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
Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill
(added on 11/21)
TIER 1 (10 years)
Misdemeanors
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).
Felonies
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.
Related
Los Angeles DA to Co-Sponsor Tiered Registry Bill
Read all Janice’s Journals
So I don’t even really understand this draft to the point where I could tell how it will affect me personally. I will be checking with my lawyer about that. But I’m confused about some of these comments. Can’t we continue the fight on a federal level to abolish the registry AND have a tiered registry in CA? Are these two goals mutually exclusive?
If they are not mutually exclusive then we should take progress, if it in fact really is progress. I say that because there is one point that I see brought up several times that does concern me. The idea that we have to petition to be taken off the list. So my question to Janice and her team is: on a practical level what is the benefit of this bill over the current system that that allows us to petition of a certificate of rehab after 10 years?
So even for the non-contact offenders, the Static 99R will be THE controlling factor in determining whether one belongs belongs in the Tier III category? What is this? “The Minority Report”?!?!
WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS BILL!
All those in support of this bill have clearly NOT read the bill. The devil is in the details.
As it stands this bill is nothing but a “dangling carrot” meant to deceive us into thinking it’s a progressive improvement. It is NOT.
We will be WORSE off. There will be NO SOs “immediately” getting off. All this bill does it put control back in the hands of local DA/municipalities and corrupt/brown-nosing legislators.
Also, at least 10,000 previously unpublished SOs will have their information published and their lives destroyed even further.
I believe this is an attempt to maintain control over the registry under the pretense of a “progressive tiered system” due to the increasing scrutiny that SO laws have been getting.
DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL.
So glad to see so many of us giving our input. I wish the people who make these laws that cause so much harm in our lives would read these posts. At minimum they would realize that we’re all just people who want to feel human again.
Regarding the bill, it makes very little sense to support it as is. Just about everyone who is classified tier 1 is eligible for a COR which you can get in 10 years anyway. This is a scam folks. They’re giving us something we already have and if we agree, the men and women who remain registered will face more scrutiny from both the law and the public.
This bill has to be amended to allow EVERYONE to obtain a COR. I don’t know why some of us can and some us us can’t get it. You are either reformed or you are not. We should have protection from this sort of ambiguity in the law.
Secondly, I’d love to see verbiage in the bill that eliminates ex post facto increases in limitations for those who will remain registered. I’d hate to see us sell each other out for a small return.
Another item of concern to me is petitioning to be removed. Those who are eligible need to be dropped automatically without applying to an elected official who may see a political benefit to interfere.
While true freedom would be an all out abolishment of the registry, I don’t consider it realistic. We’re a very important piece of the fear machine that makes a lot of money for a lot of shitty people. If we are going to agree to a reformed registry, it needs to liberate all whom deserve it. Let’s keep this discussion going and make our voices heard.
I am not a California resident so this would not directly affect me.
But I feel that any attempt by the criminal politicians to polish their illegal, immoral, un-American turd, should be completey rejected. The only thing that is acceptable to Americans is to destroy the Registries.
When I read people asking about how the bill will affect them personally, I find it to be quite offensive. I feel that attitude is how the U.S. got into its Registry mess and witch hunt. People seem to be good with the Registries as long as they are not being affected. I feel like those people would get off of the Registries and never lift a finger again to oppose them.
I have been listed for 2 decades and I’m surely a “low level” former offender. But I won’t ever forsake people who are listed for life. F the un-Americans who think the Registries are okay just as long as they only list “those people”.
Hope and prayers! No public registry. It kills by 1000 cuts. It only creates panic. It helps no ones safety. It prevents re integration into society. Its probably costly too- though some folks make a living that way- but there’s more humane ways -please. I’m praying that no one can be bumped up a tier retroactively. And please-if a tiered registry with possibilitys to get off is implemented,do not go past that 17 year maximum registry requirement for any RC. Provided no new sex crime convictions during that period. The laws were made for man(and women). Not- man or woman for the law. Let’s have fair and just laws. And stop the panic buttom costly laws.
I see a problem with this bill. There is no way for those who would be placed in the tier 3 category. There are those of us like myself whose crime is listed one way but had a totally different meaning because of the way it was written with no variation as to the penal code to differentiate between a crime with a child or an adult. Such as an example of 288a(c) which is oral copulation with a child under the age of 14…. OR BY FORCE in which the victim was an ADULT , NOT a child. In essence, the person is labeled as a CHILD MOLESTER when the opposite is true. So how do people have any chance of getting off the registry? Again, we are just lepor’s with no right to live a normal life, or have a girl friend or a family for fear of placing our families in harm’s way, or having a good job, or a nice place to live. Not even the right to travel outside of the USA. Now they want to ban us from watching our kids in a school play or be able to attend college classes to better ourselves.
God Bless America!!!
Third, the people who crafted this bill used the 10,000 old-timers as leverage — not unlike a hostage situation — to have those that will benefit sellout to the cause as a whole. So at the end, the real people who pay the true Constitutional consequence are those who are labeled “Tier 3.” Meanwhile, Tier 2’s are stuck in a sort of Twilight Zone (wondering if their petition will be granted or whether the tiers will be extended in the future). Meanwhile, the CASOMB crafters of this bill are well-aware that their new tiered bill is a perfect setup for becoming an Adam Walsh Act state. Because you know what? Sharper Future (as well as CASOMB) will LOVE LOVE LOVE that new federal funding. It’s all part of a corrupt political system — and I don’t think any one person can stop it. Not especially after seeing the process highjacked what seemed to have been a noble civil rights group.
Thank you for your leadership, Janice.
This proposed bill comes in the wake of the recent tightening of certificate of rehabilitation availability.
The two reflect an attempt to reform the registry regime by narrowing its focus … Only “really bad people” will stay on for 20 years or life.
I would support the proposed bill. Relative freedom for some, sooner, is better. But we must continue to press the issue: Does the registry do what it’s supposed to do? Does it reduce crime?
The public registry is expensive to maintain. It debilitates registrants and their families. It frightens communities. It’s arguably un-American. Unless it can be shown by data to benefit society, these costs are an inexcusable waste.
In addition to what everyone has said that is bad about this if this does pass there has to be something in this bill that states it would be illegal and punsihable if third party sites continued to publish people’s names who were lucky enough to be removed.
After reading the bill twice, I still don’t understand it and still don’t know how much it will help me, if at all.
A few guesses so far:
1. The bill reflects the 3 Tiered system already in place. Yes, it’s there. Some offenses can petition to removed from the public registry. Some others do not require the DOJ to post home address, and, finally, what could be called the 3rd Tier, the DOJ is required to includes the home address be public. So the registry was already divided. This bill seems to reflect that to a degree as a starting point, but it is not a perfect reflection.
2. It incorporates the Three Strikes law violent or serious felonies law. In other words, it appears those with a strike offense will have a lot more trouble getting off the registry. I did not research this in depth.
3. If the petition goes through the police department, then the DA, and it is denied, it is possible to try again within 5 years at the most. A judge could set 1 – 5 years as the “postponement” limit, it seems. After whatever the limit the judge set, a person could try again.
4. It uses the current Static-99r procedure, and that means it is not meant for older offenses. That takes into account “ageing out.” Does that mean those with a current Static-99r of medium or high will not have that after the time period of accuracy expires (provided they stay out of trouble)? After the expiration date, could the person petition for an updated score and then an accurate score would be impossible because the score would no longer apply to that now outdated older case?
These are just initial reactions and questions and they could be wrong. It is very difficult to read.
Overall, I support the bill.
The reality is that any tiered registry that passes will not be good for everyone. I can understand that those that will be categorized as tier 3 will be in a very tough situation, being perceived as higher risk. However, there are elements of the new law that are moving in the right direction. For one, having limits on how long you register (at least for some individuals). Second, taking into account some sort of risk assessment.
I don’t know how static the tier classification will be. Can you demonstrate with time that you are not “high risk” and be shift from tier 3 to 2 to 1? It would be great to have some sort of mechanism to do this.
The registry is unsustainable in terms of the amount of resources that go into it. I’m glad people in government are realizing this. It’s an expensive waste of money that does not protect victims and punishes families that are trying to contribute positively to society.
The proposed bill in its current form would still have men and women who’ve never had an actual, identifiable victim, on the registry for 20 years or life. Outrageous and unnecessary.
I’m shocked that some members would even consider this proposed bill,that the organization
would view this as Sophie’s choice and consider it .I have been on the registry for 34 years,convicted of 288(a)
in 1982,there a lot of people that have been convicted of 288(a),your asking them to be completely destroyed,a lot have young families that will be destroyed.This proposed bill needs changes to include
288(a) having a time limit and not being bumped up to tier 3.If people with 288(a) get bumped up to tier 3,besides them being on megans web site,and reporting every 3 months,harassment by the police,public notification,possibly getting attacked.It will occur to the dirty politicians that this mass in flux of
tier 3 people constitute a threat to the public and likely will pass a restriction bill to apply to these people this will result in a lot being homeless and jobless.If this proposed bill did not help me,and simply left me in the same situation that would be ok,if it released a lot of other people.It completely will destroy anyone having a 288(a) conviction,so no way,a very bad proposed bill.
I hope everyone understands. I’ve been here almost 30 years & it never gets better. Every chance they get they just pile on more bull$#/+. They have the Supreme Court telling them, “it”s not punishment!” So they add more laws and punishments to go with them. & in this draft the DA still has too much power. How much relief can we really expect from a group financially motivated to keep us registered? This is political. Reforming Criminal Law by saying, “Look we’re letting go of all these previously registered sex offenders.” & the other’s have to petition for relief? The system they have now is so impossible I’ve had lawyers say “Don’t waste your money!” I can ‘t imagine the hurdles & flaming hoops they have planned. & before we were all so bad they placed us all in one group. All of the sudden, about 1% of us, without questioning or screening, are stable enough to be unsupervised. However, don’t expect to travel!
I’m afraid this is going to pass when the voter’s hear that it’s backed by the DA. The police, sheriff & attorney general will probably back it too. I believe these people are not our friends & we should be highly suspicious and cautious anytime they label something sex offender & present it to voters. I also believe that support for this tiered system will indeed somehow justify the registry.
EX-POST FACTO, BILL OF ATTAINDER, RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, REDEFINING THE REGISTRY AS PUNISHMENT; the registry should be fought with every & all issues. Accepting this proposal is justifying the registry.
“Good Parents don’t need Sex Offender Registries!”
A tiered system bill would not help me today, since I would be in the third tier. However I support it.
I think we need to fight the registry on two fronts: (1) challenge its constitutionality, and (2) supporting a tiered system.
But I believe challenging its constitutionality will FAIL in the short term because politicians, the courts, and the public will not suddenly drop their fear of RCs after decades of fear-mongering.
I believe a tiered system would eventually help lessen their fear of those of us in tier 3.
Here is why:
Human nature is such that we need to have evidence that what we believe is false before we will change our beliefs. This is especially true for highly emotional issues surrounding RC policy.
Hyper-conservative California politicians often object to the tier system, saying that when tens of thousands of people are gradually released from the registry it would cause a huge increase in offenses against children.
However, when a tiered system passes and that does NOT happen, people will see that their fears are proven unjustified, and would be more open to allowing tier 3 RCs to apply for release from the registry.
This is similar to how gathering statistics on recidivism of RCs over the years resulted in proving low re-offense rates, forcing people to think twice about their incorrect preconceptions of high recidivism, which opened a dialog around the nation on alternatives to treating every RC as a dangerous monster.
Janice, here are my thoughts about the matter (Note: I would be a tier two):
If you do end up supporting the bill, I believe you would need to fight tooth and nail to remove the power of the DA in this draft. It should be when your time is up, then you are automatically off. If the DA has the power to oppose, then both of these things will happen, which will cause even more legal issues:
1. Some counties are more liberal than others. So one county might not oppose registered citizens petitioning to removal, while other counties will do all they can to oppose. So then basically it’ll come down to luck to which county you were convicted in.
2. If the DA does oppose, than an ELECTED judge will have to decide. As we know, judges are human, and look out for themselves and their careers first, before justice. They will be very hesitant to approve somebody, since it can be used against them in a re-election. And as somebody else said, all it takes is one person who has been removed from the list to re-offend in a heinous way, then no judge will ever approve again.
So either the power of the DA’s opposition must be removed from the draft, or if left in, must be severely reduced. For example, if they do oppose, then they MUST provide reason (ex. maybe you got two DUI’s in the last 5 years). If they can’t provide reason (ex. you were living a clean, offense free life), then they cannot oppose.
The thing that worries me the most is the “unfunded mandate” that was mentioned. Believe me, I could easily see the legislature moving to be AWA compliant in the future to “fund” this mandate. If that were to happen, it would move the majority of tier 2 registrants to tier 3, including me. If DA opposition was removed from the draft, then no extra funding would be required since the courts wouldn’t be involved.
OK here’s my question with all of these possible ways to get off of the Registry.
What about the poor sole who has no real skill or a means to earn a decent living? I mean after all,
I don’t see any State with a program to help the RC find work or to teach them a trade.
Many are fortunate enough to have access to “Thousands of dollars” to hire a good attorney and petition the courts and file lawsuits. There really isn’t much help in the “Proposed Bill” for someone who can hardly afford
food? What about them?
My guess is that the State really does not care about them. If they fall off the list, OK. If they never can get off, So be it.
Derek from Once Fallen and Will from “Sosen” both oppose this bill. That should tell us something.
I am against any new law that falls short of abolishing the registration requirement for citizen’s who have done their time. I’ve been registering for a 288(a) since 1992. Everything the Legislature has done since then has been punitive and I see nothing in the proposed bill that guarantees that will change. It is still left up to the DAs and Judges. I never was given a static rating but I do know one size doesn’t fit all. That being said, I trust Janet and Board to come to the right decision and will support them in whatever that is!
The support for this bill is not part of any ‘incrementalist’ strategy. It seems predetermined because clearly, for some reason, the money fundng this bill and organization seem so intent to to let the 10,000 pre 1987 go. “1987” is such an arbitrary number. This bill is so troubling, and it shows this ‘civil rights’ organization’s true colors, because it is not just helping the 10,000 group: but it also is harming a group of 30,000. Plus, the fact this bill is an UNFUNDED MANDATE!! My guess is California will next become an Adam Walsh Act state to get federal funding to pay for this UNFUNDED MANDATE. That means Tier 2 would need to register every 6 months and Tier 1 would need to register every 3 months!! That’s a lot worse than every year, folks!! Janice, please have a heart and consider what you might be getting into! This is a bill that is going to harm a lot more people than help!
What I did forced me to become a different person. Thankfully. I understand why many could care less about me, but not having forced public humiliation and shaming would be better than being released from prison. Its like theres a part of me being held back from really being a normal, contributing person, cause I never know when someone’s going to recognize me fromthe list
I for one see the tiered registry as a step (a big step) in the right direction, not a resolution. I say this as a person who will most likely see themselves placed on the third tier.
ACSOL Board member’s do face a “Sophie’s Choice” dilemma regarding the issue of Tier Registry. Does ACSOL support the proposed board as it stands, or does it continue to fight for universal application of the registry laws?
I ever so respectfully remind everyone of ACSOL’s Mission Statement: “The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) is dedicated to protecting the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of registrants and their families. In order to achieve that objective, ACSOL will educate and litigate as well as support or oppose legislation.”
Moreover, ACSOL believes, in part, that “Sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia. Current laws and policies that paint all sex offenders with one broad brush are counter- productive, wasteful, and cause needless harm. Each offense must be judged on its own merits with a punishment that fits the crime and does not waste taxpayer dollars. The public sex offender registry and residency restriction laws do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families.”
Having been convicted in 1990, under the proposed bill I will fall 3-years short of the 1987 propose CONVICTION year for relief of registry responsibility… this, after serving 25 years in state prison. Moreover, for most all other registrants (including myself) registration time begins upon release from incarceration… unlike the conviction dates of those prior to 1987.
Here in California, it is understood that incarceration is punishment for the offenses committed. What is unknown to many is that “290” inmates are subjected to willful deliberate indifference and punitive measures within the prison system designed, propagated and enforced by CDCR, such as housing, employment, custody levels, fear of being “found out” etc.…
While each of us who are registered citizens have our own personal reasons for wanting the elimination of the registry, I would argue that a tiered registry is a huge step for California 290’s. Not a perfect step… but a good step nonetheless. However, on a personal note (and not unlike many 290’s) I served a great deal of time for challenging the courts and going to trial. My choice! I cannot argue that! I also spent, what I believe to be enhance and arbitrary punishment, for the nature of my offenses. And now, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel – but for some reason, the proposed law chooses to allow some 290’s to use their CONVICTION DATE to determine that they no long are required to register, while holding others to their release date from incarceration.
I would propose that ACSOL consider supporting the idea of an either-or scenario for the 10-20 registration: In the case of 10-year registry, I propose that a 10-year registration include a period from the date of conviction OR the date of release… Whichever comes first. And for 20-year registration, it be 20 years include a period from date of conviction OR the date of release… Whichever comes first. And as for petitioning for removal… This can easily open the door for the courts to be arbitrary in its decision, rather that guarantying release from the obligation to register. Which in trun will ope the door for more litigation kin the future.
Now is the time for change… But now is also the time to ensure that change is as fair and equal to the clear majority of registered citizens, and not just a few.
Two questions:
I live in another state, but I believe I would qualify for Tier 1 and I have been registered in my state for more than 10 years after completing probation. Could I move to CA, register in CA, and then effectively be off the registry?
The two prevailing laws seem to be:
From the new draft bill:
(4)(a) Persons required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registrable offense describer in subdivision (c).
And from the referenced current law Section 290.005:
Except as provided in subdivision (c) or (d), any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, based on the elements of the convicted offense or facts admitted by the person or found true by the trier of fact or stipulated facts in the record of military proceedings, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses described in subdivision (c) of Section 290, including offenses in which the person was a principal, as defined in Section 31.
The question is will my registration in my home state count toward the 10 years registration in CA? I certainly don’t want to call anyone’s attention to this apparent deficit in the new draft bill, because the legislature might do what Oregon has done, which is to exclude anyone moving to Oregon from the benefits of Oregon’s very lenient law — with the stated purpose of discouraging sex offenders from moving to Oregon.
Second question — I would be very interested in hearing what ACSOL board member Catherine Carpenter, Professor, Southwestern Law School feels about the issue of supporting the new bill. I heard Professor Carpenter speak at the Illinois Voices for Reform conference last Friday in Chicago and was enthralled with her passion, reasonableness, persuasiveness, and eloquence. I would say listen to what she thinks before deciding how to proceed.
Also, so many of those posting seem to think that they have something to say about what the government does. Well, you don’t. It’s ridiculous to vent about what you like/don’t like about the new bill. They don’t care what we want to happen.