California RSOL will lobby state legislators in Sacramento on January 27 and 28 in support of a tiered registry. Registered citizens, family members and supporters are invited.
The legislative effort will begin with a two-hour training session on Tuesday, January 27, at 9 a.m. in the offices of MVM Strategy Group, 1211 L Street, Suite 607. Attendees will then be divided into teams comprised of a registered citizen, family member and/or supporters.
Participants will attend scheduled meetings with members of the Assembly and Senate as well as senior staff who work on public safety issues. Meetings will be scheduled for both January 27 and 28. For questions or reservations, please contact California RSOL at (818) 305-5984.
LOGISTICS UPDATE
The training on January 27 from 9:00 am to 11:00 am will be in the first floor conference room of the Senator Hotel Building, 1121 L St., on the corner of 12th and L Sts. It can be found just inside the 12th St. entrance of the building.
Otherwise, our office will be available for anyone who needs a space or has questions. Our office, MVM Strategy Group, is in Suite 607 of the Senator Hotel Building.
Parking is available in two locations:
Hyatt Hotel parking garage, enter off 12th St between K and L Sts. This garage is directly across 12th St. from the Senator Hotel Building.
City parking garage, enter off 10th St. between K and L Sts.
Team,
We all have a lot of passion regarding this issue and a lot of frustration. At the end of the day, we must band together to support Janice and our whole community, with this first step. Please keep in mind that this is a dance. There are many songs that we will have an opportunity to dance to, but not if we turn down the invitation to the party. Janice and Team have created a unique environment that opens the possibility of this unbelievable opportunity. Let’s support this first effort to get in the door. Once in the door, we can keep addressing the incremental issues. I fear that if we do not unite now, we may miss any opportunity to make change. Laws are much easier to tweak in steps, once the major legislation hurdle opens the door to relief for some. It sets a precedence for others to be relieved from registration. And who knows, maybe in one of those tweaks, we can introduce amendment language stating that a judge could have the capability to relieve Tier 3’s from lifetime duty to register, similar to, if not, the COR Process today (just one of many potential ideas already identified).
Let’s go get em Team
Lord only knows how the different tiers will be determined. I trust that it’s been established already and based on a SUCCESSFUL model, rather than witch doctor science that we see often when it comes to registered citizens. I would like to see an amendment added to the bill that would reflect the 1203.4 record clearance on the Megan’s law website. Currently, according to the DOJ, if a registered citizen receives the record clearance, that is not added to the web site at all, so now would be an opportune time to add that to the bill. Every little bit helps…
I may be bias since my conviction is for (f) CP and I expect that a tiered system could get me off the registry since it was my first and last conviction from over 12 years ago. Besides my bias I do believe that our real goal is to get this issue in front of the Supreme Court. That is a very difficult process. They hear only a small percentage of cases submitted each year. In the legal world, just getting to argue a case before the Supreme Court is like winning the Academy Award, whether you win or not. Accually getting a win is even more rare. Janice had taken on an unpopular issue that has caused some people and groups to villify her, even if they know she is constitutionally correct. Not many attorneys have or will be interested in taking on our cause even if they know that they can win a case. We should all be thankful and supportive for her willingness to take on this issue because she has made great progress for us in California which will likely cause positive changes in other states. From what I have seen so far, most attorneys are not very bright and put little effort into their clients cases. We are very lucky as Janice and her volunteers are clearly smart and passionate about our cause. Janice most likely will only have one chance to get the issue of the constitutionality of the public registration before the court. I do believe baby steps is the only way to do this as each case or law in our favor makes it easier for the next judge/court to rule in our favor. I think Janice is doing an amazing job and is going in the right direction with ending the public registration as the ultimate goal. Many thanks Janice!
This tiered registry is nothing more than a concession to force some to continue to suffer injustice. DO NOT SUPPORT IT!!!
People make up your minds??? This is a all or nothing chance.. if you don’t like it start your own organized force,,,
Elephant is a big and mean animal, however, an elephant can be eaten, one bite at a time. The CA SOR is big and mean, the Tiered System can take big bites out of the elephant.
The entire registry needs to come down but untill that can happen everyone needs to support Janice and anyone willing to fight for our rights in anyway possible after all if it wasn’t for Janice and Frank we would all be subject to all the local bs ordinances. That and the online rights issues have been the only successful issues that have Came out of the courts
. Without rsol the gov. Tyrants would just run amok with bs laws like Florida with their signs in peoples yards and civil commitment laws and all kinds of bs. I say support any and all opposition to the gov.
I want to clarify something on here. I know that supporting a change from the registry we have now to a tiered registry is a step in the right direction. However, it is not the tiered registry I cannot support, it is THIS one I cannot support. There are flaws in it that need to be fixed.
Can someone help me with this question. My offense was with a family member. Based on this, I applied for the Internet exclusion. I was granted the exclusion. If this tiered system does go into effect and it puts me at high risk, will this void my exclusion? I hate to sound selfish, but I am very worried.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned here is the cost of getting a case before the Supreme Court. From what I have found, the costs can be between $250,000 to well over 1,000,000. So if you want this issue to go in front of the Supreme Court quicker, get out your checkbook. There are cases that have been done for less especially with the help of pro-bono attorneys. But it may be hard to find attorneys to help for free considering the stigma of the issues. We will most likely need the financial assistance from the ACLU.
I am not sure what this new law of tier involves in California. I have lived this tier law in Arizona for 20 yeas. It has ruined my life! I was originally, by the court, labeled, Non Dangerous, Non Repetitive, Not a Pedophile. When I got in trouble for not knowing the registration laws changed and registered 9 days after the new date… my tier went up to a level 2 and posters went flying. Now, ever after 30 years, I cannot find a place to live or work. If it was not for my church and some political support I would be on the streets.
Fight against the tier law!
Maybe we need to question rather this teired system is realy a good idea. If it means that only a very small percent of rso will get relief and the majority that is left will have to suffer even greater restrictions more regulations and more strict requirements then maybe we need to rethink supporting this. I mean I want people off this bs reg. But not at the expense of all those remaining rso we need to see the language in the bill and what the effects will be of such a bill. I want to back Janice in any effort they put forth for us but if it means more compliance checks more frequent reg. more harsher treatment for the remainder of rso then I don’t think it would be right to support such a bill. Like I said I would like to see any relief for anyone from the reg. But not at the expense of all that would remain. We need details of this bill.
In California, while many registrants are on the Internet, they are only shown by zip code, not full address. A tiered registry may expose those registrants to having their addresses posted. In addition, there are a lot of low-level registrants whom are not on the Internet registry at all; now some may be reclassified to be on the registry, with the ensuing address notification.
In 2004, most of the Internet registrants were on the zip code filter, while only the “true predators” were on the Internet with their address posted. In addition, anyone who was not convicted of a felony were on the non-Internet based registry.
Since then, many of the punishments have been ratcheted upward to the point where MOST registrants on the Internet now have their address shown, and far fewer are on the Internet with just zip code. Even fewer are placed on the non-Internet-based registry, as more formerly misdemeanor-level crimes are now felony-level crimes.
So the bottom line is this: Currently, everyone on the Internet registry is on it for life. But the relative impact is minor if their address is not itself listed, which by far is the most onerous aspect of registration short of residency restrictions. And, of course, being listed on the Internet registry when not ON the Internet originally is just as bad as going from Internet-no address shown to Internet-address shown.
Right now, we don’t have tier levels, but we have three “levels” based upon original classification schemes. They are, from harshest to least harsh, are:
1. Lifetime; Internet; Address shown; quarterly registration
2. Lifetime; Internet; Address NOT shown; annual registration
3. 10-year; No Internet; annual registration
These are the proposed Tier levels and requirements being bandied about. Comments only on particular schemes compared to their relative counterpart above. Assignment to actual risk discussion to follow this;
Level 3: Lifetime; Internet; Address shown; quarterly registration
No major differences.
Level 2: 20 years; Internet; Address shown; semi-annual registration
Huge difference with regard to address exposure and registration periods
Level 1: 10 years; Internet; Address shown; yearly registration
Huge difference with regard to Internet and address exposure
Keeping in mind the documented negative results of registration, there should at LEAST be the following grandfather clause:
1. At the very least, all current registrants should not be assessed a worse registration experience than what they are already experiencing. Here are some examples:
a)If they are currently on the least-harsh, lowest level where they are not on the Internet registry, they should remain off the registry.
b)If they are currently on the mid-harsh, middle level where they are on the Internet registry but have no address shown, if they remain on the registry for the new Level 2, their Internet information should only include their zip code. In addition, they should only have to register once a year as they currently do now.
2. No current registrant should be moved UP to a harsher level for any reason. The only exception would be through court order, which requires a judge to make the decision.
Now, these recommendation s should be in place prior to any discussion of assignment of prospective registrants,or those convicted AFTER the new law is officially enacted and enforced. Without being fair to the current registrants, there is no reason to assume that the legislature will be fair to prospective registrants.
We need to figure out a way to put out the fire. In the mean time can make sure it doesn’t spread or harm more people.
In conclusion, I’m honestly appalled anyone in their right mind would be against a tiered registry! As mentioned, those convicted of serious and other offenses would be removed. So, I would imagine only those convicted of multiple offenses or more than once would remain. To say the least, there is now the Sex Offender Management Board now requesting and recommending this? This is tremendous news! So, I recommend supporting this legislation, remaining positive and upbeat and avoiding any comments unless in a positive nature.
This is the copy of a letter I wrote this weekend to my state senator and state representative. I based it on a letter here, but made changes:
>>
Imagine if California was ranked 46th in any of the measures you care about. I imagine you might be compelled to act. Well, in one important area, California does rank near the bottom – California is one of only 4 states that has a lifetime registry for sex offenders (joining such “progressive” stalwarts as Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida!).
The purpose of this letter is to request your support for the concept of a Tiered Registry for Sex Offenders. This initiative, which may be introduced as a bill this year, would increase public safety and improve the effectiveness of law enforcement by eliminating individuals from the sex offender registry who no longer pose a public risk. Those individuals include people who had consensual sex while a teenager, sent a “sext message” to a loved one and/or urinated in public.
The current sex offender registry law is an ineffective method of combating sexual re-offending. Further, it ignores the fact that paroled sex offenders carry 1.9 percent rate of re-offense (committing another sex offense), according to a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (yeah, that’s the prison guards!) report issued in October 2012. A tiered registry is recommended by the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), which is comprised of state experts on this topic. I’ve enclosed some informative paperwork for your review.
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 exactly the same.
I am a sex offender. I also am a citizen, a taxpayer in your district, a husband, a father, a church-goer, a business manager, a respected neighbor, and a productive member of society. I’d be happy to discuss with you the effects of being on the Registry, and what it means to those who are truly sorry for their crimes and committed to never committing again.
By supporting a tiered registry, you will increase public safety and improve the effectiveness of law enforcement, thereby protecting Californians from repeated sexual assault. It’s not about being “soft” or “hard” on crime – it’s about being “smart” on crime. Thank you.
Sincerely,
If the bill mirrors AB702 then it seems a win win for everyone I would sure like to see the actual text of the bill and have been unable to find it. If anyone can direct me to it or explain that it mirrors ab720 then that would be great. I’m a non violent low risk so I would probaly be put in a tier one and would be able to get off the reg. In another 3 years since I’ve been on for 7 but like I said if it means that tens of thousands of people would be subjected to even greater atrocities because of a tiered system then it wouldn’t be worth it to me. I mean screw it like Frank lindsay says we are all in thus together.
I have talked to Janice Bellucci, and she and I had a discussion with regard to the understanding of what a change from the current scheme for assigning registration levels to a tiered-scheme would entail. I want to clarify my original post with regard to what a Tiered-system would entail in California. In fact, it was NOT a proposal or a bill per se, but rether my understanding of how Tier levels work in other states, particularly with regard to SORNA recommendations.
To that end, I do ***NOT*** know how California plans on setting up the Tier levels.
Here is how I portrayed California’s potential Tier levels in an earlier post:
MY MISTAKE: I did NOT state where I got the Tier levels from. In fact, I got them from the SORNA recommendations, as I had nothing else to go on (although I used the proposed 10/20/Life levels, unlike SORNA’s actual 15/25/Life (though 15 can be reduced to 10, and 25 to 20, with an appeal by the registrant once the 10 and 20 year marks have been passed). Again in fact, California has REJECTED SORNA’s recommendations, as to implement them would be to spend over 10 times as much as the amount of money the Feds would give California to implement the scheme, and that’s before legal defense of the scheme would occur. Ask Ohio.
I apologize if anyone got the wrong idea, and in retrospect, I should have made myself more clear. My intent, however, remains 100% focused on the REAL objective: To unequivacally relieve the conditions all registrants have from the current scheme. If in fact California inexplicably adopts the Tier levels put out by SORNA and makes registrant more oppressive than the current scheme, I am absolutely OPPOSED to the new tier levels. Even with the finite registration periods built in, the process for getting off the registry isn’t defined.
So to reiterate: There is NO PROPOSED TIER LEVELS currently being considered. This is very important to note, and as such, there is nothing to worry about at this time. As long as the focus is directed to registry relief, that’s all that matters.
I do not think they would be stupid enought to make level 3 reg quarterly. That seems wrong. We don’t do that now. Only homeless or S.V.P reg every quarter. There may be three levels but I think there would be a fourth for homeless and S.V.P.
Janice please provide us details of this bill how can we make an informed decision without details. Thank you.
It seems there is much confusion with what tiered system is actually being proposed here in California. I was in Nevada for a few years under the tiered system and assigned at the lowest level (only law enforcement notification). However, now in Nevada they are trying to implement the Adam Walsh Act. Its tiered system is insane whereas I would be reclassified to a high risk along with thousands of other registrants which would be reassigned to higher risk levels. Luckily, to my knowledge, there is a class action suit preventing the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act in Nevada.
So here in California what is the proposed tiered system? I understand the levels and years in previous postings but why would anyone be reclassified? If it is like most states (without the Adam Walsh Act) one would surmise whatever your risk is today would be the same with the tiered system only there would be a chance to be removed from the registry after the enacted tiered years for such levels.
I don’t think there is any questions on the levels and years but why would there be a reclassification? Am I missing something? Hopefully the proposed system has nothing to do with the Adam Walsh Act or anything which might resemble it.
Does anyone know what is actually being proposed? Meaning how would one find out what classification they fall under? 288a – expunged, 27 years ago, lowest risk in three different states, not on the internet.
I don’t see how anyone can lobby in support of a bill in which they have never read.
I’ve looked everywhere trying to find the actual bill that would be introduced and that rsol is lobbying for with no success of finding it. The closest I can find is the following..
The following is an overview of how a tiered California sex offender registry would work:
Tier III
Lifetime registration period with law enforcement and public notification would be required for the following:
Sexually Violent Predators; Kidnappers; Offenders with repeat violent sex offenses;and High-risk sex offenders.
Tier II
20-year registration period with law enforcement and public notification would be required for the following:
“Serious” or “violent” felony sex offenders who are not high-risk sex offenders.
Petition for removal from public notification possible after 10years, if the person has not been convicted of a subsequent sex offense, or any future serious or violent offense.He or she would still be required toregister with law enforcement for the 20-year period. Very limited exceptions tothe registration requirement may be available tosome juvenile sex offenders.
Tier I
10-year registration period with law enforcement only, exempt from public identification on California’s online sex offender registry would be required for the following:
Non “serious” and non “violent” sex offenders; and Misdemeanor sex offenders.
“Sexually Violent Predator” (SVP) status is determined by California Welfare& Institutions Code, beginning with Section 6600.SVP status means indeterminate civil commitment in a state hospital following a prison sentence is authorized by law until a jury decides an offender is eligible for release intothe community.
“High-risk sex offender” means a person convicted of a sex offense who scores a 6 or higher, 0being least likely toreoffend, on the statewide actuarial assessment tool known as the “Static-99″ or “Static-99R.”
“Serious” or “Violent” felony sex offenses are defined under California’s Three Strike’s law (Penal Code Sections 667.5 (c) and 1192.7). Also included: Penal Code Section 269 (aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14more than 7 years younger than the perpetrator) and Section 288.7 (sexual intercourse, sodomy or oral copulation between an adult and a child under the age of 10).
Non “Serious”and non “violent” sex offender means a person convicted of a felony sex offense that is not a strike.
Now if this is the proposal and the facts then yes everyone needs to support this.
Pat, my CA registration form says “failure to sign this form is a criminal offense”. So I will sign. Not going to take a chance on getting a higher tier.
1/21/15 I just re-read the SOMB’s proposal on tiering and I must say, they have made a very good proposal based on logic, reason, and empirical studies. The hysteria and the emotion have been taken out of this subject and their proposal is very workable. Details must be worked out, but I hope the legislature follows the lead of SOMB’s proposal.