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 ItemsJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Buckle your Seatbelts

There are 3 significant events expected during the next 30 days:

  1. introduction of a tiered registry bill in Sacramento,
  2. two California Supreme Court decisions regarding residency restrictions and
  3. an attempt to make peace with the City of Carson.

What occurs during this 30-day period will significantly impact every person required to register as a sex offender in California.

First, there currently is a draft tiered registry bill supported by the California Sex Offender Management Board for which an author is being sought. The draft bill is reported to be consistent with the Board’s report issued in April 2014 and includes three tiers for registered citizens with automatic termination of registration requirements after 10 or 20 years provided that the citizen has not committed a new sex offense. The bill must be introduced by February 27 or there will be no tiered registry bill until 2017. In the absence of a tiered registry bill, California will continue to be 1 of only 4 states in the nation that does not have a tiered registry.

Second, the California Supreme Court has a March 2 deadline to render decisions in two cases focused upon residency restrictions including whether such restrictions are constitutional and if so to whom they apply. If the Court accepts the argument of the Attorney General, the Court will decide that residency restrictions are constitutional but can only be applied to registered citizens while on parole (not on probation or after parole). Because of the Court’s recent heavy handed decision to overturn the Hofsheier case, many are concerned that the Court will decide that residency restrictions apply to every person on the sex offender registry. Regardless of their decision, we can expect confusion if not chaos as registered citizens look for new housing.

Finally, California RSOL will reach out an olive branch to the City of Carson on March 7. The City Council of Carson recently declared war on registered citizens and refused to honor a settlement agreement, which would have made Carson’s sex offender ordinance consistent with state law, despite the fact that the agreement was signed by the City Manager and City Attorney. Registered citizens, family members and supporters are invited to join California RSOL on March 7 at 10 a.m. at Carson City Hall for this event. Additional details will be available soon.

Keep your seatbelts buckled. The next 30 days could be a rough ride.

By Janice Bellucci

Related: Janice’s Journal

Join the discussion

  1. jim

    All politicians should be prosecuted for hate crimes, just as any law abiding citizen that is on the registry is trying to be.

    • jim

      The thought of everything going on is reminding me of what I learned in school about the holocaust and the desegregation that occurred many many years ago, and to this day the hatred still goes on for one reason or another.

  2. Robert Curtis

    The olive branch is I hope not seen as us somehow giving into their threats. Our position was one of rights lost not threats made.

  3. cool CA rso

    and keep your hand inside at all time..

  4. Eric Knight

    Words Mean Things.

    Having said that, I suggest that the title of the bill should reflect community safety MORE than the registry. Let me be blunt.

    If the law is perceived to HELP registrants, politicians will be very timid to author the bill. Basically, the next political opponent of the politician sponsoring the bill will have his attack ad tailor-made for his campaign. So while OUR efforts in CA RSOL are in alleviating the conditions of registrants, the politician’s NUMBER ONE GOAL is to remain electable.

    HOWEVER…

    If the bill is heavily promoted as a COMMUNITY SAFETY issue, one that REDUCES recidivism, and finally, one that would SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE costs associated with maintaining the registry, AND those three issues are CONSTANTLY promoted, then the bill has a chance of attracting a sponsor. Now, everyone knows that MOST rational politicians concur with the CA SOMB with regard to safety. But it is vital that arguments promoting the registrants’ “gains” of not being monitored on a lifetime basis be STRICTLY throttled.

    In short, promote in order: 1: Community safety, 2. Lower recidivism, 3. Lower costs. Way down the list? Easing up on registrants’ lives. Finally, make sure we get an author that can handle the opposition he or she will undoubtedly receive from her potential political opponents, either from her own party in the primary, or the other party in the general.

    • cool CA rso

      Yes, we can tell them “Hey, we have behaved for the last 10 years there no reasons to spend money watching us. Spend your money on those that needs to be watch.. ” ( we aren’t going to tell them what we mean watch those that have a higher rate of reoffending such as drunk drivers… )

    • Eric Knight

      I would go so far as to call it the “California Community Safety Act” with no embellishment on the title of the bill. Even the this bill will remain in the legislative and (hopefully) the governor’s desk, it is important to note that the name of the title is actually MORE correct. In short, we should not see “sex offender”, “registry”, or “tier levels” anywhere in the title of the bill. The introduction of tier levels should be done AFTER ascertaining their effectiveness with regard to community safety in the preamble.

      • In the fight

        Eric, I agree with you completely. This has to be about safety. About tighter control for the most serious offenders. Not about our complaints.

        I wish I had web skills. I think this tiered registry effort needs its own web site to support — with all of the facts about recidivism, the illusion of safety Megan’s Law supposedly provides, etc. I fear if people are directed to this CA RSOL site, as much as I love it, they will get a mixed message and see a lot of whining from RSO’s, which is not the message to send.

        • Eric Knight

          This is why I hate !(%$*%$( politics and corporate shills. Too much capitulation to narrative and, in many if not most cases, a purposeful obfuscation of the truth, especially with adherence to constitutional tenets.

          So when in Rome, plug your nose and wordsmith our own agenda. My preference is to win on a truthful, constitutional basis. When people refuse to acknowledge the truth, then the next step (other than suing the pants off them ala Janice/Chance et al) is to present the narrative in ways the sheeple will react to their best interests.

  5. ms

    Really hope the courts listen to the few voices of fact and reason while ignoring all millions of voices fueled by paranoia, misinformation, and folklore. I don’t know which scares me more…the thought of lifetime registration or having to move out of my home (that I have a mortgage on) so my wife and children can stay. Perhaps they will reference something called the constitution when rendering their decisions. Can only hope and pray.

  6. Lance Mitaro

    At no point in history has anyone politely asked for their freedom and received it.

    You have to care MORE about your OWN personal safety and privacy than the so-called child safety advocate’s flawed “knowledge is power” mission statement. You have to be MORE passionate about your cause than they are. Their arguments need to be quelled and used against them to make them look like they paranoid cowards that they really are.

    This misguided protect children “at all costs” mentality in America needs to be mercilessly, viciously and relentlessly attacked and discredited. Former offenders are no longer going to be subjugated because of herd bias and worrywart parent’s paranoid cowardice.

    Sorry, but as a parent, you forfeited your right to sanity the moment you elected to have a child.

  7. SkeletonLander

    Has anyone with more knowledge of the process than I have thought about what would be required to create a petition and get it on the ballot? All of the arguments we are putting out there could be clearly stated as the primary reasons to support such a bill as a peoples initiative. This would cut the politicians out of the loop and short circuit the process.

  8. Bam

    So in essence to a Tiered registry, do we have to have an assembly man in our corner to move forward or will the Registry be over hauled by chance with out an assemblyman! Please clarify.

    • Janice Bellucci

      We do not yet know if any member of the Assembly or the Senate has enough courage to introduce the tiered registry bill. Once we know, we will share that information on this website. The deadline for the bill to be introduced is February 27, which is less than three weeks away.

      • Robert Curtis

        Janice I have a junior senator that is so strongly supported in her district that if she sees it’s the right thing to do she might be willing to author the Bill. Please email forward a copy to give to her. The idea of having it under a catchy public safety name is a good one.

      • Harry

        How about Senator Mark Leno?

        • Janice Bellucci

          It is our understanding that Sen. Leno was asked to introduce the bill but declined to do so.

      • G4Change

        I know that Tom Ammiano is out due to term limits. Can someone contact him in case he might know someone – someone who was supportive of his efforts who is still in office?

  9. James Townsend

    Janice I can see your issues out in California are really a big difference than in Virginia. Since I got into this thing I really think its heart rendering for all. This issue takes doer’s and not just hearer’s. These sex offender law’s are just doctrine’s of man (man-made) Colossians 2:8 will give you food for thought. I know these are sex issues’ what’s the bible have to do with sex issues. A lot.
    Just because one town doesn’t want the sex offender to live her or there or is afraid or that they need to vote on a tier level or something like that. Than the law and government need a refresher course in the bible. The bible is based on love and it is a road map of each and every one of our life’s. We should keep them in remembrance of all this. You can find all your answers in the bible of how to overcome all these issue’s that man throw’s at your seat belt.
    Google Doctrine’s of Man vs todays’ law’s. thumb’s up to you Janice!

  10. worried

    Janice,
    A great thank you to you and your staff for all of your hard work!!! How likely would the residency restrictions would apply to all rso’s? It seems to me with all of the uncontitutional issues that have been brought up in different cases, that I would hope and pray that it doesn’t happen. This will cause an uproar.

    • steve

      I think it would be nearly impossible to make people who ALREADY own homes to make them sell them and move.

  11. Bob

    Anyone know why the court accepted this case?

    During the week of January 12, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review in the following case:

    Grants and Holds

    People v. Fields (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 184, review granted 1/14/2015 (S222445/A135605). Briefing deferred pending decision in Johnson v. Superior Court (Jan. 31, 2013, E055194) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/1/2013 (S209167), which includes the following issues: Do the equal protection principles of People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 bar mandatory sex offender registration for a defendant convicted of oral copulation between a “person over the age of 21 years” and a “person who is under 16 years of age” (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2))? Should the court overrule People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185?

  12. mch

    Countless thousands of registered citizens are productive members in society, overcoming false stigma, purposeful lies, obstacles that no other group of people face. Registered citizens are slapped with “penalty after penalty”, retroactive laws and still we live right, do right, abide by this crap we’re subjected to and yet, in spite of it all, we’re largely a very successful group of people. All we want is a fair shake, equal treatment and to be left alone, yet for each success, the government comes in with blatant lies and scare tactics, convincing the sheeple that we’re so freakin dangerous. I live openly and honestly, nothing to hide, but government wants to strip away every right that’s left, limit my freedom and shame me publicly.
    We’re knocked down and get back up, we are an example of and a tribute to the resilience of the human spirit, even though we’re considered sub-human. I hope the victories continue, I hope some politician picks up on what we all go through, I hope change comes soon. So few are fighting for rights, thank you so much.

  13. C

    Usually Janice’s posts are comforting, but this is unsettling. The thought of having to move to satisfy a residency requirement would be incredibly disruptive for my wife and children. My conviction is from 1987, paroled in ’94 and no issues since. We’ve owned and lived in this house for 14 years. To move would be stressful enough, but to find someplace outside the (insert arbitrary distance here) perimeter in a city like LA would add whole new stress wrinkle.
    Well, worrying about it won’t do much good, so instead I send as much positive energy as I can toward Janice and the courts who I know will decide in our favor.

    • MM

      C … I agree 110%. My husbands conviction is also from 1987 and nothing since. I’ve lived where I do in OC since 1989 (w/a mortgage). Husband moved in almost 5 years ago. We are too close to a school/park (which is everywhere in OC). I PRAY that the residency restriction is voted as unconstitutional. I PRAY. Since December 2nd we feel as though we are living in a fog. The impending date is near – I do pray that a decision is made in our favor. Please.

      • Harry

        Well, if we have to move let all RC move to the same city and vote out insane city leaders and change the laws and prove to the world that we will have the best city in the State.

        • Ron

          Lets do it!

        • Ron

          We could vote to change that City’s name also. Wouldn’t that be fun! Perhaps “City of Compassion” CA. I’m sure we could come up with some great names. We could have protected zones like parks where only RC’s and their families could have access since we know Registered Citizens have such a low recidivism rate. Non-RC’s like family and friends would have to be supervised in these zones. The Police Chief we voted in would be required to allow all RC’s with children to have access to their child’s school. Just think of all the changes we could make in this city with our voting power. Just like what had happened in Rajneeshpuram, Oregon in the early 1980’s.

          This whole idea sounds crazy, but might be better for us if we cannot get rid of this unconstitutional public registry. We couldn’t end CA’s registration requirements, but we could sure make life easier and safer for us and our families. Quite frankly, I would want to move to this City.

        • Timmr

          Me too. And like I mentioned before we could set up businesses where people are ensured a job based on their skills, not a label. It would be nice to have a column here called What I Dream. The dreams we have are our templates for building the lives we want. Let’s put some of the complaining aside and start to actively dream.

        • Harry

          OR…move a low populated state AND become the largest voting block and get rid of SOR.

  14. Eric Knight

    The “olive branch” being extended to Carson should be proffered ONLY if Carson officials:

    1. Capitulate to the ENTIRE lawsuit’s requirements
    2. Provides solid proof that they WON’T renege again (“TRUST, but VERIFY”)
    3. Pays all fees and penalties, including a significant sum to Janice and CA RSOL.

    If in fact all three items are completely resolved, then that olive branch can THEN be extended. I sincerely hope this is what is happening.

    Otherwise, best to leave the branch on the tree.

  15. Michael

    What kind of olive branch?

    I think they will just see anything like that as weakness and it will encourage other cities to fight instead of acting reasonably.

    BTW with the court decision in from the Orange County cases, are any of these presence restriction still on the books still enforceable?

  16. barbara

    Wouldn’t now be a good time to email or snail mail our state senators and representatives re. the need for change and implementation of this bill? If so, I have a draft that is short enough to be copied and pasted into the state reps’ emails. Let me know if this would be useful.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Yes please share your draft letter with us so that we can post on this website.

  17. David

    The judiciary should take a switch (not an olive branch) to the City of Carson for obstinately refusing to obey a court order!

  18. td777

    While I understand the desire to see a tiered registry introduced, I still don’t think this is the right one to throw our hat behind. Yes, it will provide relief for many, but it also negatively affects many of us as well. Under the proposed tiered registry, I go from a low-moderate risk with a chance of getting relief in a few years with a Certificate of Rehabilitation to a high risk Tier 3 with no possibility of relief.

    Personally, I’m not happy being the sacrificial lamb sent to the slaughter so that others get relief. Janice has said that if the Constitution fails to protect one of us, it fails to protect all of us…well, this fails to protect me and my family.

    • Janice Bellucci

      No bill has been introduced therefore any comments regarding you or anyone else being a sacrificial lamb are premature.

    • steve

      TD if this statement is true:

      “the draft bill is reported to be consistent with the Board’s report issued in April 2014 and includes three tiers for registered citizens with automatic termination of registration requirements after 10 or 20 years provided that the citizen has not committed a new sex offense.”

      You should be ok unless you have a new offense.

      • td777

        Steve, I got forced into taking a plea on a bogus second case years ago when I was on probation for the first case. Neither case involved being accused of contact with any victim(there was no victim in either case), but it does in the eyes of the law make me a repeat offender. If either case were serious, one would need to ask why I only was sentenced to two years with half on the probation violation and 18 months with half on the second, both terms running concurrently for a total of 14 months actually in custody. So again, I am now considered a low-moderate risk instead of low risk only because of having two convictions. If passed, this tiered registry would automatically make me high risk Tier 3 and I would lose my right to get a COR in a few years. That is why I see this tiered registry as flawed and not worthy of my support.

  19. Dr

    As far as having to move this would pertain to the people after Jessica’s law was passed I don’t believe Jessica’s law was ever retroactive so most people would not have to move

  20. FED UP

    While I applaud the efforts being made for a tiered registry, I will never understand how Registration is considered “not punitive”. What if I wanted to live in an RV and travel the country or even just California?
    What if I wanted to travel the states in said RV? All States have varying registration requirements from 24 hours to 10 days, with some being from county to county. How is one able to travel the country legally??
    Isn’t this a constitutional right? By being denied the ability to travel, after imprisonment/parole/probation are completed, seems to be at least one fact that could be used in the cause to fight Registration as a whole!

    • Janice Bellucci

      The requirement to register is not punitive because the U.S. Supreme Court said so in 2003. John Roberts, who represented the State of Alaska in this case and is now Chief Justice, also said during oral arguments that the requirement to register as a sex offender is the same as or at least similar to applying for membership at Price Club. What do you think?

      • steve

        Do you think he said that knowing this would get out of hand so it can be challenged? Why else would you make a stupid comment like that.

      • Michael

        Membership requirements at Price Club are the same from state to state.
        Also, you get one membership card, that you take with you to any Price Club you wanna go to, and you’re good to go.

        Plus, no one is going to arrest you, if you are able to get into a Price Club without show a membership card, if are otherwise acting lawfully by just looking around and not trying to shoplift stuff.

        However, until recently, an RSO could be arrested in some parks just for being there, for any number of legitimate reasons, even if there was not a kid for a mile around.

        So yeah, it’s all just the same.

      • Robin Banks

        While the expressed intent of the legislature was non-punitive (and I would even argue against this assertion) the overall EFFECT of the myriad add-ons to sex offender legislation is clearly and unambiguously punitive.

      • td777

        Janice, I would strongly disagree. It is punitive regardless of what the Supreme Court ruled. The court simply chose not to recognize it as punishment. If it were equivalent to filling out an application to Price Club, then maybe I would agree. However, that would not be public record, it would not require having to go to the Police Department every month(I am transient) plus again near my birthday, it would not have me being rejected for jobs and a place to live because my face is on the internet for all to see, and it would not be forcing me to live apart from my family.

        • td777

          Seeing a -1 on that post means someone obviously didn’t read the whole thing, just the first sentence. Then again, as we know, there are many on here who don’t agree with our view, I just thought more would.

  21. Timmr

    Let’s be truthful, it is worrisome to think that if your car breaks down in strange town, you may be thrown in jail for being near a playground. It is stressful to think that you may loose your home and uproot your family because a law says you now can not live within 2000 feet of a school. It is terrifying to have your name and address posted on the internet a clear target for vigilantes to find. The laws have the combined effect and sole purpose of terrorizing registered citizens as they would to any citizen of this free country.
    If we gather and peacefully march in Carson, we are saying the terror stops here. It is in no way a capitulation to fear, it is a affirmation of citizenship.

    • td777

      …yeah, until some pro-registry extremist decides to propose a bill that would deny us the right to protest peacefully…

  22. Avig

    Well, I for one like the present system in which once you are off parole, there are no residency restrictions. It is very disconcerting to think that might change. I wish there was a way to avoid having it come up for a vote—-after all, with all the free floating hate out there, registered citizens are an easy target.

    • MM

      Avig, I believe your statement is incorrect. Currently, the present residency restrictions apply to everyone, doesn’t matter if you are off parole/probation. Applies to anyone who is required to register ~ no matter how long ago.

    • Robert Curtis

      The fundamental problem with the NATURE of the registry is that they OFFER to take away extreme amounts of rights first them pull back to a point of what is marginally acceptable in rights lost. Yes, I would rather loose a finger on one hand than to loose my whole arm, but what part of that dynamic is really okay? Both are punitive.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Avig, the CA Supreme Court is expected to decide the answer to at least two questions: (1) are residency restrictions constitutional and (2) if so, are they limited to those on parole or do they apply to everyone required to register.

  23. FED UP

    Yes Janice, I am familiar with “technically” why it is not considered punitive. It is truly incredible how a Supreme Court Judge can “throw out” all common sense to protect a personal belief he or she may have, or succumb to pressures of political influences. It seems to me that the fight for a Tiered system in CA is a fight worthwhile even though in my personal situation, it probably means 20 years on the registry for having “consensual” sex with a minor (yes I do know that a minor cannot consent, even though a minor can be charged as an adult for murder). I do however; strongly feel that there should be a major push to get a unified national RSOL movement to challenge John Roberts and the Supreme Court to abolish the registry all together (except for the most heinous acts, etc.). What is the course of action for this? How much money would it take and how many people involved? How do we contact all persons on Meagan’s Law nationally to encourage them to donate and have a voice? I personally feel that there is enough common sense challenges to severely hamper any Justice to deny the fact that the registry is punitive. As you and others have stated; Hate Crimes, murder, prejudice of habitat, inability to find work, inability to travel freely in our very own country much less internationally, IMPRISONMENT for failure to register, or not being informed of a certain municipality restrictions, etc., etc., are all effects of being on the registry. Not to mention the recidivism stats. I will not pretend to be legally savy and I am new to all of this so please forgive me if all of this, has previously been disclosed by you. From the one meeting and I have been too in LA, I know you are understaffed and underfunded. I will be at the LA meeting in March!

  24. David

    ” the Supreme Court explained most recently in its 2013 decision striking down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), “[t]he Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.'”
    Anyone here feeling “politically unpopular”? Yeah, me too.

    • Harry

      Yah! We are politically unpopular, even, among the LBGT. There are many of them are ‘throwing us under bus’ for their causes.

  25. anonymously

    By Roberts saying registration is like a price club application, he probably didn’t think registration would get out of hand. So I think he could still save face and overturn 2003 decision. Clarence Thomas seems to be aware there is a Constitution, being the rightwing constitutional literalist he is. I recall seeing some Scalia op-ed piece on how the US could be rife for internment/concentration camps. Hopefully, Breyer and Ginsburg have not changed their minds from their dissent of the 2003 Smith v Doe decision. Kagan, i don’t know what she is thinking, as well as Sotomayor who I probably don’t want to know what shes thinking and Kennedy is probably not on board, since he is a tough on crime guy. But right there, that is the 5 we need. This is just off the top of my head…

  26. David

    Janice, how will Baxter’s retirement off the Court affect the residency rulings, if at all? Since he heard oral arguments, does he still participate in the Court’s ruling?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Although Justice Baxter retired from the Court, he will vote on the residency restrictions cases because he was a member of the Court when they heard oral argument on the two cases — Mosley and Taylor.

  27. anonymously

    Steve said “Do you think he said that knowing this would get out of hand so it can be challenged?…”

    At the time, he was the attorney arguing the case for the State of Alaska. He probably was doing his best to win the case and at the time, did not foresee registration getting so out of hand with all the arbitrary unconstitutional draconian legislative addendum.

  28. anonymously

    Hey look, Steve, I think to say registration back in 2003 is regulation, not punishment was a total stretch. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS of 2003 made that stretch in a 6-3 decision. I miss John Paul Stevens wisdom on the court as well as I respect the wisdom of Ginsburg and Breyer who along with Stevens dissented. Things have changed so much since 2003. Now, internet disclosure is used as a hit list for vigilantes against registrants and people mistaken for registrants. And registration is draconian whereas a price club application would not be described as such. Bottom line is that circumstances have changed to make it absolutely clear registration is punishment.

    “The majority will never persuade me that the registration and reporting obligations that are imposed on convicted sex offenders and on no one else as a result of their convictions are not part of their punishment.” – John Paul Stevens 2003

  29. oncefallendotcom

    Since a few people are making references to Nazi Germany, I’ll make one of my own. Cali RSOL’s support of a three-tiered registry reminds me of Sophie’s Choice. Just how many registered citizens are you folks willing to sacrifice to cut at most a handful of registered citizens off the registry? I can’t help but to question the leadership at Cali RSOL. In fact, I’ve pulled their links off my website.

    • Gerald

      Just for that, I’m recommending we remove the link to your website. So there! ha ha.

    • Harry

      Oncefallen, I support your position of taking issues with the CA three-tiered registry proposal and CA RSOL’s support of it. However, you comparing ‘CA RSOL to Nazi Germany’ serves , neither, you and the rest of RC in America any good. We all want the SOR to stop operating. In the mean time we have to dodge the mines that are in the mine field. Your harsh reaction to Janice and the team at CA RSOL, is mean and un-called for. We need to able to disagree without being disagreeable. Divided, you and all RC’s WILL FALL.

      • Tired of hiding

        I disagree with need to stop being pu**ies and really get militant about this. NO we should NOT settle for baby steps! We should NOT settle for 1 step forward and 2 steps back!

        We should DEMAND and settle for NOTHING LESS than actual fairness and the total restoration of our civil liberties and constitutional rights after the paying of our dept to society!

        NOTHING LESS WILL DO!

    • Matt

      Your implication and comparison is not helpful in any way. Everybody who has skin in this game agrees that the SOR needs to go. How to accomplish that may be debatable, but defaming a person or organization who is on the same side, and has the same general principles is, at best, totally counterproductive.

    • Cool CA RSO

      Once Fallen,
      I don’t understand..
      You do agree with about 80 to 90% of the statement that CRSOL support correct?
      but now is 1% of the statement you disagree from you just drop CRSOL from the list.

    • G4Change

      @oncefallen: I think your opinions here are completely wrong.
      First of all, this is NOT Sophie’s Choice. This is a FIRST STEP. California is in the Dark Ages when it comes to these laws. It is among just a handful of states who are lifetime registration for all…PERIOD. From what I know, you are in a state (Ohio) which has a tiered registry and at least has a Supreme Court with justices who have both a brain and a spine when they actually found retroactive application of their registry unconstitutional. Yet you judge Californian’s for trying to get at least half the rights that you have in your state??? Not cool.
      Second, for you to question and judge the leadership of CA-RSOL??? So not fair. Janice and the rest have done so much in the past few years that it is unbelievable! Janice didn’t draft the tiered registry bill. Frank didn’t. Nobody from this organization did. They are simply trying to get legislators to LISTEN to the damn California Sex Offender Management Board for once! I feel that if we can get Sacramento to listen to this Board and implement what they recommend, then this tiered registry will only be STEP ONE of many future steps. But, right now, nobody will even listen to them.
      If you don’t want to support what CA-RSOL is doing, that’s fine. But to judge people in another state for trying to establish the rights that your state already has – way out of line in my opinion. I think it’s time for you to give yourself a Shiitake Award!

  30. anonymously

    Harry said “Yah! We are politically unpopular, even, among the LBGT. There are many of them are ‘throwing us under bus’ for their causes.”

    Anyone of any gender to support insidious draconian restrictions on anyone is a fool. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback just retroactively reinstated legalized workforce discrimination against LBGT Kansas government employees. Thats what happens when the spirit of the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution is ignored. Actions like this.

  31. SkeletonLander

    One simple bill which would generally be better than even a tiered registry would be a bill that removes the restrictions on who can seek a certificate of rehabilition. The bill would also state that anyone being granted a certificate of rehabilitation would no longer be required to register, period.

    The bar to achieving a COR is high, but it is validated by a judge hearing your particulars including all that you have done since your offense.

    This relativly small change to the penal code would undo “false fear induced” legislation which has crippled so many reformed registrants ability to be treated as any other criminal group. Prove yourself reformed and here is your way out of this living hell.

  32. James Townsend

    What is going on out in California. Its as if everyone is scared about losing there house or having to move or something. Its people like Janice and the RSOL movement that strive to get the job done. Sure we all can worry but why worry. Don’t you know what Roman’s says. They are the ministers of Good and Not Evil. All Governments want to be evil and oppress the people. One comment this person wants to pray which is good another person wants to dodge the mines’ and another person talks about a German leader. Christian or not Truth is Truth and if Government is dehumanizing more with all these rules and law’s than let your light shine more brighter. You know the tongue is a hard thing to tame and its just like a two edged sword but love is more important. Where is the love in the sex registry issues?

  33. mike t

    As I recall, Jessica’s Law made residency restrictions applicable to ALL registrants. The only problem was they forgot to include consequences for not adhering to the restrictions. No fines or jail time if you refuse to move. This is why it was enforced only on probationers and parolees, because they could be held in violation of their terms.
    Though it is a blatant desecration of the constitutional rights of American citizens to create an ordinance like this, I’m not too concerned about the outcome of this trial at this point as it cannot force me to move.

    • Mosley&Taylor

      Mike T: If the residency restrictions are upheld, the enforcement ‘could’ simply be the registering agency will not allow you to do an annual update because you are not in compliance with current law on that date, generating a ‘failure to register’ offense.

      • Nicholas Maietta

        I don’t know why you got voted down, but I have to agree with you on your point:

        I do have an experience where the registering officer refused to let me register because he thought the rules of Jessica’s Law included beaches too, even though parole already said, Nope, beaches do not count. I nearly went to prison for this and his actions reported to the United States Department of Justice. My city police department stepped up and ordered the Sheriffs’ office to go forward with letting me register anyway.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Jessica’s Law as written is unclear regarding to whom it applies and it lacks specific penalties for failure to comply. That is why the CA Supreme Court will render decisions regarding its constitutionality and applicability. In the past, law enforcement has controlled this issue in part by refusing to register someone at an address they believe is not compliant.

    • Tired of hiding

      Make no mistake about it. You certainly CAN BE forced to move or arrested if they wish. Your life is NO LONGER your own. Part of your FREE WILL has been taken over by the government. You belong to them. Simple as that – THEY OWN YOU NOW.

    • mike t

      Please pardon my contempt, I was unaware of this greasy approach to enforcement of residency restrictions. I was misled by articles I read several years ago where particular jurisdictions had made comments that they could not enforce Jessica’s Law based on their interpretation of this “toothless law”. I believe it was a San Jose Police Chief who made that statement, though I Can’t seem to retrieve the article after several fruitless search attempts.
      I guess the best I can hope for is that I be grandfathered in as I’ve owned my home prior to the passage of this law. My proximity to public schools and parks are no worry (approximately four miles). But, I’m not certain about licensed child care providers.
      I would like to believe the court will call this “ex post facto punishment” by forcing people to uproot and move, but they could also go the other way and claim it’s just a minor inconvenience of the non-punitive registry. If they choose the latter, we should expect the homeless/transient registrant population to increase exponentially again. I hope this consideration will be scrutinized carefully when decisions are made about “public safety” as the devastating results to certain individuals whose instability will likely create negative effects towards society in general. It’s illogical.

      • Mosley&Taylor

        Mike T & others: We all need to be careful about speculating and worrying on the Supreme court residency decisions until they are announced ~Mar 2 at 10 am. No one knows the outcome yet except the 7 justices wrapping up their opinions.

        As soon as the decision becomes public, you can bet Janice and her team will be on top of it and give everyone beneficial information and insight. Whatever the outcome, there are people concerned for everyone here on working within the law to comply while respecting and protecting registrants’ rights.

  34. Eric Knight

    If worse comes to worse, perhaps WE can go around the legislature ourselves and come up with an initiative. Although the process would be significantly harder, we do have the benefit of having a significantly higher-motivated volunteer base to collect the signatures, so the cost, while not cheap, won’t be substantial. In addition, the target election is November 2016, as the window for 2016 is pragmatically over, and we would need a lot of prep time anyway.

    To qualify for a ballot iniative, we must collect a certain number of VALIDATED signatures in a period of time. The amount of signatures that must be collected is 8% of the total voters in the previous gubernatorial election. The GOOD news, at least for us, was that voting in the last election was WAY down, which means the total number of signatures we would have to collect also goes down proportionately.

    For instance, when Chris Kelly had to bankroll the email identifier law (sorry, not calling it the pragmatically fraudulently named “Human Trafficking Law”), he had to get over 500,000 signatures. But we only have to collect 365,880 signatures, which is a considerably less threshold, and amounts to less than four signatures per Califonria registered citizen. With a smartly-designed and promoted campaign that has NO reference to “sex offender’s rights” or even “constitutional rights,” but rather conducts a hard-targeted, 100%-verified community safety and 100%-verified significant cost reductioncampaign, we can probably get this done prior to the general election on November 8, 2016. (There is one SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM, though, that I’ll address later.)

    Remember, if Chris Kelly was honest and called it the “Keep the sex offenders off the interne bill,” while it may have succeeded, it wouldn’t have had nearly the same impact as the more sensationalist “Human trafficking” component. The only difference to US doing our campaign is that we HAVE ALL DATA on OUR side to substantiate safety of children as well as enforcement costs, while Kelly had to hide behind HT because he couldn’t even BEGIN to justify an email law.

    If the legislature does not want to get this done, and I suspect that will be the case, I’ll look up the preliminary requirements to see what is needed to put such an iniative in play. It is absolutely VITAL that we have thousands of volunteers, though. The good news is that ANY voter-elgibile registered citizen (who, by definition, is NOT on probation or parole) can be a signature collector.

    I have to look up certain requirements for signature windows, Attorney General title assignment, and whatnot, but the general timeframe is this:

    April 2015 through September 2015: promotion and training of volunteers and gneeral Internet and public media-based campaign

    October 2015 through December 2015: Petition summary and process, including fiscal review, through the California AG’s office.

    January 2016 through April 2016: Collect the aforementioned amount of signatures, including significant overage to overcome potentially illegal signatures.

    May 2016: Once signatures turned in, AG validates and creates actual Title of bill. THIS IS KEY. If the AG calls the bill the “sex offender registry tiered level” bill, we are cooked. If the AG calls the bill the “Community and Child Safety Bill”, we have a good chance. The KEY will be in how the entire process is promoted in the months BEFORE.

    These are just ideas on how to move forward. The Initiative tool is generally not our friend, but if done correctly, WE can CORRECTLY set the agenda. I don’t call it “wordsmithing” as the connotation is negative, but it is vital that we DOWNPLAY registrant “gains” and HAMMER HOME the safety and fiscal reduction aspect of the initiative.

    Thoughts?

    • Timmr

      Eric, I don’t like giving thumbs up or thumbs down, because I feel anything I like or don’t like needs an explanation tied to it. In this case this is my thumbs up for your concept of going on the offensive, although I am not giving a blanket support for any initiative, unless I see the writing.
      I too, am “tired of hiding”, or to be more correct, “tired of being on the defensive.” I too am tired of being a scapegoat for politicians who say they are against child abuse, but are doing really nothing to prevent it. I think it is time to take enemy ground by using the facts. With 95% of the new crimes committed by those not on the registry, the penal model is just not working, and by scaring off those who may need to seek help to halt behavior that is harming others and scaring off family members from addressing what they see as a problem, by giving everyone this false sense of security that all is being taken care of because we have identified the trouble makers and put them on a registry, we are institutionalizing the problem.
      There needs to be a dialogue that is not based on fear and hype, and I believe registered citizens can lead the march and take it out of the realm of laws and into the culture. No doubt, abuse is occurring in the police forces, in the halls of justice and in homes of legislators right now; but those people with power and money can escape punishment, while the poor man must take a plea deal and remain on the registry for life to avoid years of imprisonment. This does nothing, nothing to address the problem, which I believe has as its roots a culture of the dominance and submission. The registry and all of its restrictive spawn is simply a spinoff of the dominance/submission paradigm which only creates more victims.
      OK I feel I’m ranting. Let’s be educators and problem solvers and people who have the best intentions and not accept the label of victim or perpetrator.

    • Matt

      While I agree with everything you said, I see a hurdle. The current AG will be running to fill a senate seat due to Boxer retiring. I suspect this will be a hot potato in that election.

  35. David

    Eric Knight: “Thoughts?” Absolutely no way. Imagine the media feeding frenzy as soon as it was learned who wrote the initiative and who would be out collecting signatures.
    Sorry, absolutely no way.

  36. Pat

    In a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1795, never overturned.
    They ruled in Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrator’s ” All governments are corporations, in as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, a creature of the mind only, a government can deal only with artificial persons. The imaginary having no real substance cannot create or attain parity with the real. The legal aspect is no government, or any law agency, or court thereof can concern itself with anything other than corporations, or artificial persons, and the contracts between them.

    Erie V. 1938 Tompkins, ” No Contract No Case”.

    Amendment XIII
    Section 1.
    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    The legal definition for involuntary servitude:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7102

    22 U.S. Code § 7102 – Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute
    6) Involuntary servitude
    The term “involuntary servitude” includes a condition of servitude induced by means of—
    (A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
    (B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.

    ” The state citizen is free from any and all government attacks and procedure absent contract.” see Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly “… every man is independnt of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70,

    • Timmr

      Basically I’ve consented to the institutions of our government. I drive on the roads it paves, I use its money, I expect it to protect me from harm, I give it the taxes to do these things. Like you said, the government is not a real person, but a corporation (rather a cooperation) of people, I am part of it. What I expect in return is for rest of these people that I give authority to to follow a few simple rules outlined in the constitution. If they don’t the contract’s off. By what force am I going to enforce it? Form a militia? Resort to violence? I hardly think so. All we have is argument, so we better have some good moral arguments or the rest of the people in this organization are going to keep screwing us.

  37. Clark

    At Pat…good comment Pat…I too have involuntary servitude in the line-up to HomeRun the restrictions and this ripe to contest registry.

  38. FED UP

    Mr Knight,
    I may be mistaken but I believe you can register to vote if on Probation??

    Criminal Justice Realignment Act
    In 2011, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Criminal Justice Realignment Act (CJRA). Under Penal Code section 1170(h), low-level felons are sentenced to county jail and/or supervision by the county probation department instead of state prison. CJRA has caused some confusion about voting rights among people who have criminal convictions. Below states who is eligible and who is not eligible to register to vote in California.

    Not Eligible
    In state prison.
    In county jail serving a state prison sentence.
    In county jail serving a felony sentence under Penal Code section 1170(h).
    On parole, mandatory supervision, or post release community supervision.

    ELIGIBLE
    In county jail serving a misdemeanor sentence. A misdemeanor never affects your right to vote.
    In county jail because jail time is a condition of probation.
    On probation.
    Done with parole, mandatory supervision, or post release community supervision. Your right to vote is automatically restored when parole or supervision is done.

  39. Roldan

    We’re going to need a miracle on this tierd bill being introduced on time and passing in the committies and in both houses in Sacramento. For those who believe in God pray asking Him in the name of Jesus Christ His Son for that miracle. And thank you Miss Janice and all those whom have put their time and efforts to make this unjust registration law the way it should be applied-for we are up against people who feel and think that they are above God because they still hold our past against us and disregard our constitutional right to be FREE! etc. They need to do what is RIGHT AND JUST!

    • Gerald

      Religion like the registry is a huge failure and for the same reasons.

      • Timmr

        I would say the registry IS a religion, or rather a cult, because its very existence is based on a belief system that places myths above the need for empirical evidence.

    • Harry

      God knows about this and He is marking down the works those who call themselves Christians, in Carson.

  40. BAM

    There has to be some other way to get this bill passed than to put our hopes on some one to author this bill that may or may not have known anyone in our shoes(assemblyman) (Senator) you name it. Hopefully we can get someone in our corner that understands,knows & feels what some of us are going through. These are some hurting situations, very impossible to close the book on situations. The best thing that i know to do is call on a higher power in the name of Jesus to help us and the Mrs. Janice + team on this journey!! Yall pray with me.

    • MS

      Surely there are some assemblymen and/or Senators that tout themselves as “Christians”. Some that go to church every Sunday, send their kids to Christian schools, and pray before every meal. Perhaps they can be sent a letter (outlining what registration does for registrants and their families), a letter that includes some relevant bible versus. Perhaps include some very well written letters from SO family members (I’m sure they are out there) that outline the pain & suffering (joblessness, homelessness, hopelessness, fear, hate crimes, suicide, etc) that registration brings. Perhaps there will be at least one member with strong enough religious conviction to do something about it. To do what is right not only as a human being but as a child of God. Suggest that they ask themselves…”What would Jesus do?” I can assure you that Jesus wouldn’t be for the registry.

  41. Roldan

    You’re right religion and the registry is a huge failure and introduced by hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach, who use both means to fill their pockets, etc. But I know there is a God that truly does exist that sees the injustices, their greed , the hypocricy and how we’re being used to stay in office and keep their pockets full Why even have a Management Board if they’re not going to implement the Board’s recommendations especially knowing that the budget funds could be better used in other meaningfull areas. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. I think it would be nice if they would read all these comments just so they could know that we know what’s REALLY GOING ON perhaps they’ll get off their thrones and high horses and on their knees along with the many of us and pray for mercy and hopefully they’ll stand up with the conviction to do what is constitutionally right in the interest of justice of their promise to uphold the CONSTITUTION!

  42. BAM

    For the life of me, Im trying to figure out why the Ca sex offender management board would wait so late to back the bill. With limited time to find some one to author this bill and introduce it into the Senate, wow!! Tom Amiano must have known another assemblyman who favored him when trying to introduce AB702. Tom had to have some type of influence then and he has to have some what of influence now. Half of the job is done with the Sex offender management board backing us,The bill just needs to be introduced. I mean there are several other states who have adopted a bill for a tiered registry by using this same method. Tom’s influence is the key, i believe, somebody needs to get a hold of this guy!! We have 9 days left. Thank you in advance for helping us Lord in the name of Jesus amen!!! I apoligise to those of you who do not believe in a higher power. !! I believe that we will prevail this year!!

  43. David

    BAM, most of us are praying with you for this Bill’s introduction and passage.
    May our prayers and wishes be heard.

  44. anonymously

    OnceFallen said “Since a few people are making references to Nazi Germany, I’ll make one of my own. Cali RSOL’s support of a three-tiered registry reminds me of Sophie’s Choice. Just how many registered citizens are you folks willing to sacrifice to cut at most a handful of registered citizens off the registry? I can’t help but to question the leadership at Cali RSOL. In fact, I’ve pulled their links off my website.”

    While to compare tiering of the registry to Sophies Choice could be considered very dramatic language, I can see the comparison’s validity. But even with a choice as hard to make as that, it’s better than no choice at all I would think.

  45. CA

    This is regarding the Mosley case!, from what I read about some of the people that attended the oral arguments on December 2nd 2014, was that the Justices seemed to agree that the residency restrictions was a “stupid law”! obviously they tried it with the parolees and it was a major headache for both sides. It just seems to me that applying the residency restrictions to every RSO, would be a disaster of epic proportions right? I think common sense will prevail on this one. PLEASE COMMENT 🙂

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 *

.