ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

California

CA Sex Offender Management Board Releases New Statistics, Discusses Tiered Registry Bill

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) released new statistics regarding registrants during its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on October 20. In addition, the board discussed a tiered registry bill expected to be introduced in the state legislature in early 2017.

The total number of registrants is 104,369 according to CASOMB. Of that total, there are 16,294 in violation (about 16 percent) of registration laws. The total number of registrants who register as transients is 6,444 and of that total there are 1,575 (about 24 percent) in violation of registration laws. The total number of registrants on parole who are required to wear GPS units is 5,769 and of that total there are 5,505 registrants in counseling.

CASOMB stated it will sponsor a tiered registry bill in 2017 and the language of that bill is “set in stone”, according to Chairman Nancy O’Malley (also the District Attorney of Alameda County). The bill, if passed, would create three tiers that will allow some, but not all, registrants to terminate their registration requirements in either 10 or 20 years depending upon several factors.

The tiered registry bill would also provide for the “automatic” termination of registration requirements for registrants convicted before 1987 provided that they have not been convicted of a subsequent sex offense. CASOMB estimates that this provision would apply to about 10,500 registrants.

Individuals convicted in 1987 or later may or may not be eligible for termination of their registration requirements. For those determined eligible, they will be required to submit a “petition for removal” to the state court in the county in which they reside.

The first step in the legislative process leading to a tiered registry is an informational hearing expected to be held in December 2016. During that hearing, a video produced by CASOMB will be shown to state legislators.

Despite discussion of a tiered registry bill during the meeting, CASOMB refused to provide copies of that bill to the public.

Join the discussion

  1. wonderin

    Pre 1987….Yeah! Maybe I won’t have to die to get off the registry if I can make it till then. Sorry to sound so selfish but I mostly want it for my young child who may be an innocent victim of the online shaming.

    • C

      Great for you.

      I was convicted in 1987. Crud.

      • wonderin

        A real bummer which reminds me of the TV episode where Magnum PI is waiting in a long line at the bank and when he finally reaches the front they close the teller’s cage. Everyone behind him rushes to the next teller and he’s forced to the back of the line again.
        It was funny because it simulates how unfair life can be even for the good guys.
        From reading your previous posts it seems obvious that you will readily be approved for removal and your petition should fly right though.
        Assuming of course that this recommendation is made law.

        • Robert Curtis

          What we need is to help the 120 members of the state legislature understand that we registrants are not without resources and have the ability to effect elections and change on the ground around the state. That is where I/we come in…I find viable candidates that are reasonable towards our cause and support them into office by harnessing local salons and barbershops and using social media to impact elections in the local communities on the ground. We are new at this but we are also focused. We have over 100,000 members and a list given to us to recruit from!!! The registry might just become the vary source of it’s own destruction. We together can use our individual talents to dominate for good that which matters most to all Americans the Rights that SHOULD be granted to ALL. So use your talents where ever you are in life and if not directly involved support Janice and Team (ACSOL) via the donation link on this site. Hope to see you at the next meeting!

        • C

          I missed that episode of Magnum P.I. but it goes to show we can all feel like that at some point in our lives. Sometimes it’s extremely frustrating, but in the grand scheme of things, trivial, like the line at the bank, or has lifelong inplicatioms, like sickness or the registry.
          Thank you for the mind words. From your keyboard to God’s ear.

      • j

        maybe they could make it a rolling 30 year window.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          NO! 30 years is WAY too long, do not ever say anything to support 30 years for ANY registrant. But don’t forget, that window even is the same for misdemeanants!

          This is a VERY devious proposal on a number of fronts, and that is only one of them. I thought how they might have chosen that number, and I realized something, something I had spoken about here many times in the past: 30 years ago is just about the very time they stopped allowing people to stop registration upon getting a 1203.4 expungement. That used to be the standard, not a COR or a pardon — and it worked very well.

          So, they seem to have picked the year, I think that is about the same year, they they stopped allowing felons to stop registering if they had probation and got 1203.4 relief. (They stopped that relief in the early side of the1990s for misdemeanants.)

          But they won’t even let it go at that, they have to add a tripwire, a checkpint, they are going on a fishing expedition to try to catch you for anything, however trumped up or minor, by requiring a court hearing. That hearing is not to simply decide if your conviction was prior to that date, they already know that. That is where the prosecutors, and I presume for both the county where you now live and the county where your offense was as is the case fora COR, to argue against you getting the relief, for whatever argument they might want to give. They have done that before, trying to prevent people from even getting 1203.4 relief even thought they successfully competed probation, they supposedly only requirement for the relief. So, they are definitely setting that court hearing up to do that to us too.

          How many times have I written here to pint out the checkpoints and the evil that lies in them? When 1203.4 was the standard, you did not have to have any court hearing for relief from registration, it is not part of the consideration of getting 1203.4 relief since it was a different statute that provided that relief on the basis of 1203.4.

          I’m going to elaborate in a post well below.

    • American Detained in America

      I don’t think it’s selfish to want to look out for your family, I’m in the same boat, especially when every tier proposal so far would have me registering for life because I was railroaded on a second case in which I didn’t do what I was accused of doing, and both cases were internet stings with fictional victims. All the while, my child has grown up without me in the home and my wife and I have had to deal with all the other repercussions of my registration. Until I see one which at least gives me a chance to stop registering, I can’t support any tiered registry.

  2. Seems Fishy...

    Those noncompliance rates seem like awfully inflated figures. As far as this “tiered” registration bill, something doesn’t seem right. Why would CASOMB “refuse” to release a copy of its proposal that is “set in stone?” CASOMB is a public agency that should be open to public transparency. Just exactly what is CASOMB hiding? I thought CASOMB was supposed to be our friend. Regardless, I remain opposed to any “tiered” registration scheme.

    • nomore

      Pure government like speech for “we’re about to screw you”.

      • Public comment period - NOT!

        Sounds more like “we want no comments or public discussion of this, like what Congress did with IML” so we can ramrod (or screw you as stated above) it without due process and diligence.

        • David

          Apparently, we are not worthy of public comment, not is our input worthy of consideration. Yet another confirmation of of “second citizen” status.

        • amen!

          Exactly my thoughts. This tiered registry phoney baloney scheme has lots of parallels to how IML was dishonestly passed through “voice vote.” As far as a tiering scheme, the 17 year (offense-free) max registration argument seems fair. At least it will be 17 years MAX to everyone. Maybe less to others. Not a stupid 10, 20 and 30 yr scheme (in which most of us will probably fall into the 20 or 30 year scam). But whatever registration period: it does not obviate the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE showing “sex offender” registration in preventing recidivism in the first place (as the 6th Circuit recently pointed out in Snyder). So we can talk about this tri-level tier scam all we want. But it still ignores the fact that no scholarly sources show Megan’s Law — and/or any laws like it — in reducing recidivism and/or preventing sex offense. If any, sex registry laws CAUSE recidivism by increasing risk factors. So when our legislature passes a tier registry, they are (stupidly) passing laws that CREATE CRIME.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      We should NEVER let CASOMB control any bill that is entered. Don’t forget, what they say is “set in stone,” well, they have ZERO say over it, they can’t introduce any bill whatsoever in the Legislature, only a legislator can, and the Legislature will decide what is or isn’t set in stone. That comment of “set in stone” is a very scary showing of a very bad attitude; they seem to think they are dictators. Yes, the reality is that someone will carry the “set in stone” bill CASOMB proposes and be too much of a wimp to consider changing it — but we should try all the pressure tactics we can, because I have very serious problems with even little we already now..

      For one, here we go, like I said, another checkpoint. IF you can stop registering because your offense was before1987 — why in hell would you need to file a petition in court to ask for that relief!”? It doesn’t take a court to know you haven’t been convicted of another offense, it is simply your rap sheet. When they look at your rap sheet, they already know, no one needs to ask for permission to stop!? That is nonsense. And you WILL find games being played at that checkpoint. 30 years if for the highest tier, not for the lowest. Why do people in the lowest tier have to be that old an offense!? And why does a subsequent offense matter if it also was long ago?

      What is gained by this “automatic” stop that is not the least bit automatic if you have to apply for permission anyway? You can do that under the tiers to CASOMB anyway, so how is how is this “automatic” doing anything if you have to go to court?! That is a FAKE. That’s pretending to offer something but in reality offer nothing.

      Also, when they say no further sex offense, do they mean no further offense listed in 290, or are they also meaning other non-290 offenses that might be sex offenses, for instance misdemeanor lewd conduct or maybe prostitution? If that provision is to be in there, that bill MUST say 290 offenses, not simply sex offenses. Also, when it says no subsequent sex offense, does that mean that if in 1968 you were convicted of an offense, and then in 1982 you had a second, then even though both are before 1987, you can’t stop? Suppose that subsequent offense has been expunged, does that then mean it does not count as a subsequent offense since it is expunged? It should at least say no subsequent offense that has not been expunged — what is the point of a damned expungement if it doesn’t mean anything!?

      And 1987 is WAY yo old a date! For god’s sake, that’s 30 years ago! How about 2005 for misdemeanors instead of 1987?

      As I have said many time, the devil is in the details, and even this little bit we know is loaded with the devil.

      I don’t even now what they are meaning by noncompliance. Is that other than not registering? If they know they are not complying, why haven’t they done anything? Something wrong in that statistic. How many of those are now elderly and in assisted living or a nursing home?

      We cannot simply complcently support a tier proposal made by the prosecutors! They are NOT our friends, they are the enemy. They will be and are loading it down with the details of the devil.

      This is BS, and so far it sounds worse than the last proposal.

      BTW, when they make a draft proposal, as they seem to be indicating they have, they HAVE to release it if you ask for it. That’s the law.

      • Webster

        While CASOMB may not be made up of “bleeding hearts” — a description used by a committee legislator and too often thrown around in the ACSOL meetings in effort to make us follow the kool aid — remember that it (CASOMB) is made up of about a dozen police, prosecutors, and pseudo psychologists. For me, this is good enough reason as to *NOT* trust CASOMB. Because as we all know, if there is anyone we should trust: it should be police, prosecutors, and pseudo shrinks (/sarcasm).

      • DavidH

        here’s the thing in my view–any bill that introduces a tiered system serves to mitigate our current standing. No public debate could be possibly because they know any bill to mitigate our standing would be unpopular and they just maybe are attempting to avoid controversy–a first, I know!

        The fact that they’d dismiss any pre 1987 is a victory in itself! Now we could argue that for many of us that goes too far back and many of us later should be included. Get real: how much risk is a disabled man of 61 years of age who got caught up in a bad situation 15 years ago! Yeah that’d be me…

    • Tom

      Makes me wonder what forces in ACSOL push to align support for CASOMB and its phony baloney tiered registration. CASOMB is corrupt. And their “tier” will hurt more people than help. Watch and see.

      • American Detained in America

        Since it’s currently lifetime registry in California, I don’t think any tiered registry can hurt us any more than we’ve already been hurt. That said, I’m still opposed.

  3. David

    Where can I find a report or meeting minutes containing CASOMB’s new statistics?

    • Timmr

      I looked on their website and no such link can be found, this isn’t classified material they are discussing here. They are subject to the Brown Act the open meeting law, they are a public board, and there are only certain exclusions for closed meetings.

    • David

      According to CASOMB, “Our meeting minutes require Board approval and will not be available until after our next Board meeting on November 17, 2016.”

    • Tom

      Good luck getting any new “reports” and/or “minutes” from CASOMB. CASOMB will flout (as it has in past) public records laws. Don’t understand why ACSOL would want to put CASOMB in good light… when CASOMB and its board members are complete scum bags. (I saw the scam artist Tom Tobin’s name on CASOMB’s board roster, so it’s safe to infer that CASOMB is a fraud.)

  4. Rick

    The California sex offender management board, lol. You mean the California slavery and misinformation association. Wow, you have a legal group of slave owners and bosses? Your state is a shining example of corruption, first class discrimination. Hope the droughts and earthquakes don’t drive you away, stay there and reap what you sow. Wow.

    • Timmr

      Remember Swartzeneggar? It is his creation. Their reports have some helpful information favorable to us, but being a political body, and one com posed mainly of law enforcement, there seems to be a disconnect between those report findings favorableto us and their recommendations. The discussion of the CASOMB tiering report and proposal on this site highlighted many of the disconnects.

      • David

        Well, bear in mind that the members of CASOMB have their Prison Guard Union and their police officers’ unions to please. Easing any of the restrictions on us may reduce prison inmate numbers or reduce the number of police officers needed to vigilantly monitor us very scary sex offenders. The fewer of us on the Registry, the fewer cops needed to knock on our doors and harass us!

      • DavidH

        most of the law enforcement types dont scare me as much as the dude with investments in therapy clinics–money is our worst enemy. Honestly I think even law enforcement is sick of this crap!

        The ones with a for profit motive and the sociopath prosecutors are who to fear!

  5. NPS

    RE: Post 1987 RCs.

    A petition for removal for those who are eligible is required? Even for those who would be tier 1? So that means we don’t automatically fall off? And that petition can potentially still be denied?

    Looks like I’ll still be filing a CoR in 2020 for removal. I don’t trust CASOMB’s recommendation especially since they refuse to publicly release copies of the bill.

    • DavidH

      Ironically 1987 seems to coincide with around the AWA’s 27 year thing! everyone is getting their ducks aligned–they see the courts leaning against them in recent years along with the shear numbers they have created along with family members! I smell change! it may not be as soon as I want it but I believe it’s coming!

  6. Joe

    As with everything, the devil is in the details. Absent more of those, this is what I am reading…

    (a) registrants can petition for removal after either a 10 or 20 year period, depending on factors to be announced later.

    (b) for those not eligible for (a) there would be automatic registration termination IF not convicted of a subsequent sex offense in the past 30 years (2017-1987=30). They must be referring to a running 30 year period as it makes no sense to automatically terminate someone convicted in December 1986 but not someone convicted in January 1987.

    While the above mentioned factors remain to be seen (offense or risk or something else based), I read this that EVERYONE who has not re-offended in at least 30 years will be automatically removed from the registration requirement. CERTAIN registrants have the POSSIBILITY of getting off after 10 or 20 years, but 30 years is the max for non-recidivists.

    Which leaves repeat offenders with a life-time requirement.

    Am I reading this incorrectly or too optimistically? The CASOMB refusing to share the details is troubling, but it may be a simple timing issue.

    Let’s face it – absent a complete overhaul of the system and an overturn of Doe v Smith the registry is not going away. While registration period is unbecoming of a civilized society and registration for a small subset is definitely unconstitutional, this is a very big step in the right direction. That is not to say that the invalidation of Doe v Smith should not remain the main goal of this organization, long-term.

    • GRR

      I believe your statement parallels with what the CASOMB purposed previously. “POSSIBILITY of getting off after 10 or 20 years, but 30 years is the max for non-recidivists.” It would make no sense to let someone off because of a pre 1987 conviction and for someone (me for instance) with a 1988 conviction, expunged in 1995, never on Megan’s website etc. to remain for life and also, could have even been a lessor offense.

      I think when the CASOMB states “set in stone” they will not let any legislator F_ _ _ with the bill.

      • Joe

        Not knowing any of your specifics…. if you are required to register but not on the Megans Law web site, then there are two scenarios I can think of.

        1. you were convicted of a misdemeanor (i.e. Indecent Exposure or Misd. Sexual Battery), or Child Annoyance and got the web site exclusion. I would imagine such a person with a misdemeanor conviction would be eligible for the 10 / 20 year petition process. 10 more likely.

        2. you were convicted of a felony and qualified for the exclusion from the web site. Your conviction will not be one that is eligible for the 10 / 20 year petition. In that case, and assuming you have not re-offended (with a 290 offense?), you should be relieved of your registration requirement in 2018 (1988 + 30).

        I would find it hard to believe that the pre and post 1987 cut-off is static. It simply makes no sense – in, say 2045 or 2060, to terminate someone with a 1986 conviction but not someone with a 1988 conviction.

        Either way, you should fall off after 30 years. That is my understanding from this very brief article completely void of details. I may be mistaken – not the first time. But let’s give this a chance. Otherwise nothing happens and everyone stays on until their last breath.

        Looking forward to the actual language of the bill – if it even gets that far. Many details to be ironed out – as Anonymous Nobody pointed out. But this is a step in the right direction. Let’s face it. There are people on this list from a time most of us only know from history books.

      • DavidH

        GRR
        just curious why does someone like yourself feel as though you have a sex-offender requirement or label you must carry with you? if you’re as clean as stated, I personally wouldn’t think 2 seconds of sex offender issue with regard to myself. And F the federal government who never communicated to me in any way whatsoever of it’s thoughts on the matter. I’d feel accountable to no one!

        • GRR

          Basically, because I still have to register. after 29 years of this, I’ve become paranoid all the time.

          I know a tier systems is not justice but in my opinion its a step in the right direction.

  7. Nicholas Maietta

    I am against the registry, but I didn’t used to be. Over the last few years, it has really caused me some serious headaches, undue stress and serious hardships. Since those troubles, I’ve come to accept many peoples’ believe that the registry must come down. The very premise of the registry was well intentioned when it was first implemented, but it has been allowed and used as a tool of continuous and ever increasing punishment system. It is relentless in it’s nature. Thus, my stance that if someone is “dangerous”, they shouldn’t even be out. Clearly, the laws give X amount of time and give options for probation, et cetera. Once a person has completed that, they should not be forced onto a public shame list.

    My conviction was nearly 17 years ago. I have far surpassed the time required to statistically be categorized as no more dangerous than the average citizen who is not on the registry. So why 1987? I was 7 years old then. This doesn’t make sense. I’m afraid that I won’t be able to get off the registry even after petitioning since at the time of my sentencing, the registry was considered “lifetime” and I had to acknowledge this fact before the Judge would accept a plea deal. Could they use that to prevent me from successfully petitioning the courts? That’s assuming I would even be allowed to petition the courts.

    I’m glad that some people would get off the registry, but it’s just too late. There are people like Chuck Rodrick that cloned the registry for their own sick sadistic purposes. The information is now online forever, until it is scrubbed, if that is even possible. The damage has been done. There is no turning back.

    Why not include Tier 1 as not being published on the Megan’s Law website and go back to how things were before internet based public disclosure/public shaming?

    If I am statistically less likely to commit a sex crime in the future than someone who’s never been on the registry, then why are those not on the registry being forced to register? After all, we have to protect the children.

    The only thing I like about a Tiered Registry is that it is the only “progress” we’ll see to abolishing the registry any time real soon. I worry though that someone getting off the registry would go out and commit a horrid sex crime only to have it revealed he/she was taken off the registry. There will always be 1 bad apple that spoils everything. When that time comes, I’ll be paying for their crimes as well, like I have been for many other people’s crimes since 2000.

    • Rick

      I’m just waiting to see when they will pass a house arrest legislative bill, forbidding us to leave our homes without permission, lol. They really enjoy this pass a law addiction, and the judges enjoy reading all of the lurid details of sex offenses. They get off on it, I think that’s why they love the registry. It satisfies their sadistic addictions.

      Its odd, they not only work for the state, but for agencies of the state as well. In my state they work for the state and the Dept. Of Corrections. I think this is legally impossible. A state judge enforcing a duty for the Dept of corrections. Wow, I’ve seen abuses of law, but this is ridiculous.

      Honestly, the whole thing is a legal joke. I really wonder what someone like Janice B. really thinks about the state of law in this country. She must say to herself, “here we go again, another crackpot judge who knows nothing about the law.”

      It’s a disgrace of epic proportions. And while all of this money is being wasted, by a judicial branch that wanted some public gratitude, soon they will discover they have been made a joke of. If public safety can rise to this level of importance, then why don’t they just pass a law requiring every person in America to provide their DNA. It would literally allow cops to solve every crime, prevent untold numbers of repeat and serial offenses?

      But no, it’s not really about public safety, it’s about having the power to abuse people, being able to have unlimited power. I always thought it was the executive and legislative branches we had to watch out for. But it’s the judicial branch, the branch that can make any law legal, including murder.

      It began with federal supervised release, a power that judges wanted. First they got rid of parole. A power only the executive branch controls and the only branch that can use it or decide not to use it. Then, they simply exchanged parole for supervised release, which exercises the same powers as parole. Then to say that was legal, they simply said it was “a part of the punishment”, and fought to the death to keep it. You know, two parts of anything is double jeopardy. When a judge says I sentence you to 5 years imprisonment, that’s it. Anything extra is prohibited by the double jeopardy and cumulative punishment clauses.

      That was the beginning, then they wanted more power, so some judges got together in secret, and created the violent control act of the 1990’s. Yea, no one knows who this group of persons were. Then instead of saying it was a part of the punishment like with supervised release, they claimed it wasn’t a part of the punishment or a punishment at all. How quaint, how clever, lol. They really think they are clever, but you can’t hide deceit forever.

      You see, every crime has its beginning, and a good detective will find it. These judges aren’t very smart, they just have the power. It’s amazing, they can be known alcoholics, drug addicts, womanizers, abusers of power, corrupt, abusers of people in their courts, etc., But they can still be judges, and short of them murdering someone, they can’t be touched. I wish I had that job.

      Oh well, I guess this sums it up. Good luck to us, our lives are in the very hands of the people who want registries to go on. They are the benefactors, simply amazing!

      • Timmr

        Hey you know this thing about house arrest, the police here in California want you to think it is already law. These compliance guys here want you to tell them whenever you leave the house for a night, or answer the phone when they call, or they warn, “we might just do an audit and find you not there.” They want that to sound ominous, so that those will submit, who don’t know the law. Isn’t that true, any California registrants chime in? Have you experienced something similar?

        • Rick

          To Timmr

          You have compliance laws that permit people to come to your house. You mean while on parole or probation, or to any RC? Wow that’s crazy, California really is something, illegals have more rights, lol.

        • Timmr

          There is no law that specifies it. Suprised? They just do it. They set up a force involving several departments and go around and check to see if registrants are in their homes. As long as there is registry, there is license to do anything to registrants. They must be told to make contact, not just to see if you live where you say. They could do that simply by seeing me drive into and out of my driveway, but I see them parked and waiting for an opportunity to make contact. Please protect yourselves and avoid them as much as possible and make it more difficult for them to do unwarranted unconstitutional searches. I’ve heard about stop and frisk, that what is it feels like, they confront you and hope something falls out of your pocket (metaphorically speaking). Maybe we should start documenting these visits, especially some of the more threatening ones, how many of these visits are happening, are they targeting certain demographics, etc.? Take that data to the ACLU.

        • Willia B. Hardigan

          The only situation I had similar to that was when I was on probation and my probation officer forbade me to leave my house on Halloween between the hours of sunset and 7 am. To me that amounted to de facto incarceration. If he could pick the arbitrary date of Oct. 31 why not just tell me I couldn’t leave the house on other dates as well? It seemed illegal to me.

        • Renny

          I have not been issued any type of threat like that when our enemies conducted their Home Verification Raids upon me and my family.

          The raids are intimidating and they conduct themselves in a threatening posture, particularly the marshals. The locals are not too bad, but the State and Fed enemies seem quite full of themselves.

          The enemy has never called me except to reschedule the photo shoot of my new car once. It was an old car and it stopped running two days before the photo shoot and I left a message to reschedule and the enemy called me back to set a new date.

          I actually do not answer my phone anymore unless it is someone in my contact list, so the enemy could call me all they like, I will not answer and my voice mail is not set up. If they were to push that issue, I would simply get rid of my phone and only be available in person, by appointment, set through exchange of letter via the USPS.

          I am close to reaching the end of playing this game. It is ME, not our enemy, who determines how long I register, they only determine when I have to register and if I do decide I am finished registering, the only penalty I will accept is suicide by cop.

        • PIA

          TIMMR,
          I spoke with ya once in email….

          Im off this CRAP parole…
          putting up/in a RING doorbell…
          If this goon squad comes by Ill see them on video and will tell them to LEAVE.
          I spoke with Janice about this once, she said DONT Answer door turn up your music (LOL)
          (someone on last conf call brought this up off topic)..
          HOPEFULLY Janice will make this a conf call as to WHAT to DO AFTER PROB/PAROLE….
          DO NOT COMPLY WITH COMPLIANCE CHECKS… it is NOT 290 LAW in CA. IT IS ILLEGAL !!!
          I dont believe they have ANY RIGHT PERIOD to come visit you if you arent on prob/parole.
          I remember my LAST registration (Sheriff) it has a spot for PHONE #… I left it blank
          the file pusher asked me for a phone #, I had to give it up as I was on parole…
          If I didnt she prolly would have called my PO…..
          My next birthday (coming up 4 mos apx..) Im NOT Putting a # (PHONE) if she asks I will say NO
          and tell her to show me the 290 CODE that says I HAVE TO PROVIDE a personal #……

          If she can show me (im sure she cant) Ill give them a # in Europe (VoIP)…
          they want a # to call u, screw them, MY # my personal # your NEVER calling me…..
          Ill never answer door to them (gated) and they cant COME onto property without trespassing.
          If they DO and get to my RING Doorbell i may just answer and tell them they are trespassing as its POSTED..
          PRIVATE PROP and NO TRESPASS and then ill have a citizens arrest done against them.
          Have you experienced them at your door in SD since your off parole/prob ?

          Ive also heard they ask you to SIGN a paper (that you live there / they were at yer place) again janice said DONT SIGN.

          Sh.. I prolly will say I dont talk to cops call my atty (that I dont have lol)… I think they ultimately have to GO AWAY.

          For them to file a charge that your NOT living there (just cause they havent seen you) they would have to PROVE you live somewhere else and have some documentation (bill lease/video proof of you at another residence)…

          /unless they have a 24hr video for the last 5 days of all of your property doors, and even then maybe you only get out every 7 days… so 5 days wont suffice as you COULD be inside.
          Onle last thing IF they DO come to your door and you DO open it RECORD them and surely DO NOT LET THEM in and NO they can not look inside or ask any ‘s like if you have a computer etc etc etc.

          Fight them back with thier own harassment DONT answer the door or if you do dont answer them on ANYTHING…

        • American Detained in America

          I’m the same way about email. Since they already had one email and phone number on file, I don’t bother telling them all the others I use in ecommerce. It’s none of their business and the law does not require that I do. I also don’t tell them all the places I “frequent” when they ask because it’s not required by law.

    • Timmr

      “I worry though that someone getting off the registry would go out and commit a horrid sex crime only to have it revealed he/she was taken off the registry.” So do I. That is the mentality today. But when we get to the point we have real working and humane solutions to prevent sex crimes, people will stop thinking of the registry as a cure, but a hinderance , a diversion, an anachronism. It will be like blaming the lack of stocks and pillaries and a ‘T ‘ branded on his hand for a convict being able to steal a car after being released from prison.
      That’s if we don’t go the other way and adopt our own American version of Wahhabi justice.

      • David

        Timmr, I agree. I’ve had these jack-hole cops phone me at work saying that they have visited my house several times (read: once) and I am never home (M-F, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. clearly indicated in my files as my work hours). They then either want me to drive home immediately to meet them because they are waiting at my door or they ask me to meet me at the house at 6:00 p.m., then they never bother to show up! Oh, and they have also stopped at my neighbor’s house and asked my neighbors to phone me! Nazi Stazi garbage!

    • New Person

      Nicholas wrote:

      I’m afraid that I won’t be able to get off the registry even after petitioning since at the time of my sentencing, the registry was considered “lifetime” and I had to acknowledge this fact before the Judge would accept a plea deal. Could they use that to prevent me from successfully petitioning the courts? That’s assuming I would even be allowed to petition the courts.

      California Constitution Article 1, Section 6:
      “Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.”

      Point 1. Registration is not punishment. This point initiates the Involuntary servitude.

      Point 2. Legal definition of involuntary servitude is encapsulated within the consequence for not doing said service. If the consequence rises above losing pay for your work or losing your job (which pays you), then that is another factor that helps solidify involuntary servitude. Remember, REGISTRATION IS A DUTY as written for all to see on Megan’s List website.

      Point 3. On my own research, there are four components that courts often look at to determine involuntary servitude. This publication I used has a title “Specific Performance and the thirteenth amendment” pdf by Nathan B. Oman:
      a. The contract entered in state of perfect freedom?
      b. Was there compensation? (Was there a “bona fide consideration” or did it constitute “unrequited toil”?)
      c. Were there temporal limits on the contract?
      d. Did the promisee (in our case, the state of California) physically dominate and degrade the promisor (registrant) with abuse and claim a right to personally recapture her and return her to service if she tried to quit?

      a. A plea bargain isn’t necessarily in perfect freedom. You were forced to make a choice between two options. The context of perfect freedom is you looking for a job and turning it down. There are no other consequences for turning it down because there would be other jobs.

      b. As a registrant, we are not compensated for our service at all. RED FLAG. Again, Megan’s List specifically states “registration is a duty.” Now, consider all the services registrants must do while on probation or parole without pay. That is all legal because it is part of your punishment. Since registration is not punishment, then it is MUST BE A PAID JOB. Case in point, all those officers who “process” the registration paperwork get paid to do said registration. I am part of that process, but I do not get paid. This would fit into the “unrequited toil” portion.

      c. From the pdf, it states the following,”Agreements extending over extremely long periods of time were suspect while more limited engagements were not. Lifetime registration is an agreement extending over extremely long periods of time – hence the emphasis on ‘Lifetime’.

      d. Well, factor “d)” speaks for itself. As a registrant, I am not allowed to quit this service that is not called punishment. If I do quit, I will be hunted down, punished, and then returned back to service of registering afterwards.

      I may sound like a broken record, but everything I have produced all fit into “involuntary servitude”, especially the part where the constitution said, “… unless to punish a crime.” Well, registration is legally not punishment. Therefore, since it is not punishment, then the act is unconstitutional as it is prohibited. Our forefathers were smart enough to make sure mankind does not manipulate the system. You pay your price and that’s that. Nothing more. So while everyone is looking to make registration a punishment, I found a way where registration is unconstitutional because it is not punishment.
      .
      .
      .
      Also… California Constitution Article 1, Section 1.

      All people are by nature free and independent and have
      inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
      liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
      and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

      Inalienable rights to pursuing and obtaining privacy.

      Now, the courts may simply state that your conviction is all for there to see, thus registration isn’t imposing anything extra on you.

      My query is this: If your conviction was dismissed (expunged), then it is not there for all to see, save the dept of justice. If you are able to meet the threshold of case dismissal, then what exactly is the threshold for relieving registration? The conditions are set for 1203.4. NO court can deny you of 1203.4 once you have met those conditions. (BTW, a court did informally deny me my 1203.4 until my lawyer talked to an appellate lawyer, informing my lawyer that the courts cannot deny me at all because it is law that I be granted 1203.4 for achieving all conditions.)

      Thanks to anonymous nobody, there was a set threshold to relief off of registration long ago – 1203.4. Now, it is discretionary. This discretionary business does not match well with the whole “inalienable right to pursuing and obtaining privacy” by the state of California. That state of California MUST provide a set avenue to obtain privacy as it is by LAW that the state of California supports its citizens to obtain privacy. We need for California to uphold its own laws.
      .
      .
      .
      Any lifetime contract is egregious! And if it is not punishment, then lifetime contract is that much more egregious as well as prohibited. A lifetime contract that is not punishment and you are not compensated sounds even more baffling. A lifetime contract that is not punishment, where you are not compensated, and you will be hunted down to be punished as well as returned to your service of registering for a lifetime is domineeringly egregious!

      So tell me, how is this non-punishment service not involuntary servitude?

    • DavidH

      Nicholas Maietta

      When I accepted my situation the registry was a CD ROM largely for police use. I too dont really have a problem with what I signed up for. And as far as I’m concerned that can continue forever. There were no websites or exclusion zones nor was it impossible to get a home to rent or a job! But as you stated it’s gone too far!

      • Timmr

        You’re right, the restrictions escalated after 9-11, a year after my sentencing. At worst the registry was an anonymous dot on a map, a general location and not a name or face. One could take your children to school, see their plays, etc., cops didn’t notify everone when you moved into a neighborhood unless you were of the very few that had the SVP designation. Indeed, now I look back on my probation officer as my friend, someone who wanted to help me succeed, not fail at every turn. I never thought I would say that. Then, truly, your own embarrassment could be said to have been the only thing that kept you from recovery. But now I am so bitter, I don’t want to go back to the more benign state – – I want it eliminated, the cancer to be gone, so it doesn’t metastasize again. We have to think about ourselves, but we should think of those 50 years from now, what kind of life are they going to live under this new neo-liberal interpretation of the Constitution? We are not alone, the get tough policy is the norm now for foreign policy, immigration, education, civil protest; it has become the orthodox view of both parties, their religion. Are we going to accept a government of the police, by the police and for the police? I don’t see it as a pendulum swing, but a train wreck in the making.

  8. Dr

    There needs to be a way for everyone to be able to get off this thing. No body should be punished for life just because some one thinks you could commet another crime. Even a SVP should have a way out. Maybe if we can petition the court’s . 10 years is fine for low risk, 20 years seem good for medium to high risk, and 30 for all the rest. At least give us a chance , if we commet another crime then by all means have life to register. I don’t under stand them saying if your crime was before 1987 you get off immediately . So when I get to my 30 year mark I can get off to? Why would there crime be any different than mine? We need a way to put all this crap behind us. Just saying.

    • Notgivingup

      My question would be when does the clock start ticking, from the time of your sentence or after you complete it?

  9. Paul

    I don’t think anyone needs to get all up in arms just yet. This boondoggle has a LONG ways to go. First, a lawmaker has to carry to bill (CASOMB can’t introduce a bill on their own). Then the committees get involved. Then it moves amongst the Senate and Assembly. And all along the way, everyone gets their chance to amend it. Maybe, eventually, possibly, but not probably, something lands on the Governor’s desk. And maybe, just MAYBE, he may sign it. Or not.

    The point is, absolutely NOTHING is in concrete. Not until the Governor signs something (if it ever gets that far).

    • David

      Paul, it may not be in concrete, but it is set in stone (according to the CASOMB chairwoman).

      • Paul

        Nothing is set in stone until the governor signs a bill. That also means that this group will have a chance to weigh in and lobby for amendments.

        • mark regus

          If the casomb and CDCR are so confident with the static 99R scam, how about they let all the “low risks” off right away? Oh, probably because the static 99R scam is not accurate enough.

        • New Person

          That’s a very good question!

          Especially when you layer the less than 1% recidivism rates, why have low levels on any registry?

          It’s a monetary thing – job security for CASOMB and the cops.

        • Robert Curtis

          What statute exist that first did not reside somewhere set in stone? What they need to say is that this Bill (whatever it is) is a stone fixed until we take a chisel to it to fashion out a reasonable object. In response to that stone we should sharpen our chisels and have them ready to work.

  10. Webster

    Will the Static-99R scam be incorporated into this fictitious “tiered” registry?

  11. Bradley

    Take a look at who is on CASOMB: http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=1235

    I count two prosecutors, five law enforcement (police, CDCR, probation), and three pseudo psychologists financed by the state and/or law enforcement. Arguably, 10 of the 13 current board members — or about 77% — of the California Sex Offender Management Board have a conflict-of-interest when it comes to determining laws that oppress individuals labeled a “Registered Sex Offender.”

    – The prosecutors have a motive in keeping harsh sex offender laws (increased funding, more jobs to help grow their organization, political popularity for their organizations).

    – Law enforcement have a clear motive in keeping harsh sex offender laws (increased funding, more jobs to help grow their organization, political popularity for their organizations).

    – Pseudo psychologists have a clear motive in keeping harsh sex offender laws (more “treatment” contracts and/or requirements that increase funding, as well as jobs to help grow their ranks).

    While these people may not be considered “bleeding hearts,” these are people who — as history has shown to us — should never be trusted. They, and their organizations, have done nothing but advocate for and enforce harsh “sex offender” laws. What makes you think it will be different this time around?

    Read the following paper about CASOMB “withholding information:”

    http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_bad_data.pdf

    Refer to page 13. Page 13 states the following:

    “The [California Sex Offender Management Board] is an official body of the California government and all documents discussed at its meetings are required to be publicly available. The CDCR recidivism reports were posted for a period of time on the [CASOMB] website, but were later removed. [CASOMB] rejected repeated requests by the authors of this paper for copies of the original report, but did provide a copy of the October 2008 revised report. Alongside ‘cautionary statements about the interpretation and use of these data,’ the report states, ‘The data provided here and the conclusions that may be drawn from them are consistent with other studies of sex offender recidivism. Repeated studies have resulted in similar findings: the recidivism rate of convicted sex offenders is considerably lower than is often believed and most sex offenders are not ever convicted of a subsequent sexual offense.’ The [CASOMB] does not provide this report on its website, despite the legal requirement that it be available to the public.”

    If for some reason you still trust police, prosecutors, and pseudo psychologists: CASOMB’s lack of transparency may be enough reason to seriously question its propaganda and underlying motive. Look at this instance: Nancy O’Malley is refusing to release details to PUBLIC policy, as it is “set in stone.” Again, lack of transparency. The public has a RIGHT to know these things. It’s called the California Public Records Act. See Government Code Sections 6250 to 6276.48.

    Last ACSOL meeting, most of the room clapped when it was announced this “tiered registry” would be introduced. A few people did not clap. I suspect the few people who did not clap were the realists who knew there is more behind this “tiered registry” scam. I agree with some of you. The tiered registry will help only a few. While the remainder will be “thrown under the bus,” so to speak.

    The people who do not benefit from this tiered registry scam will remain on the registry. Fewer. And ostensibly more “dangerous” to the public and law enforcement’s scrutiny. Is this something we REALLY want? There are many unintended consequences to a “tiered” registry. Be careful what you ask for.

    • New Person

      That lack of transparency by an official body of government is censorship.

      They, CASOMB, carry with them statistical facts that any registrant can use in a court of law as well as any registrant can defer onto others, including the media, as a legal proven source.

      I recently tried to look for the recidivism rates and the trends on their website, but couldn’t find any. I just rely on what Janice reports here on this site. How can I link those stats anywhere if CASOMB isn’t listing those facts. CASOMB works for me since I do pay taxes. I want four year graph of the recidivism rates for registrants. Then I also want to see comparisons of recidivism rates for other crimes on another graph to clearly reveal the difference.

      Is there a way Janice can get a FOIA request and we have those two charts made available on this site with links to CASOMB as the statistical body of reference? This way, I can write to media who continue to say, “these types of people have the highest rates of recidivism.”

      • DavidH

        new Person:

        ” Is there a way Janice can get a FOIA request and we have those two charts made available on this site with links to CASOMB as the statistical body of reference? This way, I can write to media who continue to say, “these types of people have the highest rates of recidivism.'”

        no there is no way to get the information to be made public because to do so would mean to admit to the injustice and misdeeds they have inflicted upon maybe millions of people; because it would mean tearing down a system which now the public , while shouldn’t, become comfortable with; to do so would put them out of existence.

        Wow and really think about this one second: another horrible chapter in America’s history: witch hunting, slavery, women suffrage, eugenics, lobotomy experiments, Japanese internment while no such thing to Germans, war on drugs targeting minorities, sex offender. one group after another politicians and the scared elite can isolate and create a fear of for their political and or their power base to exist.

    • Timmr

      I agree it is conflict of interest, just as if the board that regulates insurance rates is composed of a majority of insurance executives. Also, there is only one member of the “public” on that board from what I remember.

  12. Doug

    Best news I’ve heard in many years , The pendulem is actualy swinging our way.
    Thanks Janace !

  13. Tom

    I tend to believe there will be more convolution to this fictitious tier than the tax code. Especially if they incorporate the Static 99R scam to determine the tiers. It was mentioned that the Static scam was never intended for individualized assessment, but for “triage of prison populations.” Let’s watch as California will be the first state to use the Static 99 scam in a way it was never intended to be used. Because according to the baffoons that want the Static scams used: non contact offenders will get higher scores (presumably leading to longer registration periods) than violent offenders. Makes no sense the Static 99R scam gives extra point to non contacts, whereas violent offenders get NO points. Tier registration is phony baloney!!

    • DavidH

      The question i have at this moment is what could this organization mobilize us to do to have an influence on this proposed tier system and the way it operates????

      • Timmr

        Hmm, maybe connect with those who want funding for education, for the environment, for health care, there is a long list of ways the money wasted on monitoring registrants can be spent, how about actully spend it on the kids’ welfare for a change? — but just going up before politicians and saying I think I should be off the registry is a questionable strategy.

  14. New Person

    I opposed this tiered system when CASOMB has empirically supported that the recidivism rate is below 1% for two consecutive years and no other set of convicts or ex-convicts do not share the same consequence?

    The automatic drop off is 30 years.

    The petition is 10 and 20 years.

    The only difference between what is current now and this proposed system is 30 years. That’s 30 years of service to the state of California. That’s longer than many careers!

    I am no longer a convict since I earned my 1203.4, correct? CASOMB has proven the recidivism rates for the past four years are significantly low around 1%, with the last two years of research providing rates of under 1%. And I will still have to petition in 10 years, or 20 years, or no relief at all based upon “i have no idea” facts. How is this any different than now?

    The tiered system makes no sense at all. In fact, it solidifies that is it NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL to impose such an extended length, with suspect requirements that cannot be revised nor revisited.

    Janice, their proposal is NOT A COMPROMISE. If anything, it is a political ploy for them to say that CASOMB offered a tiered system when automatic relief and their lawyers rejected it. It is complete manure dung to propose this disaster upon the face that the registrant recidivism rate is below 1% and dropping.

    I dunno… the law isn’t here to help rehabilitate the registrant community. Less than 1% recidivism rate and you still deserve 10, 20, to 30 years for most of us if they have their way. They are not using facts still.

    • Janice Bellucci

      There is a strong argument to make that anyone who has lived “in the community” for 17 years and has not committed a subsequent sex offense should be removed from the registry. That argument is based upon the results of many decades of research conducted by Dr. Karl Hanson who is recognized as “a” if not “the” expert on this topic. If that argument were adopted, no one would be required to file a petition for removal from the registry and instead removal would be automatic. The results of Dr. Hanson’s research were included in the CASOMB report about the tiered registry issued in April 2014 and is still available online.

      • amen!

        Janice, I hope your 17 year offense-free argument prevails. (Most would likely agree that 30 years is still too excessive.)

      • John

        Yea and then once dropped off you will have to figure out every other states registry if you travel and then there is sorna. It would be good only for that particular state…right?

      • C l a r k

        And strong thanks for your comment Janice Bellucci.
        Very much an important element of argument & strong point.
        After seventeen years tooooo many…People Need to be OFF this registry automatically.

      • BAM

        WHAT ABOUT OFFENDERS THAT HAVE MOVED OUT OF STATE. WE CANNOT BE ROEMOVED IF WE LIVE IN FLORIDA UNTIL LAWS CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA. FLORIDA MAKES EVERYONE REGISTER FOR LIFE AND WILL NOT LET ANYONE OFF WHO HAS TO REGISTER IN ANOTHER STATE. IF YOU DONT HAVE TO REGISTER IN ANOTHER STATE, YOU DONT HAVE TO REGISTER IN FLORIDA. WHAT ARGUEMENT DO WE HAVE. IM SURE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE MOVED BACK TO THEIR HOME STATE AFTER TROUBLE IN CALIFORNIA. PLEASE CLARIFY.

        • GRR

          I think it will be the same as obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation which states you must live in California 5 years prior to submitting for a COR.

        • BAM

          IT REALLY DOESNT MAKE ANY SINCE TO HAVE TO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA FOR 5 YEARS TO GET OFF OF THE REGISTRY BECAUSE OTHER STATES WILL MAKE YOU CONTINUE TO REGISTER BASED ON A CALIFORNIA CRIME. THEY WILL KEEP YOU ON THE REGISTRY AS LONG AS CALIFORNIA SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO REGISTER. THIS SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE MOVED TO OTHER STATES AS WELL.

      • Chris F

        But what do the numbers show when broken down by type of crime?

        If 17 years is the average of all sex crimes before being as much a threat as any citizen, but specifically violent sex crimes against strangers takes them 25 or 30 years until they are as much a threat as a normal citizen, then wouldn’t that prove the need for a tiered registry with the lower end getting 10 years and the upper end getting essentially life?

        I can see where these numbers should come out to definitely be better than the current situation, but how do these statistics help in any way to get rid of the registry?

        All the tiered registry is going to do is make the registry look more fair and be much harder to get shot down as a horrible and unconstitutional scheme that in any form makes children less safe and burdens way more people than it could ever help. It will be nice that people will be free of the registry for those it helps get off it I guess, but at the cost of everyone stuck on it being stuck longer if not forever.

        • anonymously

          Chris F wrote” If 17 years is the average of all sex crimes before being as much a threat as any citizen, but specifically violent sex crimes against strangers takes them 25 or 30 years until they are as much…’

          I think the statistic stated refers to 17 years being the maximum time it takes for even a so-called high risk sex offender to be at the same risk of offense as someone in the general public. High risk offenders or level-3’s, those classified by the Static-99 as such, are at the same risk after 17 years as non-registrants of committing a future sex offense. Level 2’s are at the same risk after 10 years. Level 1’s are at that same risk as someone in the general public of committing a sex offense 1-2 years after their sentence is completed. I did one google search and found all this. The average of all the time periods it takes for all registrants risks of committing a future sex offense to be that of someone in the general population, throwing out a guess here, would be more like 5 years.

          The research points to 17 years for offense-free high-risk registrants as max registration duration, 10 years for level 2’s and 1-2 years for level 1’s, in any case. This could alleviate lifetime registration, hypothetically speaking.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        The 17-year term makes the most sense. But it might be too honest and straight-forward for the many dishonest crooks in government.

        I hope you can get them to adopt a 17-year maximum registration period. If not, President Trump will fix this mess.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          (I was not serious about the Trump comment, BTW.)

        • Timmr

          Yes 17 years makes sense, but then 0 years makes sense also, because they can’t prove the registry reduces recidivism at any year. Or can they? I’m not up on the studies there. If the registry doesn’t reduce recidivism, what rational basis is there for it? Think of some other way. But it definately doesn’t make sense to apply it after the recidivism rate is at that of the general population.

      • New Person

        Janice, CASOMB stated it is “set in stone”.

        This is a dictatorship that disregards their own research work with statistics that reveal less than 1% recidivism rates.

        They really don’t care for our opinions nor their findings.

      • ca

        Janice, so the tiered registry, that they want to introduce in early 2017, is the same as the one they
        created in april 2014?

    • DavidH

      There is a problem with having low recidivism rates over a recent period of time. It’s what keeps these sociopaths in business and in power: they will merely use that information to state how effective sex offender management has been.

      Nothing is as it appears! America the world’s greatest experiment of why the human race could only be at its worst under any circumstance

  15. DPH

    1985 Felony, waiting to have a life back that was gone during my latent teenage years(My Boyfriend, that I am STILL friends with, he is now straight and married with children). Thanks SCOTUS for CONTINUAL PUNISHMENT, may since Scalia passed we will get an educated Democrat and RC’s will all get a chance to hold a job, a home (even the new builders ask have you EVER been convicted), residency stay., and poss. off the iinternet in part, atleast MLS, not the housing for sale site. National AND State.

    They (SCOTUS) needs to REVISIT how RC’s are treated and REALIZE we ARE Continually Punished and SO Restrictive that NO REHAB is even Considered. By the way, my B.A. from a Cali Univ. has no bearing in my employment search.

    Thanks for all 50 comments on this one all writers.

    Atleast we HAVE a Board(CASOMB) unlike other states that atleast listen to a point and think some things through.

  16. DPH

    Good Point New Person and David and David H.
    Maybe more qualified people will come to work on the CASOMB.
    It’s just better than what we have at this writ.
    It STILL needs reform AND actual rehab besides charging for Counseling/Therapy (Group or not).
    This is not the end with this Tiered System upcoming, just a step above current, that’s all.

    Let’s see after their Nov. meet what the minutes from Oct 20th really state before jumping the gun.

  17. steve

    I’m pretty sure part of what the 6th circuit decision was that they couldn’t go back and re-classify, change sor’s tiers after the fact. As I have said before California already has a “system” that people are placed in. Low risk, serious offender (probably most of us) and svp. There is no doubt they will try to create new restrictions for the higher tiers which is bs and why many here are against the tier registry. Ohio also had the same issue and court ruled they couldn’t change the tiers.

  18. mark regus

    Last meeting someone brought up a point that the max registration period should be 17 years for someone who remains offense free during that time. Why have 20 and 30 year levels? Max should be 17… maybe 20 if it makes the crooked politicians and the phony hacks at casomb feel better about themselves.

  19. Timmr

    I think the major stumbling block for the tiered registry will be that people just don’t understand science, that it is not absolute truth, but proportional. Absolute truth is belief and untestable. If they find one example of a registrant getting off the registry and commiting a crime it will cast doubt on the 17 year guideline. A little doubt invalidates belief. It is the snow ball in Congress or the 110 year old cigar smoking whiskey drinker to prove that global warming is a hoax or that smoking is harmless. Take away that security blanket of absolute belief, people get edgy. You can take it away but you have to provide some other positive assurance in its place.

    • Rick

      I live in a state that has a tiered system, it’s about as flawed as it gets. The whole system is broken, no matter how it’s managed. There is no need to discuss it as an option, since you are never off it no matter what. It affects you everywhere you travel. I suppose it would be nice for those who get level 1, but 2 and 3 are literally indistinguishable.

      In my state you face multiple stages of threat right from the beginning. First you get convicted, then before you get out you face a civil detention hearing with psychiatrists, if you pass it you can still be held by a court hearing from the court of conviction requested by the prosecutor. If you get pass these two additional terms of incarceration, then you face your term of supervised release. Then whenever that is finished, you get placed into a tiered registry system. In all you face 5 separate acts of possible punishment.

      And no matter how you have been successful with all of the first four, you can still be a level 3. So, all of the nonsense about a tiered system working is absurd. It doesn’t matter if you are a level 1, 2, or 3, your screwed. I will tell you this, they really went all out with this garbage, and the more I think about it, I can see no end to it, until the money runs out.

      Furthermore, they don’t distinguish between persons who use force, threats, weapons, from those who don’t. They categorize all as violent offenders by statute. So, your really beat.

  20. NotLikingCA

    CASOMB made the same recommendation a couple of years ago and nothing happened. My hopes are not up.

  21. mike r

    where are our civil rights leaders???? what are they waiting for?????who are these others that janice talked about????why isn’t the justification for these laws being challenged????how come our civil rights leaders aren’t challenging the courts in every case to justify these laws?????

    • JoeShmo

      To which civil rights leaders do you refer? Classical “civil rights” leaders have no interest in touching this issue as it is not profitable to do so either financially or politically. Most civil right leaders fight for issues where victims rights are infringed upon through no choice or fault of their own (such as race and sexual orientation). Since all of us classified as SO’s or on a SOR got here by breaking a law in some way, they believe our rights were forfeit.

    • Joe

      Whom – just WHOM are you speaking of? What ‘civil rights leaders’? What ‘our’?

      You want someone to fight for your rights? Fight for your civil rights? These angels exist. They are called attorneys. Their services can be retained. For a fee. Because like you, they have to make a living.

      You have not hired such person? THAT is how the violations of your civil rights are not challenged. No other reason.

      The only people who OWE you anything are your elected officials. The government. The ‘enemy’. So pleeeease… let’s get over the notion that any volunteer ‘owes’ you, and specifically you, anything.

      Maybe a little gratitude for the people who do something, anything – instead of this incessant whining.

  22. Harry

    A positive thing, the CASOMB is not made up with RC lovers and/or advocates and the information that they are sending out is a serious poke in the eye of the status quo. There is a rule what trends in California, trends in the rest of the Country.

    • Cindy

      I would disagree w/ your comment that “poke in the eye of status quo.” A bit of a naive comment considering that CASOMB will not publically release details w/ regard to its tiered proposal scam. I don’t know how CASOMB is “poking” the “status quo” by thinking it is somehow exempt from transparency. Remember, CASOMB is the same phony/corrupt government agency that wants to continue registration when no academic data show registration schemes as preventing recidivism. So CASOMB is not making its policy recommendation on science, as they claim. CASOMB makes its POLITICAL recommendations to support the not-so-clear agenda of those who are part of CASOMB’s hack board membership. So no. CASOMB is EXACTLY representative of the status quo corruption in government.

  23. USA

    I think this is wonderful news. We all must remain confident! My only concern is, what’s the petition princess? Is it similar to a Certificate of Rehabitatiom? Or, is it black and white (no arrests/10-20 years passed/granted). I attempted to obtain a 15 year old (expunged battery/summary probation/model citizen) and the DA of OC made me out like this case was murder etc.

    • Joe

      For the love of God – will you stop with the ‘battery’ bit? A conviction for ‘battery’ does not require registration as a sex offender. Can we please call it what it is? ‘Sexual Battery’. And if I recall correctly, you were pleased to report that you also got a 17(b) reduction with your 1203.4 dismissal (which you can also put in your pipe and smoke). So ‘Felony Sexual Battery’ it is.

      As long as I have been on this site – probably 4 years now – you have expressed your belief that the registry is legitimate and that many people belong on it. Many people, but certainly not you. No, never you.

      Here is what I think. I think no one belongs on a registry, registries are unconstitutional and unamerican. But if anyone belonged on it – it is the person who touched another (adult or child) without their express consent. Don’t matter if it s a super market cashier or a grandma or a prostitute or a massage worker. They belong Not the person who had a willing partner under an arbitrary age or some photos on a hard drive. No, the person who sexually touched another against their wishes.

      Is that black and white enough?

  24. Rob

    I live in a state with a tiered system. I’m torn on the issue. I can’t really sit here and say with a straight face that I do not support it since I’m a level 1.
    I’m off of it in a year, I knew when this process started that I would have a light at the end of the tunnel but so did people in New York who had to register for 10 years and than 20. I’m never really confident that even if when I’m done registering that somehow the government won’t change the rules. But knowing that I have a chance to live without my name plastered everywhere has giving me some hope in life and that is a good feeling. But i also know that when towns pass new ordinances restricting where people can live or what they can do, they usually leave the tier 1 alone but come down hard on the tier 2 and 3. People view tier 2 and 3 as sexual predators and in the news you will always here that the higher the tier the more likely and dangerous they are to reoffend. This is obviously completely false and their is very little sometimes that separates level 1, 2 and 3. For example I had consensual relationship with a teen and if i was older by a few months or she was younger by a few months, I would be a level 2 or 3. Also if I had picture of her on my computer that would have been child pornography and I would be level 3. Somehow I can go from someone being not a threat to a violent predator just like that.
    Pennsylvania and Nevada had decent systems before they went to the new rules where people were individually evaluated not by a set of rules. My state recently changes its guidelines but lucky for me, nothing was made retroactive and I’m allowed to finish my sentence under the old rules.
    So a tiered system is nice for a few but many get really screwed by being a 2 or a 3. The general public truly believes that there is a rigorous evaluation of each offender and that it is a fair process. You have no say in this process as an offender.

  25. USA

    Moderator, please start monitoring the comments better. Joe, I was unaware you controlled the comments. People aren’t interested in your poorly constructed comments. You sound very angry. As noted, has anyone got off the registry via a tiered system? Thank you

  26. ca

    I looked at the 2014 tiered proposal and can anyone explain what this means:
    “The above criteria would be applied to all current PC290 Registrants as well as to individuals convicted of a registrable offense going forward.”? would this be retroactive or would have to start fresh?

  27. steve

    From Michigan case regarding new tier levels.

    “The court said a registry that does not include individual risk assessment cannot meet the state’s professed goals of public safety.”

  28. Anonymous Nobody

    After giving consideration and thought to this information we have so far on the tier proposal, I have come to a conclusion. I will wholeheartedly oppose this proposal, this is evil, this is a diversion. This was written by the prosecutors, and that shows at every turn, at every detail. Yes, the prosecutors are the ones writing this — even their attitude — this is set in stone — reeks of the wrong, bad attitude, that of a prosecutor (and dictator). The people proposing this are NOT our friends — too many people at this site seem to think they are our friends. And I think this group should do the same — AND write up and offer its own tier proposal. Of course, I think our tier proposal should go along with the various points I have made over time in these forums about the tiers.

    Wee need o speak out against this plan strong only — and offer all out points in our own competing proposal. That can be done every time the lobbyists from this group meeting with a legislator, it can be done inn written form to all of them, and it can be done at every hearing on this by presenting a number of copies of our written proposal at every hearing on the matter.

    With the mindset of our legislators, sure, we might not stand much chance, but it is one way to definitively show them a GOOD alternative — write it for them, as when they actually have a bill proposal before them, they are more likely to consider it. Even if it does not help us this time, we then have that to refer back to, and after they hear it again, and again, we might get action. I can assure you, if we do not, this is all we will EVER get — and that is is horroblyunacceptioble. 10 years minimum! That is insane, especially in light of all studies showing all criminal offenders — all, including sex offenders — have every little recidivism after five years clean. That even used to be the basic standard, and the time frame for a COR even for registrants! Out of nowhere but hate, we now use 10 years as the standard, completely unsupported.

    OK, some points about this evil proposal:

    As for the supposedly “automatic” relief for those whose conviction are more than 30 years ago, that is BS. There is nothing automatic about it, it is the maximum tier and you must have a court hearing for them to consider it –that means you can be denied! And you damn well better hire an expensive lawyer for that hearing, because I guarantee you you could find yourself very surprised when you show up.

    30 years is WAY too long, do not ever say anything to support 30 years for ANY registrant. But don’t forget, that window even is the same for misdemeanants! Why can’t they make it 10 years for misdemeanants, matching the lowest tier they propose — surely they are suggesting that some misdemeanants should be put in the highest tier — and maybe be their assessments will do that (I have warned about their assessments)?! But that hardly matters, as the”automatic” relief is harder to get then the tier relief, since for their tiers I believe you simply file with the people who proposed these tiers and have already assessed you, not with the court where anything goes. What is the logic behind having “automatic” relief that apparently will be harder to get than the tier relief most of these registrants would be eligible for anyway?! If that doesn’t send up flags for you, you better think again.

    In reality, that “automatic” relief is being set up as a checkpoint to try to get you for something. It might not even be related to a sex offense. Hey, these 16,000+ registration violators — that is not a sex offense, but consider, even if they previously had been relieved of registration via 1203.4 40 years ago, they will be nabbed if they seek “automatic” relief now — why, what is the difference, its just nitpicking when your 30 years is based on that proving you are not a threat. But that point is very possibly why they are requiring the court hearing — but why, the entire idea only undermines the idea that 30 years is more than enough test to show you are not a danger.

    Also, they already say you will not be eligible if you had a repeat sex offense. Should not the time frame be measures form your LAST offense, not your first? If you committed misdemeanor indecent exposure back in 1947, and you managed to do it once again in 1950, and never again, you get denied this automatic relief! Why?

    And frankly, why is this tier proposal coming down so hard on misdemeanors anyway — 10 years!? If this group doesn’t consider that to be cruel and unusual punishment, then this group should disband! That we could say OK to that is shocking. If you must make misdemeanants register at all, and even that is cruel and unusual punishment for mere poor demeanor, then make it only for the time of probation, and relief with 1203.4 — like it used to be. If you can’t settle for that, then make it three years tier for misdemeanors. If you won’t accept that, then no more than 5 years no matter — and frankly, I have a very hard time finding a way to accept that.

    Notice, they are painting this as one size fits all, even as they propose tiers.

    Watch out, I’ll bet the further details will end up requiring or leaving open that we can be required to do the registration in California. If you move out of state, you might never be able to get out from under registration because your registration is out of state. If you move out of the country, so aren’t even registering, you will find the same. So, someone moves to a foreign country, for any number of reasons,and now return, 30 years later — no registration backgrounds, except make their first year. I presume they will be denied the”automatic” relief, and will have to serve their entire registration tier in California, even if their job is in New York. This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. Either the time frame is the proof or it is not! If you were in another country, you were not any danger to anyone in California, so not registering here should have no bearing on whether you have passed the test of time. Same for another state. Even those 16,000+ — hey, if they have been so good that they have not been picked up for so much as a jaywalking ticket, then I don’t see any gain from catching them now and making them register for 10, 20, 30 years. They’ve already been super-good when not registering, we do know that as much as we would if they were registering — and this is a point to remind when the opposition says all kinds of contrary things.

    and that is one of the points I have made all along — these tiers, and this “automatic” relief should not even be based on time you have registered, but solely on time from the date of your offense. Getting nit picking about time registering is just plain sick! That is arguing unsupported technicalities for that time as more important that no further offenses for that long. That is sick, to continue with punishment based on unsupported technicalities.

    This is a VERY devious proposal on a number of fronts. I thought about how they might have chosen that 30-year number for the “automatic” relief, and I realized something, something I had spoken about here many times in the past: 30 years ago is just about the very time they stopped allowing people to stop registration upon getting a 1203.4 expungement. That used to be the standard, not a COR or a pardon — and it worked very well.

    So, they seem to have picked the year, I think that is about the same year, that they stopped allowing felons to stop registering if they had probation and got 1203.4 relief. (They stopped that relief in the early side of the1990s for misdemeanants, and in the mid 1990s it was applied retroactively against the — people who had been relieved of registration, had earned that relief, had the relief taken away!)

    But they won’t even let it go at that punishingly long 30 years, they have to add a tripwire, a checkpoint, they are going on a fishing expedition to try to catch you for anything, however trumped up or minor, by requiring a court hearing. That hearing is not to simply decide if your conviction was prior to that date, they already know that. That is where the prosecutors, and I presume for both the county where you now live and the county where your offense was as is the case for a COR, to argue against you getting the relief, for whatever argument they might want to give. They have done that before, trying to prevent people from even getting 1203.4 relief even thought they successfully competed probation, they supposedly only requirement for the relief. So, they are definitely setting that court hearing up to do that to us too.

    And you better expect the judge most hateful to us will be the one assigned all sex offender relief matters. All the courts in the state are dominated by right wing judges, and the presiding judge of each court decides who hears what cases. You will be hard pressed to find much of anyone who has been elected to the court in this state who cannot cite a background as a prosecutor; in fact, in recently years, they are all inventing ways to cite that they are a “sex offender prosecutor” or a “child molestation prosecutor.” That is who is going to be presiding over your hearing.

    How many times have I written here to point out the checkpoints and the evil that lies in them? When 1203.4 was the standard, you did not have to have any court hearing for relief from registration, it is not part of the consideration of getting 1203.4 relief since it was a different statute that provided that relief on the basis of 1203.4. You had the expungment, so you simply stopped registering, that is all there was to it. They already know, you don’t have to go tell them, you don’t have to have a hearing to consider that is now that you are known to meet the standard and can stop registering, should they really let you stop. Something like that is put in a tier proposal simply out of evil intent.

    And while I have generally addressed the length of the tiers, I now do so directly. 10 years in unacceptable. 20 years in unacceptable for ANY offense. Gee, in New Jersey, the home of Megan;s Law, at least a decade ago (I haven’t checked lately), the worst of the worst offenders could get out from under registration after 15years! Thee worst of the worst. Not sure, but I don’t think they even make any misdemeanants register — why can’t we just do the same and drop that for misdemeanants, at least after 1203.4 relief? That should be the tier for misdemeanants — heck, even if they did reoffend, its simply poor demeanor, not some big deal! We should be yelling to the legislators that misdemeanants are caught up in this — I doubt most of them even realize that, the public certainly has no idea and would not support it!

    Misdemeanants are a strong argument we can frame a lot of this in. They can easily think we are right. And from there, you have now gotten to to considering what they are doing, and they can then take a closer look at the felons, and registration itself. Once they get into looking at it, then progress can be made., For now, there is no looking, they are doing only the safe political thing. I doubt most will even read the tier proposal, they are not going to consider it, they are simply going to go with the sure political position — unless we can get them to realize what they are doing to people they didn’t even know they were doing it to.

    And of course, the sick scheme to evaluate all offenders to place them in their tiers. This is VERY, VERY, VERY dangerous. Set the tiers by the offense, and allow people to file to be reduced to a lower tier if they want to. Again, any misdemeanants should not get even the 10 years, but they certainly should not be inn danger of longer from these evaluations!

    I know, this is WAY too long — and I probably will think of various ideas I have accidentally left out. I will leave it at this for now.

    We MUST write our own bill, not a list of ideas, but an actual bill as it would be written to be introduced by a legislator. We must give them to them every time we see them, and at every hearing. They will not consider an alternative if they haven’t been presentation. They are not looking to devise an alternative from what we tell theme — we must devise it and present it.

    And I will wholeheartedly oppose this tier proposal, and I think this group should too, and support our own proposal. We will not get anything until wee fight the bad proposal that has been drafted by the prosecutors, our enemies, and produce our own. To actually write a bill for them will have a psychological effect that will give it greater chance of actually being looked at, not that I have any expectation our proposal would ever be adopted, but parts of it might be.

    • G12

      I won’t take the time to comment on each of your paragraphs, as most of it seems to be stemming from your own made up guesses and opinions of how it will play out and really just come off as anger and stubbornness. Am I correct in assuming that a tiered system won’t likely benefit you? Because it seems that most of the people that argue against a tiered system are the ones who won’t benefit from it. Well, for some of us, it would be of benefit. As of now, we’re all stuck for life as registrants in CA, barring a COR. (which some of us may be able to achieve while most can’t) If I see a plan that will reduce it from life to something less for me, I’m going to support it. Does that mean it’s the be all end all and I agree with the whole registration scheme? Not at all…but it gives some people the ability to actually get removed from the horrible list at some point. Some of the arguments against a tiered system are basically saying, if it doesn’t help me then it shouldn’t help anyone. I’m sorry, but some crimes are more harsh than others. Why should someone that has a misdemeanor, non violent crime (for instance) be stuck on a list because someone with a rape or molestation of a young child (for instance) doesn’t fall into the lesser category that would help them with a tiered system? Last time I made this argument in another thread, I was greeted with a response of something like, “by allowing some to get off the registry, it will hurt the fight for the rest of us who are stuck on it.” I, personally, don’t think anyone should be on a registry. I think there should be stronger sentences if it’s deemed that someone isn’t safe to be put back into society. But, considering that’s not the case, why should some of us (Who might be lucky enough to fall into a tier 1 or even tier 2 category of 10 or 20 years) have to forfeit that hope of getting off because those others want to keep the numbers high for their own fights? That’s like saying someone who stole a candy bar should do the same time as someone who stole a car so they can have more thief’s locked up to help them fight their cause. The list is unfair, for everyone. Period. But to fight against any hint of progression and not want to allow some to get relief if it’s available is also unfair. Your approach is an all or none approach. “Give us all the ability to get removed or none of us at all.” For some, that might be ok, but for me, it’s not. In the end, if some qualify for removal and others do not, it’s ultimately because their crime was seen as less severe and therefore less likely to re-offend. I don’t see how anyone can argue why someone with a less severe crime shouldn’t be given lesser time, so to speak.

      • steve

        G12

        The problem is, as we have seen thoughout the entire country, is that MORE people get screwed (placed in a higher tier) then it helps. So, great for you (and maybe even me) but it’s not worth the risk to me to be seen as a tier 3 when I am not.

        • G12

          So, you’d rather be a lifer on the list, with no end in site than take your chances of being labeled a tier 1 or 2 and get off within 20 years? I respect your choice in that, but I’d rather take my chances of getting off. Now, if you were to tell me that the whole RSO thing is becoming old news and there may be reason to believe they’ll do away with the registries, then I’d prefer that route. But that isn’t the case…at least not right now.

        • steve

          Chances are very high the tier registry will help a small percentage while the rest get screwed and become a HUGE target because they have now been labeled a tier 3 with additional penalties neighbors and friends will go crazy because all this time you were never considered dangerous ..hence a shit storm. I’ve been through too many already and finally have some quiet.

          If it is done were people get evaluated first then I might have a different attitude. if you are a repeat offender tier 3 is probably where you belong but one time offenders should be given a chance for assessment.

        • James

          I agree with Steve. I don’t like tiered registry either. Sometimes I think it is better if California’s registry just becomes so bloated that there becomes so many sex offenders that we become a protected class… just like LGBT, disabled, etc. At least in this regard we can continue to fight for OUR civil rights as a whole and prove that the “sex offender” label has been foolish all along. When more and more Californians are labeled ‘sex offender,’ it becomes less of a big deal to the public. And it also increases our political (voting) power to regain a lot of our rights. Because more labeled ‘sex offenders’ = more of our family and/or friends that are also affected. People who will likely support our cause as well.

          Then it may be likely that other states will see that the ‘sex offender’ label has been dubious all along. And consequently, they may also follow in reforming their laws.

          I know a lot of you don’t like my opinion. But in the long-term, it might be what’s best for us as a whole.

        • G12

          I understand your stance on it and reasoning behind it. However, what that means is that people who would actually benefit and come off the list, would then have to continue suffering so that there’s a hope later that it actually has the effect that you’re describing. For someone who won’t benefit and come off the list, it sounds more appealing to keep everyone on, but to someone who can benefit, why wouldn’t they want to take advantage and be free’d from it? There won’t be an agreement across the board, because some will benefit and some won’t. I’m merely trying to show the other side of it, because all I ever see is people arguing against it for “strength in numbers” and not considering the fact that why would someone want to stay on when they have a chance to be relieved of it?

      • neil

        I don’t agree with you. Obviously, you don’t understand how advocating for a “tiered registry” may hurt — more than help — in the long-run. The mere fact that CASOMB’s Nancy O’Malley is not allowing the public privy to the tiered proposal is one red flag that ought to tell us that there may be something wrong with what they (the government) want passed. Whoever is left on any “tiered” registry will just seem high-risk when they are probably not. I don’t know how that helps the cause to help labeled “sex offenders” as a whole.

        • G12

          That’s fine, you don’t have to agree with my opinion of it. But, don’t act as though you have more knowledge on the matter than I do because you disagree with me. It’s not “obvious” that I don’t understand…It’s more like, right now this would be the only option available. (If it even goes that far) First of all, none of us know what writing is in the proposed tiered system. It’s very possible that I could not agree with it once I see the details. Or, you could find yourself agreeing with it. Nobody knows at this point. However, If I have a choice of lifetime registry or getting removed by scoring at a level 1 or 2, I don’t see why I would be wrong in supporting it. Your comments prove my point from what I said earlier. It’s the one’s who think they won’t benefit from it that think there shouldn’t be one, because they’ll be left behind. I’m sorry, again, if some people’s crimes are worse than others…that isn’t reason for the lesser crimes to not be given relief though. I find it hard to believe that anyone who would be let off from a new system, would actually refuse it. Disagree with me all you want, but don’t tell me I don’t understand. I understand perfectly, yet I’m not going to ‘sacrifice’ myself by electing not to support something that can relieve me from a list, because someone else may not receive the same relief. Call it selfish, or whatever…It’s not my fault someone committed a crime that wouldn’t be eligible for relief.

        • G12

          BTW, Neil…how can you make a statement such as, “Whoever is left on any “tiered” registry will just seem high-risk when they are probably not.”? I would be willing to bet that a lot of people that are left on it are left because they are specifically high risk. I’m not talking about the people who are unfairly rated on the static 99 test. There are plenty of people registered who committed horrific crimes and are very high risk.

        • James

          There are also many people who are labeled “high-risk” and they are not high risk. That is what a tiered registry exposes many people to. How are you so certain that you, me, or anyone else for that matter will not end up in the 2nd or 3rd tier level? In the 6th Circuit case, most of the Plaintiffs were placed in the higher, most “dangerous” tier level when it was clear the Plaintiffs were not at all ‘dangerous.’ Nor were they even high risk.

          BTW, has anyone every defined “high risk?” It sure sounds ominous; but I suspect there might be little evidence to the credibility or empirical weight behind the “high risk” label.

        • G12

          I agree, some are labeled incorrectly. The system is setup unfairly. But, what you’re arguing is that those who actually would benefit and come off the list, should “take one for the team” and instead of standing behind the proposed system and coming off the list, they continue on as a RSO and continue to have their lives ruined repeatedly. If someone could see the future and see how that would play out, perhaps it might be easier to do. But, with no end in sight to this horrendous label, I for one, would take my chances and hope that I fall into the tier 1 or tier 2 category that lets you off the list in 10 or 20 years. I’m in my mid forties and I don’t want to wait around until I’m 80 years old, hoping that I might one day get off the list before I die. I’m almost 19 years removed from my offense and in that case, even if I scored a level 2, I’d be looking at coming off the list in a year+. I’d take that in a heart beat to be able to get back to living a life where I don’t have to wonder each and every day if my neighbors are going to find out about me or if my job’s going to find out about me, etc…Again, I see why some are arguing against it, because they’re worried they won’t benefit, but that doesn’t mean you should fault the people who would benefit for wanting there to be a system that lets them off.

        • Timmr

          I haven’t seen a definition of risk, either. I am wondering if it is the propensity to commit more crime or is it the repugnance people feel for the crime that was committed. If the latter, is the risk greater because it shocks the conscience more? The risk is viewed as proportional to the level of fear and disgust people feel about the crime. Both views have been presented in this forum, and the latter is irrational, since there is no way to quantify peoples fear and disgust. Doubtful there is any reliable way to quantify propensity to commit a new crime, either.

        • David Kennerly

          Excellent points, Timmr!

          I think we know the real answers to those questions. It’s all mindless savagery masked in the cloak of rationality and justice.

        • Rick

          To Timmr

          I’m sure you are familiar with the saying, once an animal tastes blood, it won’t stop looking for it. This is the foundation of static determinations. They also do not consider the effect of punishment in regard to risk. I’ve always argued that the state receives the benefit of both a punishment and a mental health determination through an SO conviction, but only the punishment is legally recognized. It’s magic law, as I’ve said numerous times. And even when you receive a positive determination from a psyche evaluation it is given no weight. End result, static evaluations are pseudo science at best, and should be given no credibility whatsoever. I can tell you personally, a registry wouldn’t stop anyone from committing a crime, but the potential for losing your freedom, especially when you’ve experienced it, is the only persuasive tool to stop further crimes, but it must be done fairly in light of the act.

        • Timmr

          Sorry to say I didn’t care about losing my freedom because I had gotten to the point I valued so little of it and myself and had broken the threads that held me to those around me. Years in prison isolated from everyone? Heck, I had already created a prison of my own in my own mind. It was not much of a factor. Simply stated, the crime woke me up to my stale attitude, and I decided I didn’t want any part of hurting anyone. They could have locked me in a concrete box or put me in a penthouse and piped in pleasant music, and I would still hear the crying that resulted from my acts.

        • David Kennerly

          I’ve known three men who were designated “SVP” for the purposes of keeping them locked up in California’s “Coalinga State Hospital.” None of those three are violent in any way in which the term is commonly used. They were not even accused in the original criminal complaints used to convict them of having committed violence or using coercion in the commission of their crimes. That’s because the only criminal offense necessary to categorize someone as SVP today is that the victim had been under fourteen years of age. That’s it. Sure, actual violence or coercion can also be used to designate someone as SVP but it’s not at all necessary. It’s in the statute books of every state as well as the U.S. criminal code, though the ages vary slightly.

          And yet, we are assured that civilly committed sex offenders are “the worst-of-the-worst” and most people, not knowing any better, believe it.

          So what’s happened is that this reorganization of policies on the basis of redefined, but previously common-sense terminology, as well as the ever creeping downward thresholds for illegality (just take a look at how broadly interpreted are child pornography statutes today), have served to obfuscate reality and truth and render productive conversation impossible. None of this was done in good faith, either.

        • Lester A.

          It’s clear G12 has not read the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s Doe v. Snyder opinion. Because had he read it, he would have read that there were many (not just a “few”) citizens stuck at the highest lifetime registration tier when they were not at all “very high risk.” So G12, other than the fact that you’re a gambling man, what makes you think California’s tiered registry will be any different? In fact, name one state with a tier that has had good results. The way I look at, tiered registration just puts us a step closer to being an Adam Walsh Act state… which would not be good.

        • G12

          Lester ~ So now, to discredit my opinion, you’re going to misquote me? Show me where I ever said there would only be a “few” people who are labeled incorrectly. I never said that, so don’t misquote me. I do understand the problems with how people are mislabeled, as should have been clear in my actual previous statement, “I agree, some are labeled incorrectly. The system is setup unfairly.” That surely doesn’t equate to me saying only a “few” people are mislabeled.

          I also don’t appreciate being made to not have any knowledge of what’s going on, as your comment indicates, “It’s clear G12 has not read the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s Doe v. Snyder opinion. Because had he read it, he would have read that there were many (not just a “few”) citizens stuck at the highest lifetime registration tier when they were not at all “very high risk.” ”

          Maybe you should read my entire posts before responding instead of just wanting to disregard my opinion simply because it doesn’t match up with yours. I’ve stated multiple times that I don’t agree with a registry and that nobody should be subjected to it. But I’ve also stated that there’s no better alternative at this point in time and if this is the only hope one would have in possibly being removed from the list, then I’m open to the idea. I’m not in agreement that it’s either abolish the registry or we all will stay on it to fight the good fight. Show me a better alternative and perhaps I would think differently about a tiered registry. Until then, you are free to have your opinion the same as I’m free to have mine.

      • Rick

        To G12

        I suppose I would have to agree with you to some degree in your opinion. Relief for some is better than relief for none! Makes sense in a sort of win-loss analysis and I can’t really argue with it, but it still stinks to high heaven. And all of their stats are nonsense.

        • G12

          Rick…I agree completely. I think the whole registry is a terrible idea and nobody should have to suffer from it. Like I originally said, if someone is that bad of a threat, they shouldn’t be set free to begin with. It’s punishing someone who’s already served their debt to society. With that said, whoever can get themselves free from it, should be allowed to do so without having to be told they’re wrong or made to feel bad about it.

      • freedom inquisitor

        G12,

        You say our objection to a tiered registry “seems to be stemming from [our] own made up guesses and opinions of how it will play out and really just come off as anger and stubbornness.”

        Really?

        Ironically, your support FOR a tiered registration seems to “stem” from “your own made up guesses and opinions.” Specifically, how unreasonable is it for one to object to a tiered registry when CASOMB — and CASOMB leader Nancy O’Malley — has failed to release the details of their tiered registry bill? It should be an obligation for a government agency to be transparent about its future proposals.

        The mere fact that you support a tiered registry bill, BEFORE you (or any of us) are made aware of the details seems to be indicative of you taking a position based on ‘your own made up guesses and opinions.’ A bit of a hypocritical stance, don’t cha’ think?

        It is not unreasonable to object to the tiered registry. Especially when the details to a tiered bill, which is “set in stone,” is not being released to the public.

        In other states, their tiered bills have resulted in more bureaucracy, caveats, and — as we saw in Michigan (i.e. the 6th Circuit Snyder case) — low-risk individuals wrongfully being classified as “high-risk.” So, G12, what makes you think CASOMB’s tiered registry bill will be any different. Thus, until we see the details to a tiered registry, I disagree with it.

        (But most certainly, the lack of transparency is indicative of a flaw — or many flaws for that matter — that the government is hiding unpopular [and potentially more infringing] policy. Because otherwise, why would they keep CASOMB’s tiered registry bill veiled in secrecy?)

        • G12

          Freedom~

          You must not have read everything I wrote, because if you did, you’d notice I’m not being hypocritical at all. I never said I agree with the proposal that’s already set in stone. I specifically made the comment, “First of all, none of us know what writing is in the proposed tiered system. It’s very possible that I could not agree with it once I see the details. Or, you could find yourself agreeing with it. Nobody knows at this point.”

          In principal, I agree to a tiered system, because right now, that’s all there would be to give anyone a chance to get relief from this terrible label. I also never said that someone who opposes it is wrong. In fact, I told one poster, specifically, that I respect their opinion.

          The thing is, every person that I’ve seen argue against a tiered system always seems to bring up the reasoning of keeping everyone on the list so that it will show how foolish it is by keeping low risk people on it and also that by having that many people fighting to get off of it, helps the cause. Well, I hate to be THAT person, but it seems I am…so here goes, If I have a chance to get off the list, as much as I would wish the same for everyone, I won’t, for a second, think twice about. My families lives and my own life are much more important to me than continuing to put them through the restrictions that we’ve had to suffer though, in order to be another number in the fight to help people who are perhaps stuck on the list because they committed what are viewed as more severe crimes. That isn’t to say I would accept coming off the list and move on like it never happened. I’m still completely against it and would continue to protest in the same manner as I have thus far. But, to tell me I’m a hypocrite or wrong because I won’t just lay down and accept staying on this BS list to help increase the numbers is just foolish. I get it, it sucks to be left…and for all I know, I may not even benefit from a tiered registry. But I sure as heck don’t want to wait around hoping that maybe in my lifetime, they’ll finally abolish the list if I can find relief through other means.

        • Timmr

          Freedom, you have a point. I thought of this. The government always has a problem with nuance and complexity. The bureaucracy would find it more difficult to manage a tiered registry than a one size fits all. Not only that but it could spawn lawsuits. Misdemenors getting off for crimes very similar to one that are felonies and end you up on tier 3, especially factoring in the Static 99. Then, something may happen like on Michigan, the changes amount to after the fact punishment for some who have there lives changed by the new order. We don’t know how, because we haven’t seen the plan as is and expect its mangling in the legislature. All I can say is wait and see.

      • Timmr

        It seems Anonymous Nobody is saying we shouldn’t just accept whatever they throw at us, but look at it critically and have some strong proposals of our own. I agree.
        I think it is dangerous to think in binary terms. Kill the registry or nothing. Accept this tiered registry or nothing. It would be great if we could at least advocate for getting people off the registry, especially the public registry, while making sure those that remain don’t become fair game, now that they are considered “the worst of the worst” and now the state can do anything it wants with them. I don’t think anything that has to do with registries will be done in good fath. It is just history. Fool me once…CASOMB is an advisory board not a lawmaker or enforcer. When anything gets to the legislatures it will be altered.
        By the way, from what I could tell from the 2014 tiering proposal, I would be getting off in three years from now if that had become law as presented.

        • steve

          And i would be getting off next year. But who knows if that is the same proposal. I’m guessing that was a template.

        • Timmr

          If that is the proposal, it would definately be for my good. For the greater good, I would first get nearly all off the public registry, because the public shame list has the most evidence going against it. It just foments disorder and puts people’s lives at risk. A civilized society does not encourage vigilantes. If it can’t be shown to prevent even a repeat offender from repeating, it is a waste of the people’s resources.

        • G12

          I appreciate your response, because most of the people who argue the point, seem to want everyone to stay on the list if it doesn’t help themselves. I will also repeat what I have twice already…I understand that the proposed system could be terrible once we see the details. But it could also turn out to be the most reasonable progress that we’ve seen or will see anytime soon and that’s what I’m staying optimistic about. I don’t fault anyone for their own opinion, but I am against someone saying that we should all just stay on it to help those who are left behind and stuck on it. I agree with what you’re saying about coming up with our own proposed system or at least having input as to what they’ve proposed. Whatever happens, some of us will inevitably be screwed, but I would be happy for anyone who could actually get off the list even if I couldn’t get off of it myself.

      • freedom inquisitor

        G12,

        I hate to pick on you again. But you say: “I don’t see how anyone can argue why someone with a less severe crime shouldn’t be given lesser time, so to speak.”

        *IF* the tiered registry proposal incorporates the Static 99R scam, the Static 99R scam scores “non-contact” sex offenses with greater severity. See Question 7: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

        So logically, you’d have people with (generally) less severe ‘non-contact’ crimes with higher static scam scores. And following this logical inference, you’d have a disproportionate amount of ‘non-contact’ offenders stuck at the higher tier levels (and thus, presumably longer — perhaps lifetime — registration periods).

        How would this make sense? And G12, how would this support your claim?

        • G12

          Freedom ~

          I already acknowledged in one of my other posts that there will be some that are scored unfairly. I do understand that. Heck, I could be one of those people for all I know. But my position is that because there’s no end in site for this registry, we might as well accept some progress in the right direction rather than nothing at all. Let’s face it, California is one of the strictest states with RSO’s and for them to (IF they do) accept a tiered system, then that’s a huge step in the right direction. Even if it isn’t perfectly written or graded for each individual, it’s still something. It would be a start, in my mind.

      • David Kennerly

        You’ve thrown a lot of words at this but, frankly, I’m underwhelmed at your level of understanding of the fundamental issues.

        I will just say this: there are legitimate reasons for supporting a “Tiered” Registry but you haven’t made a very good argument for them. For the record, I am deeply ambivalent about a tiered registry and would see it as far less than ideal but consider that it may be a legitimate transitional phase on the road to complete abolition of the obligation of registration as well as the maintenance of a list of degraded citizens, in any form, by the government.

        When you say things like “I don’t think any of us would need facts to agree that true rapists and child molesters or repeat offenders would be considered high risk and therefore left on the list,” then you’ve clearly not plumbed the depths of the registry issue and this may have something to do with your undervaluation of facts in preference for your gut reactions.

        • David Kennerly

          I’d like to clarify what I mean when I say that “a” (i.e. one form of a) tiered registry might be acceptable and, while it’s not the one likely to be enacted in California:

          The tiers would not be based upon Static 99 or R (which are, after all, wholly inappropriate for this use [or any other, for that matter]) but on the length of time crime-free in the community, preferably without regard to the original offense, although that would probably be asking too much. It would let everyone off the Registry after (the shortest time achievable) being offense-free.

          That would be a huge improvement that provides hope for an eventual normal life. It would only be acceptable in the sense that it would be vastly better than what we have now which is FOREVER on the Registry.

          This does not, however, make me the tired, er “tiered” registry’s biggest champion. Far from it.

        • David Kennerly

          It also has the distinct advantage of not throwing anyone under the bus and ‘dividing and conquering.’

        • Timmr

          It also gives something that the present system is in great deficit, a reward for being good citizens.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        The primary issue here is that we are approaching this in a very negligent manner. WE are being unbelievably negligent about this! We are letting the enemy, the prosecutors, write the proposal rather than writing one ourselves to challenge their proposal! We are never going to get a decent proposal from the prosecutors!

        We are looking at taking any piece of garbage they propose and supporting it like a bunch of mindless cheerleaders, even as they set it up with checkpoints that have nothing to do with relief, are only in there to try to nab anyone they can for anything they can. We are letting them use a classification system that is fraught with BS profiling based more on the liars-figure-and-figures-lie approach to statistics than on reality.

        We are even letting them hype up all kinds of offenses that are NOT subject to the federal 10-year minimum into being just as bad as those more serious offenses by making 10 years the minimum no matter how minor your offense. Even the offenses that the Legislature already has set a 7-year time limit for a COR are now being put in the 10-year tier for the more significant offenses that had to wait 10 years for a COR. We are going backwards, we are letting them harshen the consideration!

        All these checks and reviews and applications are creating a monster of a bureaucracy that they will use to fight us tooth and nail and come up with ever more and more against us, just like the prison guard lobby is always backing harsher sentences, longer sentences,more offenses — because that keeps them employed and the more guards the state needs, the more power they have to demand higher pay.

        Frankly, I can’t see that they really think half the things they are requiring in this proposal are really needed to do tiers, I have to think a large part of the reason is specifically to build that army against us. But no matter, this proposal will build that army.

        If the Runners were under orders to draft a tier proposal, this is the one they would have drafted!

        • Bill r.

          I like the “cheerleader” analogy, Anonymous Nobody. Because that’s precisely how too many of us are treating the upcoming fictitious “tiered” registry. Cheering for any change at all. Many are so eager for tiered registration because maybe of fatigue of having been on the registry for too long. But like “Obamacare,” I think many of us will end up disappointed. Just like how many of us voted for Obama with “hope” that he would “change” things. In the end, we got shafted when Obama signed laws like International Megan’s Law. Now he supports Hillary Clinton — whose husband signed the 1994 Megan’s Law (ultimately leading to the cluster**** we have now).

    • Art Brook

      I agree w/ “Anonymous Nobody.” Just to add: the tiered proposal, in my opinion, is nothing but a law designed to “divide and conquer” our civil rights goals. The way I see it, the government creates “tiered” schemes in effort to keep us from uniting toward doing away w/ registration schemes altogether when they show no empirical value.

      • G12

        The value would be for people who would actually be able to get off the list over a given period of time. As it stands right now, everyone is a lifetime registrant, here in CA, at least.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          G12, we are going to get only ONE crack at this. IF we don’t get it right, that’s tough, we will suffer under that wrong plan forever more. If we get the Legislators to do this once, its incredibly naive to think they will ever touch it again in our lifetimes — really. This is the ONLY increment we will ever get on this. WE make the third rail of politics that Social Security is look like childs play. They are NOT going to ever touch it again if they do it this one time.

          And again, we aren’t even proposing any alternative! W3e are being unbelievable negligent! We need to give a detailed alternative. I’ve spoken to any number of details — what is wrong with the way I’ve suggested? We should be fighting for that, not being complacent little sheep and accepting whatever the enemy offers and even cheering on the enemy — this only shows how beaten down we have been.

      • Landon

        Hi Art. I want to say that you might have a valid theory regarding the divide and conquer strategy. The one time I spent a year in jail/prison for my only crime, they had us segregated into different races like it was the 1950s. Whites couldn’t help blacks, asians, latinos, etc. So instead of fighting the corrupt Los Angeles Sheriff Department’s practices, we were all distracted with tension and drama amongst ourselves. Blacks vs. white vs. mexican. I hear it is the same in General Population prison. I always suspected that the legalized segregation was something furthered by the jails and CDCR to keep the inmates from challenging the very system that incarcerates and mistreats them like animals. This is how I see a tiered registry. I disagree with any tiered registry. Many of you want a tiered registry. To those of you that want a fictitious tier, I, respectfully, think you are short-sighted. Evidence that the state has divided — and may very well conquer — our cause.

  29. Cindy

    My significant other and I are concerned w/ regard to how much of the Static 99R scam will be used into this very questionable “tiered” registry. If the science says 17 years should be the max period, then why does the corrupt CASOMB want otherwise? Especially when no academic evidence show sex offense registries preventing recidivism in the first-place!!!!

    • New Person

      The Michigan decision states the tiers and registration does nothing.

      Conflate that with CASOMB’s finding of under 1% re-offense rates, then something smells awfully fishy here!

      That’s what I would counter with CASOMB and wonder if they believe in their own stats b/c apparently, they’re using some other stats to come up with their own tiered system. Again, this is the akin the Static 99 scam. If you’re high risk, you get penalized more. If you score low that by law you are not allowed to be put on a website, but you still get lifetime registration makes absolutely no sense! WHAT???!!!!!

      There is no actual relief when using common sense with statistical support. It’s just there to punish you more.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Cindy, exactly! These tier lengths are insane! “Science” says recidivism drops to a very low level for any offense, sex or otherwise, by the five-year mark — that’s why a COR is at the five-year mark for most offenses — but not sex offenses, because hype and BS and prejudice decided to take them out of the 5-year time frame for a COR back in the 1980s! Gee, we are talking of 10 years as the minimum for even the most minor of misdemeanors now — and fools here are cheering it on! We should be fighting for much shorter tiers! We should be fighting for a return to what it used to be: you can end registration once you get a 1203.4 expungement — that’s what probation is for, the test, probation IS registration. And those who didn’t get probation get much shorter time frames than now proposed, and without all this profiling and checkpoints and applications, it just ends at the end of your time — if we can’t end registration now altogether.

      This isn’t some minor little preparatory spot to start, this is the crossroads, this is the ONLY time we will get to argue.

      And that argument should include a DEMAND that all offenses for which the Feds don’t require registration should be taken out of California’s 290 — not put in a minimum 10 year tier but maybe get even longer from a BS assessment! We should demand to conform to federal, that is a VERY sellable political approach — and we will NEVER get a better chance to argue it than now. We are about to miss our best chance. The tier argument isn’t limited to tiers; it is about what we should do about all this registration, how should it be whittled down. Tiers are not the only way to whittle, it is all in play NOW. And it is now or never, there will not be another chance. People who think there will be other chances do not know politics.

      And then we can turn our full efforts at the feds! This tier proposal is designed to keep us completely bogged down at the state level, even as the feds go completely insane with piling on us. No one but me has called for that. People here have been so beaten down like slaves that they are ready sell their souls if they can just get a drink of water.

      Why is our leadership not making these points I have been making?! Gee, I didn’t even realize we weren’t doing anything about tiers other than to let the enemy decide what would be proposed! We kept talking about our tier proposal, but we don’t even have one! The enemy is not our friends, they won’t even talk to us, it is “set in stone”

      We aren’t even proposing any of this I talk about, we are merely acting like a bunch of sheep cheering on any old crap they want to impose!

      As Cindy points out, these time frames are unsupportable. These time frames are insane. These time frames are down right sadistic. And this group is cheering them on rather than demanding less, rather than making a broader pitch in the most ripe time for such we are ever going to have.

  30. Toby Schraer

    G12: I also happen to be a minority of us that think a tiered registration bill is foolish. It does nothing than perpetuates the idea that sex registries are effective when they do nothing but create unneeded fear, suffering, homelessness and unemployment after a person has paid a sentence. G12, you say: “I would be willing to bet that a lot of people that are left on it are left because they are specifically high risk.” G12, what facts do you make your “bet” on? Have YOU read the tiered proposal? G12, how do YOU know the tiered registry bill won’t include the Static-99R scam to classify people into tiers? To me, tiered registry just seems like a bad idea. Look at the states that have tiered. They are in no better shape because too many low-risks are wrongfully placed as “high-risk” (whatever it is “high-risk” is). Just phony semantics to me.

    • G12

      Toby ~

      First of all, let me start by saying, I’m against a sex offender registry, period. My stance isn’t to create a tiered system, but keep the registry for some people. I think it should be gone for everyone. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with it. Because of that, anything that they’re willing to push our way that might change that lifetime status to something less, I’m willing to give it a look and support it if it looks like it might be of benefit.

      I’m not trying to recite facts as far as high risk offenders being left on the list are concerned. I don’t think any of us would need facts to agree that true rapists and child molesters or repeat offenders would be considered high risk and therefore left on the list. It wasn’t my purpose to introduce facts, but to object to another poster that stated, “Whoever is left on any “tiered” registry will just seem high-risk when they are probably not. ” In other wards, he’s saying that anyone left on a tiered registry is likely not a high risk, but will be perceived as one. I’m sure there will be people unfairly left that shouldn’t be labeled as high risk, but to say it’s likely that none of the left overs are high risk? I don’t think I need facts to defend against that statement.

      You’re asking questions that I’ve already commented to in my posts, so not sure why you’re asking them again. I already said none of us know what’s included in the proposal, thus meaning that I’ve not read it nor claimed to have. Furthermore, if I’ve admitted to not knowing what’s in it, I also don’t know if the static 99 would be part of it or not.

      My initial rebuttal was because people are against it before even having a chance to see it. I never said, yes, I agree with their proposal. I’m proposing that why not at least take a look and give it a chance? Even if it helps just a quarter of those of us, it’s still progress in my mind.

      • Jonathan Lee

        G12… you are under the impression that “high risk sex offenders” deserve to be subjected to Megan’s Law/290? What evidence do you have that shows Megan’s Law reducing or preventing crime? Do you also understand that even so-called high risk sex offenders are generally not likely to sexually reoffend? In California, the “high risk” Static 99R label is only about 20 percent accurate WITHIN a five-year period. After five-years, at 10 years, the dubious ‘high risk’ label is only about 5 percent accurate. Then at 17 years — at least for a high risk sex offender who remains offense free in the community — the ‘high risk’ label is NOT AT ALL accurate. So it seems you are using your own qualifications to determine the definition of ‘high risk.’ The reality is that, at least in California, ‘high risk’ is determined by the Static 99R scam. Offense alone, no matter how violent, does not alone determine ‘high risk.’ That is what’s wrong with predicating ‘high risk’ on the Static-99R scam.

        • G12

          Jonathan ~

          What are you going on about and why are you posting those stats towards me? Show me where I’ve ever said that I agree that anybody should be on a registry. In fact, I’ve clearly said, in more than one of my posts, that I don’t think there should be a registry and nobody should be subjected to it. I love how you all keep misquoting me simply because I’m open to the idea of a tiered registry when it differs from your opinions.

  31. Landon

    So a few benefit, while the rest that remain are targeted as more “dangerous?” No thanks G12. Just say NO to a tiered proposal.

  32. G12

    This will be my last post on this subject. It’s clear that when you have a minority opinion on this site, that you get misquoted and attacked for not agreeing with the rest.

    I’ve been a RSO for almost 19 years now, and have endured many of the hardships and shame that go along with it, so I have every bit the same right to my opinions as any of you. I have the right to be open to any proposal that may allow me to go from being a lifetime registrant to coming off the list. Because it seems that there are a lot of you who don’t feel a tiered system will benefit you, doesn’t make those of us who would benefit, wrong for being open to it.

    I’ve stated numerous times that I don’t believe in a registry. For ANYONE. Yet, I keep seeing challenges made to me that make it seem like I’ve actually spoken out in favor of the registry. I don’t appreciate being misquoted nor attacked for my opinions. It’s an open forum so we’re all given the right to our own opinions and beliefs. If you don’t agree with me, fine, I can respect that. We each have our own reasons for why we would and would not support a tiered registry. One’s reason doesn’t make someone else’s invalid.

    I thought it was ok to post differing opinions, but it’s clear it’s not unless you want to have to defend yourself against statements that you’ve not even made. I can now understand why there’s only a select group of people who post regularly on here. Most are probably afraid that if you oppose someone’s opinions, you’ll be attacked and not welcomed. So much for coming together as a group of people who all can understand, in some ways, what each of the others are going through.

    • steve

      Nobody is attacking you they are just offering their opinion of your opinion. Seemed like a civil discussion to me.

    • Rick

      To G12

      Good points and don’t let criticism stop you, that’s what debate is all about even when you are misquoted, misunderstood, or just being picked on.

    • wonderin

      I just come here, occasionally, to see if I still need to register. 🙂

    • O.A.L.

      Please keep posting. I appreciate you and your thoughts. This site has so much emotion built right into it. We all have our own hells that we live every day. This is the only place i can come and feel psrt of a family. Families argue, and they also love. I use the support and kbowledge of you veterans of this fight to keep me alive. Please don’t let me go.

    • Chris F

      Never let anyone interfere with you stating your opinion.

      As long as you stay civil, screw anyone that tries to mistreat you or cause you to want to leave.

      Silence and stealing our voice and opinions is exactly what our opposition is trying to do. We don’t need that going on between us here. If you can’t keep your backbone intact here, then you won’t have a chance outside our virtual walls, so keep posting!

      • David Kennerly

        Except that no one IS interfering with G12 and his/her right to voice an opinion.

        No one is silencing G12 nor attempting to steal his/her voice.

        Let’s not turn this into a trigger-free “safe” space. This is a forum for the serious discussion of real and contentious issues. People get to say things and others get to respond to their words. Get used to people disagreeing with you. It will never be otherwise.

    • David Kennerly

      No one is saying that you don’t have the right to speak. Why are you suggesting that we have? We’re engaging with your words, some of which seem to contradict one another but which includes: “I don’t think any of us would need facts to agree that true rapists and child molesters or repeat offenders would be considered high risk and therefore left on the list.”

      Your right to speak does not mean that you have a right to not have your words criticized.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      G12,

      You started your posts to “Anonymous Nobody” with the following response:

      “I won’t take the time to comment on each of your paragraphs, as most of it seems to be stemming from your own made up guesses and opinions of how it will play out and really just come off as anger and stubbornness.”

      Then you take the ivory tower position of haughty preacher and say things like: “I don’t appreciate being misquoted nor attacked for my opinions. It’s an open forum so we’re all given the right to our own opinions and beliefs. If you don’t agree with me, fine, I can respect that.”

      All your responses wreak of blunt attacks; the very same attacks you accuse of others barraging you with. When your posts are toned in a manner that they are, one shouldn’t be surprised that others may respond in similar fashion. This scenario sort of reminds me of the kid who doesn’t like the way a game is played — and decides to leave the other children and take his ball with him.

      By all means it all appears to be a civilized discourse. But when you say provocative things like: “I don’t think any of us would need facts to agree that true rapists and child molesters or repeat offenders would be considered high risk and therefore left on the list[,]” expect some criticism.

      Criticism is all part of free speech — and the very same principles that you accuse others of denying you. And criticism should be expected when you make the provocative statements that you do.

      Discourse is a two-way street.

    • chuck meryl

      To G12: the ‘minority opinion’ actually seems to be opposing a tiered registry bill. When I went to an acsol meeting, everyone clapped for the tiered bill like a bunch of starry-eyed fans cheering at a Justin Bieber concert (or a bunch of over-idealistic college students from 8 years ago HOPING that Barack Obama will CHANGE things back in 2008). That is even though NO ONE knows the specifics in the tiered registry bill. So people were essentially cheering for a tiered bill no one knew the specifics to. A strange thing happens on this website though. On this website, we see a lot of people OPPOSE tiered registration. Why the stark difference?

      • David

        I favor a tiered registry because at least it’s a start. It is as if we are trying to attack and dismantle a great wall: we remove one brick at a time, if necessary. And we have to stop the bricklayers at their work. And we have to shut down the manufacturers of mortar. We have to battle this Jessica/ Adam/Megan/Registry on every front that we can.

      • Timmr

        There are different dynamics in a group and in an anonymous forum like this. Meetings tend to function generally like cheerleading sessions, it is a leader’s platform to inspire, raise awareness and donations. These online forums attract those who are more likely to analyse stuff — sometimes ad nauseum — and need time and space and lack of distractions to do that, but it is means for individuals who are more critical and whose voices are often drowned out in a crowd to find a voice.

  33. Michael

    “… and the language of that bill is ‘set in stone.’”

    Absolutely nothing is set in stone.

    ….

  34. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    “Lester A.,” above, said: “The way I look at, tiered registration just puts us a step closer to being an Adam Walsh Act state… which would not be good.”

    This is a very troubling point. So let’s say our state legislature passes whatever “tiered” bill that partitions labeled “sex offenders” into three levels (which is exactly what the Adam Walsh Act does!).

    Assuming the ‘tiered’ registry passes, how far-fetched would it be to expect that the next logical step for California to take would be to introduce legislation making California an Adam Walsh Act state?

    The way I see it, this ‘tiered’ bill *might* just be setting the California government to “checkmate” registrants into being further oppressed by the more draconian terms of the Adam Walsh Act. As it is, California has been a very willing participant in adopting any so-called (and ostensible) “public safety” measures propagated by the federal government.

    • Punished For Life

      Tobin’s Tools 2.0:
      Ba-da-bing! Exactly what NV is fighting tooth and nail right now.
      AWA moves thousands from tier 1 to tier 3. As a tier 3….AWA has no provision whatsoever to be removed from a lifetime on the list.
      Now in NV the tier 1 & 2 citizens are allowed to petition the courts for removal at an semi-acceptable term .
      Personally, I feel “Removal” should be automatic. They have your records. They can easily see you have been offense free and compliant.
      However, under AWA, the retroactive punishment is multiplied. So unconstitutional to retroactively continue to add new punishment especially if when you were sentenced, it was to be a list held by law enforcement for law enforcement.

    • Eric C.

      Interesting. So a tiered registration bill might be setting us up to be an Adam Walsh Act state? The theory would seem to be the next logical step, as prerequisite to becoming an Adam Walsh state, a tiered system is required. By the way… Adam Walsh states require lifetime registration every 90 DAYS for “Tier 3” offenders … and registration every 6 months for “Tier 2” offenders. So if CA were ever to become an Adam Walsh state, it would TRULY make our current yearly registration system look more like membership at ‘Price Club.’

      • John

        Actually as long as you a life time state you already are compliant with adam walsh act. there doesnt have to be tiers becouse you excède what they want.

        • pedro

          I don’t know if what you are saying is true. But for sure, ALL Adam Walsh tiered states requires registration every 90 days. I used to live in Adam Walsh tiered states. That means going to police station every 3 months to register. When I moved to CA, I was relieved to learn only once a year registration.

        • Punished For Life

          Under AWA….If I recall correctly, for transient it’s every 30 days you must check in. Tier 1 once per year.
          Tier 2 at 6 months, and yes, Tier 3 every 90 days. What an absolute pain in the A**. If that was agreed as part of your Plea Deal, then so be it. It sure wasn’t part of mine. Registration needs to GO AWAY.

        • steve

          This is why the 6th circuit ruled it unconstituional. Those that rare registry lovers claim we are on the list and we got our due process at the time of our conviction. Changing people’s tiers and assigning a level of dangerousness after the fact is unconstitutional. So says the 6th.

  35. USA

    Well, I’m not sure what to say. I will admit, many of you write some very long responses/I’ve lost interest. As noted, everyone clearly hates being on the registry. Although, there are some of us who have been on for years and for some minor offenses that have long ago been expunged. We have elderly on the registry/first time offenders and people who have gone on to lead stellar lives! I totally concur with no one liking the registry/including myself. Although, if anyone opposes the tiered system, they are either high risk/repeat offenders or newly put on the registry! You can respond with a multitude of arguements, but it is what it is. No sane person presently on the registry/with a chance to now get off would argue otherwise. Best of luck!

    • New Person

      Apparently you’ve missed quite a history about tiering, how they tier, how it fits with the AWA. Low level tiers are bumped to the highest. There’s also history of adding another decade to your low level tier as they did in NY when the first decade expired.

      The big picture you’re missing is by allowing tiering, then you’re allowing registration to be legal when it is not. Registrant are being segregated like no other groups. This is unconstitutional. Registration is a cruel and unusual punishment. But it isn’t called punishment, therefore it cannot be. So what can it be if it’s not punishment? Involuntary servitude. You’re not paid to do this service once you’re out of punishment custody. There’s a penalty above losing said duty and will return you to duty. And the term, in CA, is a lifetime contract.

      Anyhow, involuntary servitude is my way of thinking outside the box b/c no one is willing to call it punishment. Biggest difference between jury duty and registration, you get paid for jury duty. LoL but that’s really a huge distinction when bringing up involuntary servitude.

      • Timmr

        No I’m hearing it is a hostage situation to him. And who can argue with that. Negotiate with the kidnappers to get someone off, anyone, someone like “me, look I’m not like these other guys.” It’s like getting the woman and children, the old and the mentally feeble out the door first, and letting the tougher ones remain. Those clever fakers, too, slip out. But who can blame them for wanting to.
        It’s not like getting everyone out of the back of the bus, this is a system for assigning seating arrangements.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

.