ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


AB 702 Passes First Test

The Public Safety Committee approved by a vote of 4 to 2 Assembly Bill 702 (AB 702), which would create a tiered registry for sex offenders in California. The vote took place after testimony from three representatives of California RSOL as well as oral support from organizations including but not limited to the ACLU and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Additional support came from registrants and family members who attended the hearing. “The committee’s passage of AB 702 is a vital first step leading to the creation of a tiered registry bill,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of California RSOL.

During the hearing, Chairman Ammiano testified that passage of the law is necessary in order to increase public safety by allowing law enforcement to focus upon those who pose a current risk to society. Bellucci testified that passage of the bill will save state and local governments about $115 million a year. Two members of the committee –Skinner and Mitchell –spoke in support of the bill. Both female Assembly members stated that the current system is ineffective in part because there is no distinction between individuals on the registry. That is, individuals convicted of a minor offense such as public urination or “sexting” are required to register for a lifetime as are individuals convicted of a multiple sexual assaults.

The remaining steps needed to pass AB 702 are consideration by the Appropriations Committee and final consideration on the floor of the Assembly. The Appropriations Committee is expected to consider the bill in May. Final consideration on the bill is expected no later than September.

“This is the time for all registrants, family members and supporters to express their support for AB 702,” stated Frank Lindsay, Treasurer of California RSOL. “It’s time to call your elected officials, send them an E-mail and/or write them letters.”

Contact information for Assembly members can be found online at

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
  • 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

5-2..I’m taking all the positives as possible!

Janice, I’ve written my letters and emails to as many people as I can find – will you be able to bring to light the issue that as AB702 is now proposed, misdemeanor PC 647.6 offenses are being erroneously included in the tier 2 category? It would seem to me that the intent of the legislation would be to place the less serious offenses (misdemeanors) in the tier 1 category. I was convicted of a misdemeanor PC 647.6 offense for sending an “inappropriate” email to someone under the age of 18 (the remark in question was in reference to the… Read more »

Thanks, Janice. Also saw a Tiered Registry law being proposed in Missouri, of all places:

Janice, you are doing a wonderful job and may god bless you and all the others
fighting so hard to correct a wrong in this state.

This bill (AB702) is a mistake. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. A “Tiered Registry”, in practice will complicate the daylights out of a failed system. Complication favors the prosecution because it obfuscates facts. Too much? The more complicated it gets, the easier it becomes for the Prosecuting Agencies to F*%C-up your life….and that’s what they live to do. We (is there a “We”?) need to take a stand, cemented in concrete, that the entire registry system should be abolished as it constitutes a Bill of Attainder; a pathway to multiple jeopardy; once again a… Read more »

I’m sensing an opinion here, Bill. I am also sensing that AB 702 won’t help you much. I am not sure it will help me, but I feel that it will be the camel’s nose under the tent and his whole body will soon follow. Wars are won in a series of battles with victories large and small. If Janice Bellucci, a seasoned lawyer with a great deal of knowledge of the legal system as it relates to our situation, feels it is a good idea, that’s good enough for me. I know you are pissed and bitter and hope… Read more »

Bill- I agree with you on several points: a) that the entire registry should be abolished b) that many politicians/government have their own agenda, and c) that the current system borders on a “terrorist like” agenda However – when dealing with the public, law enforcement and policy makers, one has to be reasonable; or at least appear reasonable. If what needs to be done needs to be done at one step at a time – then that’s how we need to approach it. Sometimes I do wish that we/RSOL/Janice could take a firmer stand on many of the issues that… Read more »

Hi Bill, AB 702 is a start. The Registry will NOT and will NEVER be abolished. Sorry, its not gonna happen in a million years. Once we get AB 702 passed, then we can tackle bigger issues. And for anyone who is standing around saying “What about ME???” Let me say this: My 288(a) charge occurred when I was 13 years old and there was no force or violence involved. Yet according to PC 667.5(c), a.k.a. “another stupid technicality”, my offense is listed as a “Violent Felony”, which means I’m automatically Tier 2. Do you know what that means? I… Read more »

I must say, the bill is not “a start.” This is going to be a finality. This is not going to be handled going forward like other issues might be, that is, incrementally. This is a once-only touching of this issue by the politicians, they will not revisit this to lighten things up under any circumstances; they will only revisit to toughen it. So, all the details better be right now — because they are not going to get fixed later. As they say, the devil is in the details, and I’m afraid the details are not being considered enough… Read more »

I add, the way this bill is now written, I’m afraid it is going to lock people into California for the entire time of the registration requirement. I’m afraid it will be interpreted the same way the courts have interpreted the statute for a certificate of rehabilitation, that it requires that you register IN CALIFORNIA for the applicable time period before you can have the relief (that language has since been written into that statute). So if you move out of state, you will never be able to stop registering, unless you move back for the rest of your time… Read more »

Crosman Anonymous Nobody and or anybody with a hearing ear, I’m very encouraged by what Janice and the team accomplished at the meetings this week. I for one appreciate the taxing efforts and courage spent by Janice and the others as they all were moved by self-sacrificing to assist others. I feel like I’ve taken a breath of fresh air. Further I believe with out a shadow of doubt the registration requirements as they stand today are above and beyond any simulation of sanity. Whats going on now is like a story I was told as a child. Eight years… Read more »

I live in florida and have been out of trouble for over 15 years, but crime of 243.4a was committed in California. I believe that there needs to be a statute of limitations to register for people like me who other wise would have to get a traditional pardon to stop having to register.

Anonymous Nobody, I must tell you that another Republican representative is in favor of the concept of a tiered registry, but his provisions are less, far less favorable to most of our circumstances. So you’re partly right. On the other hand, I’d hate to have this bill voted down only to have this fellow reintroduce a far tougher version next year. One that will be even harder to amend. I think part of the problem is that everyone wants to win the war, but we can only do that one battle at a time.


“The Art of war”

Sun Tzu said:
Avoid what is strong. Attack what is weak.

Sun Tzu’s teachings can be applied to any type of conflict.

I’m a proponent of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”, but looking into Nuero-Linguistic Programming (NLP), Prayer and being involved locally at church meeting and city council meetings to apply pressure every way possible. You can’t pop a pimple by applying one sided pressure. More points and different areas of influence can move mountains. I actually believe the registry (in time) will be a thing of the past, but not until we hold our courts and churches accountable to support the principle of the Bible and that of the Constitution. Our numbers are growing and more people will be getting… Read more »

Bill, I gave you a thumbs up. I don’t know if you’re right or wrong but I do appreciate your input; And, I’ve never been into being politically correct as there seems to be too much of that going around these days.

In addition to testifying before the Public Safety Committee, California RSOL actively lobbied in support of the tiered registry bill (AB 702) for two days. We met with staff and members to discuss the reasons to support the bill. During the meetings, we were told that the tide is shifting, that more elected officials understand that sex offender laws were passed in haste without regard to future unintended consequences. We were encouraged by what we heard and yet we know that there is much yet to be done. We will return to lobby in May the month in which the… Read more »

This is very good news. I remember my lawyer telling me back in 1997 that the pendilum is on the wrong side and it will need to sway the other way for things to change. It sounds like it is happening 16 years later. Thank you for your hard work for the cause.

While I appreciate the efforts, I still don’t throw my support in for reasons I’ve stated in the past. This wouldn’t do much for me, due to the fact that I have a second conviction in which I was forced into a plea on a bogus case. In spite of having a fictitious victim on both cases, and only serving a total of 14 months on five felonies(showing how these were not serious cases), AB702 would still have me on the registry for 20 years as tier 2.

Wouldn’t do much for you? YOU WILL BE OFF the registry at some point. If it were me …life…or twenty ..I’ll take the twenty.



For all you who chose to thumbs down on my post, think about this…as it stands now, I at least have a chance to get off the registry in ten years. With AB702, I won’t have that. While it works great on most of you, it doesn’t work great for me. I would rather have a chance to get off the registry in ten years than twenty.

I think I now know why Bill G is on the registry. He needs counseling. Furthermore, I get the impression that even if and when this bill is passed, he will remain on the Registry. Sad to say.

RSOL CA… How dare you censor my last comment to ***

*** edited *** @Capt Jack – please refrain from name calling if you would like your contributions published. Feel free to use the feedback form to air any grievances you may have with this action. Thank you. Moderator

@ Janice B….. Why are you supporting this bill ? We want to ABOLISH the registry, once and for all !!! What is your thinking here? Have you been bought ? Please advise. Thx

Looks like censorship is alive and well on the rsol forum.

Just so the others know, it was USA I was pointing the finger at for making negative comments against another. He/she did it to me once before, and I let it ride, but this time I came down on him/her and was censored for my trouble.

If that’s the way it is here, I won’t be back!

RSOL, fighting for the constitutional rights of all citizens, as long as they agree with us.

I thought ABOLISHING the entire registry is our GOAL. Am I missing something here ? Please someone explain this to me 🙂 Are we dismanteling the registry a little bit at a time in the hopes that eventually it will not exist? Why do we put a stamp on changing an unconstitutional registry? Please explain/help. Thx 🙂

Unfortunately the US Supreme Court ruled the registry is not unconstitutional. This battle to get people off the registry with ab 702, at this time, is the best way to do that. I choose this route rather than batlle the even more uphill fight with the USSC.

I haven’t seen anything on it yet, but does the new registered tier mention anything about the Megan’s Law website? I am a misdemeanor 647.6 lifetime RSO, but I was granted exclusion from the Megan’s law website of RSO’s. With this new bill, will that change? If I remember correctly, the last bill would have eliminated exclusions from Megan’s law and made it mandatory that everyone be included on the website. Furthermore, Janice, is there any talk that misdemeanor sections such as mine will be dropped to a tier 1 status before this is passed or is it pretty set… Read more »

That’s a good question. Does anyone have any idea if the Megan’s site tiers will be affected?

P.S. Thank you RSOL and Janice for your enlighten minds and hard work!

Regarding those worried about being placed into Tier 2: Isn’t there a petition process build into the bill whereby a Tier 2 registrant may petition to be moved down to Tier 1? If so, then there’s always that avenue, right?

EVERYONE needs to support this bill. It’s a HUGE step in the right direction. Rome wasn’t built in a day!

Dear Anthony, Anonymous Nobody, td777, and others with similar views, Your situations suck. No doubt about that. Abolishing the registry would be great, wouldn’t it? It would be a dream-come-true. But this is the real world. And dreams don’t come true. Unfortunately, we are dealing with people who are very quite often, more interested in re-election than in righteousness. If we walk in there, if *I* walk in there, a registrant, and say: “Look, you people are insane and we want you to ABOLISH the registry”, then how do you think they are going to respond? It has taken 73… Read more »

Just FYI, I never said anything about a conviction for what I “thought about.” In fact, I never said anything about any conviction concerning me. Also, I never called for abolishing the registry — I said to get these details right, or you might find yourself very sorry later, in a veritable quagmire. I called instead to simply conform to the federal requirements for tiers and registry, to stop trying the losing argument about nitty gritty details about this, that and the other sex offense, and simply argue for conforming. You must have me confused with someone else.

You are correct, it seems I got you mixed up with td777. Either way, you have finally convinced us that you are right and we are totally wrong. Why are we even wasting our time, gas, energy, money…etc…to lobby the capitol? I say let’s do everything we possibly can to make sure that this bill doesn’t pass and that it winds up an utter and total failure. In fact, let’s just withdraw it altogether. Somebody call the Appropriations Committee and all the staffers we’ve met with and tell them we changed our mind. We don’t want a tiered registry, at… Read more »

Your nasty attitude is inappropriate. Its also quite misguided. Gee, even Janice has said the bill will be open to any number of changes once introduced. But you don’t want to talk about any changes, want to jam it through even with any problems in it simply because it is there. You’re arguing with blinders on.

Hi Michael,
all I am saying is that it’s too late to go back and make any changes at this point. That being the case, what do you suggest we do?

I should add that I’ve never said that the bill can’t be revised or amended later. That’s something that I think everyone should be able to agree on. But right now it’s too late to be amended. It’s already passed the Public Safety hearing. It’s preparing to go through the Appropriations hearing next month. However, I think that some minor concerns shouldn’t necessarily translate into “I don’t support this bill”, its like saying “I hope it fails.” And that is insulting to those of who are working our fingers to the bone to get it passed. Additionally, when we met… Read more »

Too late to be amended?! My god, man, you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, this it the VERY time bills get amended! They are introduced, and then are routinely negotiated with amendments. Bills will get amended multiple times during their course through the Legislature. THIS is the time for amending it. It isn’t a matter of being too late, this is the very time for it. As in, Legislator X doesn’t like this, wants to simply conform to the federal standards, so this bill is amended to do so, accommodating him or her. A little… Read more »

By “too late”, what I mean is that it has already been passed through the first committee hearing and sent to another. A few minor amendments were already made. But right now, the bill is between committees. I admit that while I’m still pretty new to legislation at the State level (and not all States necessarily work exactly the same way), I know that in the Federal legislature, once a bill has passed a subcommittee’s approval, or several, if you make *substantial* amendments, then it is reassigned a new number and sent back to the floor where the process practically… Read more »

Again, this bill, as it’s written now, denies me the chance to get off the registry sooner than 20 years. Currently, I have a chance, however remote, to work on getting off it after ten years. I have a family, this affects more than just me. If I currently have a chance of getting off it after ten, I’d like to be able to take that chance, my family needs me to have that chance. It is not a matter of not appreciating CARSOL or Janice and the work they do at all. I think they are doing a great… Read more »

To whoever it was who felt this needed a thumbs down for me to consider what would be in the best interest of my family, you obviously don’t have a family and are the one indeed only thinking of yourself. As for me, I will continue to support anything that is in the best interest of my family, not myself. If having a chance to get off the registry in ten years rather than twenty is in my families best interest, then that is what I will support.

Yet another thumbs down. Evidently some people don’t like that there are those of us who are not just looking out for ourselves but our families as well.

This forum is no place for a setup with a thumbs down. It is moderated and that is enough. Shame on the web designer for discouraging healthy discussions by allowing silent and cowardly objections to opposing opinions.

I don’t think that is necessarily the reason for receiving a ‘thumbs down’. I hadn’t seen your comment myself until recently. I think the problem is that some of us are thinking of about 100,000 registrants’ families. If each registrant has 2 parents, 1 kid, and a wife (not to mention the in-laws), then that’s an additional 200,000 to 400,000 people affected by these laws, minimal. Its not that anyone blames you for looking out for *your* family, but some of us are fighting for everybody’s families. At least other families would have a little light at the end of… Read more »

I am also thinking about the others. However, there is NOTHING wrong with me thinking of my family first. Unfortunately, too many here seem to me they don’t respect that I’m doing that.

@mh……aka (Anthony)I was just asking for some clarification. Please be easy on people like me who just want justice like all of us here. Lead by showing some compassionin the words you use here. We always are asking for compassoon from our lawmakers regarding RSO”s- Lead by example here,as well. Nobody wins when you make condescending statements. I was somply asking a question, now I understand this bill a little better & also the approach. @mh…have some patience please. We are all in this together. Cheers !!! 🙂

I think my message sounded more condescending than I intended. For that I apologize. Actually, I was more-or-less trying to give a rousing pep talk, albeit with a little admonishment. 😉

The tiered registry bill, AB 702, was passed by the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly earlier this week. The next step toward passage is consideration by the Appropriations Committee on May 23 or 24. In order to increase the likelihood that the bill is passed by the Appropriations Committee, California RSOL will return to Sacramento on May 20 and 21 in order to lobby in support of AB 702, the tiered registry bill. Hope you can join us there! In the meantime, please write letters, send E-mails and/or call members of the Appropriations Committee. A list of the 16… Read more »

Here is a sample letter that can be sent to members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Please personalize it, but keep it to one page. Thank you! (Your address and date here) Dear Assembly Member: The purpose of this letter is to request your support for Assembly Bill 702 (AB 702), which would reduce state and local spending by $115 million a year as well as increase public safety by eliminating individuals from the sex offender registry who no longer pose a public risk. This bill was passed by the Public Safety Committee on April 16 and is supported by… Read more »

First I’d like to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard at getting AB702 in motion. It’s very exciting to see what can happen when a great leader and selfless volunteer like Janice Bellucci takes on a personal challenge to improve the lives of the many families that are suffering from the reckless laws that have been passed due to fear and undisputed rationale. I don’t exactly know what tier I’ll end up on if this bill passes, I’m just happy to see progress. It’s given my spirits a boost from what they were a few years ago when I… Read more »

Thank you for an honest and heartfelt expression! We appreciate your support.

This is a link to the California Public Safety Committee:

Shocking to hear reason and rational thought and statements being used by a governmental entity.

Perhaps California might actually make a good decision for a change. (Not holding breath however)!

I listend to what some people opposing of AB 702 and i find it quite funny. The same lady who i’m sure voted to make the SO management board in place are saying that it is ineffective. Why on earth would you keep something in place that isn’t working ? I wish i could sit down with these people and debate these matters.

I just watched the video. I felt sorry for the father of the offender. Did the blonde woman opposing the Bill even understand what she was talking about?

One of the key factors about the success of the bill is the fact that the bill is being promoted more as a “community safety” issue than as a “registrant activist” issue. I am a bit puzzled by the opposition’s assertion for a >40% recidivism rate for registrants, and that argument should be slammed out of the ballpark when it comes to approaching the representatives.

The “first test”…????……should have been if it was Constitutional
or not………….might save alot of finger pointing tier 3 are the bad
guys…..after all…pleading guilty is the difference between 1 and. 2
to 3 for majority………don’t forget the Constitution ….it works.

Does anyone know the status of the challenge of the ban on use of parks by RSOs in four Orange County cities: Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach and Lake Forest? The suit was filed in US District Court on October 1st 2012, by a John Doe and represented by the San Francisco lawyer Dennis Riordan. I believe the case number is 8:2012cv01665. I’m interested in learning the status to this action.

I am new to this website. Can someone please explain me how the new law may effect to someone with 664-288(A)- PC charge .any hope?Thank you.

Can someone explain how the new law being proposed may effect someone being charged with 311.11(a)? Peer-to-peer file sharing case…3 illegal files found among a massive collection of legal files. Was arrested in 2012 and my case is still pending. Would the new law prevent me from applying for a Certificate of Rehabilitation after 10 years? Would my charge be a Tier 1 under the new law…meaning I could stop registering after 10 years? God bless Janice and everyone else (staff, volunteers, those who donate their time or money to the cause, etc) involved in giving RSO’s and their families… Read more »

Dear MS, There is nothing in the bill that says you *cannot* apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation at any time. It would depend on whether or not your offense is listed along with those that are not eligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation (e.g. 288(a)). So long as you keep your nose clean and do not reoffend after your legal proceedings are over, AB 702 should allow you to get off of the registry 10 years from the date you commenced registering. Don’t get into any trouble between now and your hearing/sentencing. Avoid any high-risk situation, anyone… Read more »

311 offenses can apply for a certificate of rehabilitation after 7 years, not 10 years. A couple-few of the misdemeanors can apply after 7 years, not 10, and 311 is one of them (314.1 indecent exposure is another one).

I see no mention of a certificate in this bill, so I presume this bill does not affect the time when you may apply. However, it certainly would have a psychological influence on whether you are granted it — the court will figure why give it when you will be out under this bill three years later anyway.

That’s not necessarily true. For one thing, judges and courts do follow technicalities strictly, that’s what got most of us into this mess in the first place. On the other hand, with a clever attorney, a judge may be afraid not to grant the CoR since the person would be off the registry in 3 years. The implication of the 10 year provision is that a person should be relatively “safe” 10 years after their offense. By denying a CoR 3 years before the person gets off anyway could raise doubts about their risk level to public safety, calling the… Read more »

You have really stretched with that argument. Its not going to work anything like that in the real world — that’s just wishful thinking. The judge specifically has no requirement to grant the certificate and there is absolutely no standard you can meet under which he must grant it, he can act completely capriciously and they do. In fact, if we are going to pass tiers with the requirement that you apply at the end to be removed, then you can bet they will raise that denial of a certificate as reason to deny that application. There is nothing in… Read more »

Could you please direct me to which page and which line of AB 702 you are referring to when you say: “if we are going to pass tiers with the requirement that you apply at the end to be removed”? I can’t find it and I just re-read the entire bill. You’re a very intelligent person, but much of your reasoning regarding ‘having to apply to get off the registry’ seems to be begging the question and largely conjectural. Going over the bill yet again, the language implies that it is an automatic end to the duty to register. Therefore… Read more »

Thanks all the info…much appreciated. 311.11(a) is a wobbler but I’m being charged with a felony (my lawyer tells me the county I live in never offers anybody a misdomeanor with these cases) and my lawyer was thinking I would have to wait 10 years before I could apply for a COR. He sais the 10 years would start after I completed probation which would mean a total of 13 years. I must admit…my lawyer didn’t really seem all that sure about these details and was trying to look the details up online rather than telling me with certainty. I’m… Read more »

I am so sorry. You’re currently going through what so many of us have already gone through. As you’re already beginning to realize, your attorney actually knows very little about the particulars of sex-offender laws off-hand. Especially since the laws change so frequently these days. In the case of my attorney at the time, I don’t think he really cared either. But at least you have somewhat of a support group through this site to walk you through some of it. If your offense is charged as a felony and you do prison time, you will more than likely be… Read more »

As it stands now I’m facing jail & probation rather than prison & parole. Praying that I don’t end up on Megan’s Law site. Never had been in trouble with the law before this. I don’t drink, smoke, do drugs, do anything crazy, hang out with party people, go to clubs or bars, etc. When people heard about what happen to me…people were in shock. Nobody (friends, family, wife, etc) knew I had a 3 decade old porn addiction until it resulted in my arrest.

If I understand the law correctly then a PC 664-288(a) is simply an *attempted* 288(a). I’ll have to do some digging around in the law but I do not believe any distinction exists between an attempted 288(a) and an actual 288(a). To my knowledge, they are treated the same. If so then your charge would automatically place you on Tier 2 since it is defined as a “Violent Felony” pursuant to PC 667.5(c). If you have no other offenses, have not reoffended, and have not broken the law otherwise since that conviction, then you would be eligible to leave the… Read more »

Since I have an “attempted” 288 (a) will I elegible to take the TEST and get rated for less then 20 years? The SORNA was not available when I got released 10 years ago? I have never been in any kind of trouble before or since?

Latest on 702 with a definition:

AB 702 was placed in the “suspense file” when I first read that I thought it was done but here is the definition:

“Suspense File

A holding place for bills which carry appropriations over a specified dollar amount. The suspense file is a function of the fiscal committee in both houses. Bills are generally held on the suspense file before the adoption of the Budget Bill and just before the summer recess.”

Finally a little help to those of us that are being put in the same category as child molesters and rapist we are not. Public sex with 2 consenting adults is wrong but nothing near molesting a child!!! Public urination neither!!! In descent exposure the same!!! They finally passed prop 36 and I believe non violent criminals such as drug users or receiving stolen property criminals should not have been given life in prison but counseling and help. Thank you for those fighting for this for us!! As this will help me much I recently had spine surgery and want… Read more »

Could someone please update me what is going on with Bill ab 702? I can’t find anything on it other than articles from two years ago.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x