ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


ACSOLCaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: ACSOL Board Faced With “Sophie’s Choice” [updated with Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill]

During the five years in which this organization has existed, we have often heard a wish expressed – that registrants in California be treated differently, not the same.  That wish was expressed in many variations including that registrants should be treated differently according to their current risk or that registrants should be treated differently according to the offense for which they were convicted.

Those wishes are now nearing reality in the form of a tiered registry bill expected to be introduced in the state legislature early next year.  As drafted, the bill would treat registrants differently based upon both their current risk and the offense for which they were convicted by assigning them to tiers that would allow some registrants to automatically be removed from the registry while others could petition for removal after 10 or 20 years.  A final group would continue to remain on the registry for their lifetime.

If the proposed tiered registry bill becomes law, more than 10,000 registrants would “immediately” stop registering and about 60,000 registrants would “ultimately” stop registering.

The organization therefore is faced with a “Sophie’s choice”.  Do we agree to the “immediate” liberation of more than 10,000 registrants from the punishments inflicted by the registry and the “ultimate” liberation of about 60,000 registrants from the same punishments?  Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do?  And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime.

The board of directors discussed this topic in depth a week ago during its annual face-to-face meeting.  No consensus was reached, however, in part because a copy of the bill was not yet available.  Now that the bill has become available, the choice the board must make is even more stark.

The board of directors will meet again on December 8 and in the interim, the opinions of registrants and their families about the bill are being gathered.  All opinions expressed prior to the meeting will be considered.  The board of directors may or may not make a final decision regarding the bill on December 8, however, to ensure that your opinion is heard by the board of directors, please add your comment to this article before that date.

Thank you.

— by Janice Bellucci

Draft Bill

Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill

(added on 11/21)

TIER 1 (10 years)

Indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314(1), (2)); sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(e)); inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a)); annoy/molest a child under 18 (Pen. Code, § 647.6); contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Pen. Code, § 272).
Inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); sending harmful matter to a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.2); contacting a minor with intent to commit a specified sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a).)

TIER 2 (20 years)

The following offenses, most of which are serious or violent described in subdivision (c) of section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of section 1192.7:

Assault with intent to commit described sex crimes (Pen. Code, § 220); rape (Pen. Code, § 261); spousal rape with force or violence ((Pen. Code, § 262); rape in concert (Pen. Code, § 264.1); abduction for purposes of prostitution (Pen. Code, § 267); incest (Pen. Code, § 285); forcible sodomy or sodomy of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 286); lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288); continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5); forcible oral copulation or oral copulation of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288a); forcible foreign object penetration or foreign object penetration of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 289, subds. (b), (d), (e)); sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(a), (d)); solicitation of rape (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (c)); trafficking a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subds. (b), (c); out-of-state sex offenders required to register in California whose offense is not equivalent to a California registrable offense (Pen. Code, § 290.005).

TIER 3 (Lifetime)

Murder with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 187)
Kidnap with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 207, 209)
Sexually violent predators (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Sex offenders sentenced to life term (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Repeat felony child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288(a))
Forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288(b))
Aggravated child molestation (Pen. Code, § 269)
Sex crimes with child age 10 or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7)
Registered sex offenders who are convicted of a second and violent sex offense
Assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense in the commission of a first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 220(b))
Offenders with well above average risk level (formerly denominated high risk) on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Habitual sexual offenders (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have been assessed with well above average risk level on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have ever been civilly committed to a mental hospital in a proceeding equivalent to California’s sexually violent predator proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Offenders sentenced to 15 or 25 years to life for an offense listed in Section 667.61

Note: All described registrable offenses include any attempt or conspiracy to commit these crimes.


Los Angeles DA to Co-Sponsor Tiered Registry Bill

Read all Janice’s Journals




We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A bunch of obscene phone calls can put one onto tier 3.


Does the proposed bill call for Tier 1 RCs to be off the public website such as New York state? If not, can we push for that provision? What are the chances such a provision can be incorporated into the new law?

Question. If someone was convicted of crimes that the new registration would put them into tier 3- but it was one victim-family member- And their static score was low- would that mean they would be a level 3 ? In other words,is it both the static score And the offense- or one or the other- or is their discretion- like having been off parole for a good number of years?

I think everybody needs to take a very deep breath here folks. Many of the questions on this forum seem to be, “what does this do for me?” (As in, “it’s all about me.”) Janice has asked for input because she is trying to figure out whether to support this bill, or not, as a whole. For the ENTIRE group of people she is representing. We have a potential move towards the positive here. Maybe not for all, but for many. The real question is, does this bill move the majority of the entire group in a more positive direction, or not? I don’t know the answer. And I have read the bill several times. I have concerns about this bill as written. But it’s definitely a step in the right direction; for a huge amount of registrants. That said, it feels like it might be an attempt by law enforcement at “divide and conquer.” Again, I’m not sure. But everybody should try to take themselves out a step or two and look at what best for the whole group…..not just themselves. And By the way, I would qualify for Tier 1, and be able to apply for release in February of 2018. I’m still not sure this is the right move for the whole group.

As to being listed on the Internet website, the new draft bill says in 290.45 (a) (1) that it will be based on “information concerning that specific person’s current risk of sexual or violent re-offense, including but not limited to the person’s static, dynamic and violence risk levels on the SARATSO risk tools.” So, it sounds like a determination will be made for each individual, and that the Static-99R test will be the guide, more than Tier level. Comments? Janice, any idea?

Thank you Bill Arthur for responding to my question. It is not just about me but for many of us that are Tier 1 people. To respond to an earlier query, I will never abandon the fight and will always advocate for everyone caught in this wretched system.

I feel like many of our questions in this forum are simply unanswered and we are unable to make a rational, educated assessment of the bill without more information.

Sorry Bill Arthur. I have read the bill section again and do NOT see any language that specifically excludes Tier 1 people from public disclosure on the Megan’s Law website.

Just for the record, my question is not just about me, but for many of us that are Tier 1 people. To respond to an earlier query, I will never abandon the fight and will always advocate for everyone caught in this wretched system.

I feel like many of our questions in this forum are simply unanswered and we are unable to make a rational, educated assessment of the bill without more information.


Can you respond to my question? Are Tier 1 people excluded from public disclosure on the California website? What is the policy now regarding whether one is one public display or not?

Currently, information regarding individuals convicted of misdemeanor offenses as well as a small number of felonies are excluded from publication on the Megan’s Law website. According to the draft legislation, information regarding all individuals in Tier 1 would be excluded from publication that website regardless of whether their offense was a misdemeanor or a felony.

Janice, is it possible you can direct me to an attorney I can hire out in the San Fernando Courthouse area to handle reducing a felony (wobbler) Pc17b to a misdemeanor. I’ve emailed Chance O several times with the emai address you kindly provided with no answer. Any help in pointing me in the right direction will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for all your work.

Although having an attorney will help, you can actually petition the courts for a reduction on your own. I had a Felony 288 registration status for over ten years. I stepped out on faith and believed that my God can do all. Not only did I not pay a dime to submit the paperwork, but was able to persuade the courts to reduce the felony into a misdemeanor based on the “Wobbler.”

Donho ~ What were your steps in getting your felony reduced to a misdemeanor? Did you appear before the judge and did you have letters of support? What else did you provide? We would like to attempt this when off probation. I read that you can either appear in person, have an attorney speak for you, or have the probation officer send the motion in writing. Is that true and has someone gone through his probation officer with this? Thanks in advance for any tips.

Tier 3 is so broad I believe a great majority could end up there. Their risk level could be low but the crime accused would put them on tier 3.. We must continue the fight for freedom and constitutional rights restored. Everyone has a right to a life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the “unalienable rights” which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.
We have all fallen and come short weather we are willing to admit or not. Individuals need to be able to serve their time and move on with their life.
Please ASCOL and all advocate groups do not stand behind this bill.
not in favor

It seems like most of us don’t really understand this bill and its potential harm. Some say we are technically all Tier III since we are on lifetime registration but I will strongly have to disagree. About 25,000 registrants are currently not disclosed on the public website. That will change if they were to be classified as Tier III and II and possibly even Tier I. Going back to what would benefit the majority, now we are looking at about 10 000 who might benefit and 25000 who would initially suffer a bigger punishment than they anticipated before they might benefit in 10 or 20 years from now. I say might as laws as we know change for the worse and are applied retroactively. So there will be thousands of formerly excluded refgistrants who will now suffer unemployment , harassment, embarrassment etc when they have lived a more or less quiet life until now? The public will now see them as dangerous people where they were never deemed such before. It just does not look like it will benefit anyone let alone the majority.


As someone who first thought 288 (a) would be tier 3, I would have agreed with you this won’t help the majority. But the fact is the majority are 288 (a) and it will give give them all “a chance” to get off the list. Most who have been on pre-internet all have gone through what you are describing, trying to get on with your life then boom you’re on the internet. It sucked, and yes there were a ton of fires to put out and it seems like it never ends.
I don’t agree with one time non-contact offenders in tier 3. It’s going to be up to all of those who get off to be good citizens, which in turn, will hopefully help to get the non-svp tier 3’s off.

It is possible no one can understand this bill well enough yet to be 100% for or against it. It is too necessary to make assumptions.

Steve ~ I understand that most of us want the bill to pass or be rejected based on what it will mean to each of us individually. Sure, there were pre-internet people who all of a sudden appeared on the public website when Megan’s Law came into effect. It sounds like you are saying that if these people had to go through it, then it is ok for others to endure the same shame if this bill passes. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We want to move forward and not backwards. It will be a step backwards for more than twice of the people compared to those who will benefit from it. I can understand that most of us are in it for ourselves, it is human nature and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I won’t judge anyone based on what side they are on. If the bill can be amended to not affect a person’s current standing, I would vote for it. If the bill will make it worse for a great majority, I will vote against it. Pretty simple. Those who are not publicly displayed need to remain undisclosed. Those who are displayed should have a chance to petition to be removed eventually. The Static 99R is ridiculous. How can someone who has been crime free for 20 years still score the same because the static questions stay the same? That makes absolutely no sense at all and is actually very embarrassing. Lots of things to be considered!

After reading the Ohio’s proposal–I personally believe most here would be amenable to the legislation,if, and Ohio appears to put risk in the hands of the judge, they did that for us here. I think with this current legislation everyone has issue with static 99 and statutory placement, without a day in the court.

As with Ohio make falling off the registry automatic at time intervals, provided no new sex offense; allow a person to appear before a judge to express his/her feelings as to why they are not a threat, the DA can still appear to represent the people. The purpose of the appearance would be for the removal prior to the tier expiration date, down grading of tier. no reliance on static 99, totally an impartial juror’s discretion.

I know I’d sign up for that!

no no no should be the government’s burden to prove, with clear and convincing evidence standard that someone is a danger to the public….that is the onky way a registry can pass constitutional scrutiny..
we are not professional lawyers or public speakers and I am sure a large number of people would be nervous and unable to articulate their case especially in court room setting..court rooms are very intimidating and like i said the burden of proof should be on the government who are trained public debaters..
the entire judicial system is mired in enequality because the prosecution has way more experience than any public defenders and have and use their endless resources to win their cases..this is also something that someone needs to bring suit and challenge the Courts on this subject..

Mike R

I didn’t mean to nor did I suggest one’s day in court couldn’t be represented by council, nor did I suggest that the” people ” shouldn’t have such a high burden to prove one is a risk.

All-in-all I simply stated to eliminate the static 99 and to replace it with a day in court, make falling off the registry at timed intervals automatic, allow folks to petition the court prior to the statutory term limits to either be relieved or reduced in tier status–

Yes I really did say all of that one just needs to read what’s in print, not what they want to see.

I know you did I just wanted to point out that a lot of people can’t afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges…the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own little less to be able to successfully debate or prove that you meet all the requirements and don’t pose a significant risk to the public…that’s all I’m saying…I can pretty safely hypothesis that very very few will ever get relief under this petitioning the court standard outlined in this bill…this can in no way be construed to satisfy the procedural due process that each and every one of us deserve….not saying you stated against anything I just posted I’m just pointing out those factors.

man why does everyone have to be so condescending and relatively rude in their comments at least towards me..

“Yes I really did say all of that one just needs to read what’s in print, not what they want to see.”

Is it just me or is that statement uncivil and rude..makes me feel like you’re insulting my intellect by inferring that I can not read or comprehend what was said..i don’t know maybe it’s just me but I don’t think so..

It’s just you Mike r. It’s the way you communicate things.

To be fair, you’ve said some things that were seen as the same way. Yes it was a little snippy but id gain a thicker skin and/or give it back to them.

Either way, I usually find the people saying “read it again” to have just not liked what’s being said. So yeah, most calling for better reading comprehension are usually the dumbasses that aren’t able to think their way outta a brown paper bag. Your mileage may vary.

never mind.. this has been a very productive and civil comments section so forget what I said and continue to focus on the topic before this turns into a bash mike r onslaught…lmfao

Here is my unsolicited advice for the board: You should stay neutral. The role of the organization should be to provide as much detailed information about the bill as possible, such as the key dates, the key players, etc. To take a position in favor of the bill implies that you are leaving behind a significant number of registrants. The registry is useless and punitive and supporting a bill the keeps someone on is something of a betrayal to them. On the other hand, the idea of giving 70,000 registrants an offramp is quite alluring. In the end, the strength of the organization is the ability to speak as one. So we cannot just ignore the suffering of any registrant. Additionally, I question the value of our support of a bill. Which legislature will be swayed by our endorsement? I think the board should stay out of the lobbying business and stay in the information business.

ACSOL is an advocacy organization that conducts lobbying. Therefore, we will have a position on the Tiered Registry Bill and we will share that position with members of the state legislature despite requests by members of the CA Sex Offender Management Board and others to remain silent.

Thank you Janice for not being silent!

Wow. CASOMB would actually request that a civil rights organization remain “silent” on a bill? That seems disturbing.

BTW, another (in my opinion) very shady organization is the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders Review Committee. Also known as “SARATSO,” it consists of unknown representatives from the California Attorney General’s Office, California Department of Corrections and REHABILITATION, and the California Department of State Hospitals. SARATSO and CASOMB are who peddles for use of the Static-99R:

Wow on the Static-99R!

“3) Any recidivism included all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated.”

So to know the far reaches of recidivism, meaning the most common recidivism, we would have to know what a “breach of conditional release” might be, how often it happens, and is it something that would terrify the people if they knew about it.

Anyone know what these breaches might be? Is it possible parole and probation officers can keep control of the high recidivism statistic by violating offenders for mild or petty breaches? What would the statistic be if only re-sex offense were measured?

To add to my comment, this would seem to violate the purpose of the registry given that the registry’s purpose is to help law enforcement track new sex crimes by RCs. Most of the Static-99R, by counting all recidivism, including minor “breaches,” goes well beyond that purpose of the registry. Since it measures all risk, including minor breaches, could there be an equal protection issue because it falls into the landscape of all offenders?

Once again, I think taking this to an Administrative Law Judge, since it is civil and not punishment, would be the way to challenge this. ALJs also wouldn’t have the confirmation bias baggage of having sentenced someone to life because of a bogus Static-99.

It’s a vague phrase to be sure. I’m going to join in saying the Static is a scam. But it is quite troubling that CA SOMB, SARATSO, CDCR, DOJ are so invested into selling the Static 99R as some sort of “scientific” tool when it clearly isn’t. I don’t think the government really expected the sheep (which is how they often see us) to investigate the shallow statistics behind the Static 99 scam.

Where are you seeing this? Please link.


I had problems finding Not Really’s quote on the Static-99R scam’s Coding Rules. But I did a Google search and apparently it’s found on page 7 of the recent (UNPUBLISHED) “study” by the California DOJ, Carleton University, and R. Karl Hanson:

It’s a good observation for sure. And I’m afraid the CA DOJ, Hanson, and his manipulative cohorts at Carleton University included “[a]ny recidivism includ[ing] all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated” for one reason:

1. To exaggerate the Static-99R scam’s accuracy. Without the extra qualifiers, I doubt the DOJ would have been able to come up with figures substantiating the “high risk sex offender” label.

What’s sad is that even with the over-inclusive phrase of ‘recidivism,’ this pseudo study is only examining the Static-99R scam for a period of ONLY five-years.

Good job “Not Really.” Good eye. None of us caught this flaw until you pointed it out.

Am I right in saying they, CASOMB, SARATSO, like using the Static because it puts the power to determine the mental proclivities of the ex offender squarely in the hands of law enforcement rather than with a medical professional who has exstensive knowlege of mental health. Am I right, Static-99R can be scored by any law official to determine the possible behavior of an offender? Only a licensed physician was allowed to perform a psycological evaluation, at least before CASOMB.


I think you’re right. Also, there seems to be a lot of money and powers given to SARATSO (by the Legislature) in deciding that the Static-99R is allegedly an accurate “tool.” SARATSO, the CA DOJ, CASOMB, and CDCR has put a lot of investment, political capital, and credibility into making people believe that the Static is accurate. What’s troubling is that many (but not all) mental health “experts,” too, believe that the Static is an accurate tool. So much so that, at least in this draft bill, it should be used to classify Tier 3’s.

What’s tragic is that they are all wrong. As you can see with the Karl Hanson/Carleton University/CA DOJ “study,” and their over-inclusive definition of “recidivism,” they have been so invested in selling the Static-99R that they’re willing to manipulate the very definition of “recidivism” in an attempt to induce a predetermined conclusion in trying to show that the Static is credible. To me, it seems a desperate attempt to continue to sell the Static-99R scam.

Think about it. I’m sure there are many people in SARATSO, CASOMB, the CA DOJ, and CDCR who have spent much of their careers bragging about how great the Static scam is. For them to admit that the Static-99R is complete junk pseudo science — especially at this point — would make them all look really bad.

This is not about the truth. It’s about politics.

Static-99/R may ONLY be administered by a licensed mental health professional, trained in it’s administration. Mine was done during the too short period of the appellate court ruling on 8th amendment unequal enforcement. The lawyer dawdled and showed up to court with incomplete paperwork so I lost out… But I have a static-99!

Law enforcement likes it because they can blame someone else if something goes wrong.
They’re as risk adverse as anyone else these days

Good point, but it looks like it is structured so that even the clinician can not be blamed for an “objective” scoring, if something goes wrong.

Since I am from WI. this will not directly affect me. Seeing some movement is nice. It shows me that we are making an impact. i tend to think that something else besides (helping the few registrants) is at the root of this. Obviously all politicians at this point seem to fear aligning with our cause. Getting some parallel language in this bill to aid in our cause may be helpful. Quoting reasons for change because recidivism rates used to fashion previous legislation were proved false etc. may help our cause. Also accepting the static 99 test in this legislation is hurtful. This may be an opportunity to help get this “tool” reformed. —— Good luck Janice with your decision. As long as I see positive action my support/$ is behind you.


While I feel for those that may not get off the list, here is my short story.
My last offence was in 86, in Calif. Since then I have been clean, I have never been in a court for my own doings since then. Since then I have graduated from two Bible Schools, earned a Ph.D, Had my own Bible school. I have been living in same home for 22 years,(out of state) married to the same lady for 32 years, Get this, Pastoring a Church for 22 years. The State I live in has a tiered system and I am not even on it, I called the Police Dept. and they told me that I am not a risk but I have to reg. because it followed me from CA. Thank You Janice and Chance for all you are doing, keep up the good work.

Mike R is right about “a lot of people can’t afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges…the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own… ”

Not only that, but even if you get a good attorney, the likelihood of a sex offender getting good representation is low, and the publicly elected judge granting it is even lower. These people have friends and family that won’t look kindly on them supporting a sex offender when they can’t be 100% certain they won’t re-offend and the judges have to get re-elected.

The only way legislation will help get people off the registry is if it is automatic at a particular time or after particular events. Period. Sure, a few minor cases will miraculously get approval to be removed, but the majority will not. Quit kidding yourself that a “day in court” is all you need to show what a great person you have become because it won’t matter. I’ve seen it first hand in Texas. It doesn’t work.

Until the right lawyers with the right clients get a good case in front of appointed lifetime judges like SCOTUS the relief to registered citizens won’t come.

This bill is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think many here are very astute to have pointed out the Static 99R’s use in classifying Tier III’s. This is really what this bill is about. A “risk” based registry. In theory “risk” based sounds great. But when it relies on junk science like the Static scams, then I’m afraid it ain’t no better than offense based registries. In fact I think this bill is a lot worse than what we have now. As of now, this bill seems completely intended to divide the movement against the registry. CA SOMB manipulation at its best!!

Hope you people don’t fall for it. But it seems many have already taken the bait.

Many more oppose it. You’ll always get people who don’t bother checking anything and blindly trust, those who don’t comprehend everything and the practical applications of it and those that are completely self-focusing.

Gotta “ignore” that and push for what’s right.

According to the draft legislation, I would be off the registry immediately. But I oppose the bill because I simply don’t trust the DA or the courts or any politician. The bill is WAY too complicated and there are too man opportunities to screw us.

I see a lot of push back on this from the people that it won’t likely help. It is not perfect, but 10,000 people dropping off instantly, and 60,000 people eventually sounds pretty good to me. Of course I hope that the vast majority of people remaining that don’t deserve to, and society is not helped by them being in the registry, shouldn’t have to register. I know I’ll get slayed by this, but there is no doubt that some people, a small fraction, the worst of the worst who do deserve, and society is helped, by them being on the registry.

Yes you will and you deserve it. That’s exactly the kind of goofball thinking that has allowed this country to slip to where it is. The ends justify the means mentality.

I don’t care what a person does, they deserve all of their rights back after they have satisfied their punishments. If you don’t trust them, then don’t let them out.

You give zero incentive for an offender to stop by sticking their faces on a public site. Absolutely assbackwards thinking.

As for the 60,000 “eventually” bit… Bullshit, this is nothing but a trojan horse. They’re maneuvering to get ahead of what they see coming.

We’re at the initial stages of this shit unraveling. Kansas has spoke up, the 6th and now the 4th.

Already we’ve had cases, if I’m not mistaken, that trounced lifetime registration so why not go after 290 itself? Why not a direct approach that would help far greater numbers.

So i see a tier 3 288 (a) as a “lifetime” if a person is a repeat offender (BUT) 288 (B ) is the same as ( a ) but by the means of force violence menace or fear, so what if the person had 1 conviction of 288 ( A ) and has already been on registry for 22 years? (since 97) and had no other sex related issues and never been to prison? i ask because i see that tier 3 also has that –forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14– *288 (B)—- so heres where im confused?? how can a person have 1 single conviction 288 (A) only time in trouble but tier 3 is also putting * (a) and (B) as 1 sentence?? 288 (A) is the intent to *NOW* 288 ( B ) is by means of force,, and court records show there was no force? -from california-

*Janice please*

yeah abolish these people just don’t get it…you or I or anyone else for that matter can pound our fist and beat this horse to death and they still wont get it…Hey that fourth circuit ruling though…look out man because its coming….Just like you and I and a few others have stated where is the justification fr these laws???show us the empirical evidence and prove that we pose a significant enough risk to justify the registry, we have more overwhelming evidence that the registry is actually counterproductive then the government can bring in favor of its registry….Ive been right about every issue thats came up about all this crap and I hate to say it but Im telling you IML law suit the way it is and was argued will not prevail, this tiered bill is going to pass and does absolutely nothing for the remaining people except create the real possibility of becoming even bigger targets for these vindictive legislators, but the good news is is that there will be a challenge for the government to prove their case and support it with evidence and not just suppositions..Its coming….

The challenge is to do it competently and still get ahead of the rest of the pack before things are whittled down. It’s a race to the finish line and unfortunately I’m dragging my body along with two broke legs financially.

It’ll be years before I’m ready at this pace. Maybe you will beat me to it. 🙂

according to saratso their is supposed to be at least 5 or 6 tiers so there is really no telling what kind of pseudo junk tool they’re going to use….and what the heck they cant even find a study or statistical data from the US they are importing this junk pseudo science and statistics from Canada….so they just troll the world to find stats or prediction tools and pick one that fits their needs….not only is this so called tool pseudo science it doesn’t even reflect or take into account anything about the US’s research, findings, or stats.our experts,especially our statisticts and data here in this country paint a very different picture than Canada’s..they relied upon very limited studies that were mostly done years ago and were biased to boost these authors and creators credibility of this junk science…their recidivism rates were dramatically higher in their limited studies then all of our multitudes of studies by independent and even governmental seems we should be using our own data and conclusions instead of trolling other countries throwing what they say or have on the proverbial wall here in the US to see of it sticks…

I oppose this bill. If ACSOL decides to support this bill, I will no longer support ACSOL. Period. This organization could decide to look after ALL registrants. Sure, this bill will help 10,000. But it’s at the expense of the rights of 30,000 people who will be singled out as Tier III! As a civil rights group, you people should not be doing this! Even though CA is a lifetime state, it still is a lot better than most other states. This tiered system will make it worse for a lot of people. And this bill is a lot worse than the lifetime law we have now. The mere fact that ACSOL seems set in leisurely throwing a bunch of arbitrarily defined Tier IIIs under the bus really has me troubled about the direction of this organization. The fact that corrupt police and law enforcement want a tiered registry should have us estimating what monster a tiered system may eventually evolve to. Since when have the police and sheriff been on our side? Cops don’t care about the Constitution. They are not anyone’s friends.

I have seen many people expressing frustration at ACSOL’s position and I just don’t understand it. This is a HUGE step in the right direction. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean ACSOL supports a tiered registry or that they will stop fighting for constitutional registration laws. They naturally prefer it over a lifetime registry for all registered citizens, and rightly so.

If you are of the small majority that fit into tier 3 listed above and you think that a 19 year old who had consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or a person convicted of looking at child porn, or a person who flashed someone deserves to be treated the same as you, well then you are in the same league as the people who concocted these draconian laws in the first place.

Tiered registry is not good. So I disagree with you 100%. While I respect your position, there are some things you could consider to think about.

For you, it might seem like a “HUGE step in the right direction.” But for others, this tiered bill is at the expense of other people’s rights. And only one law from CA evolving into a more draconian Adam Walsh Act state (with mandatory 90 day, 6 month, and 12 month registration periods). The proponents of this tiered bill keep failing to recognize that any tiered bill is an “unfunded mandate.” And to fund this mandate, the state has a big incentive to switch to Adam Walsh status to secure federal funds to pay for any modification to our current registry.

And we should really be questioning whether a true civil rights organization would advocate for any law that would put thousands of people in a worse position than they were previously. Also, I disagree with your assertion that about 10,000 people who will be elevated to Tier III is a “small majority.” 10,000 people is a big number. Neither is the 60,000 Tier II’s, whose removal from the registry is far from guaranteed (given the politicization of our courts, as well as the many exceptions and guidelines under the draft that would keep any Tier II from eventually getting off). Also, what is to guarantee CA from extending Tier I and Tier II registration periods in the future, as they recently did in NY state?

Also, for your information, the hypothetical case of “child porn,” as well as your other hypothetical case of someone who “flashed someone,” has a higher likelihood of falling into Tier III. That is because under the Static-99R, non-contact offenses are scored with greater severity. As are stranger and unrelated victims.

So because scoring high on the Static-99R alone will get someone into Tier III, the last two scenarios that you use in your very own example has the ironic result of very likely arguing against the very position that you offer — as both would very likely falling into Tier III status (given that they are both non-contacts and tend to have stranger and unrelated victims).

I don’t understand how that helps support your position that the tiered registry is supposed to be better?

Also, I just wanted to correct myself. The number would not be 10,000 people elevated to Tier III; but rather, there would be about 30,000 people given the Tier III label (which is obviously a lot worse).

So to rebut ExpasRFSO’s claim that 30,000 people given the Tier III label is a “small majority,” I think you might be mistaken. Because 30,000 Tier III’s is not a small number. Neither is 60,000 Tier I’s and II’s.

Also, to question Janice’s claim in the above post, why does she say that “about 60,000 registrants would ‘ultimately’ stop registering[?]” What is to guarantee that anyone, other than the about 10,000 pre-1987 offenders, will “ultimately stop registering?” If this law truly depends on the discretion of the Courts, and given the endless exemptions and qualifications under this draft, how can you say that 60,000 would “ultimately stop registering?” The reality is that very few of the 60,000 may be granted a petition to terminate registration duties.

We need to be honest about this bill. Because it is being sugarcoated. When in reality, it is going to hurt and a disappoint a lot of people.

If the judges and prosecutors are anything like in Texas, than only 1/3 of those that meet all the criteria to be removed and have the support of treatment providers will actually get approved. Some judges just don’t do it, and some will only consider it for certain nuisance crimes.

Excellent posts by you and Chris F showing the BS that’s floated before us.

So I was browsing the web and encountered this link:

Although it founded low level registrants excessive (hey, why can’t we use this for California???), but it did comment on Tiers II and Tiers III in its ruling:

Specifically, the Court held that requiring “all tier II and tier III offenders be registered for life without regard to whether they pose a current risk to the public” was excessive. As such, the statute had a punitive effect on Doe. It was this provision alone that led the Court to its conclusion that a risk assessment hearing was required.

I didn’t know NH called registration punitive? The article was published March 31st, 2016.

On another note, I found this article:

The more courts differ in outcomes, the better the chances the SCOTUS will be forced to re-visit this issue.

Can a punitive effect be equaled to being an actual punishment? That is the question a legal someone (e.g. judge, scholar or atty) with authority should answer in a decision no less, but in an interview would be just as helpful.

It has been said the registry is not a punishment and has never been intended to be that way, but only exists for the safety, blah blah blah (you know the song and dance)…..Therefore, if it appears that way as a punishment and feels that way as a punishment, tough for you Mr. and Mrs. RC., it is only the collateral effect of it, not the intent. XOXO The Courts

However, can you have an effect without the actual preceding item(s), e.g. a punitive effect without actually implementing punishment? No, you cannot, even without the intent as noted through empirical evidence. For a simple example, you cannot warm a room through a fireplace fire without a source, oxygen and fuel (the 3 things req’d) to provide the warmth without the unintended (positive) lighting effect on the room.

You cannot have safety without unintended consequences (good and bad) that may need to be addressed down the line. If it is a good unintended consequence, you take credit for it and further it if needed. If it is a bad unintended consequence and it negatively impacts the environment, including people, it needs to be addressed for rectification to minimize or do away with the negative impact. How it is seen as negative is always up to debate (big or small) or none possibly. Not everyone will see it as negative; thus, the unintended consequence needs to be addressed. Once you show you can have a punitive (negative) effect without an actual intended punishment in place, you are making the punitive (negative) effect equal to a punishment in the end.

(This is the great debate on a law’s letter, intent and spirit.)

If the intent of the law is not met, the registry does not save children, it even harms some, then the negative effects serve no other purpose than to limit the rights of citizens as mere retribution. Retribution is punishment. It is not a quality of regulation.

Recall, all those fears that it could be punishment were all deemed conjecture by the SCOTUS, including not infringing upon housing and employment.

Well, you are excluded from several employment as a registrant. We have proof that housing is a problem with the re:Taylor case in Cali, but to the letter of the law, Taylor only pertains to parolees.

So everything the SCOTUS deemed conjecture at the time has gone well beyond. All the rules and regulations thereafter never take that into account, only the bending of the rules – it’s regulatory, not punishment. Remember, that was just for post cards. Nowadays, you are compelled to go into the police department at least once a year; and for some more than once. Well, now that’s crossed into actual service for the state.

Regulation, but not punishment – compelled service due to dominance is prohibited as it’s called “involuntary servitude”. As stated specifically in both the US and California Constitutions, “Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.” Regulation cannot supersede involuntary servitude as it is stated any compelled service cannot be administered unless to punish a crime.

The collateral damages initiate the bill of Attainder and social death aspects of law.

Also, i found this tidbit in wikipedia:

The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution;[21] even in Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Clause protected “the right to enter any other State whenever they [citizens] pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at any hour of the day or night without molestation,” but no African-American could have this right.[22]

Once you’re out of punishment custody, then you regain the right to become a citizen again. Well, in Cali, a 1203.4 is supposed to relieve one of all penalties and disabilities because you’re considered rehabilitated. The privileges and immunities Clause lies within the 14th amendment. “Without obstruction” is very key here along with “to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at any hour of the day or night without molestation.”

According to the 14th amendment, it appears that registration obstructs travel. with a 1203.4, you’ve actually have more claim as you’ve legally gained the rights as a citizen again as it’s stated within statute “relieved of all penalties and disabilities” (paraphrasing).

There are so many laws on the books that judges and DA’s can be fully ignorant of the law. Again, I had to have an appellate lawyer re-affirm that once you’ve successfully completed registration, that the 1203.4 is automatically awarded to you by law (provided you qualify for 1203.4). The judge in my case was inclined to deny it. The DA in my case petitioned against it. The probation office wrote a recommendation saying I had done everything correct to their satisfaction, but highly recommended against the 1203.4. Odd thing is, the statute removed all three factions from playing any determinant in the 1203.4.

BTW, I presume this will probably be the likely response for any registrant willing to petition off the registry. Do everything correct, but still deemed a monster. Still believe in this tier and petition ruse?

How can one tell to which tier a person would be designated based on his Static-99 score? I saw a comment on here somewhere that a score of 5 would designate someone as a Tier 1, but a 6 would be a Tier 3. So what is a Tier 2? And where in the bill are these classifications by Static-99 score outlined? Perhaps I overlooked that section.

Perhaps this is one of the last few comments before decisions are made about whether to modify,oppose or endorse this bill.let me remind everyone that the piling on of additional restrictions (sora,megans law,etc) is unconstitutional at both state and federal use the arguement that it is not punitive cannot hold up any longer. Additional restrictions and laws are ex post facto punishment. California may have a lifetime registration for all sex offenders presently but additional restrictions after ones conviction should not be applied. And its not right to alter registration time into tiers,singling out and changing who will get off in this ammount of years.many registered citizens would not have agreed to a so called plea ‘bargain’ had they known of these future restrictions as well as the public registry.everyone should get off registration after parole. The police have their own records. Thats enough. California,let your people go.there are other jobs than hounding people with the lowest recidivism rates. Easy money is often not good money.

This tiered registration bill is actually worse than the lifetime bill that we now have. Oppose it! Do not support it!

I don’t understand the 1987 thing! I was sited for peeing in public type situation only. Nothing before, Nothing after. I never even went to jail. From court I was assigned a probation officer for 1 year and told to check in with the SO to register for life. I did community service and got off of probation in only 6 months because the Judge realized the insignificance in nature of my crime and I followed all the orders promptly. He told me he never saw anyone complete their community service as consistently as me and complete it so fast. I even went to counseling for a couple months and was given a report to hand in stating that I was not at risk to ever offend again. I wanted to put it all in the past after that first 6 months was over but for the last 23 years I’ve had to feel the shame and register as a SEX OFFENDER. I have been told it is not punitive, however, I live in a small to medium town. I know the Administrators at the local college. I actually have several police officer and sheriff friends that I’ve made over the years. Most of them don’t know anything about it. What if I get pulled over? I wanted to go to college many times and better my situation. But if I register with the campus police, Administration finds out, That person knows me and my family and where I work. They tell one person and I can get fired for being a SEX OFFENDER. When the ordinance was in place for distance restrictions to Parks and Schools with my kids, I would go paranoid that I was going to get in some kind of trouble. Every time see people In the back of my head i’m thinking SEX OFFENDER. SEX OFFENDER. I feel so bad inside and get depressed. I’ve done nothing to deserve these things! I don’t even have parking tickets! I have been held back in my education and many other things because of this. IT IS PUNITIVE!! I feel it every day! I have often thought of offing myself because of it. I would never do that but I’ve gone down that thought process many times. In conclusion: What did I do that makes me not fall off because I got convicted 1 time for misdemeanor indecent exposure in 1994. Where people that have done much worst but got convicted pre 1987 get to fall of and not have to petition. I’m being selfish because I want a Tiered System as I know I will be able to get this put behind me soon. But if I”m supposed to only spend 10 years and I’ve almost hit 23 years, why should I have to petition for relief? Why even say that a Tier 1 will be relieved of duty to register after 10 years if that is not really true?

I do not agree with this bill.

This is the day. So what’s the word from the board: yea, nay or a little of both?

Can someone enlighten me as to where I fall on this tiered system.. I can’t seem to be able to although I am assuming I’m tier one. Very low static 99 either 0 or 1, can’t remember, very low on mandatory SO class.
charged with 288(c)(1) and 288a(b)(1)
No prison. 5 years probation off in 4 years.
Also does “time of completion of the designated tier runs from the date of release from custody” refer to incarceration time only or would that include probation, meaning time starts after release from probation?
Thank you to whomever can answer these questions for me.

I see more responses that are opposed to a tiered registry. Even those who live in states that currently have the tiered registry advise against it, and that should be our first clue. During the time a tiered registry would be introduced, I can just visualize all the new laws they will try to implement. It could even effect those “lucky” ones who might get off if they introduce new rules, which will be their rules of course. It will give them added ammunition. I am not in favor of this at all. It will also prove to them that a registry is necessary. I’d rather keep fighting to get it abolished all together. There are class action suits, mass action suits, and we are becoming more angry. Enough is enough!

Does anyone know what the Static-99 scores are for Tier II?
The main post only mentions the Static-99 scores for Tier III (well above average risk level).

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x