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.
Related
Janice’s Journal: ACSOL Board Faced With “Sophie’s Choice”
CA Sex Offender Management Board Releases Video
you of all people should understand that leaving the discretion to the judges and DAs without any black and white stipulation isn’t going to help anyone..you yourself have stated how the judge in your cor case stated that there was no reason to deny your cor but in the end DENIED….what makes you think this will be any different??this bill is just going to stuff the pockets of lawyers that will be needed just to apply for relief as well as shore up the government’s positions…if it wasn’t for all those FACTS I would be all for this bill…but those are the real factors that we can’t ignore and neither should anyone fighting for us…no one should ever just accept the fact that the registration scheme isnt unconstitutional and accept the fact that we either can’t defeat the scheme or should just accept it. …
isn’t constitutional…you knew what I mean…
I don’t believe that the registry will ever be abolished. I’m grateful for
this chance to be removed from the registry. Yes, they could change laws to make things worse down the road, however one thing California has that other states don’t have is Janice fighting for us. I fully support this tiered registry.
man i hate hearing that..I don’t understand you people that just give in and accept this crappp whenever there hasn’t ever been a real challenge of the registry…im dumbfounded by that type of mentality..I am a realist and would consider that the registry was here to stay if someone brought the real issues in an intelligent articulate manner but even then I would never say never…
Guys, Registration isn’t going away. I highly recommend going into the Megan’s Law website and reading about risk factors. How can you apply Static 99 to a person 20 years later? As noted, the site noted most individuals released after 10 years into the community who haven’t re offended wouldn’t be candidates for testing. I think this is a big issue. Furthermore, what tier do you put people convicted 20 years ago with expunged offenses and who haven’t re offended?
yep just like trump would never win, just like gay marriage would never happen, or a black man becoming president, or equal rights for women and many others..
…weak…and in case you or others are uninformed it’s a misdemeanor for a registrant to go to the Megan’s law website..
ok i thought we weren’t supposed to even access the site…
The California sex offender registry consist of such a diverse group of people; with that being said, we have to be careful to not be too critical of any chance to amend such an unfair law. People, WE ARE STUCK! Lets appreciate the fact that there are organizations and professionals who are going to bat for us.
Don’t forget, we, in someway are responsible for the position that we are in – now, are there some grey area in some of our cases? I think so! So what do we do? I think that we do everything possible within the law to work on being released from the registry.
How amazed I am to read so much pessimism regarding the rough draft of a new law. I have registered for almost twenty years. I had a “failure to register” case dismissed and a “288” felony dropped to a misdemeanor. People, I petitioned the court with no money, no lawyer and represented myself. My advice to you all is to study the California penal code book; learn to speak the courts language. If you do so, you may be able to chip away at your current case. Lastly, what is the STATIC 99? I don’t recall ever having to deal with it. I never went to prison, never worn an ankle bracelet, and my fine was under $500.00
you had a 288a( lewd and lascivious act) reduced to a misdemeanor?
Guys, you all should be commended for conducting yourself in a professional manner. If a tiered system isn’t passed, what do you suggest (the registry isn’t going away)? I concur with your comments regarding judges. I hope the direction is going will remain positive (new Megan’s website, video put out etc). These are big changes. Thus far, things are heading in the right direction. My hope is that this will pass, you can download an application online and the guidelines will be very black and white. We all must come together and realize we are stronger by working together and change must come. Best of luck.
PS: does anyone have any thoughts (Janice included). What if your offense has been dismissed years ago, you have had no issues prior/after and you no longer meet the criteria for Static 99 testing because 10 or more years has passed as stated on the Megan’s Law Website?
My sentence was probation. Nonetheless, please explain (It will remain a felony for all purposes)
Hey guys this is for Janice. Why don’t you focus on getting that stupid law from 2013 saying people with child porn convictions can’t get their records expunged repealed? We have a supermajority anyway and frankly it might be less controversial.
it’s simple..if you went to state prison you are not eligible for a felony reduction no matter what…I am really surprised that they let your reduction and expungment stand I’ve looked into it and I can’t even get a attempted lewd act reduced let alone expunged…wow this is definitely a equal protection issue that I’ll have to research more….so they still make you register correct????
To be blunt, I hope this bill fails. I’ve stuck behind this organization before; but I can’t stand behind this. This bill is something that many will not benefit from.
Well, I just read a comment that someone thinks all registered citizens should be treated the same? Nobody is better than anyone else, but the multiple offender or individual convicted of multiple offenses with prison time shouldn’t be treated like the guy with an misdemeanor battery expunged:summary probation/county time. That’s narcistic, self centered and nonsense! You guys don’t even make sense. I noted one individual who reduced his wobbler to a misdemeanor (earlier) pursuant to 17 B and later expunged his offense on his own! I would imagine he would be considered a level 1 with no conviction (he did it on his own!!!!). Likewise, I argued my case, had my charge later reduced and simply mailed my expungement in (I didn’t even come to court granted). I even had a false detainment ordered destroyed because I was factually innocent. Quite complaining and take action!
so in other words “Yes and No”
my god I’m so tired of hearing that same old weak asss position that its impossible to overturn the registry and that it’s here to stay so get used to it and take whatever bs laws or bills the traitors in office through out there…this is a pathetic stance and not based on facts and data but instead is being projected by the same individuals who realistically have no interest in true reforms or the restoration of our civil rights…im trying to be civil here so I’m not going into what I think about this organization in more detail but I really do wish that this organization would stop advocating that the registry isn’t going away and that we should just accept the fact that these public officials have some kind of legal authority to illegally take away our constitutional rights under color of law…especially without even challenging the government on the real issues…it’s uncomprehensable and un American…
before throwing in the towel how about getting in the rink and at least attempt to fight…until the registry is brought before SCOTUS on the real issues,,equal protection, due process and Substantial process, right to reputation, right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions, right to travel, right to family and raising our kids, right to be free from governmental sanctioned vigilantism, right to property, right to privacy on the real issue ie. just as we have privacy in our dmv info our medical info our tax info just to name a few, the lies and falsehoods, and on and on then you should not be stating that its impossible..at least try first…
With this legislation that is in the pending development stage. There needs to be language included, that when RC is removed from the registry, that action is final, barring any and all future legislations from putting any former RC back on.
well stated chris
Your DMV information
California Vehicle Code 1808 and the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6253 et seq.) provide that information collected by the Department is generally considered public information and is subject to inspection by the public. Exceptions to this public disclosure obligation include: Personal Information and Confidential Information.
Personal Information
Personal information is defined as information that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. An “individual” is defined as a “natural person.”
Release of personal information must be in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civil Code Section 1798 et seq.) and the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) (Title 18 United States Code Section 2721-2725).
Confidential Information
Confidential information includes, but may not be limited to, an individual’s home address (California Vehicle Code Section 1808.21), home telephone number (Government Code Section 6254.3), physical/mental information (California Vehicle Code Section 1808.5), social security number (California Vehicle Code Section 1653.5), and photograph (California Vehicle Code Sections 12800.5 and 13005.5). Confidential home addresses will only be released when the department determines the release is necessary to complete a DMV transaction. Other requests for any confidential information must include a state or federal statute that authorizes or requires the department to release such information.
Information regarding any motor vehicle liability insurance policy or surety bond provided to the department is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except to the following:
(a) A court of competent jurisdiction.
b) A law enforcement or other governmental agency.
(c) An insurance company or its assigns to verify a record the company or its assigns previously submitted to the department.
(d) A person whose vehicle or property has been involved in an accident reported to the department, or who suffered bodily injury or death in an accident reported to the department under Chapter 1 (commending with Section 16000) of Division 7 (Financial Responsibility Laws), or the person’s authorized representative, employer, parent, or legal guardian.
The Department may further restrict the release of any information from its files if it determines that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.
Tiered registry is a sham!! What does it do but cause rifts in unity? Karl Hanson & Tom Tobin… both phony “doctors,” cut from the same cheap polyester cloth. I feel Acsol is doing a BIG disservice in continuing to use Karl Hanson to support a tiered sham.
Disclosure Laws
You are probably aware that the law protects your tax return information from disclosure to other parties by the Internal Revenue Service. IRC Section 6103 generally prohibits the release of tax information by an IRS employee. However, there are important exceptions that you should be aware of.
IRC 6103(d) provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.
IRC 6103(i)(1) provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.
IRC 6103(k)(6) allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.
IRC 6103(l)(1) provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.
The IRS may therefore share information with SSA about social security and Medicare tax liability if necessary to establish the taxpayer’s liability. This provision does not allow the IRS to disclose your tax information to SSA for any other reason. SSA employees who receive this information are bound by the same confidentiality rules as IRS employees. Therefore, they generally cannot disclose the information to state social security administrators, state officials or other Federal agencies.
IRC 6103(e)(6) and (c) provide for disclosures to powers of attorney and other designees. If you are notified of an audit by the IRS, you may want to have someone other than the authorized officer of your entity represent you or participate in the meeting. You may bring any individual you wish into the discussion, in person or by telephone. You may give oral consent to speak with a third party if necessary to resolve a Federal tax matter. However, oral consent does not substitute for a power of attorney or a legal designation, and the discussion is limited to the issue for which the consent is given. To officially establish a legal representative, you must provide consent using one of the following forms:
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896, enacted December 31, 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a), a United States federal law, establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements.
indeed i can find no statutory exceptions for disclosure for sex offender registration information..and if there is then it is beyond the scope and authority of the legislators to approve the release of such information…
these privacy laws that are in affect in the myriad of governmental policies are settled law and can not be circumvented by the pretext that it is in the interest of public safety especially when there is no evidence that the disclosure increases public safety…this information is not subject to foia nor is it in the court records…