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


ACSOL to Lobby Newly Elected State Legislators – Jan 30/31, 2017

The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) will lobby newly elected state legislators in Sacramento on January 30 and 31.  Training will be provided to registrants, family members and supporters who lack lobbying experience on January 30 at 9 a.m. at 1215 K Street, 17th Floor.  Those with lobbying experience will begin meetings in the offices of the newly elected legislators on the same date and at the same time in the State Capitol.  Additional details regarding these activities will be provided on this website in January 2017.

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

Good luck and God speed.

I still think these lawmakers should be notified on the record that they are violating our rights under color of law and with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth in deriliction of their official duties so are therefore not immune to legal action against them for not only criminal negligence but also for monetary damages caused by their actions that are and will continue to cause me irreparable deleterious harm including pain and suffering, loss of wages, damaged property, and damage to our reputation and any future earnings…then we need to follow thru with a lawsuit for damages and code of ethics violations as well as prosecution for the abuse of power under color of law…

Hey Mike,

As always I enjoy your provocative posts. I agree with you. So, rather than just state what needs to he done, do it ky friend. You know why I haven’t posted here for a long time. I dropped off everywhere for a while due to my frustration with lack of action from Registered Citizens themselves. A lot of griping goes on and little action. The actions we see aren’t in line always with us as the people who are the one’s who actually do the suffering from the Constitutional violations the government has handed down to us. So I have been working on my own. Building a business empire to gain the funds to do what is really needed to end this crap and help those I can who have endured the banishment, punishment, judgement, ridicule, segregation and mental abuse, i.e. other RC’s. I believe you have every ability to accomplish writing such a document to send to new legislatures and give us a link to get access to a docusign online.

I hope we can get the politicians to remove the STATIC-99/R from any future laws. As some have rightfully said, the STATIC ought only be used for parole/probation supervision for the first 5-years. The STATIC ought never be used for anything else. The STATIC should NOT especially be used to determine whether one should register for LIFE. The STATIC is a very limited “tool.” CASOMB and SARATSO has been very dishonest about what the STATIC can and can’t do. And I hope this organization puts some intellectual thought and research into showing why using the STATIC will cause a slippery slope.

Robert, this bill to be lobbied for is making that the law, to use the STATIC99. That is one of thing various things I have complained about in these threads about this bill. This bill is a prosecutor’s dream bill, full of checkpoints pointless to the relief and even court hearings and prosecutors invited to argue against us as if this were a COR and they were judging your character, a very MAJOR checkpoint — I guarantee you you will have at least some people finding the prosecutors arguing you should be reclassified to a longer term.

This bill even pretends to let all those whose sole offense was more than 30 years ago “automatically” stop registering, but there is nothing automatic about it, you have to have a court hearing and argue with the prosecutors – and maybe they won’t even like that you got popped for some other non-registerable offense some years later. Gee, in past decades, it used to actually be automatic, when your “time” was up (which was for those to got 1203.4 relief, they could stop registering), you simply stopped registering, the state knew you got the relief, even though they were not notified anything about you planning to stop registering; they simply knew your time was up. They now that now too, but we are cheerleading that you must go to court and argue with the prosecutor! Hey, maybe they will finally get you for that jaywalking ticket when you show up.

This bill is garbage. We instead should be lobbying for our own alternative proposal (I have given a lot of input and points on this), but we are not, instead we are cheerleading for garbage and demanding the Legislature pass a terrible bill that will haunt us for many, many years to come. This is the prime time to raise all the issues in debate, but instead we are shutting up and taking any old crap that comes along.

A very easy alternative would be to simply extend eligibility of the Certificate of Rehabilitation — relieving 290 obligation after 10 years — to more crimes and people. Right now, only limited circumstances qualify for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Extending eligibility of the Certificate of Rehabilitation to more circumstances would solve the heart of the problem: it would let more people off the registry. Further, extending eligibility of the Certificate of Rehabilitation wouldn’t venture into having to adopt the tiered registry that many of us disagree with.

No Static-99R baloney. No complicated tiered registry that will screw more people over as it evolves. No need to drink the CASOMB Kool Aid.

Keep it simple.

You make a good analogy, these tiers are being proposed almost identical to a COR, except for a longer period for those offenses that could apply for a COR in seven years, the tiers actually lengthening the time to 10 years for those. Even 10 years for the other offenses has no support in reality, many, many studies show very little recidivism for any offenses, including sex offenses, after five years. We are refusing to even raise that issue.

Still, what these tiers do is lower the standard to get off as opposed to the standard for a COR, which is the standard for getting a pardon. But that is not enough to be out there pushing for an otherwise bad proposal.

There are a lot of problems with this tier proposal, much of it is even smoke and mirrors. And we are refusing to offer any alternative, to even raise the ideas for legislators to hear for the first time so they can start thinking. Hearing nothing other than this prosecutor’s dream bill will not ever yield us anything better. We seem to be taking the strategy to wait for the prosecutors to offer what we want, and only then will we lobby for it, we will refuse to raise any alternative, any thinking at all other than to push a bad bill.

Yes, the Static 99 is BS. A good tier proposal would set the tier times by the offense, with the option for the registrant to seek a review, whether using Static 99 or not, to be put in a lower tier. (Frankly, how can any tier proposal be a “good” one when we supposedly argue that any registration is wrong and unconstitutional once you have completed your sentence! If that is our viewpoint, how can be support 10 years and up, not even argue for less than that!?) If you give them flexibility to put you in a higher tier, they will exercise that flexibility. And with the court hearing required after you get to the end of the tier you are in, you can bet the prosecutors will be arguing that you need to be in a higher tier and continue to register, especially if you had even a subsequent non-registration offense while on your tier.

Can someone please tell me what the static 99 test is? can you tell me what it consist of, as well and who has to take the test. I have never been to prison, and had my case downgraded to a 288 misdemeanor. I here so much about the static test that I am not sure if I have ever seen the test.

Would be a great experience. But what about those that have to work on those days?

Tobin, like you, I too work on those days. But under the Healthy Workplace/Healthy Families Act of 2014, your employer must provide you with one hour of paid leave for every 30 hours worked (paid at regular wages). You can accrue up to 3 days (24 hours) of paid leave per year and you can use it after 90 days of employment. You do not have to put the request in writing, and you can declare that you are using it after the fact (normally, people do not know that they are going to be sick on a certain day).
I am certain that Janice would agree that being there for one day, or even a half a day is great. Perhaps you and anyone else whose is working can make arrangements to be sick that day!

I am missing some important information here, maybe just because I’m ignorant….but the address listed in the post, ( on K street, 17th floor, etc.), that’s in Sacramento or LA? I live in the SF Bay Area and could even travel to Sacramento to help with lobbying efforts or ?. However travel to LA area for training and then Sacramento for lobbying is beyond my resources right now. So if anyone could enlighten me it would be much appreciated, thanks.
Lobby Looking


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x