ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

ACSOL Board of Directors Determines Initial Positions on Tiered Registry Bill

The Board of Directors for the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) has determined its initial positions on the Tiered Registry Bill. The determinations were made during the board’s meeting on December 8.

“After careful consideration of input from registrants, family members and supporters, the ACSOL board of directors has decided that the organization supports the concept of a tiered registry based upon empirical evidence,” stated ACSOL president Janice Bellucci.

“The board of directors also decided to oppose the Tiered Registry Bill in its current form because it is not based upon empirical evidence such as the results of research conducted by Dr. Karl Hanson.”

“The ACSOL Board of Directors would support a modified Tiered Registry Bill that included revisions such as the termination of registration requirements for individuals placed on Tier 3 and limitations on a district attorney’s discretion to oppose individuals’ termination of registration requirements,” stated Bellucci.

ACSOL will express its views on the Tiered Registry Bill and other pending legislation such as Senate Bill 26, which would prohibit all registrants from all school campuses, when it leads a lobbying effort in the State Capitol on January 30 and 31. Training will be provided to individuals who have not lobbied before on January 30 at 9:30 a.m. at 1215 K Street, 17th Floor. Additional details regarding training and lobbying will be provided at a later date.


Janice’s Journal: ACSOL Board Faced With “Sophie’s Choice”

CA Sex Offender Management Board Releases Video

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

I kind of wonder if casomb purposely wrote this draft bill to break apart pro registrant advocate groups. It’s a terribly worded bill that helps the ones get off (pre 1987s and presumably most Tier I), but makes life a worse hell for the ones that stay on (all Tier III and presumably most Tier II). When you weigh everything, this bill is worse than our current lifetime law because it will lead to more narrowly tailored restrictions. Static 99R use is another big red flag. I don’t think Static is science at all. This draft bill also seems like a diversionary tactic in two ways: 1. this tiered bill, if passed, buys more time because while it is being fought in courts, the government can still impose and create more restrictions that are more narrowly tailored; 2. while many are distracted with trying to get a tiered bill passed, Leyva is going to ban registrants from their own children’s schools. Or will the ban only apply to Tier II and/or Tier III offenders? Tiered registry is a terrible long-term strategy.

leyva is wasting time and tax payer money. how many “crimes” will this prevent? so you stop RSOs from attending school events. since the re-offense rate is so low you have to filter the re-offenses down to how many resulted as a result of an RSO attending a school event. that’s probably close to, if not 0.

at least we now know straight from janice herself what the position she has and acsol has as far as the registry is concerned…which most of us already knew all along…

it’s really sad and I’m afraid it’s probably the same position most if not all of these organizations have that rely on the registry for their very existence…hate to say it but it’s the truth….

I may be wrong here but where exactly does our California constitution allow te decimation of personal information for public safety or for any reason related to the registry?

I believe that it explicitly states that the government can not abridge this section for any reason other then what is stated in the CA constitution…This is just one issue that could effect the entire registry so impossible should never be stated when it comes to taking down the current registration scheme….

So from my understanding NO agency Federal or state can supersede the CA constitution unless they actually amend it….

javascript:submitCodesValues(‘1798.73.’,’′,’1977′,’709′,”, ‘id_9f57f6a9-291e-11d9-a04f-af426c0c0060’)
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny or limit any right of privacy arising under Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution.
(Added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 709.)

I like how someone that states they don’t even understand the bill can somehow claim that we should take what we can get and that the registry is never going away….thats as good as acsol claiming that it’s impossible to overturn the registry when they haven’t even thrown a single blow on the real issues….thats disingenuous and a lack of competence or abilities or they have no interest in all for constitutional sex offender laws..there is nothing constitutional about the registry so they should change their name to all for take it and like it laws…or all for unconstitutional sex offender laws..their site name is disingenuous since their stance is the registry will never go away or only incremental stages can prevail..

my question is as follows . I was convicted of a 288a in 1989 riv county. no sex no force no violence, my age on date of incident was 18 , victim 13, no new charges27 years plus . were do I fit on the tiered system , do I have possible relief coming ??? are am I doomed??? if it passes ?

My conviction was exactly the same as yours and the same year.

I’m reading the proposed tier system as we are tier two – 20 years.

I’m assuming you mean 288(a) the parenthesis around the a is different then a plain a.


yes mine is a 288 (a) is that the tier 2 ?

I am still against a tiered registry, especially since it leaves so many questions unanswered and so many decisions in the hands of people we can’t trust. I have a question for some of you who mention that they are currently not published but would fall into a Tier III with this bill. How is that possible? Clearly the tiers can’t or should not be based solely on the static99r scam but a combination of the scam and the offense! Are you not published by law as some offenses are or did you file for exclusion? If someone could answer that I would appreciate it very much.

someone correct me if this is wrong, as if you needed an invitation, but i was told once by my lawyer that if my offense was against a family member i would be excluded from the megan’s law site which exist under the pretenses of protecting the public. how the hell does that make sense. so this slightly over 18 old who’s “victim” was slightly under 14 is more dangerous than some guy that gets off on his 6 year old daughter. someone’s young kids are more likely to be in this dad’s company as a result of a sleepover or something than in the company of this 18 year old.


Please get your story straight. A wobbler is a Felony Conviction treated like a misdemeanor (you where sentenced to either county time or probation). There is no such thing as being a wobbler and going to prison. As I’ve noted 100 times, a person convicted of a sexual based offense (per the Megan’s Law Website) wouldn’t be eligible or a viable candidate for Static 99 Testing if they where released into the community for 10 plus years. (Crime free). So, how would the new tiered system determine the person’s risk factors? Secondly, how would those individuals with expunged records be placed (tiered). Lastly, no one has any chance for relief in California at this time! The Registry isn’t going anywhere! Are you suggesting nothing changes? How about making proposals rather than complain? Why not proposing a clear cut 10-20 year fall off proposal (if the person meets the time period: i.e: 10 years, check, no further convictions, check, not facing other charges, check/they fall off automatically? Guys, we can continue to complain, ramble, think your a lawyer by stating penal code etc etc etc, but it’s not going to change a thing. Donate to this site, file an expungement if you can and remain positive. There are some fair judges out there. I filed my own 17 (B) and pc 1203.4. You can download this online or if your economically challenged, contact the public defenders office. The worst case scenario is the judge states come back?

In conclusion, let’s address expunged offenses and how can a 15-20 year old offender be tested via Static 99 if crime free as noted via Megans Law?

This bill is the worst thing ACSOL has ever considered to support. This tiered registry is a disaster waiting to cause more sufferings.

duh stop complaining duh and donate duh cause the registry ain’t never going away duh…so tired of hearing that bs…especially when you have courts stating crap like the following…

Although SORA’s restrictions are based on the assumption that sex offenders have especially high recidivism rates, the court says, there is little evidence to support that premise. Michigan presented no data on recidivism rates among the state’s sex offenders (a telling omission), and research published by the Justice Department indicates that sex offenders “are actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals.” Furthermore, the evidence suggests “offense-based public registration has, at best, no impact on recidivism”; in fact, laws like SORA may “actually increase the risk of recidivism, probably because they exacerbate risk factors for recidivism by making it hard for registrants to get and keep a job, find housing, and reintegrate into their communities.” As for the rule excluding sex offenders from the vicinity of schools, “nothing the parties have pointed to in the record suggests that the residential restrictions have any beneficial effect on recidivism rates.”

The appeals court emphasizes the mismatch between SORA’s burdens and its benefits:

While the statute’s efficacy is at best unclear, its negative effects are plain on the law’s face….SORA puts significant restrictions on where registrants can live, work, and “loiter,” but the parties point to no evidence in the record that the difficulties the statute imposes on registrants are counterbalanced by any positive effects. Indeed, Michigan has never analyzed recidivism rates despite having the data to do so. The requirement that registrants make frequent, in-person appearances before law enforcement, moreover, appears to have no relationship to public safety at all. The punitive effects of these blanket restrictions thus far exceed even a generous assessment of their salutary effects”

I can’t count how many courts have been stating they are open to a intelligent challenge based on all kinds of other issues besides that same old lame ex post facto technicality….give me a break

Whoever supports a tiered registry should get their head checked. Not only because of all the inconsistencies and flaws… like Static 99… but also what this bill may lead to.


You say, “what this bill may lead to?”

You mean as in a [hypothetical] subsequent bill to morph a California tiered registry into an Adam Walsh Act state? It would make sense. With Adam Walsh Act comes increased federal funding. The increased federal funding would supplement the fact that a tiered registration bill is an “unfunded mandate.” (“Unfunded mandate” as per Superior Court Judge — and CASOMB board member — Brett Morgan.)

Nonetheless, I share the view that it’s troubling that many proponents to the tiered registry fail to see this danger — as well as the many other dangers — that come with this bill. With AWA come 6 month (for Tier 2) and 3 month (for Tier 3) registration periods. Clearly a lot worse than our current system, which generally only requires annual registration (with exceptions for transient and SVPs).

As another person said, when you weigh the pros and cons… this is a DANGEROUS BILL.

Personally I am not worried about awa coming here. There are too many recent rulings that it is punitive and I don’t believe California wants to get another lawsuit on their hands. They could just do it now if they wanted too and not even mess with this tier scheme.

Be careful what you wish for. I used to live in an AWA tiered state. It was a lot worse than CA (where I now live). The AWA had me registering twice a year (every 6 months) with the Sheriff’s Office. Though CA’s law is lifetime, it still is way better than a lot of other states that I lived in. I think this may be one of the many hidden motives for those in government that are selling this bogus tier scheme. They want the laws to be harder on some people, so that it is in accord with more of the country. In the case of this tier draft bill, the burden is held by people in the 2nd and 3rd tiers. I definitely see any tiered registry as a step back, primarily because of how Tiers are still offense based (despite what casomb tells us in the video). And the “risk” part is determined by the static 99 mess. Then on top of it all, how this bill is setup to create different laws directed at different tiers (a condition that will complicate challenges to the registry).

I apologize for being such a smart a…but im really frustrated with some of you people..guess what I just got it from a good source that WAR will be filing their class action next month..I couldn’t get details about what will be challenged so we’ll have to wait and see…

I’ll hold back my excitement till I see the details too. They’re the only group that has expressed outright abolishment so hoping it’s in that direction. I am, however, thrilled that more cases are and have been filed. The momentum is building!

Good news!


it seems that WAR is going for the jugular. It’s only a guess but this is a headline link on their page:

There’s a problem with adding Hanson into the mix. It validates his hokey ass 10 question test If 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by non-registry people, how are his numbers correct? So 12% in the first 5 years re-offended? That would be over 108,000 re-offenders.

Mike r posted state by state reoffense rates and I don’t remember any at or above 12%.

Hanson works for the Canadian government I believe so he’d have an interest in fudging numbers. He also helped create static 99 so that’s a strike as well.

Absolutely no need to bring hanson into a suit. In fact, it’d be an opening for the opposite legal team, legistlatures and the judges to favor mass static 99 evaluations.

If I had the money, I’d file a direct and singular attack on just the Alaska lie and leave static out of it. Hell I don’t remember it coming up in the original case so why bring it up unless you’re trying to throw the state a bone which of course they’d promptly shove up our arses.

It looks like by the time I get able to do something, people will have already fucked it up.

First, I’m glad the management board has made progress. I’m very proud of you all. I only have 2 concerns/questions. I’ve attempted to research this and see what approach other states have taken, but I’ve failed to come up with a concrete answer! 1. What tier would a person be put on if their offense has been expunged? 2. How would a person be affected via Static 99 testing if they have been crime free for 10 or more years?

While I am happy to see that the ACSOL Board state their position regarding the tier registry, I am disheartened to see that no position is stated (at least I haven’t seen it yet) regarding the implementation of the new law. As it is written, all registered citizens who were CONVICTED before 1987 will be dropped from the registry (REGARDLESS OF THE OFFENSE). All other registrants are bound by their RELEASE DATE from incarceration – not their conviction dates as the other registrants. There are many like I who used their constitutional rights to a trial instead of a plea deal – were convicted – and received more time than those who accepted plea agreements and received less time. I was convicted in 1990… 27 years ago, but since my release date was 2014, I will still have another 17 years left to register. Granted, it is not life registry, but if initially registrants are given reprieve by their conviction dates – where is the equal protection for the rest of us already on the registry? Expo Facto?

Actually, I think it reads that registrants with a conviction prior to 1987 do not have to go through the DA approval process if they fall into tier I or II. If they fall into tier III, they still have to register for life.

As expected, the draft bill proposes dividing registrants into three tiers based upon the offense for which the registrant was convicted as well as his/her risk level. For registrants in the first two tiers, their duty to register would end in either 10 or 20 years after release from incarceration provided that they have not committed a subsequent sex offense. Registrants on the third tier would continue to be required to register for life.

“In addition to tiering, the bill proposes that registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry.”

You kind of forgot a very important part: the fact you would still need to petition off this ridiculous tiered registry. Also, how do you address our concerns that this fictitious tiered registry will morph into an Adam Walsh (AWA) tier? Too many dangers with this bill.

Also, despite what people are telling us, CASOMB is not an advocate for registrants. REMEMBER! CASOMB is made up of prosecutors, police and sex offender “treatment” experts who have screwed us time and again in the past. Why do you think they will all of a sudden want to help registrants? CASOMB is not supporting this bill because they have a change in heart and want to help. Don’t be so naive or worse — foolish. In short, follow the money.

California becoming an AWA tier state = more federal funding

more federal funding = more $$$ for prosecutors to fight against challenge to the registry, more $$$ for police and more $$$ for “treatment” experts and their government contracts

If California ever makes the mistake of adopting a tiered registry, we can remember that ACSOL pushed for this thing (at least initially) before it eventually morphed into AWA. I’m pretty sure that’s the game plan of CASOMB. They’ve got tricks up their sleeves. And most are not privy to what they ultimately have concocted for their sick scheme.

Also, remember that CASOMB are the same people that advocate for the containment model, lie detectors and STATIC 99 SCAM. Once again, CASOMB is introducing this bill.

Do you really trust CASOMB to introduce this complicated bill?

As the old saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I think CASOMB’s history of not advocating for fair and just practices is enough evidence as *not* to support their phony tiered registration.

Casomb’s position on AWA. The conspiracy theories are getting tiring.

Thanks for posting this. This position has been stated here before, but the conspiracy theorists here want to keep everyone afraid of Casomb’s intentions. This will probable be needed to be posted here again and again. It’s obvious most states aren’t concerned about loosing the 10% in JAG/Byrne funds.

I am also averse to (unsubstantiated) conspiracy theories. However, I am also not inclined to imbue CASOMB with positive qualities they do not possess.

They are, to my mind, a decidedly mixed-bag. I once knew one of them, Tom Tobin, and have very little good to say about him. He was a zealot and an ideologue.

Still, and given the extraordinarily hateful regards others in California government have towards us, they are comparatively liberal. Thats how bad things have gotten.

The hate-train that was once driven enthusiastically by the sex-abuse therapy industry has gotten away from them and some of them are now desperately trying to apply some brakes. That’s how I see Tom and his colleagues.

I am under no illusions that we should, at any point, place our trust in their good faith for us. No one should be blamed for their reluctance to surrender reasonable impulses of distrust for those who have held us in contempt.


I, too, had the misfortune of experiencing Tom Tobin’s dishonesty, as well as unethical practices. It amazes me that Tobin has managed to infect ACSOL. I don’t think many people have yet realized the subtle manner in which Tobin undercuts those in opposition to his political and business agenda (which are almost at odds with fighting for a more fair registry). But I suppose, in time, the mistake in trusting Tobin will have some very serious civil rights implications for many people.

Great why no date on that position paper–do you know when it was written?

Amazing I found their positions to be out of step with State practices ( The State does indeed use the crime of conviction for placement on the registry and some kind of informal risk assessment they have among themselves as to who to watch closely, who to perform notification of, etc.):

“The Adam Walsh Act mandates an entirely different offense tier structure and
demands that risk determination be based solely on an offender’s crime of
conviction, not an actuarial risk assessment score. According to the most recent
research3, using crime of conviction as the primary method of determining
offender risk is far less reliable than the use of actuarial tools. ”

Does anyone know of the case before the 9th circuit challenging the AWA act? or are they referring to our IML case?

Speaking of which does anyone one know when we are due back in court again for IML I thought it was this month.


Speaking for myself, I am tired of the Casomb propaganda. Firstly, when is that AWA position paper dated? It must be fairly old, considering that the position paper boasts about how CA’s “current” sex offender law is good, yet now — at odds to Casomb’s very own statement — Casomb is pushing for a tiered registry. Again, just ONE of the many inconsistencies in Casomb’s positions. Casomb says one thing, yet they are doing another. Then they use the opportunity to, again, shamelessly push the Static 99 scam. Not the new 99R, so again… that AWA position paper must be several years old. Also, the position paper warns of AWA being an “unfunded mandate.” Yet am I not mistaken in saying that the tiered registry Casomb wants is ALSO an unfunded mandate? Ha, the hypocrisy and inconsisteny of Casomb are endless. So if my distrust of Casomb somehow makes me a “conspiracy theorist,” so be it. IMO it is a whole lot better than mindlessly believing that Casomb is an honest bunch when history has shown that they are not!

How do you know the federal “incentives” for becoming an AWA state will not increase when Jeff Sessions becomes the new Attorney General?

Jeff Sessions has endorsed worsening federal law against sex offenders as a U.S. Senator. And I doubt CASOMB’s position under the position paper you provide will remain static (no pun intended) over time. As some have already mentioned, the old AWA position report claims that the “current” sex offender law is good. Yet since that 2008/2009 paper, CASOMB had the sudden change in position that a tiered registry should be imposed. Again, evidence that CASOMB’s position has not remained static over time.

And like another person mentioned, it is also troubling that CASOMB, in the AWA position paper from many years ago, mentions that an AWA law is an “unfunded mandate.” Yet the tiered registry that they want is ALSO an unfunded mandate. See the blatant hypocrisy?

Finally, I think it would be wise — just like a good chess move — to prevent supporting any type of legislation that remotely resembles Adam Walsh tiers. The draft that CASOMB introduced fits almost perfectly with the AWA scheme. The tier levels for I and II are for 10 and 20 years. AWA is 15 and 25 years. Both require lifetime registration for Tier III.

Other reasons why I don’t trust CASOMB:

1. CASOMB supports the polygraph when the virtually unanimous scientific consensus says that the polygraph is unscientific.

2. CASOMB supports the Static 99R when studies and case law have discredited the grossly limited “actuarial instrument.”

3. CASOMB continues to support implementing a tiered registry when they admit in their reports that there is no evidence that any type of registry prevents sexual reoffense in the first place.

4. CASOMB has been indirect in advertising that the tiered registry will be “risk” based, yet an actual review of the draft clearly shows that the draft proposal is still offense based (with the added Static 99R component to screw a person over).

5. If CASOMB has so much confidence in the Static 99R scam, why make the low risk individuals register in the first place?

6. In the AWA paper cited by Steve, it was written at a time when Jerry Powers was still a board member. Powers’ name is listed in the CASOMB letterhead, when he wasn’t even Los Angeles County Probation Chief yet. For your information, CASOMB board member Jerry Powers resigned a few years ago due to misconduct.

7. The vice chair of CASOMB, his name is Tom Tobin, also runs a business. Tobin is CEO of a company called Sharper Future. Sharper Future is the state’s largest sex offender “treatment” provider. Sharper Future’s business model relies primarily on CDCR contracts. There are also three CDCR board members in CASOMB. So as some have said, Tobin is in a conflict of interest in his dual relationship between being vice chair of CASOMB and CEO of his company.

8. CASOMB is a product of Governor Schwartzenegger’s administration. It was a poorly run administration. Look at all the board members who represent their respective special interests in CASOMB. When you look at other state’s sex offender boards, they’re made up of scholars and academics. The same cannot be said with CASOMB.

Don’t mind Steve or lake county. Steve is looking out for his interests by ignoring anything that bashes his chances of getting off the registry, immediately. Lake county still has a cops mentality, he will always defer to “government loves me”.

Many people have shown that Asscomb isn’t on our side but for selfish reasons, a few desperately cling to a tiered registry as their ticket to freedom.

“Many people have shown that Asscomb isn’t on our side”

lol…nobody has “shown” anything…but people have said many things.

Any sane person watching their actions and weighing it against their words can see they’re full of shit. AWA may not be a path California takes but nobody can predict that either way with certainty. What they can do relatively safely is go by words plus action to give an educated opinion and he did that. I personally care little for what people “profess” and focus on what they do. I’ve learned that by watching droves of flip-floppers and liars from positions of power and from lower forms of life just focusing on their own self-interests.

Steve, do you actually believe the AWA position paper from Casomb? That Casomb paper is about 10 years old — and a lot has changed since then, both politically and in terms of federal funding. Casomb is the master at Orwellian “double speak” and “double talk.” Casomb says one thing, yet they do the totally opposite. For example, Casomb released many reports claiming that a registry inhibits rehabilitation and reintegration. Yet at the same time, Casomb also introduces complicated law that only maintains and rationalizes the existence of a registry. Even worse: Casomb wants the tiered registry to rely on the STATIC 99 scam. A scam that’s been discredited by top scholars, courts and even legislative studies. Even from the 10 year old paper you cite, it’s clear that Casomb’s true motive was to push for the use of a ridiculous STATIC 99 scam into our registry. And that’s from 10 years ago! But someone answer: why?? What is Casomb’s true motive for getting the STATIC 99 SCAM into our system?

Let’s see..Texas and 33 other states are saying NO to AWA. With the state in a Billion dollar deficit California will not spend the obscene amount of cash to pay for it. The odds are AWA ain’t happening in California. CASOMB, is the ONLY gevernmental group that has attempted to pass any kind of legislation to remove people from the list. (Tom Ammiano tried and failed) Not doubt they had to jump hoops and play the political game to get this moving and those political games, it appears, will screw over some people. I have e-mailed Tobin and surprisingly he mailed me back and answered my question. Didn’t have to do it, but he took the time to do so. I don’t think they are out to purposely screw anyone over but their hands are tied in this political mess.


Do you not find it troubling that in the AWA position paper you cite, CASOMB never even mentioned a “tiered registry?” Yet soon after Nancy O’Malley became CASOMB chair — just after that 2008 or 09 position paper you cite — she suddenly began a campaign to have our politicians pass a tiered registry.

Do you not find it least concerning that the tiered registry draft shares many similarities to AWA tiers? I don’t think the similarities were designed in mere coincidence. The tiered registry draft would make a transition to California becoming an AWA state seamless.

What makes you think that in the future, as sex offender legislation may become more draconian, California can bargain for more federal funds in exchange for it becoming an AWA state? Does this really seem “conspiracy theorist” to you? Like someone else said, CASOMB is playing a very manipulative chess game… complete with Orwellian “doublespeak.”

I have spoken to many other registrants who reside in the tiered states that you mention. Surprisingly, none of them have had anything good to say about their tiered registry. What makes you think California will be an exception?

As for Tom Tobin, you’d be foolish to trust him. You probably will not trust me in what I have to say, but Tom Tobin is NO friend of ours. I, like some of the people who have worked under him, speak from personal experience.

Also, just because Tom Tobin responds to your e-mail in a manner that you like… it doesn’t mean that he is to be trusted. Read the draft tiered registry bill. Can you honestly say that you trust the people that wrote such a convoluted and complicated bill? In my opinion, he’s playing you for a fool. And for whatever reason, you’re deciding to play along.

He’ll find a way to justify your points in support of asscomb. sounds just like CASOMB, Static 99 and other legislators who seem to think they know how a person thinks and what their motivations are.

Alinsky tactics don’t work on me. Furthermore, nobody has to guess what they’re doing. Just look at actions. It’s not hard to predict because people always let you know what they’re about eventually. I mean if a person tells you, they think you’re inferiror to them, it’s a safe bet that they can’t be trusted to be an impartial judge of a bill.

“You kind of forgot a very important part: the fact you would still need to petition off this ridiculous tiered registry.”

Nope, didn’t forget!
People like me who were convicted before 1987 would be removed automatically. Simple read.
Of course, it’s still only a proposal which I realize.

Yeah you get off at the expense of the 30,000 plus people who will be labeled as seemingly more “dangerous.” How is that just and right? And don’t forget about the other 60,000 plus people who will be given the label of Tier I or II, with no real guarantee of ever getting off without the blessing of an elected judge or ex post facto protection from the tiers expanding. The 10,000 pre 1987s who get off will be at the expense of 9x the amount of people — about 90,000 — who will be made to suffer the entanglement of this complicated tiered registry. Quite frankly, I don’t know how Acsol and Janice can continue to work with Casomb after Casomb obviously wrote a bill that was intended to divide and conquer the fight against unfair registries. The tiered registry is by far the worst thing Acsol has ever even considered to support.

Hi Albert,
I’ve been treated very well by the courts and most law enforcement personnel during my lifetime.
My concern is the general public who have forced things like home compliance checks, Megan’s law, internet ID and etc.

worst yet, they ( ASCOL) support “evidence based” assessment of risk levels, such as that by Dr. Hansen–creator of the static 99! Now that I believe the greatest consensus we had here among us is that the static 99 is flawed and our enemy.

Support for that in any way would make a tiered registry basically a life sentence just as we have today, for the majority of us ( support as I read : i.e., “cant support in its current form” has the looks of nothing more than a resume builder) ! I’m sorry but in my mind ASCOL cannot boast credit for supporting efforts to relieve 30K from the registry–which is exactly the way folk’s resumes at ASCOL would look like upon passage of the tiered registry using the static 99!

If one reads their position closely it’s in my opinion double talk–it leaves one impression while really in essence roles over on the issue; doesn’t confront CASOMB in one bit; and supports fully the proposed legislation

Yet it **seems** ACSOL is completely unwilling to challenge the Static-99R scam.

Right but those who aren’t pre-1987 would still have to petition. Fat chance getting off though. It’ll be just like other “reforms” when it comes time. All talk, no action. No freedom….

I don’t know where you got that quote. I can’t find anything in the proposed text that allows someone designated tier III and whose conviction was pre-1987 to automatically get off the registry. Indeed it say those convicted prior to 1987 will be reviewed by the Department of Justice prior to having registration terminated.

It appears your reply is addressed to me.
I got that quote from here:
[I believe this is the sticky point]
Registrants convicted in 1987 or later would be required to petition for removal from the registry near the date of their annual registration requirement. (not before 1987)

Ok, thank you. Yah, it is hard to go down the column of responses and find who is responding to who sometimes. Anyway, I think that quote is incorrect. The tiered proposal draft does not automatically remove any tier III registrants. It does give tier I and II the benefit of not having to petition the DA for removal, if the convictions were before 1987 and they haven’t reoffended. Still all tier III will be on the registry for life, no matter when their offense occured.

ACSOL IMO has served the people who are forced to register in a way all should be proud. The tier registry is not perfect but the ones that think the registry will go away are wrong, it is not going to happen within the next 20 years or longer, wish I was wrong but I doubt it. The tier registry could allow for many to have a chance to get off, why keep all on because some will be stuck, not fair but such is life. I wonder what the vast majority of RCs want in California? We may never know since less than 1/2 a % even know about ACSOL. There are post on here against the tier registry but many are the same person with MANY names. I have been against it at first only because of the judges and district attorneys involvement, maybe that can be changed in some way. But in the end it is better than what we have now and would help tens of thousands to move on with their life. For the ones left behind sorry, keep fighting and get over the self pity I see on here all the time. I know so many RCs that may still be forced to register but have made a life, have great families, jobs and are NOT allowing this shit to keep them down. In the end everyone can support ACSOL or start a new group and fight for what you want. I myself have come to a point in my life that most everything is good, I wish the exact same for everyone but the truth is some people will never be able to climb the ladder back to the top either because of life choices or just plain bad luck.

And you think it is right for ACSOL to fight for a tiered registry that would be at the expense of other people’s rights? What kind of “civil rights” organization would do that?

As noted, Static 99 was instituted in 1996. How will the board address those who have passed the 10 year mark without committing another offense etc? Secondly, how will those with expunged offenses/crime free be affected (Janice preferably)?

I noticed that only the people who believe they might benefit from this bill or dont believe registration scheme can ever be reversed are the ones praising the tiered can never reason or change a closed mind.thats just a fact.anyone who agrees with this tiered registry or believe and spouts that the registry is here to stay should be still subjected to whatever the new version of the scheme is after it gets repealed and replaced..I really hope that war argues what they’ve preached and challenges the government and the courts justification for these laws and the pretext that they are based on…I find it extreemly difficult to understand a mind that will give up and except defeat without even putting up a fight…sad…

I’m a realist and would kind of understand ( but still wouldn’t concede defeat) if there hasn’t been any positive outcomes by the court but thats not the case…we have had at least three courts ( cali Pennsylvania, Michigan) that have all ruled against the government’s justification for these laws and the lack of empirical evidence to support their claims…thats not my opinion or supposition but a fact…

Tobin’s Tools 2.0

I believe ACSOL wants the egistryy to end for everyone.

It s not fair that you speak so badly of ACSOL.

Why should those that may get off the registry be held hostage by those that may not get off?

Its progress and like others have said before, the registry is not going away all at once.

We are so lucky to have ACSOL.

Again, do you think it is right for ACSOL to fight for a tiered registry that would be at the expense of other people’s rights? Sure, about 10 percent will get off. But it’s at the expense of about 30% being labeled as more “dangerous” (Tier 3), as well as about 60% (Tier 1 and Tier 2) being given a hope that may or may not come (without any real future guarantees in a judge granting a petition, ex post facto protection, or even from the tiers worsening in penalty). What kind of “civil rights” organization would even consider advocating for this?

But I do agree. ACSOL has done great things. However, it seems that I am not alone in saying that the tiered registry is not a great (or even a good or fair) thing — either in its present form, or potentially.

There are a lot more simpler and cheaper alternatives to reducing the amount of people on the registry.


I haven’t seen anything from ACSOL that says they support the tiered proposal as it stand. You must have missed how ACSOL said they want something the reflects scientific based metrics.

And do you consider the Static-99R a “scientific based” metric?

Tobin, there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

The static-99R is “minority report” type metric. It’s a barometer. A barometer forecasts weather. Using this analogy for Static-99, it’s a barometer for a possible future recidivism. Forecasts aren’t 100% accurate, hence, why it’s called a ‘forecast’.

Okay. Now we’ve established it’s about a possible future recidivism, let’s discuss actual recidivism recorded data.

CASOMB has recorded around 1% recidivism rates for the past four years. CASOMB has recorded under 1% recidivism rates for the past two years. The rate is going down. That recidivism rate is one of the lowest (I think murder is the lowest recidivism rate) among convicts.

But CASOMB isn’t the only research group. There are a plethora of studies that recorded similar conclusions: SO’s are one of the lowest groups of convicts for recidivism. These other studies have 10 to 25 years worth of data.

So when those other research work actually run similar productions as CASOMB and CASOMB is the state of California’s own research group, then it becomes very difficult to refute empirical data unless the courts REFUSE to use said empirical data.

In the Michigan court decision, they queried the state of Michigan as to why they didn’t do any research if the registration system was working or any research on SO’s. Surprisingly, CASOMB did just that. The only problem is the people running CASOMB are continuing to obfuscate the already low and still dropping recidivism rate to push the proper legislation.

Static 99 isn’t a recorded metric, it’s a forecast. Forecasts are never 100%. Therefore, it isn’t a fact. What is 100%? Actual recorded data of recidivism. That’s fact.

Why have registration when there’s under 1% recidivism rate? Why have registration when SO’s have the second lowest recidivism rate among convict groups? Why waste so much money when there’s under 1% recidivism rate?

While you’re so focused on “what might be”, Janice and team have been propagating “what is”. Judges care about facts. You can beat demons down with facts. It may take a long while, but the facts remain. Sure, California, on the whole, is still stuck in fear mongering, but Janice and team have won with facts. Presence restrictions are gone from parks. For parolees, there isn’t a housing range restriction. Yet in Michigan, they drop empirical data in their suit.

ACSOL has no hand in conjuring up the tiered proposal. Janice has disliked the registration system. You can watch her on RSOL meetings from like 2013 wanting to bring registration back to the SCOTUS sooner than later, like 50 years later a la Japanese internment camps. Janice was recently approved to be a lawyer at the Supreme Court level.

I don’t think you give Janice and her team much credit on behalf of registrants. CARSOL, now ACSOL, was the only hope I had as a registrant and still provides hope. Granted, there’s more bad news than good news, but hope, like the facts founded, remain. We’re all frustrated as registrants, but at least we can try to stick to facts and not assertions. ACSOL had nothing to do with this proposal. They asked us what they thought about it. It gathered a consensus and put out the best possible answer to represent all of us. Empirical recidivism rates in California dictate what a waste registration is when compared to other groups of convicts. You can’t compare Static-99 to another group of convicts b/c they have no such thing.

Risked based vs actual fact recordings. Fear of vs What is. Get rid of static-99 vs Get rid of registration.

In California, if you get rid of Static-99, it doesn’t change your status of registering for life. Plus, I’m sure Cali will develop or adopt another form of categorizing. So why not just focus on getting rid of the whole thing?

I think that that mis-characterizes what ACSOL has said. Certainly, they aren’t “fighting for” the tiered registry. I re-listened to the conference call from December on tiered registries (and recommend that everyone listen to it if they haven’t already) and it is clear that ACSOL played no role in drafting the bill and that they reserve judgment on its advisability until the details are known.

The only real area of contention that I see is that Janice, and perhaps the Board as a whole, feel that the elimination of the registry is an unattainable goal at the present time. This can, and I think should, be debated but I would not typify ACSOL’s provisional support for the concept of some kind of modified registry as, at this point, contrary to our own interests.

Having said that, I think the proposed tiered registry is a pretty terrible idea with lots of very nasty features and likely bad effects, not the least of which is that it will probably give the registry the appearance of reform and enough momentum for another ten or twenty or so years more with no further changes. Still, that’s just crystal ball gazing and I could well be wrong.

We’ve amply expressed our concerns to ACSOL and they have responded admirably, stating that they cannot support the bill in its present form. I’m not sure what more we could want them to do.

Yes, I would like very much to see a dismantling of the sex offender registry as I know Janice would, too. She is on record for saying just that.

Perhaps a mission statement that identified that as a clear and unambiguous goal should be made.

Nevertheless, that by itself won’t get us any closer to such a goal. Telling the legislators that we will accept nothing less will not get very far and will likely cost Janice credibility at a time when she is making inroads in the Statehouse. She is, after all, the first such lobbyist in Sacramento (and perhaps other states?) to lobby exclusively for our interests. I do think that we should be mindful of her predicament.

Lobbying is, unavoidably, fraught with compromise.

Just my thought, not ACSOL, but when ACSOL requested the use of empirical data should be the driving force for any legislation, particularly in response to the tiered system, then it was setting up a poison pill.

CASOMB has recorded the recidivism rates to be under 1% for the past two consecutive years. The recidivism rates have hovered around 1% for the past four years, according to CASOMB.

Well, when one is forced to compare these recidivism rates with other convicts, then they will notice that SO’s are among the lowest. With that finally acknowledged, then they can actually query as to why other convicts aren’t under registration if their recidivism rates are so much higher? If you can’t do it for all the other convicts, then why is the state wasting money as the “return on investment”, ROI, lacks any production.

Eventually, logic will win out. But then again, California did decide to raise taxes upon itself. On that note, maybe if the state legislators see how much money California gets back by dismantling such a waste of ROI called the registration system, then registration may be dissolved. How do you get overcome fearmongering? Throw a lot of money their way. More money to certain lobbyists to curtail backroom agreements for registration.

Tobin, are you a repeat offender? As I’ve noted 100 times, read the Static 99 comments in Megsn’s Law. If you have been crime free etc for 10 years or more, your not really eligible for Static 99 Testing. If you have re offended and not learned your lesson, than I would quite complaining.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x