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)

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

California RSOL Lobbies for Tiered Registry Bill

Ten individuals representing California RSOL are lobbying in Sacramento in support of a tiered registry bill, AB 702.  The bill, as currently written, would remove some individuals from the registry after 10 or 20 years after their release from prison, probation and/or parole.
 
“It is great to have two teams of individuals, including registrants and family members, lobbying in support of the tiered registry bill,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of CA RSOL.  “We are educating elected officials and members of their staff regarding the need for a tiered registry.”
 
AB 702 was approved by the Public Safety Committee on April 16 and will be considered by the Appropriations Committee on May 24.  The bill is currently on the suspense file of that committee and must be released in order to be voted upon by the full Assembly.
 
“Please call the office of Chairman Mike Gatto to request that AB 702 be freed from the suspense file,” stated Frank Lindsay, CA RSOL Treasurer.  The phone number for that office is 916-319-2043.

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    I thought a budget needed to pass before ANY bills that require funding are taken out of the suspense file.

    • Staying Positive

      This is what I thought, too. The budget has to pass first before any bills with a more than $150K impact can be addressed. Fortunately, the budget is in surplus this year and there won’t be the normal wrangling involved. And the GOP is in super minority status and not involved in passing the budget this session.

  2. Kathleen

    sent an e-mail letter but Assemblyman Gatto’s voice mail box has been full all day.
    I’ll keep trying.

  3. Janice Bellucci

    We are back from Sacramento and know that we are very close to an extremely important decision regarding the tiered registry bill. Please call TODAY the office of Mike Gatto to “demand” that AB 702 be released from the suspense file on Friday. His office phone number is (916) 319-2043. If the bill is not released, we must wait at least a year. Thank you!

  4. JAH

    I just called at got through…I was shaking a bit when he asked my name and where I lived. Just praying this time it will pass. It will help so many families out. Thank you again everyone for all your hard work.

  5. Staying Positive

    I called at lunch. The receptionist didn’t ask for any for any personal information, but said she would pass along my support for AB 702 to the chairman. Maybe they got a bunch of calls already. :O)

  6. C

    I just called. It went to voicemail, but the mailbox is full. Hopefully because so many people from our side have been calling, and not because they are too lazy to check/delete messages.

  7. C

    Just got through and voices my support for the bill. She said she would let him know that I called, then she rather abruptly hung up. Well, hopefully we’ll get the action we are seeking.

    • MS

      Fired off an e-mail last night to Assemblymember Gatto…did a copy and paste of the letter that Janice and her team were kind enough to draft. Placed a phone call this afternoon but it eventually went to a voicemail box that was full. Thank you to everyone that is trying to make a difference. A monumental task that will only be conquered through unwavering perseverance. God bless…

  8. JH

    Called and emailed.

  9. MM

    Sent physical letter last week to hopefully have made it by 2:00 pm Monday when RSOL went to their meeting. Sent email today. Tried calling VM full … Will try again tomorrow … and I will try again right now … Maybe they cleared their messages befor leaving for the night. One can wish!

  10. MM

    Sad … Still full.

    Interesting, it says you have reached extension 2043 and the voice mailbox is not taking anymore calls. I know from personal experience when I have someone reach me at work by “accident” they tell me they simply started dialing any extension near 2137 … What if we tried 2040, 2041, 2042 …. 2044, 2045 … etc.? Leave messages on other extensions telling them our plight about NOT being able to leave a voice mail and the office therefore not knowing how many calls actually tried. We could simply leave a message with them or on that other extension voice mail asking them and hope they pass it on?

    Good idea? Bad idea? Would it piss people off? Not that I care about that but I don’t want it to backfire …. On what we arebtrying to accomplish. Thoughts? We’ve still got all day tomorrow to call ……..?????

  11. DB

    Okay, suppose that this bill does pass, and if it does, will it prevent current 290 registrants from pursuing a certificate of rehabilitation? I assume that some people will still want to pursue it especially if the time limit is based after an individual’s parole/probationary period has ended. Some people have longer terms than others and seems that an additional 10-15 years of registration after that time is unreasonable. I think that it should be after release from prison instead of the latter.

    • Anonymouse

      As far as I can tell there is ABSOLUTELY nothing in AB 702 that changes anything about the Certificate of Rehabilitation process. Someone please correct this statement if not true. Everyone eligible to petition for removal from the registry by getting a COR after 10 years is still eligible to do so. Few are, and even fewer are successful. There was a lively discussion about the chances of getting the petition granted, period, and getting it after the minimum number of years. Good luck with that.

      Without AB 702 one might have the chance to petition off after 10 years. With AB 702 one might have the chance to petition off after 10 years and (except for some offenses and circumstances) and the certainty to be off after 10 / 20 years. For the 20 year group, they still might have the chance to petition after 10. Sounds like a win / win to me.

      The only reservation I would have (and I called in to express support for the bill yesterday and got through) is the fact that 647.6 is classified as a Tier 2 offense and requires a minimum registration period of 20 years, same as most felonies / crimes categorized as violent felonies. What gives??

  12. dbradford

    This is what I wrote to his office last time. (long)

    January 29, 2012

    Dear Assemblyman Ammiano,

    This letter is in regards to your proposed legislation, CA (AB) 625. I’m specifically wondering how those people convicted of CA 647.6 PC would be placed in a tiered level?

    You realize that 646.7 PC is a ‘catch-all’ misdemeanor conviction, used for a multitude of misdemeanor applicable offenses, enabling prosecutors to place someone on the registry. I have not seen any numbers, but I’m willing to wager there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Californians with this conviction on their records. Those people stand to be directly affected by your proposal of (AB) 625 I believe.

    I’m the first to admit a failing of being able to read through ‘legalese,’but on reviewing the Bill (AB) 625 text, it appears that even more time would be imposed on a person with the 647.6 conviction. Such a person would be ‘bumped up’ to a Level 2, eligible for removal at 20 years post conviction, unless they can petition successfully to be changed to a Level 1 by the courts at 10 years.

    Why would a person, convicted of a MISDEMEANOR offense, 647.6 PC, be considered a moderate risk, and assigned to a Level 2? Shouldn’t that be considered a Level 1 risk?

    For my own situation, I was convicted in Solano County in 1990 of 647.6 PC, Misdemeanor Annoy/Molest a person under the age of 18. I successfully went through probation, was terminated early, and later acquired relief with a 1203.4 Expungement and a California Certificate of Rehabilitation of having to register.

    In 2002, I was convicted of 1st Degree Burglary and Elder Abuse (neither of which happened), both of which are NON-sexual offenses;my Certificate of Rehabilitation was rescinded, and I served 2 years in CA prison.
    Afterwards, on my release, I was required to register per 290 pc, but only once a year, and only with the police/sheriff’s department. I was very low level, not even appearing on the public CA Meagan’s Law database.

    As the law reads now, I can hope to petition for another CA Certificate of Rehabilitation 10 years after my parole ended, in 2015. As I read it, I could be looking at an extra 10 years on the registry from 2015! At that time I will be 61, trying to find a job and rebuild my life.

    To complicate matters even further, I no longer reside in CA, or even the US. I currently reside in the Philippines. I moved to Asia and married my wife Weng in 2007. To move back to CA would be a gross imposition on me.
    However, I am
    wondering if that would be a necessity, due to interviews and tests, should I be classified on a Tier Level?

    You hopefully can see my concern. Could you please help clarify things thing for me and for other Californians carrying this conviction?

    Could I possibly hope to be removed as of:

    .) The date of my initial conviction in 1990 of 647.6 PC? Even as a Level 2, I would be off, as 22 years will have passed.

    .) My conviction of 1st Degree Burglary and Elder Abuse in 2002, with a parole end date of 2005? As a Level 1, I’d be off in 2015.

    .) Or, would I be automatically considered a Level 2, even with a non-sexual offense based conviction, with a prior conviction of 647.6?
    That would mean to me a removal from the CA registry in 2025, at the age of 61 after 20 years of my conviction in 2002, and parole ending in 2005?

    How would the Tiers be implemented? Would you have to be present for an assessment? How would a person be contacted and notified upon removal from the registry?

    I applaud your courage in the present political climate for your proposal of CA (AB) 625. It’s a long time now that science and sanity need to be returned to this arena, instead of myths, fear, and hate.

    Thank you Sir for your attention on this matter, and I remain

    Sincerely,

    David Bradford,
    a reform sex offender law activist

    • Anonymouse

      @dbradford – you are saying your Certificate of Rehabilitation was rescinded and you were required to again register due to a non-sex, non-registerable offense?

      How is this possible? Can you explain?

      • dbradford

        Anonymouse, wish I could…From my understanding at the time, once you receive a CA COR, if you get into any more trouble, especially a felony conviction, the judge has the right to rescind that..maybe it’s an automatic, I don’t know.

        Dave in the Philippines

        • Anonymouse

          Never heard of such a thing but did a little more research. PC 4852.13 (c) says that

          (c) A district attorney in either the county where the conviction
          was obtained or the county of residence of the recipient of the
          certificate of rehabilitation may petition the superior court to
          rescind a certificate if it was granted for any offense specified in
          Section 290. The petition shall be filed in either the county in
          which the person who has received the certificate of rehabilitation
          resides or the county in which the conviction was obtained. If the
          superior court finds that petitioner has demonstrated by a
          preponderance of the evidence that the person who has received the
          certificate presents a continuing threat to minors of committing any
          of the offenses specified in Section 290, the court shall rescind the certificate.”

          Sounds like it can be rescinded IF the state can PROVE that the (previously deemed rehabilitated) petitioner is an ongoing threat to minors.

        • dbradford

          Huh, I was convicted of 1st Degree Burglary (another catch all, because it can apply to anything the way the use it. If I stand in front of where you live, and throw rocks at your dwelling, then I can be convicted of 1st Degree Burglary, basically, it’s used as an ‘Assault’ status)and Elder Abuse. Actually, the 1st Degree Burglary carries more time and seriousness under the CA Penal Code.

  13. dbradford

    This is the reply I received from a staffer, Tom Ammiano never replied personally.

    Mr. Bradford,

    Thank you for contacting our office. Child molest cases involving 647.6 are included in tier 2 because any crimes against children that are not “consensual,” to the extent a minor can consent under the law, are of special concern for many legislators. The petition for tier 1 is intended to address incest cases or Romeo/Juliet cases that were prosecuted as child molest cases. The time clock begins when a person is released from incarceration. Risk levels are determined by risk assessment, not by the crime of conviction, through a series of tests or risk assessments.

    Per your brief description, and my policy instead of legal analysis, you would not qualify for a lower tier since you have been convicted or pled to subsequent felony charges, including one serious felony as defined in PC 1192.7, which is prohibited in lower tier categories.

    The way that AB 625 was written, you would have to complete SARATSO dynamic and violence risk assessments in order to be placed into a tier. These exams are administered by both CDCR and local law enforcement, and must be completed in person.

    All this being said, the bill did not gain successful passage this year and will be reintroduced later with some changes.

    Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns.

    Best,

    Curtis Notsinneh

    Curtis I. Notsinneh
    Senior Legislative Aide
    Office of Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
    Chair, Assembly Committee on Public Safety
    (916) 319-2013 office
    curtis.notsinneh@asm.ca.gov

    • Anonymouse

      THIS is the problem: “Child molest cases involving 647.6″. The correct description for PC 647.6 is “Child Annoyance and Molestation”. Someone saw the word “Molestation” and bumped this up to Tier 2. With AB 625, this happened at some time in the fall 2011, after the bill came out of the suspense file.

      Like you say, 647.6 is a catch-all for unwanted behavior. First entry in the dictionary for “molest” is “to bother, interfere with, or annoy.”. Again, ANNOY.

      To put someone who says to a minor “arent you cute – wanna hook up later” or the like in the same category as incest, or ‘actual’ sexual abuse is absurd. I believe this is all it takes to support a conviction for “Child Annoyance and Molestation”, triggering mandatory lifelong registration.

      Any ‘real’ sexual conduct with a minor age 16-17 would fall under 261.5, 288a, 289, 286. 15 and under is covered by 288.

  14. m h

    Please call all of the Appropriations Committee members today:

    Franklin Bigelow 916-319-2005
    Raul Bocanegra 916-319-2039
    Steven Bradford 916-319-2062
    Ian Calderon 916-319-2057
    Nora Campos 916-319-2027
    Tim Donnelly 916-319-2033
    Susan Eggman 916-319-2013
    Mike Gatto 916-319-2043
    Jimmy Gomez 916-319-2051
    Isadore Hall III 916-319-2064
    Diane Harkey 916-319-2073
    Chris R. Holden 916-319-2041
    Eric Linder 916-319-2060
    Richard Pan 916-319-2009
    Bill Quirk 916-319-2020
    Donald Wagner 916-319-2068
    Shirley N. Weber 916-319-2068

  15. Fish in a net

    Just called them all.

    Shirley N. Weber is 916-319-2079

    • m h

      Thanks for the correction, posted that insanely quick and was off to the Capitol a few minutes later. 😉

  16. Richard Vargas

    Just made my call to Mike Gatto … will work on calling the others a few at a time, can anyone tell or give me an order of priority on the remaining names ie which ones really really need to be called and which are already for it and don’t need to be called?

  17. C

    In addition to calling Mike Gatto’s office yesterday, I just sent off an email. Several of my family and friends will be doing same today and as soon as I catch a break today I will call all the people on the list provided above.

    I have no idea if this will bring me any relief, but if it helps just one of us, the effort will have been well worth it.

  18. C

    Just finished and it only took about 10 minutes at the most.
    If you have not done it yet, just call and say you are in support of AB702.
    Give your name, and zip code or city. Done.

    Fingers crossed!

  19. m h

    Thank you all for making those calls! Thank you so much! So while I was down there dropping off paperwork at their offices, they were getting calls. That is just great.

    Hey, I got some great news for ya’ll too – they felt one of the Appropriations Committee members wasn’t “moderate” enough, so they pulled him out of tomorrow’s hearing and replaced him with none other than Tom Ammiano himself! We have at least three solid votes from the Democrats that I know of – Tom Ammiano obviously, Steven Bradford, and Bill Quirk. We only need 6 more to get this out of the suspense file. But we’re gonna have to start calling and emailing again next week if this passes tomorrow, the Assembly Floor deadline is NEXT FRIDAY!

    So if this gets past Appropriations tomorrow, we’ll need everyone we can get to go back to Sacramento next week and lobby the living daylights out of the Capitol! Thank you to everyone who supported this effort this week, and especially to those of you who’ve been calling, emailing and writing letters. In retrospect, it feels really good knowing that the two of us who were lobbying today, weren’t really alone!

    Assemblymembers Skinner, Bradford and Yamada’s staffers have all basically told us that they will have Tom’s back once this bill reaches the floor. We have a lot of people who are sticking their necks out for us right now. We need all the people we can get next week to lobby the Capitol, there is power in numbers. And the more people we have coming to these offices, the bigger of an impression it will make – ESPECIALLY to the newly elected members.

    I know this bill may not be the end-all, magic-bullet solution we all want. But believe me, it IS a start. It’s a serious blow to the registry, both politically and psychologically. This will get the pendulum swinging back in our direction and give us momentum.

    • B

      This is great news. The fact that Ammiano was moved on to the Appropriations Committee means that the Speaker is serious about this. We are getting stronger every day. Next week will be the time to focus all of our efforts to winning 41 votes. Don’t forget, this is the beginning.

  20. G4Change

    QUESTION TO ANYONE QUALIFIED TO ANSWER:

    I currently live out of CA and have for the last 8 years. However, my conviction was from CA. Should I call/email? Do I have a right to since I’m no longer a CA resident?
    Whether or not I ever set foot in CA again, I want this reform to pass, and I’m willing to do anything I can to help. I just don’t know if it’s right or wrong for a non-CA resident to contact these CA legislators. Please advise.

    Thank you ALL for this diligent effort! And, many thanks to Janice…you are the best!

    • B

      Please call and email. We need every ounce of help we can get. Maybe someday California will be livable again.

    • C

      Do you want to come back to CA? If home is where the heart is, I’d call and voice my support.

  21. Staying Positive

    I don’t know if AB 702 has come up yet, but the Appropriations Committee session is on the web here: http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&event_id=170

  22. B

    It’s very unfortunate that AB 702 failed to get out of suspense. We now know more that we did. We have a better handle on the process and we know who we need to reach. We are not done, and we won’t be done until we win. Thanks to the great efforts of our Sacramento team. You were awesome.

  23. JH

    I’m sure that Janice will be better able to explain this, but I called Mr. Gatt’s office, and they said that they didn’t have any record of it and refereed me to the office of the bill’s author, Tom Ammiano.
    I called his office and spoke with a very nice woman there who explained to me that AB 702 was non longer in ‘suspension’, but that it was pulled because it’s a ‘2 year bill’, and that because it wasn’t ‘read out’ today that it can still come back to the floor in January. She said that it didn’t pass today because of Republicans and moderate Democrats who are against the bill. (BIG surprise there!)
    I asked who I should start calling and emailing to help pass this bill through, and she put me through to the VM of a Curtis there in that office at extension 2564.
    This is CRAZY!! We are one of only 4! States that has lifetime registration, it costs us so much extra money, and yet there is NO extra safety gain from having lifetime registration!!
    FRUSTRATED!!!!

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 *

.