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

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

Senate Appropriations Committee Approves SB 448

In a vote of 7 to 0, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved Senate Bill 448 (SB 448) on August 27 by releasing it from the committee’s suspense file. The next step for the bill is a vote on the floor of the Senate next week (Monday, August 31) where it is expected to pass. After passage in the Senate, the bill will be referred to two committees in the Assembly — Public Safety and Appropriations.

“Senate Bill 448 must be stopped,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “Although the bill has been amended, it is too broad because it includes anyone, including minors, who uses the internet in the commission of their offense.”

There are no dates yet for the committee hearings, however, both hearings and a floor vote in the Assembly must occur no later than September 11, which is the last day a bill can voted on.

Letters of opposition should be sent as soon as possible to the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, 1020 N Street, Room 111, Sacramento, CA 95814 and the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee, State Capitol, Room 2114, Sacramento, CA 94814. If possible, letters should also be sent via FAX to (916) 319-3745 for Public Safety and to (916) 319-2181 for Appropriations.

Letters can also be sent to individual members of the Committees. That information can be found online at


SB 448 scheduled for hearing August 24

Join the discussion

  1. Joe

    Very strange process… there is only ONE business day between Thursday (approval by Appr. Committee) and the Senate Floor hearing on Monday. Since I am not eligible to contact the members of neither the Public Safety Committee nor the Appropriations Committee via e-mail UNLESS I reside in their district that leaves me next to no time to contact MY representative in the California Senate.

    But maybe all of this is much ado about nothing.

    After this (if it does) passes the Senate on Monday August 31 it must go to 2 Committees (PS and Appr.) in the Assembly and then to the Assembly Floor. Here is the CA Assembly schedule.

    Aug. 31 – Sept. 11 Floor Session only. No committee may meet for any purpose except for Rules Committee and Conference Committees (J.R. 61(a)(12)).

    Sept. 11 Last day for any bill to be passed (J.R. 61(a)(14)). Interim Study Recess begins upon adjournment (J.R. 51(a)(4)).

    So the first chance for an Assembly Committee to consider this is Sept 1 but there are no committee meetings allowed in this period? What is the point?

  2. MarkW-SF

    Loni Hancock and Mark Leno agreed to vote and pass SB448, pre-amendment language by Hueso, right?

    As Timmr noted Aug 16, this process also violates the Brown Act: “This is a violation of California’s open meeting act, which fulfills the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution — the Brown Act.”

    • Timmr

      Question one, is the Public Safety Committee’s vote valid? Is it legal to vote for something that says “fill in the blanks” with this and this, and the author turns around and chooses to fill it in with something else?
      Question two, what’s the emergency? I haven’t seen any evidence that the sky is going to fall if this isn’t passed in three weeks. If that is how they spend our money, thoughtlessly, without deliberation, they need to all be recalled.
      If this is the way our government works, there is a way to describe it — inept. This is exactly what the Brown Act is there to prevent.
      I am preparing letters tonight. Won’t be as good as it could be but the point is to resist, whether we win or lose, we feel pessimistic or hopeful, the important thing for us is to do what’s right. At least you can stand tall and say you opposed this crap. We all better FAX these letters in.

    • brunello

      I’ve been wondering how the Democrats on the committee could support this oppressive legislation. My answer, now, is that it’s political: they want to help DUI Hueso get re-elected. I recall a similar event about ten years ago, in which a “get tough on sex offenders” bill was handed to a junior Democratic legislator to sponsor in order to help her win re-election in her red district in the San Joaquin Valley. Seems I read about this, including this political analysis, in the LA Times. I suppose these pols know what they’re doing, even Mark Leno.

      • Timmr

        Yeah, we are the universal n#$%ers, bated and hated and exploited by both sides. Anyway, faxed my letters off tonight. Mail them off tomorrow once I get my printer re-inked. Thank you, Janice for sending email about this.
        Everyone go to a meeting in your area, if only to take the minute to put your email down on the list for notifications. They need thousands of contacts, because a call to action at best only gets about 10% response.

  3. Cool CA RC

    WOW, Im surprise

  4. Matt

    This shouldn’t surprise anybody. And it will pass overwhelmingly as it moves forward. Picture the TV ads against any person who votes against it come election time. There is simply no way any elected official will ever do the right thing when it comes to this class of people. The only way it will every be resolved in our favor is through the high courts. And even that isn’t a certainty, as we all know. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on constitutional items. RSO’s are clearly the most oppressed and abused citizens in the country, but so far, it doesn’t seem to matter.

    We now have the CDCR and the CASOMB in general agreement that RSO’s have a very low recidivism rate, and that the hysteria is unwarranted, unjustified, and not helpful to the safety of society. Each time a new report comes out in favor of RSO’s, it falls on deaf ears. That’s the part that really needs to change. But as this evidence mounts in our favor, we need to be getting prepared to go to the high court. The way to do that is to support the efforts of CARSOL. This needs to end up in the Supreme Court. And that needs to happen at the right time, and with the right case. When the Chief Justice argues that registration is no more difficult than having a membership at a big box store, it’s daunting. But it’s still doable.

    Every time we chip away at a small piece of the bigger problem, these clowns will just come up with a new way to oppress. It really isn’t about us individually. It’s about power, money, and electability. As long as that is the case, we cannot expect any support from anybody who has to run for reelection.

    I rarely get surprised anymore. But the one thing that baffles me is the ACLU. RSO’s should be the cause of a big organization that supposedly protects citizens from an oppressive government. But, for the most part, it seems that they aren’t very willing to help. I don’t understand that.

  5. Paul

    The stupidity of our lawmakers knows no bounds. To argue that this bill is constitutional because it is “narrowly tailored”, and serves a “legitimate government interest” is asinine.

    To underestimate the importance the internet plays in today’s arena of free speech is tantamount to saying that a simple sit in at a diner was insignificant in 1960. To use a current example, the hashtag #blacklivesmatter has triggered an entire civil rights movement. This simple expression of free speech has unified tens of thousands of people! It has also lead to several marches and protests, some of which have experienced specific criminal acts. Would a lawmaker craft a bill narrowly targeting the leaders of the #blacklivesmatter movement, because their cause has triggered a small amount of violence, theft, and vandalism? Would this hypothetical bill require those leaders to report their social media accounts to law enforcement authorities, so that those authorities could maintain surveillance on them? In theory, this hypothetical bill serves a legitimate government interest in that it could prevent specific criminal acts.

    Obviously, no lawmaker would dare craft such a bill. And if a lawmaker did, no court would ever uphold it as being constitutional. What’s the difference? Obviously, the difference is that one group is more popular than the other. However, both groups enjoy the same constitutional rights and, if it’s constitutional for one group, then it must be constitutional for the other.

    #Blacklivesmatter is only the most recent and current example citing the importance the internet plays in how we express ourselves today. If any group, other than our own, were subjected to such harsh law enforcement scrutiny, there would no doubt be a huge uprising. And, without any doubt, courts would strike those laws on first amendment grounds.

    • Timmr

      The difference is that when a registrant is murdered, no one makes much of a protest about it, social media, on the streets, anywhere.

  6. Andrew

    Please advise us as to how we can all file suits to tie this up in the courts so it can’t be implemented.

  7. Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

    California has some real problems in their legislative process. I think the state elitist culture that makes them think that they are above other states leeches into the legislative process as well. Instead of going to states where II laws have been upheld, they decide to reinvent the square wheel and put the following statement as the trigger for who must report their IIs:

    use of the Internet was essential to the commission of the crime

    And in the definitions section, there is no definition of what “essential” means. This will be a trip wire for an offender who may not have used the internet to groom her victim, but used email to confirm with her son that they were going to bang one out that night. She would have molested him regardless of email, but she used email to confirm the time. Is that essential? I guess depends on what your definition of essential is.

    I think it is possible the only offenders that have 100% freedom from this law are those convicted before 1985 and those who never used the internet or a smart phone ever. Even lay in wait rape offenders could be subjected to this is they used Google Maps to find the address of their victims.

    Then they changed this, obviously trying to hedge off the over-compliance assault they are doomed to receive: “actually used to participate”

    All one needs to do is setup a free blog and send message to your own blog from each identifier. That’s participating, and you can “participate” with 500 million email addresses. I bet some of you PHP gurus could set that up to work automatically too. In fact, a domain and forum with associated unlimited email addresses established exclusively for complying with this law is plausible.

    And the costliest error? “the person shall send written notice” which means they are not setting up an online portal, which means a human will have to open each letter, read each letter, enter the identifiers in a database and file the letters. I recommend you send the first one certified return receipt required and if you can afford it, each update the same. Compounding this issue will be if you follow the law to the LETTER, that means no typed update, WRITTEN updates, ie… written by hand.

    Is there a blog or forum script that allows special characters and wingdings as usernames? Can a good PHP developer make an email platform that permits special characters not normally allowed in email addresses?

    I still maintain that this is not a hard law to follow, it stinks to be sure and lots of us will end up in jail because of the vague undefined “essential” trigger.

    I guess the best thing is for ALL offenders who had an email address before their convictions to do is to go ahead and comply just to be sure you do not get jammed up when some deputy decides “essential” includes you when her predecessor did not think it included you.

    Then join a bunch of incest forums and drive them crazy trying to figure out what you are doing, lol.

    Of course that will do no good since they only want the identifiers and NOT the sites associated WITH the identifiers, lol. Dumb. This law will probably apply to me, so I will have to give them: Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal, but the letter of the law does NOT say I have to provide what site Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal is being used to participate. That REALLY is short-sighted on the drunk driver’s part.

    Has anyone taken yet?

  8. Joe

    So here is a guy where the internet was essential to the commission of the crime (18 yo HS Senior and 15 yo Freshman, statutory, absent force). Seriously, has this guy not heard of the fax machine or a telegram?

    Labrie was convicted of a felony charge and four misdemeanors: the most serious count being the use of an online service or the Internet to seduce, solicit or entice a child under age 16 in order to a commit sexual assault.

    And when will Facebook etc be held liable for facilitating Child Sexual Abuse? What would Chris Kelly say?

  9. MarkW-SF

    I would never dare to inconvenience our esteemed State Senators (and Assemblypersons).

    However, there’s a difference between a Senator, and a politician. A difference between a Senator, and a lawmaker who breaks the law (The Brown Act’s open meetings, US Constitution, and Bill of Rights) to secretly advance a bill into law that is not based in fact or evidence, and does nothing for public safety (SB448). And finally, a difference between a statesperson and leader, and a political hack riding on the back of law-abiding citizens toward the next election. Hueso, Hancock, Leno, Anderson, et al fall in the latter categories. Big news. If you think we can trust them to do right without continued pressure to do so and calling them on BS even illegal behaviors, you’re dreaming. You just got sold out by your “allies”.

    SB448 passed the State Senate. At the last full CA Senate Public Safety Committee hearing in July, Anderson basically cut off public comment, then later spoke to the hearing room for several minutes to say, Contact us, call us, write us. We want to hear from you. We listen to you. We really do. We consider everything you say.

    So: there are some links below to a few of the key CA legislature committees we all reach out to. We contact individual members NOT AS CONSTITUENTS OF THEIR DISTRICTS, but as CA CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR COMMITTEE WORK. That is not only legal, it’s OUR ACCOUNTABILITY AS ACTIVE CITIZENS. Including after committee votes, to let them know you’re watching and acting on their “stuff”.

    In the representatives’ website contact form, if you are outside their district……simply put “Street” or “Avenue” in the Address field, and use their home district office’s zip code in the Zip Code field…….and you’ll go right through. This can result in getting the representatives’ actual office email address in a reply.

    Enjoy. Because you know, the job description of a Senator or Assemblyperson doesn’t include anything about citizens making them feel comfortable. In fact, when attending these committee hearings, I often consider that we as citizens should be up on the elevated dais, and they should be down in the table pit. The present format has such an English aristocracy air to it, don’t you think?


    Direct email/phone/address to CA Senate Public Safety Committee:

    Direct phone/address to CA Senate Appropriations Committee:

    Contact info for CA Assembly Public Safety Committee:

    Contact info for CA Assembly Appropriations Committee:

    • Timmr

      Good point, MarkW-SF. This is legal, re the Brown Act, which says that citizens are not to be required to give their names or fill out any kind of form as a condition of commenting on any meeting. In other words they should take your comments even if you leave the entire form blank. Now, one can always say you can call them and express your views that way, but what if you are mute or have a speech impediment or simply are not as skilled at expressing your views verbally as in writing? And the staff answering the call has certain time limits that preclude elaborating on your opinion. Requiring you to vocalize your opinion would be an abridgement of free speech. Say you had 48 hours to respond to the item on the agenda before a meeting, it is unlikely that your letter will make it there, especially if it is a weekend. Sure, you can PAY to have your letter there overnight, but then again, that can be construed as requiring a fee for your comment, which is also illegal.

  10. MarkW-SF

    I’d also start pressuring each committee member to start listing every single RC/290-related bill in their Contact Form’s Subject line drop-down menu. This goes for the CA legislature site as a whole. When you go on that site to search SB448, incorrect link comes up:

  11. anonymously

    Miranda writes

    “Then join a bunch of incest forums and drive them crazy trying to figure out what you are doing, lol.”

    And kiss away any chance of getting a CoR.

    • Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

      CoR for sex offenders is a loophole that will soon be closed.

      • bg

        Miranda, stop fear-mongering just to make yourself feel better. Unless you are a licensed attorney, which we know is impossible, stop making dramatic claims without evidence. It’s getting obnoxious and your credibility is going down the drain.

        • Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardenal

          BG – Stop telling me what to do, I am not your victim.

        • bg

          LOL victim?? Give me a break.
          You gotta stop using that victim-nonsense as your knee-jerk response to being challenged. Just because someone puts you in your place doesn’t mean you have to pull some idiotic card about “victim” to try to deny it. Stop trying to duck responsibility for the b.s. you continue to spout.

          You might have a problem with needing to find victims and to try to fear-monger them through baseless statements, but no one is going to be YOUR victim. You’re simply not capable of pulling this transparent game off.

        • Anon

          Miranda, it’s obvious that you accuse others of having to need “victims” because you believe the accusation is something that would bother them. You believe this because it’s something that would bother you – it’s pretty clear you’re the only here who needs victims.
          It’s called “mens rea” in law which means “the guilty mind.”
          I suggest you take therapy instead of trying to sow your skewed mentality here because you’re only coming across as a clown.

        • NPS

          Credibility going down the drain??? This person has no credibility to lose; never had any to begin with.

          It’s pretty safe to say that no one will give credence to what this person says. The fact that he has referenced incest more than once is telling of what this person’s frame of mind is. Sick sick sick. Just don’t listen or respond to what Miranda has to say.

        • bg

          Well Miranda is clearly projecting his/her own state of mind onto others with this whole overly-defensive “victim” reaction.
          Also it’s funny how Miranda makes it a point to blindly label anyone who challenges him – trying to lump everyone together down to his own level.
          Sigh, it’s sad.

  12. Jojo

    I believe that this shows an urgency to stop all forms of human trafficking, especially sex trafficking, and that is the driving goal of this bill. They think we’re most likely to be the people causing humans to be bought and sold, who else? Maybe we could help brainstorm a way to stop human trafficking that doesn’t ruin our lives. They obviously couldn’t come up with anything better.

    • David

      It’s unlikely you could come up with something effective to curb human trafficking especially since it is largely non-existent outside of the fevered imaginations of the fantasists.

  13. anonymously

    Miranda wrote “Then join a bunch of incest forums and drive them crazy trying to figure out what you are doing, lol.”

    I wrote “And kiss away any chance of getting a CoR.”

    Miranda writes “CoR for sex offenders is a loophole that will soon be closed.”

    Well, until it is closed, I don’t think anyone should be following that irresponsible and bad advice.

  14. Paul

    I’m not sure if anyone has noticed this yet, but the law does NOT require us to disclose what websites each user name is associated with; only that user names be disclosed.

    “Internet identifier” means an electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier actually used to participate in online communications, including, but not limited to, Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussions, emailing, instant messaging, social networking, or similar methods of communicating online. For the purpose of this chapter, an “Internet identifier” does not include Internet passwords, or any electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier used solely to read online content, or solely for transactions with a lawful commercial enterprise or government agency concerning a lawful commercial or governmental transaction with that enterprise or agency.

    Therefore, nothing here mandates that we provide an itemized list such as Facebook =; Twitter =; Instagram =; etc., etc. This law simply mandates that we provide a list of user names.

    Should this law go into effect that is ALL I will be providing; just a list of user names will no associated web sites. If law enforcement has a reason to, they can try and figure out what user name goes with what site (or if I even have a user name associated with a site they’re interested in).

    • td777

      That’s a good point, it says nothing about divulging what sites the “identifiers” are for. Just for fun, we should copy usernames we see other people using. In other words, pick someone else’s username from site A and make it our own for site B!

      Also, I wonder what the implications are if we make a point of using your personal email address for business purposes. There is a clause in there that “identifiers” used for business purposes do not have to be given to them.

  15. Lake County

    Introduced by Senator Pavley
    February 26, 2015

    An act to amend Section 6603 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to sexually violent predators.

    SB 507, as amended, Pavley. Sexually violent predators.

    I just found this on the Senate Appropriations list. I hadn’t heard of this one before, did we miss it? Is it important?

  16. mike r

    This is one of the stupidest laws I’ve ever heard of. What or how are they supposed to use any info to prevent anything. It’s a COMPLETELY arbitrary law. Does nothing but burden rso.

    • Timmr

      Being on the registry is like being in “The Village”, that fictional island on the 1960’s TV show staring Patrick McGoohan. We never know why #6 has been kidnapped and detained or why his captors keep asking him for information, information, or of what use it is to them, aside from being to exercise their own authority over others. If anyone fails to provide information and attempts to leave the island — a large bubble like thing tracks him down and smothers him. Even if you manage to ditch the guards and think you have left, you find yourself back in The Village and they want even more information, because the whole world is one Panopticon you can’t hide in, and they have taken away your identity and given you a number.
      Anyway, that’s what it feels like being on the Registry.

  17. anonymously

    Miranda said ”
    California has some real problems in their legislative process. I think the state elitist culture that makes them think that they are above other states leeches into the legislative process as well. Instead of going to states where II laws have been upheld, they decide to reinvent the square wheel and put the following statement as the trigger for who must report their IIs:
    use of the Internet was essential to the commission of the crime”

    So you’re on a forum thats pro-registrant and instead of saying the California legislature is elitist for all its tough on crime crap that they support which supports the prison guards union which uses Crime Victims United as its lobbying arm to put more people in jail for longer sentences, you would say that the California legislature is elitist for not pushing for a more harsh rso internet identifier law. It’s hard to believe you are a registrant and not a non-registrant troll who has an audience of other non-registrants who are being entertained by all these ridiculous opinions that a registrant would not likely have.

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 *