for your concern and dedication to helping make life better for ex offenders and their families – especially their children who have become a new group of victims at the hands of lawmakers.

It’s been a long, exhausting nightmare on this list. I hope through this legislation there will be a chance to exit it. Thank you again Janice.

The bottom line is this. California Sex Offender Laws must be changed. A Tier System must be instituted to allow those Sex Offenders on the Registry to Fall off eventually. In most states, Sex Offenders are off after 10 to 15 years. Its been to long. God be with you Janice

California RSOL met with elected officials and/or staff in the offices of 39 new members of the State Assembly on Tuesday and Wednesday. It was a daunting task, but we did it! The good news is that ears and eyes opened as the 5 of us (including two fathers of registrants) educated these individuals about the facts regarding registrants — including 1.9 percent re-offense rate — and the need for a tiered registry. A tiered registry bill is being created and we are hopeful that it will reflect the input we have provided. After a bill has been introduced, California RSOL will return to Sacramento to lobby for that bill. Please join us!

Wow that is some hopeful sounding news!

As someone with a score of ‘1’ on that static 99, but saddled with lifetime registration,regardless of where I live, for a crime that isn’t a crime in 22 states I look forward to any progress toward sanity.

I know that I shouldn’t put this out on the internet, but I am angry. In 2004, our son was approached by a young women who posed as a 19 year old. They met a few times, but did not have sex. Once he discovered that she was in fact 15, he got angry and told her not to contact him again. She called him over and over until he changed his phone number. He had been recently divorced from his high school sweetheart, and was raising his litlle boy. He had just moved to a small northern ca. town.
6 months later he was arrested. Refused the “deal” (which would have been 6 months jail time and one felony count, instead he was convicted of 5 counts, (the D.A. stacked the charges, and he spent the next two years in court. Of course, we knew nothing about the legal system and that most likely he would get convicted. He spent over 3 years in prison, and the next three years on GPS.
He lost everything in his life.

I don’t feel this young women was harmed in any way. She was the agressor. I don’t condone the behavior, but the punishment was too harsh.
I now see that he is listed as a “level three” on the Megan’s website. I don’t understand this at all.
Also, years ago we set up a savings account for our grandson when he was 6. He is now 16, and the state just recently took all his savings, I guess because his father was a guardian on the account? Does it ever stop!

I know that having levels will help those who have been on “the list” for years, but in our case, it could diffently make matters worse.

It should surprise me, but since we don’t have a rational legal system or culture, it doesn’t.

Since anyone below the age of legal adulthood is not legally capable of giving consent the system sees any interaction between someone over 18 and someone under 18 as a predator and doe-eyed innocent with no notion of what is going on. DA’s will thrust this to the hilt to do as much damage to the ‘offender’ as possible regardless of the reality.

I am uncertain what the levels on the mMagan’s site are or what they mean, but I suppose that, if your account is accurate, the young woman in question lied about what happened between them, since if they did not have sex, the most he’d be looking at would be harassment of a minor which is a misdemeanor. So she’d had to have claimed they did have sex for him to have been given such harsh sentencing.

You say they didn’t have sex. Lay people have all kinds of definitions, if they had oral sex, which sometimes in general populations people ‘don’t count’ this as sex, but if they did do that legally it is actually treated as worse than intercourse. It is madness, but oral sex is listed under 288 along with such things as forceable rape and kidnapping. Intercourse with a minor is a lower offense. Maybe it is just me, but I think the law writers failed to watch Seasame Street when they were kids, because they don’t seem to grasp the “one of these things is not like the other” concept. Oral sex has more in common with intercourse than it does with kidnapping. The only reason it is considered a more severe crime is because of Biblical Sodomy laws. But anyone without the cultural burden of this heritage would not see the stigma of it. that tells me that oral sex being listed under 288 is a violation of the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion clause. it simply does not belong where it is in the criminal code, it belongs with intercourse.
-So, just as that example, there could be a lot of things that look worse to the court about your son’s case than a reasonable mind would see.

As for taking your grandson’s trust fund, I don’t see how they could do this, unless he had never paid his restitution, then they might be able to confiscate it if he had legal access to the fund. But if he had paid restitution already then you should demand an explanation for why they took it and see a lawyer about it. The system may hate sex offenders, but they still haven’t given themselves the right to just boldly steal their money.

I appreciate your response, and just validating my upset.

My advise to anyone. Stay away from El Dorado County, and small towns with cowboy D.A.’s trying to make a name for themselves and sheriffs with nothing else to do.

If we are able to get some kind of tierd system, I hope it will end the nightmare for many.

Sadly, even though this happened to our son, for me, it feels like part of my life is over. The system stole my innocence of thinking we had a great country. That those who were there to protect our rights, just stomped on them. Sometimes I feel dead inside. I have been fighting for nine years…and got no where until Janice came to be our state rep. I thank God for her every day.

Did anyone see this motion filed in doe vs harris? What does it mean?

01/23/2013 Motion for leave to intervene filed by Lee Quillar, non party
01/25/2013 Motion filed plaintiff and appellants’ request to dismiss with prejudice. by Richard L. Kellner, counsel
01/25/2013 Motion for leave to intervene filed by Edward V. Shell, non party

Hmm… very interesting, not sure what to make of it, it seems ambiguous. On the one hand, the motion to dismiss with prejudice would be a way for them to give “John Doe” exactly what he wanted without compelling the court to answer the question certified by the federal court, like some kind of settlement. On the other hand, the motion for leave to intervene is a way for a non-party or third party to insert themselves into the case.

If I had to take a guess, it has the appearance as though they are substituting out the plantiff and will have a different “john doe” carry it forward.

Wild speculation here, but I know there were a lot of people interested and following the case… so I’ll put it as a question. If the original plaintiff were to die before a landmark case was ruled on, what would happen to the case, and what could someone do if they wanted the case to still proceed?

Similarly all situated.

S191948 – ‘Google’ it and note that late in January something happened that will take a lawyer (or someone who knows something about it) to explain.

S191948 requested a clarification on the issue of contract law as applied to plea bargains as to whether the law existing at the time of the contract binds the parties, or can a plea bargain by modified after the fact by changes in the law.

What’s going on?

I’ve had to register since 2003(2004) was my actual release date, so i guess that would be my rehab starting period. I was convicted of a two counts and unlawful sex with a minor(felony woblers) and the DA decided to throw in a contributing to the delinquency which would require SOR. I was offered this plea deal and i took it. My public defender which basically ran through the process never did anything for me or tried. Neither me nor my family had the money to pay for a lawyer. I was 18 at the time and it was my senior year in high school when these incidents took place. I was young and had no clue on what was going on or what was right nor wrong. All i knew was that the DA’s office was pushing hard to throw me in prison and make an example the the “rampant” sex that is going on in my towns high school. Basically the DA offered a first plea deal of 8 years in prison and that scared the sh*t out of me. When i was offered the second deal i almost had no choice but to take a gamble in a jury trial. Needless to say the “victims” testified what happened and perjured themselves on multiple accounts. I didn’t find this until the last few years, but the DA basically told the victims that if you don’t say it the way they the DA wanted they would be thrown into jail. Yes this is true, and i have a letter from one of the two girls which i received last year that told me this heart breaking truth (2012).

That was just the background of the story. Lets just set aside what actually happened. I had intercourse with a couple of classmates, but because i was 18 i was the criminal. If it were a few months before technically both parties would’ve committed a “crime”. I have not committed a crime since then. I have graduated from college ( yes excuse my terrible grammar…i’m not concerned if i made mistakes…it’s just a comment), and have gone through the whole 17b and 1203.4 process. Get this !!! i can legally posses and purchase a firearm! I did a check to see if i was because i was an avid hunter growing up. Not only have i been a upright citizen, but also i have not shot anyone! Who would’ve thought that not all ROS are crazy right? I have to wait 10 years to apply for a certificate of rehab which would be in 2014. The tiered system would be ok with me. It would allow me to just walk away from it with out having to pay a lawyer a few thousand dollars, and be 100% sure i would be done with SOR. Just because i’m eligible for a certificate of rehab doesn’t mean i’ll obtain it. It’s still up to the judge’s discretion. Law’s change every year and who knows what will happen in a year from now.

I have to agree with Janice. I plead to a Battery Charge back in in 1997 after an arrest in 1996. The plea was a wobbler. Furthermore, I received Summery Probation? Yes, I plead to a sex offense which was registerable and received SUMMARY Probation! 2 years later, the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor secondary to pc 17(B)/I did this on my own and I eventually had the charge expunged secondary to pc1203.4. No arrests prior/thereafter. I did everything right. I attempted to obtain a Certificate of Rehab in OC and it was a nightmare. The charge or plea originated in LA. In essence, its very difficult to obtain a Certificate of Rehab. Very hard. From what I understand, its easier to obtain one in LA, but you must petition the Court or County you reside in. I unfortunately reside in OC and they dont fight fair. In summary, its very disturbing to think that someone who has obtained higher education, started a family, volunteers and doesnt even have an unpaid parking ticket cant obtain a Certificate of Rehab. I did everything right, but yet the courts or judges seem to be afraid of granting them? Why? In conclusion, if I lived in any other state, I would no longer be on the registry and have fallen off years ago. Its now time to send a sincere and kind message to legislators that people make poor decisions in their lives, but for many, they can move forward and turns these negatives into positives!

Is this the new tieredcregistry bill going to be re-introduced by Ammiano?

AB 2086 – Sex offender registry

Nevermind on above post it is not.

What is the probability that ANY legislation will be introduced (by Assemblymember Ammiano or another legislator!) this session, that will bring a “tiered-system” (as AB 625 would have!), or other relief to CA RSO’s? If there is no bill to get behind in THIS session, then discussion is pointless!

There is a high probability that a tiered registry bill will be introduced in the state legislature this year. We have already started working toward that goal by providing input to legislators regarding what we want to start the process of letting off the registry those who do not pose a risk to public safety. This will also increase the effectiveness of law enforcement.

A better piece of legislation to introduce than the tiered system IMHO would be legislation to allow registered sex offenders that have met the conditions of 1203.4 (Certificate of Rehabilitation) to apply. This would go back to the more rehabilitative stance the law had for many years.

This would allow all of us to be judged on a case by case basis against our own merits and behavior since we committed our offense.

Today we are lumped together into this group that has no statistical meaning. The law today does not make the public any safer.

Having this available to us again would allow us to demonstrate our rehabilitation and rights to live as truly free men and women.

I agree with you, a CofR was my goal by in the 90’s.

A certificate of rehabilitation has its own problems including the fact that a state court judge must make a decision whether or not to grant. Perhaps because state judges are elected and not appointed like their federal counterparts, state judges sometimes deny certificates of rehabilitation even when a registrant is eligible to obtain one.

The legislature sometime back passed a law that 290′s cannot get any publicly funded therapy for reproductive health. Since being unemployed for years and unable to get any responses to job applications despite over 25 years in high-tech, I have to rely on community health resources. I am treated differently and recently my doctored ordered a hiv/std test for me despite the fact that I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for over twenty years with the mother of my children. I guess they have a big red “SO” label on my file at the clinic. I have stopped going because I feel their behavior is discriminatory and violates HIPPA. I have typical middle age male health problems and would like assistance but not at the sake of being compromised by the system. This is certainly an area that should be reviewed but I don’t think legislators have the stones to take this on. I don’t know where this rates on the priority list of the many aspects of our (290′s) lives that have been negatively impacted. Does anyone have any similar experiences to share?

IF you go to: “leg”, you can “subscribe” to AB 670 to follow its amendment and committee vote process. I would recommend EVERY PERSON INTERESTED in getting the “tiered-registration” law implemented (and made RETROACTIVE EVEN!), should start “e-stalking” the appropriate legislators, as this bill moves along. It appears to be as just a “placeholder” bill now (AB 670 as introduced on 02/21 changes all of ONE word, in PC 290!). Hopefully, significant amendments can be made to get this bill to what is needed, AND PASSED! Please let us on here know how we can help!

Could not find any relevant information under AB 670.

Me either.

In looking further I think it’s AB 702 by Ammiano.

Just looked at AB 702…. instead of changing one word that makes little to no difference it would make more sense to modify the substance of the section.

For 7 years now, certain subsections of PC 288a and 289 no longer carry with them mandatory registration (Hofshire).

So no “shall be required to register” for 288a and 289, all inclusive.

What a waste of time all of this is….

AB 702 is a placeholder bill that will be modified to become the tiered registry bill. California RSOL has provided input regarding the contents of that bill, however, we have not yet seen a draft of it. The tiered registry bill is expected to be considered by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee in March 2013. We will report on the draft bill as soon as it is available. Please be patient.

AB 321 has me very worried, is this moving the enforcement of residency restrictions out of probation officers hands and into all officers. Will RSO’s that have been within 2000 feet of schools/park but not on probation now have the SONAR groups trying to make them move?

Anyone following SB 384? It looks like senator Gaines is looking to change 1203.4, the single world lined out is “or” inside the section that holds out some 290 offences. Is he possibly trying to make is harder to get a 1203.4? Could this group look to change or ammend 1203.4 to provide as a release for 290 registration?

@fish in a net … You’re right. I just read AB 321 … That sure isn’t meant to give anyone a warm feeling, does it? So, is essence …. The registrant registers and then it would seem that the police need to come by and “see” where you live. Wow.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x