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

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

Senate Committee to Consider AB 2569 [UPDATED with approval]

The Senate Public Safety Committee will consider AB 2569 during its hearing on June 28 which starts at 9:30 a.m. in Room 3191. If enacted into law, the bill would reduce the number of people eligible to apply for exclusion from the Megan’s Law website.

The full Assembly passed AB 2569 in May. In order to become law, the bill must be passed by two Senate committees and the full Senate.

“If enacted, Assembly Bill 2569 would harm hundreds of registered citizens and their families,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “This bill must be stopped by sending letters and making phone calls to members of the Senate Public Safety Committee.”

UPDATE 6/29 :

Final Vote on AB 2569:
AB 2569 was passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee. Final vote – 4 “yes” votes, 1 abstain and 2 “no” votes. As the author was able to secure 4 “yes” votes the bill has moved out of the Public Safety Committee to Appropriations.

Yes – Stone, Anderson, Glazer and Monning
No – Lui, Leno
Abstain – Hancock

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

here is the beginning of a class action or individual lawsuit

This court has jurisdiction because of the sex offender registration contractual agreement, that I was and am forced into through coercion and under duress with threat of imprisonment against my own volition, between the state of California and myself.

Statement of the case;

The defendants are knowingly and willfully misrepresenting the facts and empirical evidence with blatent disregard for the truth with statements of facts that they know or should have known are universally untrue in order to deprive me of my constitutional rights under color of law.

Mike, I challenge you to take real action by coming with us on June 28 to try to stop this thing. Will you come? Just sitting at home posting these comments is not making real change.

I Agree, Mike R needs to stop preaching and start protesting.
I live on the east coast and do my protesting at our hearings. There’s nothing to getting up to speak after the first time doing it.

Roger I would come but I have class that I cannot miss but I donate what I can and I am constantly researching so that I am prepared as I can be when the time is right. I have finished my first year of college and once I finish my degree I should be adept enough in the art of discourse and able to articulate well enough to argue at their level in the court room. I thought this site was a place to share ideas and to be able to vent and discuss issues and come up with solutions. I am hoping that someone with the resources and intelligence might take some of these ideas and run with them.believe me as soon as I feel I am ready i will be filing. at least I am taking some kind of action even if it is just researching and preparing at this point.

Mike r, once again I think you are causing harm to our cause, because this time you are discouraging participation in committee meetings. Until you are an attorney with experience I don’t think you should be telling any of us “what needs to happen”. Did you ever hear the statement “A little learning is a dangerous thing”.

Mike, I appreciate you being willing to donate, research, and contribute to our conversations. And I will assume you are writing letters and making calls Janice asks on specific issues.

You have an incorrect assumption about the hearings: At most hearings, time is so tight that everyone except Janice and the other primary advocate is only allowed to say our name, city, and whether we are for or against the bill. That’s it! About 6 seconds. They won’t let you give “discourse…at their level”. But that little statement has a big impact, since no one used to bother to stand up to these bills before. Yes, the politicians are shocked, and often back down from a battle they thought would be easy.

If your house was on fire, you wouldn’t want to repaint it while it was on fire, you’d get the fire out first. Take some time now to help us put out today’s fires while you are working toward the future. If you can’t make it on June 28, consider working with your teacher to allow you to come to the Oakland hearing on July 27. You may even be out of classes them. At least make sure you and your family/friends/etc. are writing and calling.

Yes, we share ideas. And yes, we even vent at times. All fine and good.

But remember that RCs and concerned people come to this site for one key thing: HOPE. They want to know we can make a difference. We have. A HUGE difference! We, and especially Janice, have fought down hellish, immediate, real-world bills and laws. We do this–not just by legal arguments–but by changing the perceptions of the public and politicians.

Our readers want to see a united organization fighting ineffective, unjust laws, not fighting each other in the comments. Yes, we can disagree on specific issues and wish we had different strategies at times, and to prevent the flame wars I see on other websites we must be respectful of each other, and not hide behind anonymity online. Here is a good test: imagine if you said or yelled in the real world the stuff you just typed, and ask yourself how people would react. In some cases, you’d likely agree it would be inappropriate.

When we type negative things about CA RSOL, we are doing our opponent’s work for them. Please tone down your nagativity.

Please show consideration to others who comment. Please respect other viewpoints.

Please admit to yourself that you might not be aware of all the factors that go into CA RSOL’s strategy.

Please take all the action you can today, not at some misty, future date. The house might be burnt down by then due to inaction.

And most of all, encourage those of us who are taking action.

Thanks for listening.

We are all in this together. Your end of the rowboat will sink just as fast as mine if we can’t stay afloat.

and i hate to tell you but having rso at these meetings has zero affect on these committee decisions. unless we all show up in mass and I mean by the thousands the only people that can sway a decision are professional organizations and hard data. since rso are not going to show up in mass all your doing is showing support for Janice’s efforts. sending letters making phone calls and donations are the best way to support our cause all of which I have done and I hope everyone that knows about this did too. if you know anything about writing legal briefs you would know that it takes professional attorneys 100s of hours in research by numerous individuals before they even begin drafting the actual motion. I have already spent over a hundred hours getting as far as I have. if I had other people such as the people on here assisting me or contacting organizations like the ACLU or anyone that may listen and act then maybe we could get the real issues in front of a judge.

what needs to happen in these meetings is for an attorney to be sure that these individual committee members are on the record knowing that these laws are completely irrational counterproductive and a waste of taxpayers money and that if they vote in favor of these laws with blatent and reckless disregard for the truth that they are in deriliction of their official duties and official capacity and that they will be sued in both their personal and official lives for deprivation of rights under color of law and remind them that unless they are acting in good faith to not only protect the public but to also protect the Constitution per their oath of office that they will bo longer enjoy absolute immunity and civil action will begin.

I chatted with my senator briefly. My points made to him was …wouldn’t it be wise before considering enacting more legislation regarding registered citizens to first have in place a tiered form of a registry? He seemed real open to the idea…

They are simply depriving more RSO’s of freedom to work,rent, and coexist with community. Then they will be upset when they find a large group of RSO’s living under bridges. They are creating hate crime as we speak, they are also creating more crime, as we know because people living on the streets have numerous unintended altercations with the public and law enforcement. Robert is right if we can get a tiered registry then many RSO ‘s will drop off and there will not be this paranoia that THE SYSTEM has created by placing 100,000 RSO in the California registry.

Thank you for doing this, Robert! You are a shining example of what can be done by one person. That is, you speak to your elected officials and educate them regarding the facts including the need for a tiered registry.

Janice, I live in a state (Washington) that has a tiered registry. I strongly discourage you from encouraging such a system. The issue with it is getting your level decreased. In Washington there are 3 levels. 1 least likely to re-offend, 3 high risk to re-offend. I’ve been out of prison for 13 years and have not been able to get anyone to lower my level.
Good luck getting someone to put their signature on a document recommending a reclassification to a lower risk level.
My 2 cents for what it’s worth.

Agree Strongly with Allen…which is exactly what is wrong with the Certificate of Rehabilitation process in California already….nobody has the guts to sign off on one.

It is a useless, utterly failed process.

A Tiered System would be worse for almost everyone.

Best Wishes, James

Washington State wasn’t that bad until some woman sued the state for the right to list level 1 offenders on her own private website. The state court agreed with her. So there won’t be any more privacy for level 1 offenders

Interesting new proposal. I believe this only applies to incest/or family related offenses. Very interesting. They will interview the victim to determine if they want the person online? What if the victim is no longer alive? Moved out of the country? Or, what if the person plead non contest or the charges where expunged/dismissed?

It will not matter. If the victim does not speak on your behalf, for whatever reasons, you will be added to the internet.

I really don’t like raining on someone’s parade but you newbies want to dismiss and ridicule my efforts in our cause so I am going to tell you like it is. you guys can protest until you’re blue in the face and just like in committee meetings your voice has zero impact on how these judges or committee members vote.ZERO even if you marched in the thousands like the LGBT or black lives matter demonstrations you will still have ZERO sway on decision making and ZERO impact on public say I need to stop preaching I say you people need to be engaged in real world research collaboration and solutions instead of wasting your time living in a fantasy world that thinks you can change anything with protest. Robert curtis has a much better chance at swaying a vote with his phone calls then a thousand protesters have at a thousand different locations. send these legislators and news stations and anyone else that will listen or may have some real influence in the world hard facts empirical evidence and documented collateral consequences with demands that action be taking to restore our Constitution. you say stop preaching well guess what I have sent my letters with all the documentation that I mentioned to every news station politicians public defenders ACLU W.A.R. F.A.C. SOSEN and have had many discussions with these individuals. I love all the work and accomplishments that CARSOLhas made and I enjoy the benefits from them and thank God for her efforts and donate and support her and many other organizations but the fact is no one organization is all knowing or willing to think outside the box and challenge the Courts on the real issues i.e. the irrationality unjustified arbitrary detrimental laws that have been and are being passed based on misinformation and misrepresentations of facts and data that we and any law makers know or should have known are universally untrue. i was just informed that a gentleman back east just got an expungment based on this theory and until this is challenged and the legislators are forced to do their duties in good faith then the status qou is going to remain the same with the same outcomes in every court case.

I certainly would not want to ridicule your efforts and I applaud you for them. It takes many contributions, and many contributors, to successfully challenge this horrible system.

However, I would like to respectfully disagree with you on the utility, and the advisability, of protest as well as forming a unified front before committees and hearings.

You claim that such efforts have “zero” effect. Two things in response to that: 1. Janice and other members have been very successful in defeating laws at both the state and municipal level by doing just that. She, and others, have found that Assembly Members and city councilmen have, in many cases, been surprised to learn that there is an organization such as RSOL ready to challenge their laws and to challenge their beliefs. She has even managed to change most of those laws and some of those beliefs. Far from being ineffectual, she has made serious headway in our cause, in part, by simply “showing up” and getting in their face. 2. There have NEVER been any significant protests on our behalf or at any level before. And I do mean NEVER! I have organized one fairly small protest (against Coalinga State Hospital) and there have been a couple of others, too. Even so, and despite being poorly attended (because of laziness and/or defeatism) they were by no means a failure in that they helped to educate the public. Had they been bigger, and sustained over time, they would certainly have been more successful. But really, there is no way of knowing how effective a protest is when the currency in play is raising awareness in the public and government representatives. You really have no basis for saying that the results flowing from those efforts is “zero”. You bring no evidence (nor can you) to show that it is a waste of time. And, if you’ll excuse me for saying so, all you bring to that discussion is your anger and resentment. Hey, don’t get me wrong! I’m royally pissed-off, too but I don’t let that cloud my judgement or use it to talk myself out of pursuing what is an essential overall strategy.

July 27, be there!

I will be driving 1,000 miles across several states to try to be there, (and leaving family behind on a vacation {who are already unhappy at this}).

We will see…but I am going to certainly try to be there…kind of my duty.

Best Wishes, James

you’re right I go kinda pissed at the people ridiculing my efforts and lashed out at them. I commend any and all efforts however big or small they maybe. I also never said that Janice’s et el had no effect just the opposite I said her professional organizations and other professionals are the only ones that do have effect

No, you’ve said you didn’t trust the intentions of the very organizations that are helping us. Maybe you should reread your past posts! This isn’t the place to go off when you’re pissed Mike r. These post are read by everyone. Both the general public and likely some politicians. Decent among us (mostly you) is not a good thing to post. I find most of your posts uneducated and unhelpful.

I realize that you were not criticizing Janice. What I intended is to point out that there is a ‘protest component’ to the work she does at the Statehouse and in the chambers of the various city halls. That function of, as I put it, ‘showing-up’ and presenting a face to our adversaries in the sausage factories of injustice is also a form of protest. It performs, as all protest should, a vital function of communicating and teaching.

Protest outside of those halls, and in the streets, should strive to perform much the same function. It may be a more challenging setting but this is where we also need to get the attention of the media and to somehow get essential kernels of truth into the public consciousness. That is the goal of protest but one which is very difficult to measure except over expanses of time. That is not the same as being ineffective. Instead, effectiveness demands a constancy and determination and a degree of what might seem, at the time, to be unwarranted optimism.

As I said, neither we, nor anyone else, has ever done this in support of challenging sex offender laws. It’s time that we should do so. But we’re going to have to gather a critical mass of people to make this happen and with the regularity necessary to shift opinions over time.

Thank you, Mike!

there you go with your personal insults and self righteous condemnation. you people just live in a fantasy world and are disconnected to reality if you think your little pathetic protest or individual presence has any influence whatsoever with these mostly corrupt politicians. like I said writing your representatives providing facts and empirical evidence along with donations and support for these organizations are the only things that have any sway at all.

Janice’s success comes from countless hours of research compilation and collaboration with numerous different professionals that are willing to contribute their own expertise and are willing to what I ask people on this site to do which is to provide assistance and actual constructive criticism without personal condemnations for not contributing or acting how you people see fit. question everything applaud and support any and all efforts to advance our cause and everyone who attempts to further the cause. but don’t put your head in the sand and live in a fantasy world. and by all means support anyone’s effort that post on here. I am not hurting anyone by posting my motion drafts on this site but i get feedback like stop preaching and start acting. those kind of statements are idiotic and does nothing to help or support our cause. try keeping your personal insults to yourself and if you don’t like my post don’t read them.

I commend David kennerly for his respectable intelligent discourse and stating his opinion and stance in a productive and respectful form. That’s the kind of mature discourse that we need from each other instead of mentally challenged remarks by dillisional immature minds.

Thank you Mike! I try but sometimes, perhaps when I’m in a bad mood or in a rush, I may not be very thoughtful and thus, effective, in my responses.

We all need to remind ourselves, from time-to-time, what the big picture is and how to get to where we need to go.

yes protest in mass could possibly have some effect but like you said it has never happened and despite all efforts to make that happen very few participate. it’s sad but that’s the reality of it. I’ve been on this site for years and have been watching what goes on around the country and the only forms of success have been very limited and mostly here in CA and thanks to Janice’s hard work and expertise. but she cannot and shouldn’t have to be the only one that fights our fight and it really pisses me off when individuals want to criticize my work and effort that I’ve been working on instead of providing what limited skills or expertise to the cause. these motions that I am posting are going to get filed when I feel I’m ready for oral arguments and when the arguments are rock solid and winnable.

I post them not only for myself to see them in context but in hopes that individuals may give me feedback and constructive criticism or support and information and additions they may have. that’s what would further our cause not personal insults and condemnations.

This Bill doesn’t make sense to me, for many reasons. 1) The people who qualify for the current exclusion are LOW level offenders. Why should the state spend any money what so ever to change laws regarding LOW level offenders? 2) The current exclusion does protect and help the victims and their families even in indirect ways they may not realize when questioned. Victims and their families may respond negatively towards the offender when initially questioned by whatever local organization is put in charge of such duty because of the emotions they are feeling at the time without realizing the long term ramifications of the LOW level offender being put on the internet websites. 3) The LOW level offenders are more able to get and maintain jobs because they are not on the websites. Therefore, they are tax paying citizens contributing to society in a positive manner. How does it make sense to spend money to purposely result in causing a working, productive, tax paying citizen to become a jobless, unproductive, welfare program recipient. I could go on and on.

My registered significant other has been fortunate enough to maintain employment since their conviction. We live in a very small town. And, if they end up having to be listed on the Internet, being in a small town, that will change VERY quickly! Word gets around fast. There is no anonymity. My significant other pays alimony and child support to victims family. On time, never misses a payment. I’m not sure, since they are no longer in the same household, that the victim would recognize this indirect benefit. If the RSO looses their job, so too does the victims family loose their monthly support. That is actually a direct benefit but not sure they realize. Also, because of the current exclusion, the minor children in the victims household with the same last name as the offender have not been harassed. But, again, being in a small town, that would quickly change if this bill passes.

Makes no sense for LOW level offenders!

Well I am guessing by what I have seen before in these victim/politician theatrics of past laws, that Melendez wants to give the two “victims” who testified at the last hearing the ability put their own “perpetrators” back on the web site. Doesn’t that sound like retroactive punishment to you? Do you think they care if all the others will have their exclusion revoked? The politician parades the victims to the podium says she saved them from their tormentors, vote for her.

There can be no other interpretation. If “victims” are empowered (what with their special “rights” and all) to hold the power of continued marginalization and degradation over the Registrant’s head, then the intent and effect of the law is unambiguous.

These victimist laws, ironically, bring us much more into line with ancient tribalist and Sharia punishment regimes such as those practiced in places like Afghanistan where the victim’s intentions determine the sentence.

Referring to such laws here as “Sharia” should give their proponents a momentary bit of cognitive dissonance.

We could all dress up as the Taliban, carrying plastic head-chopping swords, in a public display of supporting this law.

Who has a small goat that they could bring to the rally? This is just to add to the ambience of pre-enlightenment sophistication.

Men should let their hair and beards grow out as much as possible before the event. Women should wear head-to-toe burkas (these can be improvised).

It says very clearly in the text of the bill, “prior to granting a exclusion”!!
obviously if you have been granted exclusion already then it doesn’t apply.
correct me if i am wrong

I think you need to look at the clause that says, to paraphrase, and I pasted it verbatim before, if the law is rewritten to change the requirements for the exclusion, the exclusion can be revoked. I read that to mean taken away under this new version if there was originally no consult with the victim. You no longer meet the conditions until you get that consult. How else can you read it?

However Timmr that would make it retroactive, therefore any bill or law written must state
That it would be retroactive in the text, ca constitution and federal

Michelle Bachmann, I mean Melissa Melendez is running for re-election in Nov. Go Jorge Lopez! Lopez is pro-Bernie. Melendez is pro-Trump. Should we be donating money to Lopez?

I don’t know, but we should find out.

Forgot about donating money to those parties.. Just donate to CARSOL !! It will help!!

To whom does this Bill exactly apply to? Can we get a DEFINITE answer for once?

Hey, JA, why don’t you read the Bill and give us a DEFINITE answer?

We surly might like one too…Get back to us when you finish this project.

Thanks in advance.

(or just give us a measured opinion of what YOU think?)

Best Wishes, James

Useless reply.
Anyways, can anyone please say the exact people affected?

I certainly didn’t mean to cut off comments with this late night tiny rant…I was just getting tired of random people wandering in….demanding answers…to the what is possibly inexplicable anyway.

This is not a legal advice forum…at least I don’t think so…we all are doing the best we can…still it would be nice if these posters added something to mix instead of just demanding answers.

And later, if the answer is a little off, a little different that was expected…we are slammed for being wrong.

At the last LA meeting Chance was gracious enough to caution that he believes, even here in CA, the 21 day advance notice applies for International Travel…I probably disagree until firm regulations come down from DOJ….but I will listen to him.

Because he is smart and because he is the boss….this is law and honorable people can honorably disagree, there often just isn’t that much clarity.
The upside is easy to do, the downside of not listening is pretty radical…

Yet, each of us as a free agent can only do what we can do.

Good Luck, James

You’re condemning someone for not contributing, yet your entire post was useless ranting that provided no help to the question.

For JA – From what I gather by reading it, it will apply to family related sexual convictions. I can be wrong, but that’s what I gathered out of it. I’m pretty sure a lot of us are in the same position of not completely understand all of these bills, since they’re pages and pages long. Perhaps someone who may understand it better can comment and help with the answer.


If you have been relieved of the registration requirement, is there still a possibility you could end up on the Internet?


I believe this Bill will only affect those convicted of incest etc. it’s a little difficult to understand. I believe only those convicted of misdemeanor battery or inducent exposure will not be shown/or expunged.

My conviction was a misdemeanor 647.6 charge. I was granted an exclusion from the very beginning that the site went up. If I’m reading the bill correctly, I’ll still be eligible to remain excluded. However, does anyone know if that would require another application or if the exclusions that are valid, will simply continue? These bills are way too confusing for the normal person.

Here’s an ideal. Everyone keeps wondering is this bill retroactive, does it apply to me, etc. etc. etc.

Just call up Melendez’s office and find out those details. If his office can’t give you straight answers, call up a local media station and tell them that a California lawmaker is sponsoring a bill and he doesn’t even know what’s in it. Personally I think this bill isn’t going nowhere. Melissa Melendez is a nobody from Riverside County whose political party is on the decline in California

People need to start holding the feet to the fire of these politicians

Not a bad idea…but would the media even care when it’s related to “sex offenders”? Seems society doesn’t care about laws or rights when it comes to sex offenders.

Oh no, you have to contact these people as a “concerned parent” who wants to know the details of the bill, and your lawmaker isn’t telling you. Please don’t tell anyone you’re a sex offender. You’ll likely hear a “click”

Yeah but no other legislator will oppose her and risk looking like he is being soft on sex offenders. I don’t think it will even make a difference that she is a Trump supporter in a Hillary state. I think even Hillary would be right there beside her on this matter. Agree, though, we have to fight them. That is why I am planning on going to Sacramento. I would rather not, but we are not going to make progress, until we show up in the flesh.

It’s already happened.
That’s how Sharon Runner’s SB 54 residency ordinance bill got killed. SB 54 was killed on a party-line vote, with the committee’s liberal majority voting against the measure. Runner said at the time “I am disappointed the Democrats on the Senate Public Safety Committee do not understand the importance of this bill”

Sharon Runner was also forced into withdrawing her new improved residency restriction Senate bill 1021. We talked about that a lot on this forum

Yes, there are some swing states where blue dog Dems will run scared and support some bill coming from Sharon Runner or Melissa Melendez, but California Dems pretty much have locked in safe seats.

Unfortunately, the Dems have already voted for it in the Assembly. Why would they do that? This exclusion is to protect victims. Why remove it? It is kind of like Trump saying we have to get at the families of terrorists to get at the terrorists. It didn’t surprise me that Melendez is a Trump supporter. I don’t know as much as I should about my own State government, but do you think the Senate will vote differently, things as they stand?

My bad Timmr. I didn’t know an amended AB2569 bill got passed the assembly. Well shame on the Dems who voted for it. Actually you are very knowledgeable and informed on these issues about my home state of California. I’m the one who needs to keep up. It’s a tough call to predict what the senate will do. Normally a state senator is more moderate and thinks things thru than a state representative trying to maintain an assembly district. However the AB2569 vote in the assembly was unanimous. That’s a very bad sign which means in the least the majority of senators may vote yes on the bill

Hope to see civil/constitutional/human rights advocates there in Room 3191 on Tuesday June 28 at 9am to voice opposition to AB 2569.

IMPORTANT REMINDER: Monday June 27 is the deadline to fax your letters and make your calls to the Senate Public Safety Committee regarding AB 2569 in time to be counted before the hearing on June 28. Yes, the calls and letters have an impact.

RCs who are incest offenders should be especially concerned and active in writing, calling, and coming to Sacramento with us because AB 2569 may put you on the sex offender registry and therefore be in the public spotlight along with the rest of us.

If you didn’t get Janice’s Action Alert email then send us an email to this address (sorry, I have to spell this out due to spam bots):
carsolinfo at gmail dot com

You can ask us to put you on the Action Alert list.
You can also ask us to forward Janice’s latest Action Alert to you.

Does anyone know how this went today?

We’re still waiting on the vote. The good news is that the Chair seemed sympathetic to how the bill would affect victims, but a bunch of the committee members left the room just before the vote. If I understand the procedure, they must give their votes by midnight today. I’m sure Janice will post something as soon as we get the final word.

The committee allowed each of us in line to make quick comments (no, they weren’t staring into space, they really seemed to listen, and mentioned our comments). I said my name and city, then I mentioned that the few incest offenders that would actually be considered SVPs and offend against neighborhood children would always be evaluated after serving time then and committed for life to Coalinga State Hospital (the logical conclusion being that the bill targets people who never will be on the streets again, so what’s the use of the bill?).

No matter how this turns out, it was great to have our voices heard, and great seeing Melendez’s frustration at not having as easy a time of passing populist bills as she had in the past. We are a burr in her saddle.

Our voices matter, guys!

Didn’t you ever think that if you had been born in an earlier time you would have stood up against slavery, treatment of Native Americans, or other ways our culture dehumanized humans?

Well, guess what? YOU are being dehumanized by legislators! You are helping yourself and 135,000+ of our fellow RCs by writing letters, calling, donating, and showing up in Sacramento and Oakland.

You still have a chance to make a difference this summer by coming to our protest in Oakland on July 27. You don’t even have to say a thing. Just come. Even if you don’t have plans to travel anytime soon, we need to push back against the noose that politicians and the courts keep trying to draw tighter.

Together we will help swing the pendulum the other way.

Janice, Roger, Still somewhat new to site and as I’ve mentioned b4 I look here for relief and comfort from this nightmare, 22 years now :-(. I’m deeply inspired and touch by your words of encouragement Roger and your loyalty and didacation. I thank God ever so much for individuals such as yourself. I wish I could do more but am limited with just donating once a month from my SS check. Many many thanks to you and Janice and all who are s part in making a change. Thank you!!

Thank you for the summary, Roger, and the followup, Janice.

I attended and quickly commented as well. Seven of us. Seven. How many of us again are within 2 hours drive of Sacramento?

I also noticed, like Roger, that unlike last summer, this time the committee members each listened closely to our comments, and referenced them in further discussion. Chance especially made some key points that the original law was specifically written to protect young victims related to their perpetrators from harm by publication, especially harm from their young peers. It is not a loophole as sponsor Melendez framed, but an actual well-thought design of the original law. Regardless, it begs the question of extremely low reoffense rates, and the efficacies of registries/websites/etc.

I can’t say I believe in incrementalism, but I also understand incrementalism might be a result in some specific instances of this struggle. The major civil rights legislative acts in this nation’s history did not just occur overnight, but from a mounting diverse momentum and effort.

While I understand the frustration and hopelessness sometimes expressed here and elsewhere that nothing is accomplished by showing up and speaking up, I respectfully remind that doing nothing guarantees that nothing will be accomplished.

Whether you can attend Sacramento or Oakland or other hearings or not, you can be empowered to call, write, discuss, attend, advocate, and contribute whatever you can to this civil/constitutional/human rights cause. Your voice and presence does matter.

Local, state, federal policy, ordinance, legislation, judicial, and operational practices hearings. Responses to local, regional, state, national, and online media coverage, using empirical research and personal stories. Alliance and partnership building with other organizations (NPOs, civic groups, faith-based orgs, etc.) to increase the breadth and scope of support and advocacy resources who will join us.

Offering a couple volunteer hours each week or month to CARSOL or similar advocacy groups. Organizing a local support or action group of individuals and their loved ones to decide what is most useful as a group. Getting the word out in conversation when such subjects come up. Educating yourself and applying this knowledge from close circles to far-reaching targets. Engaging local civil rights attorneys to join in the cause.

Contributing a few bucks when you can, or more bucks if you can. Communicating with and showing presence to city councils, state legislative committees, media, and influencers that we are human beings and loved ones, not base instinctual animals needing livestock-like containment like some New American Apartheid.

One thing I do know is, if the only voices that legislators, judiciary, media, and similar power brokers hear are from law enforcement, political expedients, and punative penal program funds seekers – then the outcome will definitely be influenced accordingly.

I get down, I get discouraged, I get upset, I get even hopeless. But dammit, I’m not going to just quit either.

Not for myself, and not for you, not for now, and especially not for the future. I still believe in individual civil/constitutional/human rights as inaliable – not to be granted by or removed by a government or a mob. So, I’ll stand up for those…..including picking myself up, dusting myself off, and starting in again if I get knocked down now and then. What’s the alternative? Feel sorry for myself? Quit? Lay there to be kicked around? It’s too difficult? Nobody understands or cares about me? Woe is me?

What would other justice and rights causes over many years have done if they had said, Oh it’s too difficult! I can’t do this!

No one said this is easy work. Worthwhile causes aren’t easy work. They’re not.

But there’s a role for each of us to help……look inside, find it, and do it.

Once you do, you’ll find it’s not so scary to do…..and you’ll find your own momentum, and get something more than you thought.

Thank you, Roger, for both testifying at this hearing as well as providing a brief summary of what happened. I did not testify because I am in a federal trial all week in Phoenix. CA RSOL was well represented at the hearing by board members and others affected by this pending legislation. One of those who testified will provide an update, including the final vote on the bill, later today.

Could you please clarify once and for all who this exactly applies to? Does it apply to 647.6?
Thank you.

Hello All –
We will have the Senate Public Safety Committee’s recommendation to either pass the bill forward or not today (Wednesday). In order for the bill to move forward Assembly Member Melendez needs at least 4 “yes” votes. Right now she has 3. Both of the Republican Senators, Stone and Anderson voted “yes” which we expected. They were joined by Democrat Steve Glazer. HOWEVER, the Chair of the Committee, Senator Hancock (D), said the testimony presented concerned her so she abstained from voting. The remaining committee members, Lui, Monning and Leno were presenting their own bills in other committee hearings during the debate on AB 2569. This is not unusual. Their votes on AB 2569 were cast at the end of the day yesterday and we will know the final vote tally today.
Please know that the committee members did listen to us and everyone who attended and spoke against the bill was treated with respect.

Final Vote on AB 2569:
AB 2569 was passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee. Final vote – 4 “yes” votes, 1 abstain and 2 “no” votes. As the author was able to secure 4 “yes” votes the bill has moved out of the Public Safety Committee to appropriations.
Yes – Stone, Anderson, Glazer and Monning
No – Lui, Leno
Abstain – Hancock

Thanks for sharing …

If anyone thinks this is going to be a slam/dunk defeat of this bill, then you are going to be as disappointed as Melendez apparently was to have her bill whittled down to a sliver of it what was. She even added actual, clear wording that this bill will not be retroactive. Good for her.
It was an exiting experience to see how our government works. It was clear to me that anyone who shows up at one of these hearings and takes a position represent hundreds if not thousands of the others who are not there. The lawmakers have got to realize the difficulty of coming to these hearings and sitting all day through them to make a point. I know, I was on a small advisory board long ago. It is almost terrifying when a group of citizens shows up to oppose what you plan to approve — especially if you expect it to be a slam/dunk. And there is the added hurdle of a Registered Citizen overcoming shame to stand up for something. It shows a commitment that they notice and it is our advantage, not a liability. A star shines brightest when surrounded by a void.
But this isn’t about harming politicians, but about slowing down a run away train that has built up a lot of momentum and is going to keep rolling on for awhile, even if we continue to put obstacles in its path. No one is going to stand in front of it and say “stop” and have it obey. I saw that train slow down yesterday. The confidence in its movement is decreasing, as seen in the words of the Chairperson, Loni Hancock — doubt and reason take the place of emotional reaction. Doubt is a seed that grows, especially if it is re-enforced by new information, which I am confident now CARSOL will provide to those now receptive to looking at it.
Slowing down a reckless moving object becomes exponentially easier the more counter force is applied. I encourage more to join those who show up. It was not that difficult after all, definitely easier than trying to get into Mexico, and more effective than if I had only given the travel money instead to CARSOL.

Was there ever specific verification on who this applies to? Is it just family-related?
Some specific clarity would be very helpful.

As Ive said before, if this does become law it’ll hv definite impacts upon my kids, all 6, I wish I could hv been present to tell the committee how its been these past 25 yrs, yes Im excluded for now it doesnt erase what Ive suffered nor will its passing improve the quality of life & yes Ive been law abiding all these yr’s. This is in my understanding a “post ex facto” scenrio that should have never been brought to the law makers table.
Dont gv up the fight constituients,.plow deeper in our quest for mercy..

This law is simply a redundancy, and added layer that at the least delays the process of obtaining the exclusion for one year, thereby putting the victim in danger of suffering the consequences the exclusion was designed to protect against. To give you probation, they already consider the needs of the victim, consult with family members and psychologists. This adds a one year waiting period. If anyone challenges this law, it would be easy to question the law’s validity based on the harm to the victim from the waiting period. At least. Then there is the added useless layer of consultation from these “victim assistance groups.”

Please clarity,
Everyone w any pc 290 related charge (except juvinels) that was excluded under the exclusion clause’s (criteria) for pc 243.4 (a-d)..remember ca goes all the way back to 1947, it would hv been decent if the senators would implement the tier arrangent so many law enforcement officials have been talking about in conjunction with mercy and since this rsol has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt it serves no practical applicatons except monitoring those on parol and extending public scruinity which doesnt make the guarantee the constitution of Ca extends to ALL its citizens a reality let alone justified. You can not in any sense of the word, phrase or context imply justice in truth and liberty for all with a life long sentence true mercy, what of the harlot jesus spoke to ? and what of the theif on the cross jesus spoke to ? tell me how will yoi senators and associates answer on judgment day ? I hv’nt been on parole for 18 yrs, maybe a charge of murder would hv been better, at least I’d hv been done w it all long ago..
carry on constituients..

Mike Howard, forgive me for not clearly understanding your post. Are you saying that the very pc243 which qualifies for exclusion in ca will no longer be excluded if this bill is passed.

I suppose someone could review the new folks added to the online registry and from that and media reports, create a victim’s registry that lists all those people who played with mommy, daddy, little brother and Uncle Chester. Then send links of that site to the people who wrote and sponsored the law at the same time the list of victims is sent to each victim.

Not even I could go that far to defeat our enemy.

But out there, someone lacks the empathy required to block such a move. It will happen.

What then Sacramento?

We were present and I actually emailed and voice mailed Steve Glazer our closer rep that we voted for due to LGBT factors. HE FAILED US and will educate him and his staff what this has done if it goes beyond House and Senate for the final sig.
Also Janice, please let us know how your Fed Trials went, we lived there for decades, thx.

It is admirable to know The Coffey Family made their presence known & encourage The Coffey Family to make the public servants accountable to the service of U.S. Citizens.

We should also make the groups supporting this bill know their error. Shame on you California Oranization of Women. You are willing to put children and families at risk to play patriarchal inspired revenge politics.

It disgusts me that there were 4 yes votes on this bill. These senators don’t care about the well being of children like my daughter. Melendez pretends to care, but it’s a farce!

I will continue to show up in Sacramento to tell legislators that these laws do NOTHING to protect our children. The public registry surely didn’t protect mine. It only gave me a false sense of security. They say they want to list names if that is in the best interest of the child. Well, my question is, then why didn’t they care about what was in the best interest of my daughter? When she spoke about what she wanted and it didn’t fit into their agenda, they declined to listen, EVEN if it was in her best interest.

I refuse to be silent. I will be at the next meeting to help fight this bill.

It has been great standing up to politicians with you. It would be awesome if we had 10 women like you who came regularly to Sacramento!

And if we had even one in 10,000 RCs come, there would be 13 RCs showing the politicians that we are now law-abiding citizens who want a second chance, not faceless “monsters” they never met (like before we started going to Sacramento).

In light of the fact the registry protects no one, how can it ever be in the best interest of the victim to have the offender on the list? Is it to empower the victim by shaming the offender? Shaming is retribution, which is a quality of punishment. And the registry is not punishment. If it is to share in the shame of the offender, because the association with the offender will likely bring shame on the victim, then what kind of warped therapy is this? Some reverse empathy awareness? I have never heard of such a thing.

They just revised the bill once again, it’s like they just have to punish someone . At first it was just incest, but thankfully they admend to allow exclusion, but added the interview with the victim prior to granting exclusion, but since they lost that group of offenders they juat had to go after someone now it’s
offender who has been convicted
of the commission or attempted commission of felony sexual battery,
misdemeanor child molestation, or other specified sexual offenses to
apply to the department for exclusion from the Internet Web site. No more if this bill passes

I don’t understand this system. Once a proposed bill is ammended, doesn’t it have to be sent back for approval by the subcommittees? How else would the members of subcommittees know what their vote is for?
That, and why are they screwing with something that is working fine the way it is? They have better things to do. Can’t believe these people get elected.

Don’t be silly…. since starting to watch these proceedings I have seen committees (Public Safety, no less) PASSING bills with the understanding that they will be modified somehow at some point in the future. Please, pretty please. Certainly never to return to the passing committee (Public Safety, no less).

Paying attention to this process has been one rude lesson in government. This is NOT how one thinks it goes down….

I was on a simple podunk local advisory board with no legislative authority and everytime someone made a change to something we had recommended, it had to come back through the board so that the public had an opportunity to make comment. Apparently, the higher you get in government, the more stuff can be decided without that public comment, to where in the US Congress, you just need a hand vote to affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Ha, what democracy.

Unforgiven Citizen – I read the amended bill (Aug. 2 version) and I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. Can you cite the passage that now denies exclusion to the additional offenses (sexual battery, misd child molestation, etc.)?

My understanding is that these offenses are still eligible for exclusion and that therefore the bill would not retroactively put them on the website.

Unforgiven Citizen – I think the clause you’re referring to is the first paragraph of the bill(?) It seems like they took out the text about the other exclusions in current law to make the bill more focused on the incest exclusion. It seems like 290 itself (and all its ridiculous sub-clauses) has remained the same for offenses other than incest. If I am wrong, please correct me, anyone – since this seems like a huge deal.

Yes, I reread the whole thing and you are correct.
A correction: when using the word incest, incest is applied only to consentual relationships, so it is incorrect to say this bill applies to incest offenses.
That being said, and the fact that most of these crimes are not consentual, legally or otherwise, it sees a unfair burden to place on the victim of a family member the choice of weather to take a stand to have someone on the internet or not, and not place a similar burden on other victims, whose offender was not genetically related. In many cases the offender was a close friend, a mentor or other person closely related socially. It becomes a question of fairness as to why it may be in the best interest of a family member to be given the choice (burden) of deciding the fate of the offender, but not a class of victim who may have just as much emotion and or social bond to an offender to be given that choice, either way. Other question is why lay this on the family member victim and not on the true stranger victim? There is no logic or consistancy in this bill.

from the dictionary:

incest – noun
1. sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
2. the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

This bill SPECIFICALLY seeks to eliminate the possibility to be excluded for disclosure on the public web site available ONLY for those offender who have been convicted of NON-PENETRATIVE sexual contact with a direct family member (grand/step/child, sibling). Therefore, by definition, it ONLY applies to those offenders who have NOT been convicted of an offense that could fall under the definition of “incest”.

Using the word “incest” in this scenario is completely inappropriate. When Assemblywoman Melendez was testifying (heard it with my own two ears) that this bill offered a hiding place to “the worst of the worst” she must have not understood her own bill or been deliberately lying. A politician lying? Shocking!

“Incest is a statutory crime, often classified as a felony. The purpose of incest statutes is to prevent sexual intercourse between individuals related within the degrees set forth, for the furtherance of the public policy in favor of domestic peace. The prohibition of intermarriage is also based upon genetic considerations, since when excessive inbreeding takes place, undesirable recessive genes become expressed and genetic defects and disease are more readily perpetuated. In addition, the incest taboo is universal in human culture.” From the online legal doctionary.
Thank you for the comment.

As they red lined the paragraph I made an assumption it was being removed from the 290 language, hence no more exclusion. However from what you are saying, I am reading this wrong. I am not a lawyer so i don’t completely understand this process. I hope you are correct for everyone concerned. It makes since thoe, as someone else said, by doing this, should it not start the legislation process all over again, as it changes the intent of the bill completely.

For those who have been tracking the progress of AB2569 bill, below is the latest update.
I am not sure if this means they’re starting over and or killing it.
I due know if it stays here past 31st of August, it will not move forward in committy until next year.
Please anyone correct me if I am wrong of my assumption and understanding of legislation process.
Updated CA-AB2569.
As of 2016-08-11
In committee: Held under submission.
An action taken by a committee when a bill is heard in committee and there is an indication that the author and the committee members want to work on or discuss the bill further, but there is no motion for the bill to progress out of committee. This does not preclude the bill from being set for another hearing.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x