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.

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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

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

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!

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.

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)

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.

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.

Called and emailed.

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!

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 ……..?????

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.

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


David Bradford,
a reform sex offender law activist

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.


Curtis Notsinneh

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

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

Just called them all.

Shirley N. Weber is 916-319-2079

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?

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.

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!

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.


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!

I don’t know if AB 702 has come up yet, but the Appropriations Committee session is on the web here:

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.

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!!