ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


Janice’s Journal: Registered Citizens Trapped in U.S.

Registered citizens are being trapped in the U.S. by the federal government. They are not allowed to travel overseas for business reasons, to visit family members, or just to relax on vacation.

The reason given for this entrapment is to prevent the international sex trafficking of children. We do not support international sex trafficking of children which is a heinous crime. However, the U.S. government is overreaching in the methods it uses to address this real and dangerous problem. That is, the U.S. government is targeting virtually all registered citizens who attempt to travel abroad. It matters not that their offense did not involve a child or occurred decades ago and hasn’t been repeated.

The U.S. government is preventing registered citizens from traveling overseas in a number of ways, including reviewing the manifests for international flights. If a registered citizen is found on such a flight manifest, U.S. government officials provide a written warning to the country into which they are traveling. The receiving country, in turn, does not allow entry into that country and in fact immediately deports the registered citizen.

This all happens with no prior notice to the registered citizen and/or those who are traveling with him/her. Deportation of a registered citizens is embarrassing and expensive at the least and a violation of his/her constitutional rights at the worst.

Where is the due process guaranteed for all citizens by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? If a registered citizen is not allowed to travel outside the U.S., then the U.S. government must provide that citizen with a hearing during which he/she can provide evidence that he/she is not involved and has never been involved in international sex trafficking.

In the absence of such hearings, registered citizens have already been denied entry into may countries, including but not limited to, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates and the Philippines.

In one such case, a registered citizen is being denied re-entry to the Philippines where he moved 10 years ago and subsequently married, started a family, initiated a business and purchased a home. He left the Philippines a year ago for what he thought was a 30-day business trip to the U.S.

Several decades ago U.S. citizens, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and author Arthur Miller, were prohibited from traveling abroad because the U.S. government determined their overseas travel was “not in the interests of the United States”. Fortunately, the U.S. government corrected that problem long ago.

It is now time for the U.S. government to correct the problem it has created by preventing overseas travel by registered citizens. The U.S. government must either allow registered citizens to travel overseas or conduct hearings that provide registered citizens with their due process rights.

– Janice Bellucci

Read all of Janice’s Journal


Tag: International Travel
International Megan’s Law / RSO Travel Issues
(ICE / Interpol procedure)

Join the discussion

  1. Margaret Moon

    Has anyone challenged this practice? If challenged, would SCOTUS support this heinous violation of rights? Where is the ACLU on this?
    I also have to wonder what the government’s ulterior motive is in preventing registered citizens from leaving the country?? There has to be a profit motive somewhere. Scary…

    • NotLikingCalifornia

      ACLU doesn’t like sex offenders. They’ve never been a friend on this issue. They believe in civil liberties for everyone but registered citizens.

      • Q

        It sure does seem that way. The only times I can recall seeing the California ACLU involve is an issue affecting registrants is when the issue overlaps into non registrant ground.Other than that I don’t think we are worthy of their attention; in California at least. I do see the ACLU in other states standing up for our rights, and doing a good job of it in many cases; you just don’t see that here in the stupid state – west.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        NotLikingCalifornia, I have to agree with you on that. The ACLU has mostly been a no-show on the issue of civil rights for registrants.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      The motive is simply hate.

      • L Mitaro

        Bingo! They are consumed with hate. (I can see right through all this so-called “diversity and sensitivity” training). Not to mention they are hell bent revenge, retaliation and having “less than zero” tolerance or sympathy.

        “Oh, we just can’t open the floodgates with these people..”


        • Will Allen

          I completely agree. I think they are hateful, immoral scumbags. F them. I pray they die. I will be at war with them until I win. That is what they get just so they can have their little jollies by having me on their idiotic list. They’ve been paying dearly for it for well over a decade and it will continue. They say I’m a problem so I’m going to be the biggest one I can possibly be.

        • SWY

          All I’m saying is that the ACLU can’t be all bad if they allow the CARSOL to have our meetings at their office is LA. We don’t want to bite the hand…

        • Tired of hiding

          Will Allen I like your style and totally agree with every word you say…I have said over and over that is a war and we are seen as the enemy by our own government! Well, they started this war so lets make some noise and wake them the F UP!

        • Jonathan Merritt

          I agree.
          The ACLU is an organism that cares only for its own survival, fed by bleeding heart liberals out of being guilty of their own affluence. They know that if they come take up our cause then they will lose their good guy badges. My wife is in China as I write this letter to all of you. I did not try to go with her out of fear of being sent back and embarrassing my new family. I do believe that we may have some chance for change with Rand Paul.
          He has ideas on changing what he calls the broken criminal justice system, and he talks a lot about due process and constitutionality. We will have to wait and see.

  2. Hard to Challenge

    This one will be tough to defeat.

    The US government will maintain that they are simply sharing public information that the receiving country is making the decision to refuse entry, not the United States.

    • NPS

      Well it certainly violates the rights of those who are NOT subject to public disclosure. Many of us registrants are not on Megan’s Law websites. There are no notifications for our neighborhoods. We are simply known only to LOCAL law enforcement in the cities we reside.

      • Joe

        @NPS – you make a very good point. Those are not considered enough of a threat to inform their neighbors who are living on their block 365 days a year, but foreign countries half way around the world must be warned when they go visit for a few days.

        Sounds indeed like some kind of twisted Equal Protection argument…

    • 4sensiblePolicies

      Absolutely true that this is precisely the claim that the oppressing entity will make. I think the very challengeable nuance is the nature of the text in the notice. My understanding is that they are not simply sending notice that the person has some past conviction, but that the person is likely traveling with intent to commit a sex crime. Such inflammatory statements have the same functional effect as banning travel outright. Damaging statements made in complete absence of any due process to contest the false claim is completely unconstitutional. This must be challenged at some point. Hopefully a fund will be established in order to litigate that will be supported generously by the many already harmed – and by anyone who ever dreams of being able to travel beyond the borders of usa.

    • Gerald

      Hard to beat–just sharing information? I don’t know…This info apparently is only directed at a specific group of Americans and only applied to a specific classification of crime.
      To target a specific group of citizens without due process wreaks of corruption and moral turpitude.

    • steve

      Again, like Justice Roberts said “Registering is just like getting a membership to Costco” I didn’t know my membership to Costco came with a travel ban.

    • Tired of hiding

      Good point about them only forwarding PUBLIC INFORMATION but the point is that there should be NO PUBLIC INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Once you have done time and or done your probation or whatever then all civil rights should be restored. They should NOT send out information (they do not do that for other past offenders) NOR should it be done stating that we intend to do more SEX CRIMES when we travel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      These A-holes can’t even balance the budget so how can they possibly see into the future to predict what an individual (and each of us IS still an individual regardless of them wanting to throw is all together) is going to do in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      In fact, if they want to live in the real world (not gonna happen since we are talking about the government) then they would actually know that we are the least likely to be going overseas to do anything wrong at all!!!

      Wake up and smell the hate and prejudice!

      • Timmr

        Wake up and DO something about the hate and prejudice!

        • Tired of hiding

          Well Timmr – I am not a lawyer so you tell me what to do. Would you mind doing that? Got any bright ideas I should try? I am all ears…

          I have publicly stated that I WILL be a part of ANY legal action taken by ANY lawyer who needs RSOs to represent to challenge these and any other laws related to sex offender limitations.

          I have yet to be contacted.

        • NPS

          You can start by reading some recent posts linking to a class action suit.*

          Don’t expect anyone to contact you personally. It’s pretty self-centered of you to think anyone will go out of their way just for you. Frankly, your posts to this site have been anything but helpful to the cause. If you’re going to talk the talk, then I suggest you start walking the walk. Otherwise, take your negativity elsewhere.

          *Post Script: I thought about providing the link to this post, but then that would completely defeat my second paragraph.

        • Tired of hiding

          You call it being negative. I call it being realistic. Don’t tell me to go elsewhere. My speech is limited enough without people like YOU trying to silence others simply because YOU do not agree with the viewpoint!

          I do “walk the walk” and I have personally contacted many lawyers with no luck.

          The reason (since it is not clear to you) that I have posted my willingness to be part of any legal action is precisely because I am NOT AFRAID to have my REAL name used (ask Janice) and I therefore would like any lawyers who might be reading this forum to know that information.

          If you don’t like my comments don’t read them.

        • Joe

          I am no expert but I think you are missing the point. Unless you just dumped a cup of hot McDonald’s coffee in your lap NO lawyer will contact you and offer their services.

          Here is a good place to start:

          I find it very hard to believe that not one of these legal professionals would be willing to take your case. What seems to be the stumbling block?

        • Timmr

          There are a lot of bright ideas offered on this site, but maybe you hear what you like. Join the WAR effort. Hold up a sign. Write letters to the legislature. Write letters to newspapers. Testify before government bodies, contribute money to those who do these things for you. If you are looking for something grand and glorious, like the lawsuit that ends all registration laws, my instinct is no one will help you at this stage. This is not a movie script. Lawyer comes in and saves the Constitution and the world. It’s real life. I’m not anything like a lawyer, either. Sorry. My guess is that it is going to take a lot of boring, sometimes embarrassing, small but important acts of trial and error and defiance in order to approach that goal. By that time we will have shown many more lawyers that the Constitution lives in our works and then they will follow, not the other way ’round. I think(our CARSOL group excluded) most lawyers are not activists, but opportunists ready to follow a trail blazed by others. We have to own the cause. I see it as real muddling work, and the more working on it the better the chance of Victory.

  3. Gerald

    Thank you for your comment Janice.
    Long ago I learned that morality and fair play go hand in hand.
    And as you point out, our pride in our Constitution and American freedom is only consistent with our adherence to a system of due process.

  4. Pedro

    Janice, who would I contact to help me with travel to Europe (Paris) and a cruise to Alaska stopping in Canada, requiring a passport for booking and reentry? How can I find out in advance before booking the vacation? Has anyone brought this issue before the courts as of yet? This may be an area of victory for our constitutional cause! I’ve been registering in southern California for 33 years and just want to retire with some travel…. Thank you for all your efforts and May God pour blessings upon you and your family.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Please contact attorney Chance Oberstein at 949-365-5842 as he has experience in this area of law.

    • steve

      Canada does not allow ANYONE in with a felony or even misdemeanor DUI.

      • NPS

        Not entirely true. My former attorney told me that after 10 years with a clean record, you can petition and be allowed into the country.

        • Joe

          More information about petitioning Canada for rehabilitation and entry after a criminal conviction can be found here:

          In defense of our Canadian neighbors, their rules are harsh but at least they apply to all criminals as opposed to singling out one unpopular sub-set.

  5. USA

    Does anyone know if they are targeting all registered citizens? I had a battery at a massage parlor that’s since been expunged?

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Well, for starters, the feds do not recognize a California “expungement.” So that doesn’t help you with them. Heck, California doesn’t even recognize it for registrants, makes them register anyway. California used to let you stop registering once you get an expungement.

  6. USA

    I concur. This is absurd! I plead to a battery/non child related almost 20 years ago/expunged! I have family on a foreign country and a bit paranoid with purchasing an airline ticket and being turned away.

  7. Harry

    Janice, would you permit the re-use of what you have written? I would like to share this with my congressmen.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Anyone who wishes to use this “editorial” has my permission to do so provided that it is done in a constructive manner.

      • Jonathan Merritt

        Thank you so much Janice!
        I have sent this article to Rand Paul in hopes that it would help him to understand what our government is doing to us and what kind of America we have to live in.

  8. Katharine

    This program is supposed to combat international sex trafficking. Sex trafficking has a very specific definition, which the United Nations defines here:
    Sex trafficking is not equivalent to sexual abuse or sexual assault or viewing child pornography or many other sex crimes. To take away the right to international travel of all 820,000+ registered citizens, rather than just those who have been convicted specifically of sex trafficking, is the equivalent of taking away the licenses of all drivers who have traffic infractions, like those with speeding or parking tickets, in addition to those who have drunk-driving convictions. It’s just overkill. Or in legalese, not narrowly tailored to achieve its objective.

    My personal belief is that the feds are just looking for something new to do with their precious sex offender registry — to justify its existence and to keep the funds flowing in — rather than actually looking to combat sex trafficking. If they were serious about combating trafficking, they would not be wasting our tax dollars on this program.

    • j

      I’m sure a father taking his wife and kids on vacation has already planned to conduct a sophisticated criminal operation in between taking them to the museums, historic sites and otherwise trying to enjoy their time together.

  9. Robert

    Thank you Janice for your editorial and speaking out on this important issue.

  10. Robert

    A troublesome aspect of this program is the fact that it was conceptualized and put into place by the DOJ SMART Office – the same office responsible for providing SORN guidance to all U.S. jurisdictions. The very same office that should be responsible for clarifying the truth of empirical data concerning the lack of any connection between the people listed on the registry and exploitation of children abroad. Instead, this office sits back and allows law-makers to believe they are making a difference in combating child exploitation with this program. There is no empirical data that shows registered citizens of the US registry are responsible for exploiting children abroad.

    Ironically, when married to a foreign national as many of us are, this program hurts not only the targeted registered US citizen but victimizes our family members as well. Our family members include women and children – the same category of people the politicians and influence peddlers are claiming to protect. When the government intrudes into our personal life to separate us from our families as it is doing here, it leaves the wife without a husband and the children without a father. This program does not help children, it actually harms them.

    • j

      This is based on a single or additional instances when a registrant broke the law overseas. The natural course of action is to drag 750,000 through the same knothole for funding and more of the same 25 year old rhetoric and distortions that crafted these draconian and sinister instruments decades or scores ago. Another win for big business and big government.

      It seems are being punished retroactively for things other people did from what I can tell. this is key argument and has to be a breach of our constitutional protections, especially so long after the fact in most cases.

  11. USA

    Steve: I’ve actually visited Canada 3-times! My charge is expunged. Although, when re-entering the US, I’m stopped and the run me

  12. Anonymous Nobody

    Actually, the US government is NOT preventing registrants from traveling overseas, at least not directly. They are simply sending info, not telling the receiving country to send them back.

    But we have multiple reports on this Website about the content of the information they are sending. That content certainly is legally libel! They apparently are sending very little about the offense, maybe simply saying a “sex offense,” and not clarifying that it was just misdemeanor indecent exposure or whatever it might be nor that it might have been 30 years ago. AND, they are adding that the person is traveling to that country for the purpose of committing a sex offense! They don’t know anything about the traveler’s purpose, they haven’t even asked or otherwise looked into it! That is outrageous to say, and definitely libel. And if they really know that, then how can they allow the person to leave in the first place?!

    If you were told that that is the purpose, how can you let the person in?!

    Nonetheless, to send anything is wrong. Oh, again, maybe for someone on parole, but even then, since the parole officer will have had to OK it, then why does the US feel a need to send anything? (I know the answer, see my comment above – it is out of hate, it is a hate crime, hate libel.)

    Mind you, the other countries do not require the US to send this. In fact, the US is now trying to get it put into an international treaty that will require it, thus giving protection to the US in a court challenge.

    I have given various thoughts about this and how to attack it in other threads for some time now. For one thing, we need to know the specific law being used to justify this – it appears that for now, that might be the Patriot Act (which is up for renewal in June).

    There is a bill in Congress now to specifically instruct to do it, and to my reading, it does actually appear to dramatically reduce to whom this would be done — but I still contend it should not be done, even if only to FORMER child molesters and very high level FORMER offenders. It should not be done any differently or more than any other felony and certainly should not be done to any misdemeanant — that is was a sex offense should not make any difference.

    But about that bill, the language is not so precise as to avoid interpretations that go against us. It says the checks and information would only be for those offenses listed in the Adam Walsh Act, and California makes a LOT more offenses register than does the Adam Walsh Act (which, on an aside, is why I have so many times at this Website urged we go for conformance to federal rather than for the misguided tiers). But that language also is one of the less-then-precise spots, as the Adam Walsh Act lists various offenses, but it also has a clause saying that if you register in one state, you must do so in another you move to even if that state does not require otherwise registration for that offense. So, there is room for aggressive people to argue that that clause means the state decides, and can effectively require the international notice for more offenses than otherwise listed in the Adam Walsh Act.

    But that raises another issue: It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to delegate its responsibility for international affairs to the states, and to go by state decisions about who must register would be doing just that. That problem would reach not only this bill going through Congress, but also what they already are doing, apparently under the Patriot Act, as all reports are that they are doing this to ALL registrants, not just those registering for offenses listed in the Adam Walsh Act.

    In addition, the US cannot treat similarly situated people differently in this. But, when you have one state requiring registration for offenses a second state does not, what we have now is that those in the first state are being treated much more harshly than those in the second state — what state you are in will determine whether you suffer this notice. That is not constitutional, but the US is already doing that to registrants, and has been doing it for a year and a half now, and no one is challenging it.

    I’m sure there is nothing in the Patriot Act addressing sex offenders, yet it seems to have been extended to registrants — and I seriously wonder about the language involved, as that certainly must have been twisted and misinterpreted severely. If nothing else, the courts must interpret law with consideration given to the legislative intent, and the record in passing the Patriot Act would certainly show no intent about sex offenders, ONLY about terrorists, and so interpreting a general comment about, say, “violator,” for instance, could not mean any violator but only a terrorist, because that was the clear legislative intent as shown by the debate during passage!

    Another note: Everyone on all manifests for all flights, whether domestic or international, have been getting checked by the federal government since 9/11, under the Patriot Act. But that was supposed to have been to check travelers against the government’s terrorist list. It now appears that that has been extended to registrants fir international trips and to also involve the notice to the receiving country about intent.

  13. brunello

    In preparing for a legal challenge of this notification it would be important to collect copies of the notices sent out for a number of people who have been barred from entry to another country. This can be done by requesting a copy of the notice under the Freedom if Information Act. There are websites to help with this. A collection of 20 to 100 such notices would be enough to establish what kind of a pattern guides the emission of such notices. Do we really know that they are sent out for every registrant traveling out of the country? Do we really know whether toe contents of all notices are the same? A challenge must be based on accurate information. Writers to this forum can help by obtaining this FOIA information in their own cases and sending it to a sympathetic lawyer – Janice or Chance.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      A more direct way would be to get the policy that is controlling this – that would be a written policy that could be obtained.

  14. coor CA RC

    We can not even ride our bike or run across the USA like Forrest Gump.
    We don’t have that freedom with out fear of being arrested for failure to register

  15. Nicholas Maietta

    Some of us, such as myself would love to leave this country and never come back. I can still operate my business from afar, where there are no registries. I know of places where the weather is nice, the people are awesome and believe that a persons past doesn’t make up who they are.

    If they (our government) don’t want sex offenders anywhere in the United States (as seen by all the crazy laws), then why not let us leave and ban us from coming back? I’d be totally cool with that.

  16. George

    This issue does not only affect California, or the USA, it affects anyone who can be subject to an Interpol Green Notice. I am a UK RSO and I am required by law to inform the police of any foreign travel, thus I suffer the same notice being sent about myself.

    I have never had any intention to travel to commit any crimes and it is a breach of my human rights to say I am traveling with intent to commit further sexual crimes.

    Please focus on this issue as it affects Millions of people throughout the world.

    UK RSO.

    • j

      Have you been denied travel, mobility or have been prevented from entering another country? Do you have any specifics on what countries you have successfully visited?

      I know that vacation packages are a good bargain for seeing historic sites in Europe but I haven’t even considered taking my family on such a tour for fear of our vacation being ruined and all of us subjected to further shaming and humiliation.

      Has anything changed with regard to residents of other EU countries being able to enter the UK that you are aware of?

    • John Smith

      Hello George

      What level RSO are you in the UK, crime? Can you travel within Schengen countries presuming you have a UK Passport? Are you sent back, denied residency etc?

  17. Pat

    Are we to believe that the 7th amendment is for everyone BUT sex offenders?
    ” the right of jury by trial shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in ANY court of the united states than according to the rules of common law.”
    For those who were tried, convicted, and sentenced in accordance with the in place at that time, how can it be possible to have a “hearing” in a court, for a judge to decide what else shall be required of this person. After the sentence is expired there is no subject matter for a court to operate on. Am I wrong?

    The matter has already been examined and decided, no later court has any power over the matter. ??

  18. Pat

    out of Maine –

    CRIMINAL LAW: Punitive Effect of Retroactive Application of Sex Offender Registration Requirements

    the court found that the duty to comply with SORNA had been imposed on Doe without a judicial trial (another requirement for a bill of attainder) because at the time Doe was sentenced, his crime was not deemed to be a sex offense and, thus, there was no judicial determination that Doe was a sex offender and no judicial order incorporating the registration obligation into his criminal sentence. Finally, as to the other requirement for a bill of attainder, the court found that the SORNA amendment in question may have targeted a specific group based on its members’ prior conduct

    • Harry

      The punitive effect of sex offender registration is so clear, that a blind man can see it. The courts can not bury their heads in the sand of denial much longer.

      • Gerald

        Well said Harry but it seems the registry has become a religious entity unto itself united by dogmatic leaders with their own holy book of truths and revelations.
        Anyone who is not a true believer is in league with the forces of evil and must be expelled from the new kingdom of the righteous.
        Sex offenders cannot be saved or forgiven, they can only be controlled by the force of the all-powerful Registry.
        Even the traditional church bows down to this all knowing all seeing omnipotent Entity.
        They along with legislative leaders and judges have learned not to speak blasphemy against the Registry for it can mean certain political death.
        It’s leaders rejoice as they preach the saving grace of the Registry into all the countries of the earth where the day will come when everyone comes to love and bow down to the almighty Registry. Hallelujah!

        • Timmr

          Yes, the holy Registry does follow the Puritanical canon of four centuries ago, that some are born damned, and the only thing to do is to banish or otherwise eliminate the damned from society. The new enlightenment is way past due.

  19. Rob3

    By notifying countries of a sex offenders arrival you will be restricting some sex offenders from entering countries where what they did was not even a crime in that country! The age of consent in mexico varies greatly from 15 to puberty. My crime wasn’t a crime in any part of mexico yet I cannot travel to that country now because of our shameful government.
    I can’t travel to canada yet at the time in 2005 my crime in the US was not a crime in canada, that seems to be a retroactive punishment.

  20. Robert

    Class action lawsuit planned. We all need to support/ join this effort, maybe this can lead to a national effort.


      I have been posting the link to W.A.R. on any and all posts that I can find. Everyone should be doing the same. The more people the louder the voice.If not now, when? If not you, who? Take charge and fight for a change and get rid of the registry.

  21. Laurence K

    Janice thank you for this informative article.

    My family has scheduled a 10 day vacation at a timeshare in Cabo San Lucas Mexico. I am a registered sex offender from an offense in 2000. I have a US passport and an otherwise glean record.
    Should I anticipate any problems once our flight arrives in Mexico?
    Does it help to make pre-arrangements with the consulate.

    Please advise

    Thank you again

    • steve

      Based on what others have experienced it is likely you will be sent back…unfortunately.

    • GRR

      Do not get on a US plan to Mexico as you will be sent right back home. You can drive there or take a bus you just can’t fly there from the US.

      • GRR

        Forget about trying to obtain your visa stamp at the Mexican Consulate. The minute you get on a US plan headed anywhere internationally, you’re outed by Home Land Security.

        Get on a bus in TJ a few days before the family fly’s down (oh and have a few cold one’s on the way) and meet them at the Cabo airport. You can fly back with them just be ready to be detained for about a 1/2 hour or so back in the good old U S of BS.

        “They can beat us down but it is not over until we say so”.

  22. Alex

    I am a 290 registrant and have worked in the swimming pool industry for 15 years. I’ve been promoted to general manager of our company, and need to get a Contractor’s license, which will require a background check and fingerprints.
    Am I automatically barred from obtaining this license?

    Thank you.

    • mike t

      @ Alex,

      I just browsed the ABA Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction website:

      I did not see an outright ban on a contractor license for sex offenses. There may be limitations with whom your company may be allowed to contract with, such as public or private pools where “swimming classes” are held. Possibly even senior centers where pools are used for “physical therapy”. This is just my interpretation, there could be something I’ve overlooked and I’m not an attorney. It is certainly worthy of more research.

    • mike t

      Postscript: Congratulations on your promotion!

    • USA

      Congrats Alex. Don’t quote me, but go onto the California Contractors license website. I believe registered citizens are banned from licensing. I hope I’m wrong!

      In some cases, based on the applicant’s criminal record, CBU may offer an applicant the opportunity to be issued a probationary license in lieu of denying the license because of a criminal conviction. The issuance of this probationary license is authorized by subsection (e) of Business and Professions Code section 7073, which states, in part, that in lieu of denying a license, a probationary license may be issued with terms and conditions. It is a fully functioning license that will remain on probationary status for a set period of time—typically two to four years.

      I presently: FYI; live in OC and I’m seeking to build a pool. Janice, you can provide Alex with my email

    • Eric Knight

      You probably have this, but here is a link the the PDF that contains virtually everything anyone needs to know about California contracting and the law:

      Specifically, here is an excerpt from “Denial of Licenses” (page 283)

      “Denial of Licenses

      § 480. Grounds for denial; Effect of obtaining certificate of rehabilitation

      (a) A board may deny a license regulated by this code on the grounds that the applicant has one of the following:

      (1) Been convicted of a crime. A conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere. Any action that a board is permitted to take following the establishment of a conviction may be taken when the time for appeal has elapsed, or the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, or when an order granting probation is made suspending the imposition of sentence, irrespective of a subsequent order under the provisions of Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code.

      (2) Done any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit with the intent to substantially benefit himself or herself or another, or substantially injure another.

      (3) (A) Done any act that if done by a licentiate of the business or profession in question, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of license.

      (B) The board may deny a license pursuant to this subdivision only if the crime or act is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which application is made.

      (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no person shall be denied a license solely on the basis that he or she has been convicted of a felony if he or she has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3 of the Penal Code or that he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor if he or she has met all applicable requirements of the criteria of rehabilitation developed by the board to evaluate the rehabilitation of a person when considering the denial of a license under subdivision (a) of Section 482. (c) A board may deny a license regulated by this code on the ground that the applicant knowingly made a false statement of fact required to be revealed in the application for the license.

      § 481. Crime and job-fitness criteria

      Each board under the provisions of this code shall develop criteria to aid it, when considering the denial, suspension or revocation of a license, to determine whether a crime or act is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession it regulates.

      After reading it two or three times, I’m a bit befuddled. One paragraph denies all applicants with felonies, another paragraph states that applicants can only be denied if certain attributes of the crime apply only if the crime involved something to do with licensing, or lack of licensing. Someone with a bit more technical legalese can probably come up with an explanation.

      There is NO provision anywhere in this document for registered sex offenders.

      The infamous Chris Kelly, who ran for AG in 2010 and (thankfully) lost, wanted to disqualify registrants not only from licenses working on private residential properties, but also registrants from working on a crew as a worker on private residential property. If you want to read his ridiculous malarkey you can just to to this link:

      “The California State Licensing Board Qualifications needs to institute procedural regulations that prevent any convicted sex offender from obtaining a legal contractor’s license that can be used for in-home construction.

      …(a)s Attorney General, I will push for new background check requirements for contractors to prevent convicted sex offenders from working inside the home and near children.”

      Ever the guffaw king, is Mr. Kelly.

      • Timmr

        The key word is “may” not shall. I would try for it, Alex. On the application there is a section where you have to explain the crime and what you have done to prevent it from happening again. If you succeed, be the most honest and law abiding contractor there is. The License Board has organized unlicensed contractor stings and they make a big deal when they find someone working without a license is also on the registry. That looks bad for us when that happens.

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 *