ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLCalifornia

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 www.asm.ca.gov.

Join the discussion

  1. steve

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

  2. Brody

    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 attractiveness of the young lady’s bathing suit – her mother felt ‘uncomfortable’ with that as I was over the age of 18). I’m afraid that the offense description (Annoying or Molesting a Minor) is connoting to lawmakers the false impression that one convicted of a violation of this statute necessarily has committed a physical, lewd act with a child. This just isn’t so. I hope the Assemblymen/Legislature will be made aware that it would be unfair to place me in the tier 2 category for stupidly and absentmindedly typing a few questionable words on the computer to someone I had never met in my life: words that included no intent to seduce, no transmission of any obscene material, and no intent to entice or actually meet anyone in person. Nonetheless, the court determined that the remark I emailed to the young lady was “more than likely” sexually motivated. Guilty. End of story. Register as a sex offender for life. Please help. Thank you Janice.

  3. Staying Positive

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

    http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=785642

  4. mrspot1985

    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.

  5. BillG (again)

    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 descent into government-catered blood thirst and a miserable precedent to establish in a society dedicated to justice and freedom.

    AB702 will make your life even more hellish.
    Don’t support it, don’t tell Mrs. Bellucci, Esq. what a great thing this is because it’s not!

    It’s a boldfaced terrorist agenda designed to further degrade the Constitution of these United States to the benefit of the Police State.

    You do not understand that they hate you. They are allowed to hate you because the Government needs an enemy at home. You are it. Anything they do..*anything*..is to their advantage only. Nothing short of a full dismantling of the registry will devolve to your favor as a registrant.

    Now wake-up.

    • C

      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 you have found enough diversion that bring you some joy. Being an RSO sucks, but it’s not the end of the world. I’d take this over getting my legs blown off in Boston, or see that happen to my little ones. Keep it in perspective.

      You are clearly a very intelligent person. If you still can’t come to support AB702 then I hope you can figure out a way to win this battle on your own with the single crushing blow you feel you is required.

    • Joe

      @BillG (again) – another rhetorical fireworks…. could not agree with you more. Please publish your plan on how to achieve your stated and only acceptable goal, and I will be first in line to support it.

      Until then I will stick with the people who spend their time and money, risk their necks, names, reputations and livelihoods, and actually get stuff done, thank you very much.

      Thank you Janice et al.

    • Diana

      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 concern us all, but unfortunately, that won’t work in the current environment.

      I know that Janice et al are working diligently to help us in the best possible way at this time. Keep the faith. We will win eventually.

    • mh

      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 have another 12 years until I could get off under this provision. Why did I go down and lobby the representatives for the past 2 days? What’s in it for me? In fact, do you know that several staff members asked me just that question?

      The reason I am now taking an active role in our cause (and yes, there is a “we”), is because I’m trying to help my neighbors. Besides, its an obvious beginning to better things. This year we push for a tiered registry, next year (or eventually) we push to redefine some of the charges and what exactly constitutes a “Violent Felony.”

      I heartily encourage any of you that may have been thinking about becoming proactive in fighting alongside the RSOL to step right up and go for it. Think of your neighbors! Think of the kids living across the street who may end up on the registry for some stupid law technicality, think of your OWN kids! Think of the 60-year-old man who has to pull over to the side of the road to relieve himself because of an existing prostate condition! For crying out loud, think of MORE THAN JUST YOURSELF. Use your crappy case to highlight just how asinine these laws are. Believe me, WE ARE CITIZENS. WE PAY TAXES. The lawmakers must listen to us. And they do. You won’t believe how many of them are reasonable and are perplexed by the concept of Ex Post Facto laws, juveniles registering for “molesting” other juveniles, and a man urinating in his own backyard while his neighbor spies on him through the lines in the fence! Fight for the cause and you fight for yourself.

      Hope is the only thing stronger than fear! And power exists in numbers! Stop whining and be proactive!

      • Anonymous Nobody

        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 here, because the devil is definitely in them. We are charging forward with some cheering about some overall concept of tiers, but the devil is going to undermine what you think you are getting.

        Details, such as an assessment for the tiers — no assessment should be allowed, just an offense should automatically be a certain tier. Why should a misdemeanor be assessed to see if it should be more than tier 1; actually, why should a misdemeanor be in a tier that is any longer than 0 years (that is all the feds require, and these tiers are modeled on the federal standard — but notably tougher) — why isn’t there a much lesser tier at least, if not zero? The federal standard is a minimum on 10 years — only because it doesn’t require any SOR for the lesser offenses.

        Another detail with the devil in it: having to apply at the end of the term for your tier in order to be able to stop registering. Why? They already know when your time ends, don’t need you to notify them. If you have to apply, they will twist that rule to use it against you — and maybe deny you permission. They will argue that it implicitly means they can do so — for why would they have to review the application if they can’t say no. Again, this should work simply as a statute of limitations would work — after that much time passes form date of conviction, registration no longer is applicable, can’t be imposed.

        Even the assessment — to be done by any number of people in any number of positions,l from the local probation officer to a sate panel. If you get stuck with a probation officer with a problem with sex offenders, you can count on a higher tier for you. Nix this assessment stuff!

        And this is going to create a huge bureaucracy of all these people doing assessments and reviewing applications to stop registering that will backfire — that will become a significant lobby to fight for more and tougher measure against SOs, certainly to preserve at least the status quo in order to preserve their jobs, — just like the prison guard lobby. So forget any more increments to improve the situation, as it just will not be the least bit possible. This is it — you better get it right.

        Nix these assessments, nix these application reviews — there is no benefit to the state for them, they only create a fraudulent bureaucracy that will be a lobby against us. If you leave that devil detail in there.

        Better yet, since you are modeling it on the federal standards, just instead go to the federal standards, rather than leave this state out of whack with the feds and with a tougher standard. Taking the overall argument to simply conform to the federal requirements is a sellable idea right now — but not once things get established and the lobby is in place. The federal standards would drop many offenses for which California requires registration, and the rest of the offenses would be at the minimum the state will be able to do. (Less than the federal standard isn’t realistic because the state would lose too much federal money if it doesn’t comply.) Stop arguing about this little detail, and that little detail, and what a great thing it is to get anything at all, and instead just flat out adopt the federal standards that already are in place.

        Talking details about this sex offense and that sex offense is a losing argument, only gives any opposition all the hypability it could ever want, so stick with the broad argument to simply conform. Keep it simple: Make this bill for tiers simply conform to federal standards, and no more.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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 required to register.

          Again, this needs to be written like a statute of limitations, not like a sentence to be served. The devil is in these details — and more of them than I have mentioned.

        • crosman

          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 ago my entire live was literally turned upside down, and I stood at the bottom staring up at the highest mountain with no possible way to ascend. For those eight years all thoughts were hopeless. But as the story goes the little Ant kept butting that DAM because he had HIGH HOPES! What motivated him to begin a seemingly imposable task? How many times did he butt the Dam? Why didn’t the little Ant draft a plan to bring it down in one sweep? Could he have possibly come to the realization the scoop of his mission would be to stealthily take small butts and thereby accomplish his ultimate goal?

          I feel the RSOL have like the little Ant is beginning to butt a very LARGE DAMM. And yes as for me I have been given HIGH, HIGH HOPES.

          Anonymous Nobody says: “Again, this needs to be written like a statute of limitations, not like a sentence to be served. The devil is in these details — and more of them than I have mentioned.”

          Whether we agree or disagree is not the question. Like an automobile the engine has been started, the wheels have been placed in motion.

          Therefore I feel it’s important it is to support AB 702, stick together become a mighty army!

          Yes indeed the tide is shifting, that more elected officials understand that sex offender laws were passed in haste without regard to future unintended consequences is a travesty.

        • Bam Bam

          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.

        • mh

          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.

  6. Capt. Jack

    Bill,

    “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.

    • Robert Curtis

      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 involved by those that ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE!

  7. alert

    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.

  8. Janice Bellucci

    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 Appropriations Committee is expected to consider the bill. After that, the full Assembly will be asked to vote for the bill at a date not yet determined. THIS IS A CRITICAL TIME! Please contact your elected officials and let them know how important it is to support AB 702.

    • steve

      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.

    • td777

      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.

      • steve

        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.

      • td777

        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.

  9. USA

    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.

  10. Capt. Jack

    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

  11. Anthony

    @ 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

  12. Capt. Jack

    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.

  13. Anthony

    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 🙂

    • steve

      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.

  14. Anonymous

    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 as it’s currently written?

    Thank you for any input.

    • K

      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!

  15. G4Change

    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!

  16. mh

    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 years to build this quandary of a system. Do you really think we can utterly annihilate it in a couple of sessions? This system is built on fear, misinformation, ignorance, sensationalism and even apathy. First is overcoming the fear by presenting reasonableness and coherency. Next is combating the misinformation by educating these folks with accurate information and eliminating their ignorance by providing logical arguments and real-world examples of just how impractical the registry is. The sensationalism is difficult to combat due to the media and pseudo-organizations such as Crime Victims United, constantly catastrophizing singular instances of deplorable crimes. However, some are beginning to recognize such stratagems. Apathy isn’t as hard to combat once you have a receptive audience – as long as they are willing to listen, then relating our personal experiences often provokes them to empathy. But we have to offer a reasonable compromise. With all due respect, you guys are forgetting that when we present such bills and lobby the representatives for support, we are entering a POLITICAL arena. Must I even elaborate on the games and agenda of politicians? Right now, the public is not yet educated enough. But public opinion is slowly starting to shift. Slowly. But even so.

    Anonymous Nobody, I’m sorry you were convicted for crimes that you only *thought about*. Rest assured that cases like yours were discussed with some of the representatives. One Democratic member (an actual representative instead one from their staff) actually said something to the effect of ‘They’re becoming the thought-police. If people got arrested for all the bad things they thought about then we’d all be in prison!’ He said that in relation to a case similar to yours that we discussed.

    Now, may I remind all of you yet again that my offense occurred as a juvenile. L&L w/ Minor Under 14, when I was only 13! Its absurd! And everyone we met with agreed. It is shocking to know that such a thing can happen. Yet even if this bill passes, I will be 40 years old before I’m off the registry. 40! How do you think that makes me feel? I was convicted when I was 20! I am being robbed of my best years. I will be middle-aged when I get off the registry if we make no further advancements after this bill passes. Yes, some will push back. But we will push back harder. I’m sorry to sound harsh when I say this, but seriously – if you want the registry abolished then get off your duff and get your rear up to the capitol! Go to the representatives’ offices and tell them that! Find another representative who is willing to write a bill like that. And for pity’s sake, pick up a copy of ‘Politics for Dummies’ while you’re at it.

    Janice is working hard. She is working hard for you. YOU. She is working hard FOR YOU. She has no registrants in her family. Why does she need to do this? You all should be ashamed. Janice is an experienced attorney, what are you? Someone who sits around and reads bills and says “Poor, poor, poor ME! Poor, poor pitiful ME!” Get proactive. DO SOMETHING. You want big change? Do something about it. The law sucks. The legislation makes no sense. But for now, we have to fight fire with fire.

    Did you ever go over the part about ‘finding a cause greater than yourself’ in SO Therapy? For 8 years I was just like you. But I decided that if ‘this lady’ is fighting for me and she doesn’t even know me, then maybe I ought to back her up a little bit. I’m moving waaaaaaay out of my comfort zone here. I’m a professional musician and had a public image to maintain, but that’s all over now. I have a business that is known both nationally and worldwide, as far as Japan, Australia, the UK, other parts of Europe. I’m no household name, but many people know me. I’m potentially throwing it all away to fight for the cause. But it also felt good to talk with some of the lawmakers and share my pain with them. For most of them, it hits too close to home. Especially to those with kids or family members who they are thinking about. Change will come. It will come. But frankly, Janice and the RSOL need more support. Get involved. Do something about it. What do you have to lose by writing some letters? By lobbying the capital or testifying at hearings? Put up a blog about how crappy your situation is from one day to the next. But don’t sit there and whine about how unhappy you are when these people are working tirelessly for you. Many people flew or drove into Sacramento at their own expense on Tuesday and Wednesday. Airlines, rental cars, parking garages, meal breaks…it adds up! Not to mention rising early in the morning, working until night. Answering phone calls, emails, holding meetings, going from one appointment to the next. Some people placed their customers on hold and are now dealing with angry people, jeopardizing their income because they blew everything off for 2 days. If the RSOL isn’t giving you what you want or need, then setup your own organization to handle it for you. Or go find one that does. But don’t sit in front of a computer screen and whine and complain to the ONLY PEOPLE YOU HAVE ON YOUR SIDE RIGHT NOW.

    You want change? Make it happen. Find a cause greater than yourself and make it your passion. Or you can sit there and moan about ‘how bad your life sucks’, and in case you hadn’t already been told – WELCOME TO THE F***ING CLUB. Did you ever wonder if that’s how you ended up in this situation in the first place? Who and what were you thinking about when you ‘didn’t commit your offense’? Were you thinking about your family and your friends? Your potential victim? Were you thinking about the law? Or were you thinking about “ME”?

    Join us in May on the steps of the capitol in Sacramento, go tell the legislators how you feel. Then after you get thrown out of their offices for such an asinine request, then you can sit here and dictate terms to Janice and the rest of us.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      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.

      • mh

        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 least not right now. I’m sure they will understand. Then we can ask Tom Ammiano to write rewrite it next year. I’m sure he’ll be happy to do it, seeing as how we’re not intentionally wasting his time. After all, he’s the one who wrote the bill. So it must be his fault that we didn’t get those pesky details ironed out. Surely, this is the biggest waste of time and resources to come along since the Hindenburg.

        Somebody call Janice and tell her that we’ve all CHANGED OUR MINDS. Lets wait and start all over again next year. I’m sure that Rep. Melendez will be more favorable to voting in our favor next year.

        I’m glad we listened to Anonymous Nobody. What a complete waste of time that was. Now I can get back to doing more productive things, like complaining about my lot in life.

        • Michael

          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.

        • mh

          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?

        • mh

          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 with the representatives earlier this week, there were a few instances of hostility. This is a touchy subject and I know everyone is worried about the fine details. Honestly, so am I. I’m not so happy about having to wait an additional 12 years to be free of the registry. And like one of the representatives likewise expressed – I’m concerned that being free of the registry has nothing to do with expunging records, vacating sentence, or otherwise restoring our rights. However, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” This bill needs to pass. Every time it gets voted down it becomes harder to sell during the following year or session. We can amend the bill and push for more reforms to many of the aforementioned problems once its passed. But if we withdraw this right now, it will cause a lot of raised eyebrows and perhaps even tick a few people off.

          Now, I apologize if my attitude sounds “nasty” or “inappropriate” but I use a lot of satire, irony and hyperbole to sometimes get my point across. Either way, I mean no offense when I say this but seriously, how many people who leave comments on this forum are actively supporting RSOL policies and endeavors? If you meet with us and support the effort, get your hands a little dirty, its easy to see just how difficult all of this really is. And it is terribly demoralizing to hear the people we’re fighting for (besides ourselves obviously), nitpicking and complaining. Especially when they make statements like ‘this bill is a mistake’ or ‘this bill is not “a start”‘ (and I was picking up on the sarcasm loud and clear in that statement), or ‘I still don’t throw my support’, or ‘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?’.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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 word change here and there, a sentence added there, a sentence changed here, a sentence taken out there. That is how bills go through the Legislature — and that is what Janice was referring to previoulsy.

        • m h

          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 starts all over again.

          Another thing to consider is this –

          California has one of the strictest and inflexible sex offender laws in the union. And most legislatures are ignorant, fearful and self-righteous. They don’t understand that people make mistakes, that others may need positive therapy, and/or that sexual crimes are often the result of a psychological or mental problem that could be corrected by preventative and proactive measures. (A whole other problem is that Republicans feel all people should work and pay for their own mental health, which restricts access to the poor.) Since this is the premise we have to work from, we must remember that to get these lawmakers to budge *at all* is going to take nothing short of a miracle.

          The following is a copy & paste quote from SORNA’s guidelines:

          “…to implement the SORNA requirements, jurisdictions do not have to label their sex offenders as “tier I,” “tier I,” and “tier III,” and do not have to adopt any other particular approach to labeling or categorization of sex offenders. Rather, the SORNA requirements are met so long as sex offenders who satisfy the SORNA criteria for placement in a particular tier are consistently subject to at least the duration of registration, frequency of in-person appearances for verification, and extent of website disclosure that SORNA requires for that tier.”

          Additionally –

          “For example, suppose that a jurisdiction decides to subject all sex offenders to lifetime registration, quarterly verification appearances, and full website posting as described in Part VII of these Guidelines. That would meet the SORNA requirements with respect to sex offenders satisfying the “tier III” criteria, and exceed the minimum required by SORNA with respect to sex offenders satisfying the “tier II” or “tier I” criteria. Hence, such a jurisdiction would be able to implement the SORNA requirements with respect to all sex offenders without any labeling or categorization, and without having to assess individual registrants against the tier criteria in the SORNA definitions. Likewise, any other approach a jurisdiction may devise is acceptable if it ensures that sex offenders satisfying the criteria for each SORNA tier are subject to duration of registration, appearance frequency, and website disclosure requirements that meet or exceed those SORNA requires for the tier.”

          So arguing for conformance to the “Federal standards” is sort of a loaded argument that our opponents are going to rip apart. They will point out this provision in SORNA’s guidelines – that these only represent a MINIMUM set of standards. And I’m sure some of our opponents will misinterpret California’s obvious failure as a strength by citing that California in fact does have the strictest laws in the country regarding sex offenders. And since California has the strictest laws, they would likely argue that to pass a bill conforming our current laws to SORNA’s MINIMUM standard, would represent a “softening stance” on sex offenders – something that nobody would support.

          I write this with as much respect and humility for you as I can, my friend. I’m only pointing out a possible, if not probable, argument against conforming current laws with Federal standards. It may hurt us more than it helps us in the end.

    • td777

      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 job. I simply cannot support the bill as it is currently worded since it adds ten years more to the minimum time I have to spend like this. If the bill still gave me the chance after ten, I’d definitely be supportive. If the bill more clearly related the time spent on the registry to the severity of the conviction/sentencing, then I’d even more be supportive.

      • td777

        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.

        • td777

          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.

        • alert

          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.

        • mh

          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 the tunnel. If the bill doesn’t pass, then (I suppose) you get off the registry pretty soon and then your family is doing well from here on out. Are you and/or your family gonna stick around, so to speak, and help lobby for the other half-million or so people who are still suffering?

          I mean no offense, just trying to help you see the bigger picture. Honestly, I used to feel exactly the same way you do. I don’t blame you. I respectfully disagree with you, but I don’t blame you.

          (I’m giving your last comment a thumbs up! 😉

        • td777

          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.

  17. Turtle

    @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 !!! 🙂

    • mh

      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. 😉

  18. Janice Bellucci

    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 committee members, including contact information, is below. Attached is a sample letter as well as a point paper to get you started. Please personalize letters, but keep them short — one page maximum if possible. Thank you! Janice

    Appropriations Committee Members

    Mike Gatto (Chair)

    Democrat – District 43

    Contact Assembly Member Mike Gatto
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2114, Sacramento, CA 94249-0043; (916) 319-2043

    Diane L. Harkey (Vice Chair)

    Republican – District 73

    Contact Assembly Member Diane L. Harkey
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 6027, Sacramento, CA 94249-0073; (916) 319-2073

    Franklin E. Bigelow

    Rep – 05

    Contact Assembly Member Franklin E. Bigelow
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 4116, Sacramento, CA 94249-0005; (916) 319-2005

    Raul Bocanegra

    Dem – 39

    Contact Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 4167, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039; (916) 319-2039

    Steven Bradford

    Dem – 62

    Contact Assembly Member Steven Bradford
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 5136, Sacramento, CA 94249-0062; (916) 319-2062

    Ian C. Calderon

    Dem – 57

    Contact Assembly Member Ian C. Calderon
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 5150, Sacramento, CA 94249-0057; (916) 319-2057

    Nora Campos

    Dem – 27

    Contact Assembly Member Nora Campos
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 3013, Sacramento, CA 94249-0027; (916) 319-2027

    Tim Donnelly

    Rep – 33

    Contact Assembly Member Tim Donnelly
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2002, Sacramento, CA 94249-0033; (916) 319-2033

    Susan Eggman

    Dem – 13

    Contact Assembly Member Susan Talamantes Eggman
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2003, Sacramento, CA 94249-0013; (916) 319-2013

    Jimmy Gomez

    Dem – 51

    Contact Assembly Member Jimmy Gomez
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2176, Sacramento, CA 94249-0051; (916) 319-2051

    Isadore Hall, III

    Dem – 64

    Contact Assembly Member Isadore Hall, III
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 3123, Sacramento, CA 94249-0064; (916) 319-2064

    Chris R. Holden

    Dem – 41

    Contact Assembly Member Chris R. Holden
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 5119, Sacramento, CA 94249-0041; (916) 319-2041

    Eric Linder

    Rep – 60

    Contact Assembly Member Eric Linder
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2016, Sacramento, CA 94249-0060; (916) 319-2060

    Richard Pan

    Dem – 09

    Contact Assembly Member Richard Pan
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 6005, Sacramento, CA 94249-0009; (916) 319-2009

    Bill Quirk

    Dem – 20

    Contact Assembly Member Bill Quirk
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020

    Donald P. Wagner

    Rep – 68

    Contact Assembly Member Donald P. Wagner
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2158, Sacramento, CA 94249-0068; (916) 319-2068

    Shirley N. Weber

    Dem – 79

    Contact Assembly Member Shirley N. Weber
    Capitol Office

    P.O. Box 942849, Room 5158, Sacramento, CA 94249-0079; (916) 319-2079

  19. Janice Bellucci

    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 many organizations, including the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

    The current sex offender registry law in California is outdated and ineffective because it treats all persons convicted of a sex offense exactly the same. That is, individuals convicted of non-violent, non-contact offenses are treated the same as individuals convicted of violent offenses such as multiple sexual assaults. In addition, California is 1 of only 4 states in the country (along with Alabama, South Carolina and Florida) which requires lifetime registration for all sex offenders regardless of the nature of the offense or the offender’s risk of re-offending.

    The current sex offender registry law is an ineffective method of combating sexual re-offending because it is too broad and it lasts a lifetime. In addition, it ignores the fact that sex offenders have a low rate of re-offense, only 1.9 percent rate while on parole, according to a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation report issued in October 2012, and 5 percent after. Further, a tiered registry, similar to that proposed in AB 702, is recommended by the California Sex Offender Management Board.

    California’s current budget challenges demand a fiscally responsible change to our social policy designed to prevent sexual assault. It has simply become illogical, irrational, and cost-prohibitive to expend our limited critical resources by treating all sex offenders the same.

    By supporting AB 702, you will reduce state and local government spending as well as increase public safety. Thank you for your attention on this vital matter.

    Sincerely,
    (Your name here)

  20. mike

    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 was released from prison and felt that my life was going to be one punishment handed down after another and then another. I’m on parole, wearing a GPS tracker, and have 10 pages of restrictions to abide; many of which are completely absurd and irrelevant to my initial charges. I’m standing on a narrow ledge. but it’s good to see the things that I have refuted to my Parole Officer from the beginning are coming to proof. The PO’s are just following their orders and I understand this. I just hoped I could make them question the ethics of their procedures. Jessica’s Law wasn’t on the brochure when I signed up for a Plea, Yet I’m stuck with it’s consequences.
    I feel the frustrations that many feel with AB702 not being enough, but we must hang together and continue to reinforce this movement regardless of our personal agendas. “United we stand. Divided we fall.” It would be nice if they would clean the slate like they’re proposing for the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. We could start with a new program where the tiers are determined at the time of sentencing based on all the facts of the case instead of relying on the Stat-99 or other hocus-pocus which is about as reliable as calling the Psychic Friends Network to determine a persons danger to society.

    • crosman

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

  21. SkeletonLander

    This is a link to the California Public Safety Committee: http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1133

    • Tired of hiding

      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)!

  22. K

    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.

  23. USA

    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?

  24. Eric Knight

    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.

  25. A FRIEND

    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.

  26. Charles Richmond

    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.

  27. S

    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.

    • MS

      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 hope. Thank you!!!!

      • mh

        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 under 18 years of age, or places where children *may* congregate (this is pretty subjective so use caution.) If you go to prison, as terrible as it may be, do anything and everything you’re required to do. Avoid gangs and fights. Once placed on parole (or probation, if you can avoid incarceration), do anything and everything that is required. If they say you can’t have alcohol, then stay away from alcohol. If they say you can’t possess or view pornography, then avoid pornography. If they say you can’t own or use a computer for your term, then avoid computers. Always be cordial and respectful with your probation/parole officer and any other dignitary or authority figure. Never raise your voice or talk back. Do what you’re told. When you screw up, cop to it and admit that you made a mistake. Be sincere. You want your parole officer to be glad and pleasant when they see you. They’re used to people being jerks and screwing up all the time so be determined to prove them wrong. Do your best to go above and beyond any and all that they require of you. Exceed their expectations. You will become their favorite probationer/parolee, the meetings will go smoother, and you’ll establish a small level of trust, which will go a long way if you do misstep. Remember, they are out to get you and are waiting for that moment when you screw up. They want you to fail because it justifies their job. Plus, its kind of a cruddy and negative job anyway. So exceed their expectations, make them look forward to your meetings. Maintain employment or evidence of seeking employment. Keep up with your fees as best you can. Don’t ever say “I can’t afford to pay it.” You CAN pay SOMETHING. Even if it’s only $1.00, take it out of your pocket and tell them its all you have. But don’t show up with designer tennis shoes, iPhones, or the latest and greatest thingamajiggers…pay your fines FIRST. Make it your priority. Pay them regular, and overpay them. Pay them off early and then you win their respect, plus a few small liberties. Then you can blow money on fun stuff. If you’re not sure if something might incidentally violate your probation/parole, then call your PO and ask him. Tell him you’re sincerely trying to follow your terms and didn’t want to take a chance of screwing things up. This will also go a long way in impressing the DA and the judge when you petition for other things like a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        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.

        • m h

          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 whole Tiered Registry into question, along with the judge’s credentials. A good attorney could make a valid argument as such.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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 this bill barring them from doing so, and in fact, like I have said, they will argue that the very fact an application has to be filed means it can be denied.

        • m h

          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 if your argument prevails regarding applying for an end to the duty to register, then I’m inclined to agree with you. However, the premise for my last point was based upon the fact that there is nothing in the bill which indicates that the registrant must ‘apply for exclusion’. That is something altogether different. As far as applying for “Tier I Status” beginning on page 5, line 30, and ending on page 6, line 2 – again, this is not the same thing as applying for an end to the duty to register. To write a bill that clearly states that a registrant in a certain tier would only be subject to such a requirement for a specified length of time and then to turn around and require such persons to apply to get off the registry clearly contradicts the intent of the law in the very first premise. To assume that such a provision is implied is really just begging the question when there is nothing in the bill that indicates such.

          So in essence, what I am saying is that it would be preposterous to deny someone a Certificate of Rehabilitation 3 years before the law implies that they are rehabilitated. Of course, as for the specifics and technicalities associated with law, this would not necessarily preclude the idea that although a sex offender’s duty to register could end, he is not “cured” of his so-called “tendencies.” He’s just no longer subject to registering. In which case, the CoR would be treated as a separate process and status and would have no bearing on one’s duty to register ceasing after a certain number of years. But on the flip-side of this line of thought, if a RSO is no longer registering and has not broken any laws, it would certainly bode well in their favor if applying for the CoR at that time.

          Personally, I feel that several offenses need to be dropped from PC 667.5(c) unless they are amended with inclusive language. For instance, most who are convicted of 288(a) did not involve any violence in the actual definition of the word as it is understood in proper English or even vernacular. Yet 288(a) is automatically considered a “violent offense” because of a ridiculous technicality in the law. Any 288 charge should not be considered a “violent offense” unless actual violence was somehow carried out in the committal of the offense. Furthermore, 288 registrants are not allowed to apply for a CoR, in which the law implies that tendencies toward children are “incurable”, and is ridiculous assumption. 288 registrants should only be barred from applying for a CoR if it can be established independently by the mental health community that such a mental illness is, in fact, “incurable.” Most of these laws are designed to be reticular so that if they don’t get you one way, then they get you another. In other words, you can’t win for losing. So in that sense, establishing the Tiered Registry IS a start. Because we’re going to keep pushing and pushing. This isn’t the 19th century where we just lock people up because we don’t understand them or because they have a mental illness. But it’s almost just as bad. For centuries, the world has looked for scapegoats to society’s perceived decaying of morals. They used to blame witches, demons and ghosts. People once believed that the mentally ill were possessed. Even when advancements were made in psychiatry, people used to believe that psychopathy, schizophrenia, and clinical depression were incurable. So they either exterminated or imprisoned such ones. Moving up into the 20th century, they blamed prostitution, Indians, slaves, homosexuals, atheists…etc…But with the advancements we’ve made in civil liberties, with more enlightened generations, we’ve sort of run out of people to point fingers at. People who have sex problems or who have had sex problems in the past are now society’s scapegoat. Most people do not realize that crimes which they know not exist could land them in prison and force them to register as sex offenders. Neither do many people understand that the truly dangerous offenders are actually just people with sick minds (literally), and they need help. We need prevention instead of detention. We need to be proactive rather than reactive. Some day, when all of these laws have changed, our grandchildren will be reading about Janice Bellucci in their history books, and how she fought for the civil liberties of people who were misbranded as outcasts from society, and how she fought for those who really were mentally ill to get the required help they needed to function as positive, contributing members of society. Oh the times they are a changin’!

        • MS

          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 inclined to trust what I hear on this site more than what he has told me thusfar when it comes to registrant law. So you’re thinking I could apply for a COR after only 7 years. Does that start from the day I’m sentenced or the day I’m released from probation. I’m guessing I’m going to get 3 years.

          When I first spoke with my lawyer he told me I wouldn’t have worry about being listed on Megan’s Law site (photo wouldn’t be there, address wouldn’t be listed, etc) but now he’s telling me he’s not sure. My lawyer has had other 311 cases and said he checked the other week and didn’t find several of his past clients listed on the site but did see 311 offenders listed. At this point he’s not sure why some 311 people show up on Megan’s Law and other’s do not. Has a call into the DOJ but hasn’t received a call back. He left them a voicemail weeks ago.

          Thanks!

        • m h

          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 subject to the Megan’s Law site. As far as I know, the time you start counting begins after released from probation/parole.

          Regarding the Megan’s Law site, it seems to take anywhere from a few months to several years for a registrant’s information to show up. I will look up the law for you later to make sure, but as it stands currently, I believe you can apply for exclusion from the Megan’s Law website after so many years, so long as it is not listed under excluded offenses and certain conditions are met.

          As for your attorney getting a response from DOJ – good luck. It isn’t likely. They’ve never responded to any of my attorneys’ requests, nor have they ever responded to my direct messages, nor have I ever met anyone else who has. My personal opinion is that they simply don’t care. Once you’ve been branded, no one really cares who you are, what you did, or anything else. You’re a “sex offender”, and in their eyes that makes you the most despicable species on the planet, not even worthy of life.

          Like I mentioned in another post – STAY OUT OF TROUBLE. When you get out, no casual sex, drinking, drugs, or questionable situations or settings. If you find yourself in any situation that you even remotely feel could be even slightly questionable, illegal, or borderlining on the limits of your parole requisites, get out of that situation immediately! Don’t even stick around long enough to explain it to anybody, its NOT worth going back to jail. It never is. Think with your mind and not with your heart – discipline yourself. You will think yourself later. Make it your aim in life to prove to society that you are not the creep they have labeled you as. Make DA’s, judges and cops feel ashamed when they realize that you have higher moral boundaries then they do. Prove to them that they are wasting their time checking up on you, intimidating you, and making you register. People who love and support you will understand your reasons for abstaining from certain activities if you feel it puts you at risk for violating your parole conditions. People who don’t understand – well, they’re not really your friends or your family. They don’t really care. A person who cares and understands will respect your choices, they will never say “it’s not that bad”, or “stop worrying all the time!”, or “just this once?”
          They’re NOT your friends. If they were your friends then they’re not your friends anymore. Stay close to people who are a positive influence, and people who have high moral standards. Stay away from people who may get you into trouble. This applies to dating and romantic relationships too. Remember, the authorities are just standing by and waiting for you to screw up. You have to stay one step ahead of them. And ignorance of the law is no excuse. They will show you no mercy, they are your enemies. Even if you become friendly and civil, even if they start to like you after awhile, they will still be your enemy when you screw up. A few seconds of “fun” is not worth screwing up your life anymore than it already is. Jot down or print out all of this advice I’m giving you (even previous posts) and keep it in your wallet for the next 10 years. Read it anytime you feel like letting your guard down. The advice I’m giving you is priceless. This is wisdom and experience talking, it is your friend. Follow this advice to the letter and you will thank yourself some day.

        • MS

          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.

    • mh

      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 registry after 20 years, commencing with the date that you began registering.

      Hope this helps! 😉

      • T

        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?

  28. steve

    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.”

  29. Manny

    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 to change jibe and actually go to school to be a physical therapist as I am attending therapy myself but with the registry on my record I don’t see me getting hired!!!! IM NOT FORGETTING WHAT I DID WAS BREAKING THE LAW BUT IM NOT A CHILD MOLESTER NOR AM I A RAPIST THANKS AGAIN

  30. Richie

    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.

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 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 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.  
 

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

.