ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings 2019 [details]
Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

Living with 290

Living with 290: Are there any 290 registrant get off parole early ?

I am coming up on my 24 months of uninterrupted Parole you can get off the Parole early according to this CDCR adult Parole memo. I am about done with the Safer program in another month and I am a business owner. No violation. Has anybody seen any offenders get off early?

- - - - - - - - -

View all user submitted stories about Living with 290. Feel free to add yours - as a registrant, family member or friend. Please submit any updates on your story via the comments section on this page. Please use the comments below ONLY for input on the story on this page. To add a new story, click here.

Join the discussion

  1. MovingOn

    It used to be basically never, but just recently I’ve heard of a few people getting off early. If you have no violations, all positive polygraphs, etc., and a very sympathetic agent and supervisor, then there might be a chance, but sadly, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

    • James Franks

      I was on parole for 5 years. People with perfect parole records were even extended from 3 years to five years. No one with a serious crime was reduced. Public urination conviction has a chance if no one under 18 witnessed it, otherwise do your five the best you can. I failed at least two , maybe three polygraphs with no repercussions, and I went over two years without any sweeps including Halloween. Don’t give your P.O. reason to doubt you. I had the same very good P.O. for four years.

  2. NMV

    I was sentenced to 5 years parole. Got off parole at the 3 year mark. I tried at the 1 year and 2 year mark and they didn’t go for it. However, on the 3rd year I guess the stars and planets lined up. I wasn’t even a model parolee. I caused all sorts of grief for my PO. Nothing that could get me violated though. Maybe they just got sick of me.

    • James Franks

      The law changed a few years ago. It’s very ambiguous. I was sentenced to 5 years parole and that’s what I got. A parole violation could increase your parole. I know of someone who hired a lawyer but the system would not let him win. He wasn’t even given the P.C. number to which increased his parole.

  3. td777

    While I was on parole, I knew a few who were discharged early. However, these seemed more random than based on anything else.

  4. R. Flagg

    NMV how did you try at 1 and 2 years? Just curious. when i got released in september 2012 the papers i signed in prison said my parole would be 3 YEARS/CDD. I assumed it meant 3 years. When they updated the parole conditions and had me sign them again around 2013 or 2014 to the new form it now says 5 years or MAX CDD.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      I was sentenced to 3 years parole, but forced to be on parole 5 years. I was forced to sign that document too, in which i wrote down “Because i will go to jail for not signing this document, i am signing it.”.

  5. mk

    My hub was told by the judge when he was sentenced. 6 yrs prison, 3 yrs parole.
    When he’d done his 85% of his prison sentence, the papers said, 5 yrs parole.
    Last yr when we thought he only had one more yr to go, he was told, Nope. Its 10 yrs parole.
    I guess he’s lucky as when I was researching this, he could have gotten 20 yrs parole.
    Makes me sick. All of it. Just makes me sick.

    • Sierra Christensen

      My boyfriend also 3 years now we’re being told it could be 10 years… Any advice??

  6. NMV

    The judge dictates the parole length. So if your parole is being extended beyond what the judge order, I would contact an attorney and take it before a judge. If your crime was considered violent, you more then likely will not get off early. For non-violent crimes you are reviewed at the 12/24/36/48 month mark for ealy release per the title 15. Of course you may have to point this out to the parole department. Read the Title 15 and use it to your advantage.

    • ValueGirl

      NMV, any ideas where I can find Title 15 to read? Also, anyone know about getting off of parole for Federal (lifetime) for non-violent low risk offenders? Anyone know of an Attorney that specializes in Federal? I’ve been to Chance (and he’s awesome) but kind of want to find someone who lives and breaths in the Federal stuff…

    • Randall flagf

      I have my original parole conditions i signed the first day i reported to the parole office upon my release in 2012. They say 3 years/cdd. They had everyone sign “updated” condtitions that now say 5 years. I attend the weekly “treatment” classes as required by parole and alot of guys in there were complaining about the same thing. Someone mentioned that there was a class action to fight it but i haven’t been able to find any information on it

    • James Franks

      I was on parole for 5 years. People with perfect parole records were even extended from 3 years to five years. No one with a serious crime was reduced. Public urination conviction has a chance if no one under 18 witnessed it, otherwise do your five the best you can. I failed at least two , maybe three polygraphs with no repercussions, and I went over two years without any sweeps including Halloween. Don’t give your P.O. reason to doubt you. I had the same very good P.O. for four years.

  7. Standup

    Im in the exact same situation. I took a plea deal, did my time. I have been on parole for 2 years.
    under PC 3001(a) I’m going along thinking I have a chance to get off at the 2 years,30 days as stated.
    Just had my case review (every six months here in Sac.) I was told I had 5 year parole, i explained that My
    plea specified not to exceed 3 years, it was suggested that the judge made a mistake.
    I was further told that with 5 year parole I would be released at the 3 year mark. (again in PC3001 (a))
    Does anyone know what Parole is citing for this change in length. They must have passed a law that is retroactive, but can’t override a Judges orders.

    • eduardo lopez

      review jessica’s law. in there states that they can give up to 10 year parole.

    • Ccc

      Me to its crazy ‘like what the judge said dont mattet

  8. Jim

    I had the same question some time ago about California 290 Parolees, and sent Janice an email… she responded to me that (at the time of my email) she had not heard of any California 290 Parolee being released early, only probationers.

    I am not sure where the comments to the question about early discharge originated from… but in California, specifically Lake and Mendocino Counties, Parole will not discharge any parolee 290 registrant off of parole early – period! I was first told this at my initial meeting with my parole agent, and again, recently during my containment meeting. In fact, it was during this meeting that out of the supervises mouth came the words: “It’s a liability issue, and we will not take that risk.” Specifically, he was referring to what happened with the Stacy Dugard case in the San Francisco Bay Area, and how CDCR Parole failed horrifically. Although 290 Parolees qualify for early discharge just as any other parolee, no one up here will put their signature on any form recommending that a sex offender be released from supervision early.

    That being said, probation (in an adjoining county) has a whole different philosophy. It is not uncommon to hear of 290 probationers being released early… more so if their offense was a misdemeanor, or could be a misdemeanor.

    I recently was paroled after serving 25 years. I saw the same knee jerk response from the BPT towards lifers, and denying parole due to their crime. It wasn’t until the lifers took the BPT and the governor to court, that the Court ordered the BPT to stop using the nature of the offense as a reason to deny parole. It is my opinion that the same is true here… Not until we take parole to court, and address their blanket denial of early discharge (which is not a right – but should be considered under “equal protection”) … The fact is, we cannot change what we did – we can never take back the hurt, neither could the lifers take back there offenses.

    • Frank

      I’m from ca, regarding early discharge from parole as a 290 registrant. ALL registrants who are on parole will complete their whole time on parole. I did a solid 3 and had I not been a registrant I would have easily qualified for early discharge. During those 3 years not one registrant that I knew in our group was discharged earlier than given.

    • Erwin

      The Stacey Duggard case is one of those things that make my blood boil. To this day, I can’t comprehend how the state of California paid out $20 million dollars to her. They say it was an error in the parole system. But any sensible person wouldn’t think a parolee is imprisoning someone in their backyard shed. The main purpose of parole is to make sure you’re in your home, following rules and not causing trouble. The man’s house was checked & he was in his home. The state could have beat that case but Schwarzenegger went ahead anyways and wrote the check even at a time when California was in financial difficulties. However, many defendants falsely accused and released from the CA penal system get peanuts in restitution. I never forget Frank Lucero who’s pleas for glaucoma medication went ignored at the Chino Institute for men. Not until his eyeball exploded did staff pay attention to him. And after he was out, blinded in one eye and after years of litigation, the state finally decided to pay him half a million. Now that’s a far cry from giving $20 million to someone who suffered at the hands of individuals not in the care of the state.

    • Nicholas noussias

      My index 290 registerable offense dates back to 1980 and I discharged in 13 months. All other offense since we’re for drug possession. Due to the change in the registrants laws I had to do 3 years no violation’s. The agent is stuck on 3 yrs. Parole. Which is contrary to the PC 3000 cdd for 290’s

  9. jovan100

    I was considered not violent not serious Cal Penal Code 1192.7(C) and Cal Penal Code 667.5(C)…. those are the codes that list the violent and serious offense (whether force..etc. was present and certain victim age regardless of circumstance mandate those considerations) In any event my charges did not fall under any of those codes. While incarcerated in a CDCR facility I had what was called a classification meeting where it was presented to me that I would have certain restrictions on visits, store, jobs etc due to my being a violent/serious felon.. I objected and stopped the proceedings much to the chagrin of the assistant wardens, counselors and prison police brass that were present) I requested documentation regarding the classification that were labeling me because it differed from the information I had. The Warden made the person present reverse the error in the record on the spot after a review of my record and actual charges were considered. …Apologies,… but I deviate from the full thrust of this post. Prior to release I met with a counselor who somehow had the same wrong information and she informed me that I would have a 5 year parole with extreme restrictions (ankle monitor..etc). But there is a penal code which addressed this as well. So when she presented me to sign the release document I refused stating that it was in contradiction to my charges and my case in its entirety. She stated that without signing I would not be released until I finished the two years left on my sentence. I told her that was fine because it was wrong (There is a possible myth and if do chose to do your entire sentence without accepting your good time credit that they cannot legally compel you to sign into any parole or probation scheme….. I don’t know about that one …. it kinda sounds plausible) .. sorry I deviate again. So I filed and internal challenge to my pre-release information conviction CDCR FORM 602 and after a couple of weeks I met with that counselor again who apologized and then informed me (and believe this was beyond what I was even expecting … The Great GOD JAH..was smiling down on me that day..) She informed me (I was paroled (I should say released from prison custody.. because I was not paroled).. I was released under Governor Browns NEW PRCS (Post Release Community Supervision program….which was not a parole at all..The statute is under Penal Code 3000 – 3006..regarding the rules on Parole terms …etc.. Part of it is listed here.
    Now when I went back to my bunk that day and informed others what had happened I asked some career guys what would have happened if I had signed the original paper submitted to me. They stated that although it did not pertain to my case … that is what I would have got stuck with.
    (e) The provisions of Section 3042 shall not apply to any hearing
    held pursuant to this section.
    3001. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when any
    person referred to in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section
    3000 who was not imprisoned for committing a violent felony, as
    defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, has been released on
    parole from the state prison, and has been on parole continuously for
    one year since release from confinement, within 30 days, that person
    shall be discharged from parole, unless the Department of
    Corrections recommends to the Board of Prison Terms that the person
    be retained on parole and the board, for good cause, determines that
    the person will be retained. Notwithstanding any other provision of
    law, when any person referred to in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b)
    of Section 3000 who was imprisoned for committing a violent felony,
    as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, has been released on
    parole from the state prison for a period not exceeding three years
    and has been on parole continuously for two years since release from
    confinement, or has been released on parole from the state prison for
    a period not exceeding five years and has been on parole
    continuously for three years since release from confinement, the
    department shall discharge, within 30 days, that person from parole,
    unless the department recommends to the board that the person be
    retained on parole and the board, for good cause, determines that the
    person will be retained. The board shall make a written record of
    its determination and the department shall transmit a copy thereof to
    the parolee.

  10. Mike r

    good for you joven I hope you made them give you your halftime credits for a non-violent offense. I had to fight like hell through the 602 appeal for over a year to get my halftime credits. it knocked over two years off my sentence and I believe that they are doing this to a lot more people who just aren’t educated enough or just ignorant and believe everything cdc tells them. I had sergeants captains and even the annuals that you get once a year all tell me i wasn’t getting halftime and that my offense was a violent offense which although it is considered a serious felony it was not a violent offense. I just wonder how many people that they have done this to and gotten away with it.

  11. Anon 2308422

    keeping things to a minimum..when I was in recep I was told Ill do 85% on my case (1st term) cause it was violent. My sex charges were NOT force (286/288)… the letter after the number designates if it was force or if it was <14 (less than 14 is always called force).. mine was a <18. so I got it FIXED as I have another felony that was SERIOUS but not violent. So reception fixed it to 50% time. Then I got to my designated, and at committee I was told it was 85% I said NO my sex wasnt forceful (the charge wasnt)… the LAME said "Anal sex is forceful" I said Ill have my attorney get a hold of you , I got a reply "Ohhh you must have a good attorney" I said no I have a appellate defender… about a month later… BAM.. CORRECTED to 50%, then 4 mos later, I saw the SAME LAME CC2, and I told her… "told you so" she felt 2 inches tall haha… I DID not have that 667.x charge. so in closing you HAVE TO STAND UP TO THE CDCR… paperwork 22/602's etc… after all spend your time figting for what you know s right or what you think is right. Funny thing here is NONE of my sex charges force me to 290 register but my 311 does (child porn) so go figure. And I got a STRIKE in my case, but that is NOT for a sex charge !

  12. Standup

    Ive been at this for better than a year now. researched a lot , but nothing !
    Has anyone found a successful challenge to CDCRs increased parole length ?
    I have been on parole for 3+ years, was supposed to get off at the 3 year mark.
    (Per the terms of my plea agreement.) was only supposed to be on parole up to 3 years.
    Was told the law was changed. But that violates Ex-post facto.
    Looking for a good Lawyer in Sacramento area to challenge this.
    Any tips or support is appreciated.
    Strength in numbers.

  13. Ccc

    Me to its crazy ‘like what the judge said dont mattet

  14. Greg

    I’m still looking for an attorney, any attorney to take this case. I brought this to Janice’s attention initially in 2014. She said she would try and help at first but I guess she got too big. She’s busy taking on cities, counties, and states. I was 6 months from being discharged when I went to resign parole conditions. My parole was extended from 3 years to 10 years. I now have over 5 years of clean parole with no violations. Unfortunately, no relief either. No one can help, that’s what I’ve figured out. Everyone says they’ve heard of somebody who has got relief but nobody actually knows them. If they do, my name is Greg. Hit me up at 325-864-5386. California Parole isn’t a joke and I want off.

    • Shawn

      @Greg

      I am dealing with the same thing. My deal stated that I would do no more than 4 years, then CDCR changed it to 5 and when I got out they moved it to 10.

      I also tried to get hold of Janice, and she is not easy to contact. No help there.

      My case is a single count of 288(a). I was paroled to Kern County where many other guys in our situation have also found themselves on 10 years with no explanation.

      You should contact K.C. Taylor at Root and Rebound. They offer free legal assistance and she is trying to help me and others like us. They have been following this issue and can answer a few of your questions pretty easily. From what I understand, Sacramento is saying a law changed in 2011 and it simply took them until now to implement it. No one really buys the explanation.

      Anyway, here is the email address:
      K.C. Taylor: kctaylor@rootandrebound.org

      She has been a wealth of information. I highly recommend sending her an email. Tell she her Shawn sent you.

      • Greg

        Brother, I appreciate it. I will contact her tomorrow. That’s the first thing I’ve heard that sounds promising since this nightmare started. Thank you a million times over, even if it leads to nowhere. I’ve heard this law applied retroactively to Sept. 2010. My crime was committed in Nov 2010 and I was sentenced in January of 2011. Thank you Shawn

        • Shawn

          No problem. I know how you feel, there is a hopelessness that accompanies parole. When they arbitrarily extend the amount of time you must remain on it, you begin to wonder what is preventing them from keeping us on parole for life. If they do that, it won’t matter what laws change, because we will have a life sentence.

          Keep us posted on your progress. I hope K.C. can help.

        • Greg

          I have got in touch with her and I’m excited to see what magic she can possibly work. We will speak Friday. Thanks again amigo

    • Hmmm

      Greg: Is this Greg K in north county ?…. If so I may know you !!

  15. Greg

    We have spoken and she will work with me as soon as she’s back from vacation. In the mean time, if you’re in my shoes, contact her! Finally, someone who is willing to do something!!

  16. Grandpa G

    I stupidly took a deal for 3.8 years and a five yr parole in February 2012 for a 290 accusation.
    When I was released from prison and reported to parole in my home county of San Diego, they transferred me to orange county immediately.
    When I reported to orange county the next day, they gave me a paper saying my parole length was “to be determined” then I was told that is now a ten yr parole.
    I have heard that the ten-year extension for parole came with a three-year clause for those That had three years without a violation would be discharged. I am living on the streets of orange county away from all family and friends support while family members live in my house in San Diego. I’m 64 now and not scheduled for discharge until 2025. I only took the deal on a false accusation because my lawyers told me I was looking at 20 to 40 years if I fought it and My main witness was harassed by the sheriffs department because she refused to testify against me. They had child protection open a case to try to take her child away.
    My parole agent told me I could go to a park since I had never had a problem at a park. My wife and I went to a park when no one was there because it was raining. My agent arrested me for that “violation” but the judge released me after 15 days as soon as I had my first court appearance.
    My wife comes for a visit from San Diego when she can, usually on weekends. Three different times strange and sometimes apparently under age females came and hit me up for sex even offering tacos only when my wife was here. I think it was a trap from my agent to interfere in my marriage.
    Another agent kept harassing my doctor and interfering in my health care until my doctor said she couldnt help me anymore. She kept insisting on giving me extra restrictions Verbally until she was “transferred” after spending a whole year working on my approval to attend church. My family needs me in San Diego, I need my family support. My wife cannot afford to drive her worn out old car up here very often. I don’t know where to start. There is a lot more but this is enough for now. I really appreciate all of your comments and situations. Thank you and praise God

    • Shawn

      Grandpa G,

      You are not alone. I’ve been there. It gets better. I suggest contacting Root and Rebound, I posted the information in an earlier comment above.

      I have heard that parole, for us, in Orange County is especially harsh. You need to work on getting your parole transfered to another county so you can be with family. You may need to 602 this one if your parole officer is unwilling to help. Root and Rebound will help you with that process as well.

      Things will get better. Don’t give up.

      • Grandpa G

        Shawn,

        My family and I Thank you my brother, your comments have lifted and encourage us. We will be contacting Roots and rebound.
        I would like to add that parole has been committing atrocities like forcing me to take polygraphs when my blood pressure goes over 200 causing chest pains, Headaches, dark vision, and likelihood of a stroke. It took a year and a half maybe two years of doctors orders not being good enough, psychiatrists orders not being good enough etc. I had to go to emergency by ambulance about 6 to 8 times and then walk back to wherever my car was after about eight hours in the hospital. I thought my first poly graph would finally vindicate me from the false Accusations. Even though I know that I told the truth, I was found deceptive. This established the polygraph as an adgenda driven attempt to increase my containment and raise my risk level from low to high, in my mind anyway. My doctor stated in writing that anything that increases my blood pressure like a polygraph would be inconclusive at best. I wound up obtaining a high-quality wrist type blood pressure monitor and recorded my blood pressure on the monitor and with my phone at frequent opportunities proving that parole was my only health issue. It took three years of asking to finally find out why I was made high-risk. That first polygraph main question was “when you moved her underwear to the side, did you touch her skin with your fingers?“
        They ask and I informed them that I was not comfortable with that question because I did not move her underwear to the side. The question was changed, Yet it was reported the same (unchanged)
        Even now my blood pressure goes up just thinking about another false accusation. It is difficult for me to deal with these issues because of Health problems. So in summary my risk level was changed because of a supposeed deception of a question that I am told they were not even supposed ask.

        My restrictions are based on somebodies false and fabricated description of my Crimes.
        I am described as having gone into my sisters house and molested my own nine-year-old daughter.
        There have been several attempts on my life because of this bulls__t description.
        My sister lives with my mother in Oregon. I was arrested and “prosecuted” in San Diego co.
        I do not have a daughter of any age. I have twin boys that are 40 years old.
        I was not charged or accused of molestation.
        There was no DNA or any other evidence connected me to any of these charges. I Took the deal after my lawyers lied to and pressured me And my witness was harassed and pressured by the police who had “child protection” (what a joke) open a case to try and take away her 2 yr old son. Sorry for the long comment. Thank you to all you that have made comments. We have a lot in common. I am grateful and encouraged.
        Praise God!

        • Greg

          Definitely try the root and rebound. I don’t know what’s going to happen yet but maybe if enough of us try something…Anyways, I’m in contact with them now and will speak again Friday to let you know what I find out. So far I’ve sent in my 602 appealing my parole length that went up as far as it could go. K C Taylor is reviewing it now. Somehow the whole legal process needs to change the way they think of parole. The way they view it now is that it is an administrative process not a punitive process. Does anyone else besides CDCR think parole is punitive? If you view it any other way you’ve either never been on parole or belong in a nut house. This is why they’re getting away with it right now. This is why it is NOT violating Ex Post Facto Law! This is an atrocity and I personally would even like to see some financial settlement come of this when it’s all over. Anyways, instead of rambling I will update you Friday after I speak with Root and Rebound. Good luck and by all means, if you’re under duress, make the call. Atleast you know someone is willing to do something and you’re not alone.

  17. Shawn

    @ Greg

    Hey Greg! I’m glad to hear the news. We certainly aren’t alone. I can’t wait for an update.

    • Greg

      Update: Ok, so KC Taylor and I have conversed and came up with a plan. Right now I’m in the process of appeal again using an outline she helped me with. I’m noticing in her outline the dates which state you get 10 years of parole are nowhere near the same CDCR says. They are not matching up at all. So this is basically our first plan of attack. They cited the law to me, I told KC Taylor, and she helped me out. I just don’t know if her version is the same as their version. I hope hers is correct. That would easily put me off parole over 2 years ago. So, I’m appealing. I had to start with the 22 (inmate request) form first. My first level of appeal was denied without even reading it. She (my parole officer) asked me what to write. I told her to write that my request has been approved and I’m off parole now. She laughed and then wrote “Denied, your current CDD is May 20, 2023.” When the Supervising Parole Officer gets back on the 23rd, I was told that one would be denied real quick too. Atleast then I can start the long drawn out 602 process where they actually have to read it. My parole officer told me I could go straight to the 602 process but the last time I did that, for the same thing, I was denied because I didn’t do their 22 Form first. It’s a circus but whatever. If this takes a year and gets approved it still beats the extra total 7 they tacked on. On my personal progress I have the lowest Static 99 you can get, no violations after 5+ years on parole, steady job (self employed), and a relationship that is over 4 years old now. I won’t ask her to marry me with an ankle monitor on. Anyways, that’s where I’m at right now. I have a ton of faith in this woman because she seems genuine (Root and Rebound’s KC Taylor). I really feel like she is ready to go to war for me and if this does not succeed she will try another approach, and will keep trying until I’m off. I feel fortunate right now for someone helping me who doesn’t know me from anywhere. Thank you for all for the good advice and a special shout out to Sean/Shawn who gave me her contact info. Thanks a million brother. If anyone is interested in my story I first wrote it on here sometime in 2015 under Mundane Purity in the 290 Stories section. The sun is going to come up tomorrow, hopefully it shines for everyone, be well… Respectully, Greg

      • Shawn

        Greg,

        That is so good to hear. I’ll be interested to see where this leads. KC is awesome!

        The worst thing is to feel hopeless. I know how that feels, KC was my first step to having hope again. Keep us posted.

  18. joe

    What’s your story Shawn? Just curious. I pled guilty for a plea bargain to one count of 261a and 243b/i think and did 3 years in county jail with 4 year parole but now they’re talking ten years. I’m thinking about vacating my plea and taking it to trial.
    Joe

    • Shawn

      @ Joe
      I have a 288(a).

      In my group, there are guys with all sorts of charges who are being treated the same. One of our guys was on three years parole. The day he showed up to have his ankle monitor cut off his parole officer informed him that due to some “new” law, he had to remain on parole for 5 years instead of the 3 he was originally given. He has a lawyer and has been fighting it for the last year. So far he hasn’t gotten anywhere. The CDCR has a lot of power in California, they do what they want. Your best bet is appealing, with help from an attorney, through the 602 process. I would contact Root and Rebound.

      I looked into vacating my plea, but you know if you do that they will place all the original charges back on you. The problem I see with that idea is you are essentially throwing yourself into the lion’s den. If they find you guilty, you may go to prison, and then you will come out with 10 years of parole anyway.

      There is no sympathy for us currently in the judicial system.

      My advice is to contact K.C. Taylor at Root and Rebound and talk to her about your case. She answered all of my questions and got me going in the right direction. Help is good.

      I’m pulling for you. Good luck.

  19. Jay

    I was told by someone to go before a judge and ask for a review.

  20. joe

    Like a habeas corpus? I was told to do that too. That way I can get four years of parole instead of ten years, you just have to exhaust all appeal efforts like form 602 that’s about it

  21. joe

    What’s kc phone number?

    • joe

      Also, I’m trying to figure out how to get relief from a ten year parole not five years parole
      That’s why I asked you about where your at in the whole appeals process

      • Shawn

        @ Joe

        I understand that you got bumped to 10, so did I. I was only pointing out that this bump is happening to a lot of guys. The cdcr is using the same explanation for them as us. 3 years jumps to 5 and 5 years goes to 10.

        Here is K.C.s email.

        K.C. Taylor: kctaylor@rootandrebound.org

  22. Shawn

    @ Joe

    Sorry, I didn’t fully respond to your comment. I have halted my appeal at this point. Recently I moved to a more progressive thinking county with a much better parole office. When they looked at my case they informed me that they will be starting the paperwork to terminate my parole early. I will have done 3 years of parole in April.

    The new rules set by the CDCR state that we can now be released after 3 years even if you were bumped up to 10.

    I could still be denied of course and then I’m back to the 602 process, but my parole officer and parole supervisor are really proactive, so I’m going to see where this goes.

  23. Alameda County

    All the extended parole period is from the AB 1844, which the Terminator singed back on September 9, 2010.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1844_bill_20100909_chaptered.pdf

    This bill would require lifetime parole for habitual sex offenders, persons convicted of kidnapping a child under 14 years of age with the intent to commit a specified sexual offense, and persons convicted of other specified sex crimes, including, among others, aggravated sexual assault of a child. The bill would, unless a longer period of parole applies, impose a 10-year parole period on inmates sentenced for kidnapping with the intent to commit specified sex offenses, specified lewd or lascivious acts, and other specified sexual offenses. The bill would impose a 20-ear parole period on inmates convicted and required to register as sex offenders or rape, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and their specified sex crimes, in which one or more of the victims of the offense was a child under 14 years of age, as specified

  24. joe

    Yeah I heard of the three year early release but look at Greg he’s got no violations and is still on parole for five years

    • Greg

      Every word I said is true. I’m 5+ years, violation free, 2 years past my original 3 years, walk on water parolee, passed every stupid poly, had a job the whole time. This is old. I’m pissed. KC Taylor is helping me. I’m very interested to hear more about the 10 year parole period being discretionary now though. I was told they would consider letting me off in 7 years. Ridiculous. I agree with, I believe it was Shawn on the vacating your plea and taking it to trial though. I was looking at 34 years and my victim was my wife (still is legally), who is two months older than me. All that would do is make them throw the max at you if you were found guilty of anything. Look, I don’t know all the legal mumbo jumbo but that’s exactly what they would do. I got corporal injury to spouse and forced oral I had to plea too. But if I withdrew it that would add back on the other 5 felony charges. Say I get found innocent of all the 290 stuff and just get found guilty of the corporal injury to spouse; I’m still looking at 8 years. Never been in trouble before. So, I don’t know. I hope this works out soon this way but there is no way I’d take this back to trial. Having said that, if I had this to do over in the beginning, I would’ve taken it to trial then. But that is with hindsight being 20/20. Now, I’m almost 10 years older, and the charges would be stacked again. That is why I plead the first time, because of stacked charges for the DA’s conviction rate. Good luck to you and everyone else in our shoes. I’m not going anywhere so feel free to contact me anytime.

  25. joe

    Do u have kc Taylor’s phone number?

  26. Shawn

    Root and Rebound
    K.C. Taylor
    rootandrebound.org
    510-279-4662

  27. joe

    Thanks shawn
    What county are you in now?
    Did kc help you with the transfer?
    If you were to take it to trial, how much time would you be facing?
    How much time did you do with the deal?

    • Shawn

      I’m in Sacramento County now. It’s a huge improvement over Kern County, that’s for sure. I didn’t actually need K.C’s help with the transfer. It turns out in-state transfers are pretty darn easy. All I needed was a family member living in the county who would take me in, which I did. It was like being sponsored.

      To answer your question about the trial. If they threw all the charges back on me, I would be looking at 12 years. I don’t believe they could make all of those charges stick, but who knows these days. I took a deal for 3 years. I had fought the case in jail, so I had already done 10 months by the time I was sentenced.

      I was feeling hopeless before I finally contacted K.C. if nothing else she helped me see ways through some of the issues I was dealing with. She still contacts me to see if I need help with any legal issues and to check on how I’m doing. Free legal help is always a good thing.

      Being an RSO is difficult, but you can manage it and improve your situation, it takes time though.

  28. joe

    Hey Shawn How long u been in Sacramento?

  29. joe

    Section 3000 states the department must consider the length of parole a parolee was sentenced to from what I read
    There’s one guy in my group that’s gotten relief supposedly

    • Greg

      It would be nice if that was true. But from where I sit someone has “supposedly” heard of someone everywhere, however, no one actually knows the someone. It’s sad

      • joe

        Armando Miranda with San Francisco public defenders office says there’s a case where someone got relief

  30. joe

    I heard from a lawyer Armando Miranda that there’s a case where someone’s gotten relief

    Armando Miranda with the San Francisco public defender office

    • Greg

      Man that’s good to hear from actually a person. Thank you, just something else to give real hope

      • joe

        Hey greg
        U think once u file a habeas corpus, you will get what they call injunctive relief and finally be off parole. I doubt u can sue however

        • Greg

          Honestly, I’m not sure. I do know that I’ve looked into a Habeas Corpus Writ and no one, including the public defender’s office will help with that…atleast in Riverside County. That’s my next step after appeals process is exhausted again though. Atleast I think it is. I’ll have to see what KC says.
          On the suing note, I don’t know. I’d be happy to. California seems to me to be a sue happy state where anyone can sue anybody for anything. Could it get shot down yes, I think it’s worth a shot though. The biggest reason I want to is also the biggest reason I believe it will be shot down, because it will open up the floodgates for more lawsuits. I’m 2 years past the time for being off and I think I should be compensated for that though, along with having to go to Sharper Future, and for having to wear this stupid VCR strapped to my leg. It cuts me open so much that I actually have scar tissue down there now. I’ve been denied permission to do things other parolees who are not 290’s get to do as well, for instance fight. I’m not necessarily UFC material but I’m healthy and love mma and been training in that since 2003. So who knows?

  31. joe

    That’s funny cuz I love MMA too. How would u fight with an ankle bracelet though? My parole agent might be tough but he let’s me train jiujitsu

    • Greg

      I’m allowed to train, however, I cannot fight. There’s no way. About a year ago they told me I could cut it off right before the bout and go to parole directly after to have it put back on. In a perfect world that would be good but with how mma is, who is to say I wouldn’t get busted up and have to go to hospital instead?

  32. joe

    Wait, parole said you can cut it off before the bout? And Is this amateur fighting?

  33. joe

    well, according to my sentencing report, I was sentenced to 10 yyears parole although my lawyer advised me I was only getting four. so I guess i’m going to do the whole 10 unless they cut me loose early but I doubt it since I got two violations, one for pepper spray and the second for stalking my therapist. the stalking violation got dropped because how was I stalking my therapist if I was checking in for session. so good luck to everyone but i’m going to be on parole for a while…..

  34. joe

    I’m being told 10 year parole is mandatory

    • Greg

      According to your parole officer? KC says it’s not and proved it

    • Greg

      Hey Joe, just to let you know after the repeated run-around with parole and their appeals process I am filing a Habeas Corpus Writ per KC’s advice. Wish me the best fellas as I do you.

  35. Greg

    Quick update: I started my 602 process today, we will see what happens. This one went to case records in Rancho Cucamonga

    • Shawn

      Cool beans!

      It feels like things are moving in the right direction. I’m anxious to see how this plays out.

      Good luck.

      • Greg

        Hello and greetings to everyone. I’m off parole!! Thanks KC and Shawn! Good luck to everyone!! Greg

        • Shawn

          Greg!

          You must give us more details. How did that go down? I’m so excited for you.

      • Greg

        I will for sure update but instead of posting here I think I’ll probably post in a whole new story within the next few days. I think it’s in Living with 290 stories, I’ll post it there.

  36. Concerned 290

    I’ve heard from several sources, including from other parolees in different counties, that there is some sort of “new” law in effect for 290’s regarding early discharge. Even my therapist at Hope has stated that there is something going on with parole. She has stated a few guys in the program were “up and discharged” from parole with no notice given to the Hope program. Hope contacted the agent after a parolee didn’t show up to therapy and the agent informed them that the parolee was discharged early.
    Anyhow… I first heard about this “new policy” in the parole office. Some random parolee was running his mouth in the lobby about a new parole length based on risk assessments. It basically went: 290’s would be discharged early if they had low score, successful poly’s, positive CTM’s, etc. Low scores would be cut loose at the 3 year mark (37th month, like in Title 15). Medium and High Risk assessments would likely complete their entire term. Now, that seemed like “yard talk” to me; however, I contacted someone on parole in a different county (he’s in Oakland) to see if he heard anything up there. He told me that his agent had just informed of this new policy of early discharge based solely on risk assessments earlier that day!!! Weird! Too much coincidence. It gets wierder…
    The next day, someone in my Hope group informed us that his agent said that our parole office needed to shed 50 parolees a month to keep up with intake from prison. New parolees are being given longer terms, which means parole is facing supersaturation of parolee caseload. Discharging 50 parolees a month just to keep balance. That’s interesting news. 3 different people, 3 different agents, none knew about each other. Add to that what the therapist said and things are interesting.
    This makes sense with a guy on the inside that I still talk to. He told me that CDCR is reclassifying every 290. They are doing something with risk assessments and it has something to do with milestone processing and early release to parole. He said a big batch of inmates are supposedly hitting the streets within the next 3 months according to what’s being said “inside”. I guess it has something to do with the milestone law and inmates winning the lawsuit. I don’t know, I don’t follow that stuff as closely anymore since I’m not inside and none of it really matters. Assuming this is true, then parole is about to see a decent uptick in new parolees. DAPO tried opening a new office in El Cajon, but it failed. Budget plan was denied and they ended up creating a new “office” within the current office in Chula Vista in order to redraw jurisdiction lines (that’s what my last agent said to me). The agents are holding same caseloads, but working out of 2 “offices”. I guess they tried to get ahead of this influx and failed; now they have to do releasing to maintain stable caseload. That’s how I interpret what I’m seeing.
    Lastly, my agent kind of tripped me out a few months ago. I’m on a 5 year parole. Same story as a lot of you, signed plea with 3, got 5 years. I 602’d, took it to court on Habeas, lost. Took it to CoA, lost. Took it Cal Sup Ct, lost. I gave up the fight earlier this year. I’m currently a little over my 3 year mark, figured I’d just wait it out – I’m over the hump.
    Anyhow… back to my agent. She sat with me at the kitchen table on a regular monthly house visit. We sat for 30 minutes, she kept asking about future plans post-parole. Like, where am I planning on going, how am I planning on surviving, am I going to continue to obey laws, what would I do once I’m discharged, etc. I have no violations, successful poly’s, etc. Mind you, I still have 2 years to go. This seems strange. Anyhow, I got the impression she was feeling out early discharge potential. I recently changed agents; however, in our last meeting, my last agent told me that they were putting me up for consideration and that I shouldn’t count on it going through, but if it did “good luck and stay safe”.

    • NPS

      PC 3000.08

      • Shawn

        @NPS

        I looked up pc 3000.08 and I don’t see anything in there that’s talks about length of parole. Mostly it discuses Porole violations. Did I miss something?

    • AJ

      ” He told me that his agent had just informed of this new policy of early discharge based solely on risk assessments earlier that day!!!”
      —–
      Uh oh. I hope they didn’t use the “Scam” S99R. Perhaps its chronic foe from here will speak up and let the State know they shouldn’t be doing this.

      • Ricky Fitz

        IF this rumor is true, then good for people that benefit. However, this still doesn’t change the fact that the Static 99R is absolute crap. Again, how can 10 questions predict the future? “If it’s too good to be true, then it probably is.”

        How exactly is the Static 99R not a scam? Is CDCR aware that the Static 99R’s test questions are:

        1. discriminatory against gays;
        2. discriminatory against non-violent offenders

        (Not only that. One could also make the argument that the Scam 99R is racist, since its point system gives points for previous arrests and convictions (as this very same argument has been made by opponents to allegedly racist bail “risk” assessments).)

        Since the Static 99R has a shelf-life of 2 years after release into the community, then ok… use it to keep “high” scores on parole for within that time period. But after 2 years, treat them as you would anyone else. But even this practice would be giving the logically flawed Static 99R, as well as Fake Doctor Karl Hanson, too much credit.

        • Joe

          It does nothing of the sort. It states that those with male victims and non-contact offenses re-offend with a, any(!) sex crime, to the tune of x% – which is higher than the overall sample. It goes on to support this claim with the statistical data.

          The point, I would think, could certainly be made that this is an equal opportunity violation since the Static-99 is expressly only to be used on male offenders. Meaning it is mum on gay (female) offenders who have a female victim, and those female offenders who have non-contact offenses. Rendering your claim that gay and non-contact offenders are “discriminated” against null and void.

          And for the thousandth time, the Static-99 does not attempt to predict the future past a very limited time frame. It is the legislature that is misusing it.

        • Ricky Fitz

          Joe, how could you *honestly* say that the Static 99R “does nothing of the sort?” The end result is that the Static 99R still discriminates against gays and non-violent offenders more than straight and even violent offenders. Those 1 or 2 points given to gays and non-violents, however arbitrary, capricious, and/or illogical it may seem, could make the difference between someone registered as a Tier 1 or Tier 3. Which in turn, could mean the difference between someone having a home and/or being employed vs. being homeless and/or unemployed. In other words… why are we allowing such a shady “test” to have this much power???

          As for your claim that the Static 99R Scam “goes on to support this claim with the statistical data,” you forget to mention that the Scam 99R’s “data” is not only infected by endless conflicts of interests (how these conflicts of interests have gone past so many “scientists” is beyond me); but also that said ‘data’ has been declared a “trade secret” by Fake Doctor Karl Hanson.

          Also, was it not mentioned that Karl Hanson’s data, through a suppressed state study, was found to have exaggerated recidivism by at least 500%? Why does Fake Doctor Karl Hanson have any credibility whatsoever?

        • Unsubs

          It does everything of the sort except the test excludes females. I think this is done because data was only available for men.

        • AJ

          @Ricky Fitz (or is that Fricky Zit?):
          “IF this rumor is true, then good for people that benefit.”
          —–
          Thank you for two things: 1) Affirming the argument I’ve repeated made but you’ve seen too much red to understand. 2) Showing your hypocrisy. If it’s a scam, it’s a scam regardless if to the benefit of the State or the citizen.

          (CUE Ranting Reply)

        • Ricky Fitz

          Unsubs,

          Are you referring to the top ‘secret’ data that, for some reason, is hid by Karl Hanson and his Static 99R Scam developers? Again, let’s not forget California’s very own suppressed study that showed “doctor” Karl Hanson having exaggerated recidivism by at least 5 times.

          The fact is in general, sex offender recidivism is low. These Static 99 Scams play off of non-transparent pseudo “science” to attribute more points for illogical factors — such as male victim or even non-violent offense — to give its “static” scheme the illusion that it is actually science. And it increases the “risk” for arbitrary and capricious factors without taking an *individualized* assessment of the person.

          I don’t know how anyone who values the truth can get behind Karl Hanson and his Static / Scam 99 schemes.

      • AJ

        Hornets’ nest successfully kicked…

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam

          The Hornets’ nest of truth. I stand behind anyone who sheds light on the Static-99R/Scam-99R’s endless buffet of flaws. The truth is important. Anyone who supports the Static-99R/Scam-99R does not stand with truth.

        • Unsubs

          Eric Holder and many others stand with you, The Static-99R Is A Scam.

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam

          Yes, it does seem that Eric Holder would be against the Scam-99R. Direct quote from the U.S. DOJ’s website:

          “Here in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, legislators have introduced the concept of ‘risk assessments’ that seek to assign a probability to an individual’s likelihood of committing future crimes and, based on those risk assessments, make sentencing determinations. Although these measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice. By basing sentencing decisions on *STATIC* factors and immutable characteristics – like the defendant’s education level, socioeconomic background, or neighborhood – they may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.”

          https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-speaks-national-association-criminal-defense-lawyers-57th

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        AJ: Well, that begs the question: who are its DEFENDERS on this forum? Why would anyone here NOT be its “foe?” I think that Ricky Fitz goes on to make perfectly valid points about Static-99. I’m not sure why his contempt for Static-99 is being cast as an obsession. I’m not convinced that it is “racist” as Ricky believes it to be but it certainly does penalize same-sex acts. Joe goes on to make a completely specious argument that, because Static-99 does not apply to women and, therefore, cannot be extended to “gay” women, then Ricky’s assertion that the Static-99 is discriminatory against gays is “null and void.” That’s a good one! By that reasoning, given that homosexuality is a constant amongst other species, then the inapplicability of the Static-99 to chimpanzees or bonobos would also “nullify” any argument that it is discriminatory against gays, too. So, I have to agree with Ricky when he says “I don’t know how anyone who values the truth can get behind Karl Hanson and his Static / Scam 99 schemes” and wonder why he is being cast as a “hypocrite.”

        • AJ

          @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
          He’s a hypocrite because he rails about what a useless scam it is, but when it’s (presumably) used to the benefit of someone, he has no problem with it. If it’s a scam coming, it’s a scam going. As such, I feel his support of its use in ANY instance should be repudiated. Yet that’s not his position. In other words, he is willing to compromise his position when it fits the narrative he likes. This reminds me of an adage I heard years back from a HR manager: “There’s no such thing as policy exception, only policy change.” Used here, @The Static-99R Is…er..@Ricky Fitz is excepting the S-99R when its beneficial to his “side.” To me that means he can no longer take the stance of it being useless. Obviously he does believe it has some use…when its to his liking.

        • Leslie C.

          Is it just me, or do folks that defend the STATIC 99 SCAM come off as completely creepy, sleazy and disingenuous?

          Personally, I’m still offended at the fact that these ‘experts’ have the audacity to make the masses believe that 10 questions are able to predict our future. Even when all the bogus data is secret and its creator (Hanson) has been proven to not only exaggerate stats, but also has played silly games in keeping the STATIC scam totally secret.

          So, yes, I totally agree with everyone who put the SCAM 99 on blast. Folks like ‘Joe’ and ‘AJ’ seem to shame everyone that seeks truth… which is absolutely repulsive.

          As a long time lurker who have sat back for too many of these arguments and debates I’d like to add my feelings in that I, too, feel that the STATIC 99 ‘tests’ are complete hoaxes!!!!!

        • AJ

          @Leslie C. (since apparently quotes are needed):
          “Folks like ‘Joe’ and ‘AJ’ seem to shame everyone that seeks truth”
          —–
          Please direct me to anything I’ve posted where I’ve shamed someone. If a person *felt* shame is a completely different concept than my having shamed. I readily (and too often!) apologize if, when and where I’m wrong. I also post under my pseudonym whether my words are good, bad, ugly or otherwise. I’m Les. C.ertain of others.

          But, welcome to the site ‘Leslie C.’ (I’m unclear why quotes are needed, but I’ll follow your lead.) Hopefully we can enjoy many more posts from you where you can further delve into your apparently strong feelings regarding Static-99R and Dr. Karl Hanson. We could all learn from your wisdom that matches other personalities on here.

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam

          Leslie,

          I share your opinion. However, just like a political opinion, people that support the Static-99R Scam seem stuck in their way (just as you seem opposed to it — which is also how I feel and think). I don’t foresee much good coming out of supporting the Scam-99R. Unfortunately, it might be an inevitable growing pain that some registrants will have to bear the consequence of due to the proliferation of junk science in the sex offender industrial complex. Ultimately, maybe in many decades, perhaps the “experts” will begin to see the fatal flaws in relying on non-transparent pseudo science that lumps all types of people and offenses together in a “sample” — and reduces them to an arbitrary and capricious number.

          The notion that so many intelligent people would back this type of flawed methodology is outlandishly dumbfounding. But I suppose it can’t hurt to take the high road — and hope it doesn’t get THAT BAD with the reliance on inherently flawed “risk assessments.”

          Again, thank you for your post Leslie.

  37. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    AJ, I’ve read this thread several times to tease-out what I think are the positions of commenters. What’s your take on Static-99 either as discussed here or more fundamentally? I don’t have a clear sense of that.

    • AJ

      @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
      Sure, just as the hornets are calming, you kick it again.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        AJ, Well, correct me if I’m wrong but it appears that YOU brought it up in the first place. I’m just trying to understand what your thinking is as your comments appear incomplete and without context and your castigation of Ricky possibly unmotivated. Or perhaps it is motivated, I don’t know but I don’t get it from this thread. If we’re going to go on-record here then it seems to me that we would want it to be clearly understood.

        • AJ

          @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
          Indeed I did. I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I thought you were being snarky. I stand corrected. Hopefully I can sufficiently answer both your posts.

          I have absolutely no opinion one way or the other about the*validity* Static-99R nor its creator. I’m neither friend nor foe to it on a personal level, as the State where I was convicted doesn’t use it for offenses such as mine. In other words, I’ve neither suffered nor benefited from anything to do with S-99R and/or its creator.

          I do, however, hold a position as to the *usefulness* of the S-99R and its creator. That stance is that regardless whether or not it and he are the best thing since sliced bread, it and he are the tools the system uses. As such, I feel embracing and leveraging the data and papers involved to our benefit is the best route…simply because the system has marked it and him with its seal of approval. The system could be using a magic mirror on the wall for all I care, as long as I can potentially leverage the mirror’s results to my favor.

          The question I’ve posed before, and now again, is why fight a battle about the S-99R and its creator when it and he have already provided perfectly good data and papers to be use to our benefit and possible gain? Why try to go through probably decades of fighting the entire criminal justice psychological field, researchers, and papers? To me that would be like a dog that finally catches the car: now what?

          The data and papers of the S-99R and its creator cut both ways. I feel it much more prudent to use them to one’s advantage and let its and his validity be discovered some other way and at some other time. To me, it seems much wiser to say, “yes Your Honor, the Static-99R research and Dr. Hanson and his data are unimpeachable. It’s perfectly valid and he’s exactly nailed it. Now, I would like to the court’s attention to the *rest* of what the S-99R and Dr. Hanson and his information say.” I would then proceed to use the S-99R’s limits and limitations against the State’s continued and improper use of it. I would also use Dr. Hanson’s other papers and research to show that the State’s own expert and assessment show its claim of a continued risk and threat is absolutely wrong. (It would be even better if one were able to show the State is aware of this, as I believe it would greatly increase the argument that it’s punitive not only by effect, but by intent.)

          The S-99R and Dr. Hanson may be the most worthless thing to ever exist on the face of the earth. But if it’s still “the rules of the game” in court, why spend time trying to change the rules–perhaps fruitless and certainly at a high cost of time and money–when the rules already include beneficial items?

          I like to use the analogy of Jujutsu or Aikido, where the opponent’s energy is used against him/her. Here, that means disarming the State with its own weapons (i.e. S-99R and Dr. Hanson). They may be 100% flawed and objectively useless, but for the time being they’re the ones that impress and influence judges and courts. Is the S-99R a scam? Is Dr. Hanson a complete charlatan? Perhaps. But that does not change their effectiveness in the courts. I’ll personally take whatever *effective* weapon I can find, regardless its validity.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          AJ, Thanks for a very thoroughgoing reply. It does indeed help to understand your thinking on Static-99 and I can find no reason to argue with it as it is a perfectly reasonable position. For myself, one of the problems with Static is that it is among those “tools” which provides the appearance of a “scientific method” being applied to “sex offenders” when I am sure that little scientifically supports the sex-hysterical agenda of the state. Still, that tool might well benefit some of us in our quests for justice while unfairly denigrating and ultimately oppressing others. As someone who has been “awarded” an extra point on the “male victims” question it does tend to, not only offend my sensibilities but to make a claim on those of us with whom it has no familiarity. Our government masters are nothing so much as disengaged from a reality that they insist upon inexpertly regulating.

        • E

          Thanks AJ. Your analysis makes sense to me.

          And on another note, I’m much relieved two of my favorite posters are getting along again. It was like watching my parents fight there for a moment.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          E, we weren’t fighting (assuming you mean that I’m one of your two favorite posters). I was sure that there was something more to AJ’s argument and hoping to tease it out and he didn’t disappoint. Everyone gets snappy from time-to-time but I don’t think that this was one of those times. It’s often necessary to probe more deeply to get to the heart of an issue and sometimes that can look aggressive. Instead, it can be constructive. Thanks!

        • AJ

          @E:
          What he said….though he gets snappy more often than I. 😁

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          AJ: “…though he gets snappy more often than I.” Oh, give it time, give it time.

      • The Static-99R Is A Scam

        In my opinion, it is the voices of people like Ricky F. and David K. that make the most sense in their criticism against the Static-99R. Without this type of objective criticism, this website’s forums would have less appeal to those — particularly Registrants — that seek intellectualism vs. anti-intellectualism Karl Hanson Kool Aid. Even if the short-term benefits to endorsing the Static-99R are present, and its methodological flaws are ignored, there are some very troubling, slippery slope possibilities that will arise from endorsing what is essentially The Minority Report come to real life. When you add the endless flaws behind the Static-99R to the fact that the Static-99R IS The Minority Report come to real life, then I am completely perplexed to how anyone with half a brain — or anyone who is NOT corrupt — can get behind this type of “science.”

  38. mike r

    Um hate to tell you guys, but static99r is correct 82% of the time statistically says CASOMB who scientifically track recidivism rates. At least flr the three year time period after release that it was designed to work. That is a indisputable fact. Anything outside the 3 years design model is not useful and was never designed for. It is specifically designed for parole department and three years.

  39. mike r

    As AJ states, you cannot have it both ways, either CASOMB is correct in their #s or they are not, and I am going with they are. As far as Hanson goes. His declaration blows anything he has ever stated in the past away, but he has already admitted he was wrong. People can be wrong and it is when they admit it and correct it that they make it right. I will have to find exactly the citation where he admitted it, but it does not matter with his declaration in CA Northern District court > https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/024_hanson_decl_11.7.12.pdf

    Look at all his citations as well. Really powerful declaration.

    15. Static 99R Risk Assessment Tool; Static 99R risk assessment that is a tool that is widely used by the CASOMB and is the leading risk assessment tool: “The Static-99R was found to be very accurate in predicting who would reoffend, accurately predicting which offenders would commit a new sex offense in about 82% of cases. High risk offenders had a sexual recidivism rate of over 29%, while low risk offenders had a recidivism rate of only 1.6%. The study will continue for an additional five years to further measure and refine the data on sex offender recidivism in California” [p. 5]
    http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB_End_of_Year_Report_to_Legislature_2014.pdf
    [visited November 15, 2018].

    CASOMB is not pushing the static 99R because they have a fiduciary interest, they actually use it and t is accurate 82% of the time whether people like it or not. CASOMB is one of the only agencies that is pushing facts and change. I am going to use the hell out of them…

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      82 percent accurate, but yet Karl Hanson defends his so-called “test” as a “trade secret.” Let’s not forget that the CASOMB leadership positions are filled with bureaucrats in conflicts of interests (whether government and/or business), as well as the fact that even Karl Hanson’s “studies” are, too, infected with conflicts of interests. There is also the fact that the Static-99R has failed Daubert and Frye challenges, as well as the fact that the states’ very own study, written by one of the states’ own experts, was suppressed when Karl Hanson — and his Static-99 — was found to have exaggerated static data by at least 500%.

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202538

      In other words, the Static-99 estimated recidivism at about 37 percent at the five year mark. The reality was that recidivism was about 6.5 percent for Sexually Violent Predators (which is a step above the “high” risk sex offenders that CASOMB seems intent on villainizing). Again, this is a Karl Hanson exaggeration of at least FIVE TIMES.

      Furthermore, with regard to the Static-99R being 82 percent accurate, it is an easily manipulated figure since most sex offenders, regardless of “risk,” do not recidivate. It is easy to conflate an alleged accuracy of 82 percent with the fact that most sex offenders score “low” to “moderate” — and because most do not offend, that the Static-99R is thus “accurate.” Thus, the Static-99R’s “accuracy” is highly misleading.

      • Leilani

        He’s calling the 82% Area Under the Curve an accuracy rate. The SMART report also calls area under the curve an accuracy rate but uses more words to describe the concept, so at least those in the know of what an area under the curve is can identify the 82% accuracy rate they speak of as AUC. Those not in the know may confuse this measurement with percentage of high risk scored people re-offending. mike r is technically correct, but its not what one would think of when they hear accuracy rate. AUC does not take into account the rate of false positives. That’s why it’s not as useful to measure AUC than the accuracy rate one would commonly think of by the term “accuracy rate”. The accuracy rate one would commonly think of was measured and misstated by 500% in the cases of civilly committed registrants in one study as you said, The Static-99R Is A Scam.

        • AJ

          @Leilani:
          Welcome to the board. Or have you been a long time lurker…?

  40. mike r

    @The Static-99R Is A Scam, Agree with everything you stated. It is also nice to see someone that can come back with an intellectual argument without bashing on someone personally over a serious subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about. I overwhelmingly believe that the non-contact, male victims, and stranger victims are correct in adding points, but I am biased because the non-contact and stranger so called victim adds to my score, but if the static 99 is 82% accurate then I would say use it as it is being used in parole, but anything after the targeted two to three years that it was created specifically for, people that are no longer on parole, no way. That is all that tool was designed for and the only thing that it legally applies to. Now if the legislators were trying to use that for classification, which they are not because they are going to use offense based tiering, which is a major problem both with the court and their own CASOMB conflict. Like you stated, static 99 is very misleading in their numbers because it has nothing to do with actual recidivism at all, overall. That 82% is just as you stated, from the extremely low group of offenders that did recidivate. That is CASOMB stating that not academia, the state agencies can get some numbers right every once in a while, especially after years of recommendations to the legislature in their reports that have been ignored, for decades actually. Academia studies are skewed in order to get funding or recognition, and they are reasonably questionable in both methodology and proxy users under the adjudicative fact standard, but when you dig into them you can find the true meat. I hate to defend any gov entities but I have to maintain that the CASOMB members are just stating facts because I am going to use the crap out of them in my case. I have done extensive research on them and they are not pushing any self interest agenda other then attempting to make a diligent effort to improve the system. I know it seems crazy and unbelievable in this day and age of corruption and deceit, but even I am amazed at their good faith efforts over the years. That article that you cited has some great citations and thank you for citing that as I can use a bunch of citations out of that for my case. I am really focusing on Hanson for academia, as according to the state’s own entities, Hanson is the go to source for academia and he has totally reversed his statistics as compared to earlier studies and has been very specific about recidivism, and long term recidivism at that. Here is another great citation Hanson and Harris out of that article,
    ANDREW J.R. HARRIS & R. KARL HANSON, PUB. SAFETY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANA, SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: A SIMPLE QUESTION 1 (2004), https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm-eng.pdf.
    Harris and Hanson found that the rate of recidivism in the populations they studied decreased by half every five years. Id. at 9.

    The fact is none of academia really matters as compared to gov reports by entities whom are statutorily required to scientifically collect recidivism date and asses the impacts of both recidivism rates and efficacy of programs….. The data they collect are facts not assertions by some self interest group of academics with fiduciary interest. And the list of members on the board of CASOMB is overwhelming and includes LE, CA AG, DAs, judges, sexual abuse advocates, and the list goes on. There is no way that they can refute the facts that their own representatives in every field have put forth.

    • Ricky Fitz

      Sorry to interject but are we just supposed to trust Karl Hanson when he has a track record exaggerating data AND, adding insult to injury, keeping it all secret? Is the conflict of interest mentioned by Static 99 is a Scam also supposed to be ignored? Experts citing Karl Hanson who cites Karl Hanson and his other developer buddies is hardly a credible way of conducting scientific research.

      Again, why is Karl Hanson’s Static 99R data protected as a proprietary secret? And when the Static 99/R is proven wrong, why does the government work so hard to suppress said evidence?

      Seems fishy… and it makes you wonder…

      • The Static-99R Is A Scam

        With the amount of “experts” who have put their reputation behind Karl Hanson and his pseudo sciences, I doubt that the Static-99R will ever be “proven wrong.” If said experts are backed into a corner, I will guess that said experts will manipulate their findings to fit a narrative compatible with Fake Doctor Karl Hanson’s continuously changing Coding Rules and statistical norms.

        As for the CASOMB Kool Aid, let’s not forget that it is CASOMB that is also supportive of other pseudo sciences such as the polygraph, as well as “CASOMB-certified treatment” programs — one of which became one of the state’s largest because of a certain conflict of interest — that rely on the equally egregious ABEL “assessment.”

        Crooked CASOMB is corrupt.

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *