ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General News

Assembly Committee to Consider Internet Identifier Bill (SB 448)

The Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider on June 21 an amended version of Senate Bill 448, which requires some registered citizens to disclose their internet identifiers. The hearing will be held in State Capitol Room 126 and begin at 9 a.m.

As amended, the bill requires the disclosure of internet identifiers by registered citizens convicted after January 1, 2016, if they used the internet to collect private information about their victim. Disclosures would be required during annual registration as well as within 30 working days of additions or changes to those identifiers.

“Due to opposition from CA RSOL and the ACLU, SB 448 has been significantly modified and its harm reduced,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “The bill remains in violation both of the federal Constitution and recent court decisions which recognized the importance of the right of anonymous speech.”
Letters and calls are needed immediately to stop SB 448. A list of committee members can be found below.

Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (Chair) Dem – 59 Contact Assembly Member Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr.

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 4126, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059; (916) 319-2059

Melissa A. Melendez (Vice Chair)  Rep – 67 Contact Assembly Member Melissa A. Melendez

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 6031, Sacramento, CA 94249-0067; (916) 319-2067

Tom Lackey  Rep – 36 Contact Assembly Member Tom Lackey

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036; (916) 319-2036

Patty López Dem – 39 Contact Assembly Member Patty López

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 5160, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039; (916) 319-2039

Evan Low Dem – 28 Contact Assembly Member Evan Low

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028

Bill Quirk Dem – 20 Contact Assembly Member Bill Quirk

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 2163, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020

Miguel Santiago Dem – 53 Contact Assembly Member Miguel Santiago

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 5119, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053


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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hopefully, no one should have their free speech taken away. It starts with registrants, as always. If this passes, it won’t stop here, guaranteed.

Calls made. Letters being typed out now. Let’s get to work and do what we can to stop this bill!!

well at least one law that doesn’t go back to the beginning of time; nor is it all inclusive!

that’s how it begins pass a law that they figure only a handful of opposition to then expand it once it’s passed.even if it doesn’t effect you please call and send letters. this law as written doesn’t affect me but I will be calling and sending hard facts and data in opposition.

Thank you for posting this information. I have this question; As an RC and currently on active parole, How seriously will legislators take my comments or letters since I’m not a “registered voter”? I have heard that if i can’t vote then my opinion doesn’t count. Is this true? I have some available time to volunteer but my PO questions everywhere I go that is out of my usual pattern.

Please send a copy of your letter to Stella Choe, a staffer who works for the Public Safety Committee. Her E-mail address is and she will be the person who counts letters for the committee report. Your name and contact information will NOT be revealed to the public. She needs letters no later than this Friday, June 17.

Janice this is a little off subject but it would be nice if we had a cartoonist that

would be willing to politically draw out the stupidity of the issues of the registry and

it’s affects. Making caricature of those in office. A picture is worth a thousand words

a cartoon caricature is worth even more!

Hi All –
I’m not a computer expert (I’m barely computer literate) but I think (hope) someone on this site might be and I have a letter suggestion for a computer person. Here goes, please don’t laugh (again, barely computer literate). I have looked all over the internet trying to find out what makes internet identifiers a good crime fighting tool for law enforcement and I can’t find anything (I’m probably just not looking in the right place). I did find information about how easy it is to steal a person’s internet ID and send email or set up a fake social media account (complete with a picture of you) and make it look like it came from your email address or computer when it didn’t. I mean an internet ID is not the same thing as your DNA or your fingerprints (those identifiers belong to you and identify you in a way that is different than an internet identifier). Anyway, it occurred to me that perhaps there is a high tech argument to be made about why collecting this information really would be useless and what makes internet IDs useless in investigating a crime. Plus if your internet identifier was stolen, how easy or hard would it be to prove you didn’t send the communication or set up the social media account?
Of course I’m not suggesting that the registry itself is in anyway useful, and yes, I know these laws are being proposed and passed for political reasons, but as far as I can tell no one has developed this argument yet, not even in the legal lawsuit arena…then again maybe that is because it isn’t a good argument…

I think you are on to something there. This law is a stupid idea if you really think about it. What criminals would tell law enforcement the place where they are going to commit a crime? So what registered citizen would give out this information if he really was planning on committing an internet crime? If anything, he would give out a false lead. The vast majority would be giving their identifiers only to avoid going to prison, there by filling data bases with information on innocent people, and much like the the criticisms of the bulk collection of phone records and other meta-data, it would actually hinder finding the bad guys. The only people I can see this benefiting is the law enforcement contractors, who have nothing to gain by reducing crime. The losers are future victims of internet based crimes and people who have already paid for a crime and are simply trying to live a normal life.

You have common sense. 😉
Half of these lawmakers are still using flip-phones and Blackberry’s.

I’m not really sure how old the average lawmaker is…but the older generation, for the most part, don’t have a clue how technology or how the Internet functions.

You make several great points.

It’s another book smart, common sense ignorant, trying to buy votes and get the slap on the back at the water cooler… for a great job with a new law to go after those evil Registered Citizens.


Pam, I was talking to my son about this when I came across your comments. He is quite computer literate.
He says that there are 2 types of IP addresses assigned…One is Static, the other is Dynamic. A Static ID # will not change, but a Dynamic # changes all the time. He says those doing the lawsuit need to contact the common internet providers and confirm with them that the modem or router has a Dynamic ID, and this is most likely. Comcast, AT&T, etc will have a Tech talk to them and explain how it works, and the difference between the two.
My son says it would be a NIGHTMARE to manage. He also says it is NOT useless, because at the time of the crime, if there is an appropriate logging by the internet provider and the server, with a time stamp, they can back-track to find out who was assigned at that time. But it would take an IT professional (not a cop) to do the investigating, which would take months to resolve.
Also, if Legislators use non-technical, ambiguous language, they will leave it open for abuse, and it WILL be abused. IP addresses can and are ‘spoofed,’ by criminal elements, or do-gooders trying to get someone in trouble.
We live close to Sacramento, and will try to make it to the Public Safety hearing, and make some comments….and hope others will be there too.

Hi Barbara –
I will be in Sacramento too and I am really looking forward to meeting you! I hope others will join us, having a lot of people there really does make a big difference. Last year Bill Brough (Dana Point) pulled his presence restrictions bill specifically citing the number of people who showed up at the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing and spoke out against it. There were 18 of us. Imagine what we could to with 25 people or 40 or more! So if you can come please do, it is very, very important. You will not be there alone and you do not have to identify your registry status. If you want to just be there to meet us and watch the hearing that is OK. If you want to stand up and be counted, “I’m from San Jose (or wherever) and I’m against this bill” would be amazing. You do not have to say your name. Both family members and registrants have called the experience life changing.
Always remember that people on the registry are NOT sex offenders. People on the registry have been convicted of committing a sexual offense. There is a difference.

Pam, I’m sorry that we weren’t able to make it to this hearing. We were very disappointed. Will try again to make it on 6/28 to the other bill, and also the rally in Oakland. Hope at some time to meet you…I publish a newsletter for CA prisoners, and have been putting Janice’s info from her blogs in the newsletter to educate the public and educate the prisoners that are effected by all this polygraph stuff, along with the bills and everything else. Prisoners do appreciate getting the info, and I think too that it is helping to make other prisoners more tolerant of those convicted of a sex offense.

The problem with SB-448 is not just in it’s restriction of freedoms but in it’s application by law enforcement. How do they enforce the thing? The other point about enforcement because we have no tiered registry law enforcement tends to blanket enforce. The Orange county Parks ban of 2011…one of the authors of the law Orange County Supervisor Nelson assumed it was applied only against registrants that had child victims…The OC Sheriff’s department enforced that law against ALL 290 registrants. Law makers make laws but don’t control their application. Below is interesting:

Like in Utah, they will continue to amend this thing, letting lose just enough to have the court buy off on it as constitutional. They want your online information, and they will put every resource into getting it.

I’m a little confused. Who exactly does this bill affect? Incest related convictions?

It seems to affect all Felony level convictions…

But it doesn’t sound like it’s retroactive, unless I’m missing something.

And, although I am not in favor of this bill, restricting it to new felons only would at least mean that they know what their being sentenced to. Much different than all of the retro laws that have been imposed upon us after the fact.

Well, all my CA friends… don’t move to Florida! In October 2016 Registered Citizens will be required to register EVERY URL we visit. EVERY URL.

Those with even limited knowledge of the web and websites will know that this is impossible. Every page of every site, every link of every page, and every field of every site has its own URL. How we are to report them prior to using them is anyone’s guess.

Starting in October Florida will go dark from the lack of RC’s ability to go online. How’s that for freedom of speech?

Using a cell phone will be off limits because it’s an internet accessing device. This is a non-enforceable law. It can be selectively used for easily violating a registered sex offender by law enforcement. A catch-all-law that is selectively enforced. Kind of like the days of proving who’s a witch … if the witch floats she’s a witch so kill her, but if she drowns and doesn’t float well she’s not a witch. Oh how times haven’t changed just the methods.

You got it Robert Curtis-

What in the world are these lawmakers thinking. It’s a witch hunt of the worst kind. If they were smart. They would have stopped all of that IML and notifying other countries with Angel Watch.

Then we could just leave. Isn’t that what they all wish we would do anyway?
But they are making it so we can’t go and these totally insane laws keep popping up all across the nation. We are prisoners being locked up within the borders of our own country.

Do you think that is what our founding fathers envisioned?


That sounds like a law that an organized over-compliance project would result in bankrupting the state.


And Bankrupting the entire system is maybe what we need to do. If we said sure…I’ll submit every URL I visit and I will give you that list daily if you want it.
We would really need 100% participation. Then just show the author of that law what an IDIOT they really are.
Then just overwhelm their law with Thousands of URLS per RC.
Not a bad Idea.


JR, Can you post the link to this law? Thanks! I think that without Janice we would have similar laws in CA. Knowing that Janice is fighting for us is enough reason to not leave this state. I’m not willing to even visit another state until the laws change for the better in every state. I can’t even imagine the grief we would face if we were arrested for a technical violation in one of these overbearing states.

I believe pretty much everyone on this forum got the message to stay out of Florida. Its bad enough knowing your name will forever be on their website for visiting Disneyworld for a week

It is also bad knowing they are spending millions on monitoring ex offenders, having a low re-offence rate and over all non violent tendencies, and yet they can not to do thorough background checks to see that weapons of mass destruction do not end up in the hands of the violently unstable.

Starting reading this book “iRules”, parents should be the ones who are actively involved in their child’s online life. If the government truely cared, then perhaps they should asking for all underage persons online ID. After all, there is a lot of cyber bully, trolling, and sexting among underage kids(looking at you teens).

frank: I was thinking exactly that ! if just 2 people go in daily and give them a massive list of URL’s… email addy etc and there is a massive list it will cost them in man hours a LOT haha

Print 2 URLS PER page and give them a few thousand of them. Would cost a few bucks in printing paper but the aggravation they would receive would be worth it. They should have fun with that.

SB-448 Sex offenders: Internet identifiers.

Wanna guess who the Coauthors is ?

YOu guess RIGHT

RUNNERS are at it again!!

here we go and the erosion of our constitution is ever expanding with policies based on fear. the government can and have been putting people US citizens on a no fly list with absolutely zero due process and since it’s been okay to deny ex-offenders constitutional rights specifically where it all started the right to bear arms with absolutely no procedural due process just because ogf a crminal coviction for the justificqtion the government uses to claim they are dangerous is going to get expanded to include anyone and any right justified because the government claims you’re dangerous. so much for due process and are constitutional democratic Republic. this country is going to hurt because of all the misery it’s conflicting abroad and on its own citizens. it’s called collective karma at least that’s what Im calling it.

SB 448: Sex offenders: Internet identifiers.

Please log on to POPVOX and vote no on this law since they now include California in their listings.

When I hit oppose the system freezes and does not count my vote…

initial decision, with explanations and final judgment and order in the Nebraska FEBERAL court decision banning the state from requiring Internet identifiers as unconstitution al

(1) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-322.05 and 29-4006(1)(k) and
(s) (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) are facially
unconstitution al under the First Amendment and the
equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision;
(2) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1,
2010) is facially unconstitution al under the Due
8:09-cv-00456-RGK-CRZ Doc # 536 Filed: 12/21/12 Page 2 of 4 – Page ID # 6881
Process Clause and the equivalent Nebraska
constitutional provision;
(3) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s),
29-4006(2), and 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1,
2010) are facially unconstitution al under the Ex Post
Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and
the equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision
regarding (a) offenders who had served their time
and were no longer under criminal justice
supervision on January 1, 2010; and (b) offenders
who had been sentenced prior to January 1, 2010, but
who remained under criminal justice supervision on
or after January 1, 2010;
(4) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2) (West, Operative Jan.
1, 2010) is facially unconstitution al under the Fourth
Amendment as to those plaintiffs who were
previously convicted of sex crimes, but who were
not on probation, parole, or court-monitored
supervision on or after January 1, 2010.
(5) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s) and
29-4006(2) (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) are
unconstitution al as applied to all those Plaintiffs
listed on Court’s Exhibit 1 who are identified therein
as “presently a Plaintiff” and who must register as a
sex offender under the Nebraska Sex Offender
Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4001 to
8:09-cv-00456-RGK-CRZ Doc # 536 Filed: 12/21/12 Page 3 of 4 – Page ID # 6882
(6) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1,
2010) is unconstitution al as applied to Does 2, 3, 4,
6, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 27, and 35; and
Permanent Injunction
B. The defendants and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys
and any other persons acting in concert with them are permanently
enjoined from enforcing the foregoing statutes.
Attorney Fees and Costs
C. The plaintiffs are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees against the
defendants in the amount of $292,564.88.
D. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), the
plaintiffs are prevailing parties for purposes of taxation of costs.
If the plaintiffs desire to recover costs, they must file the required
documents with the Clerk within 14 days.

any update???

In the text of this bill, it gives police the ability to post about warrants to the website directly. Then look at who is funding this bill. I’m wondering why its so important for police, such as Facebook Police Menlo Park, which is FaceBook’s funded police force they applied for over 2 years ago, to be able to post about a registrant to a website, presumeabley the one that already exists and not a new one created by FaceBook, if a registrant has any warrants. Warrants aren’t convictions after all and it appears even a warrant for a traffic ticket could trigger this. If FaceBook/Kelly are still claiming that SB 448 is needed to be on an emergency status as supposedly registrants using the internet with anonymity is causing a state of emergency, which is all bogus nonsense, then there is not much to stop the same entity, FaceBook, with their own FaceBook Police, Menlo Park to issue a slew of bogus warrants to then post about it to the website.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x