ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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

General News

New evidence says US sex-offender policies are actually causing more crime

… Cases like this might seem to argue for even tougher controls on ex-offenders convicted of sex crimes. But new research indicates that the existing sex-offense regime in the US actually may be making repeat sex crimes more likely. Full Article

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

While articles like this are great, and really point to a “tide turning” there is a downside.

If a challenge to the core registration scheme isn’t done soon, then removing some of these restrictions will make the registry itself look more constitutional, or, at the least, it will make it more likely that judges will not find it unconstitutional once the worst parts get watered down.

It’s the perfect time for the right group of registered citizens to challenge numerous constitutional violations (Bill of Attainder, Due Process, Etc…) but not include the “ex-post-facto” since once they rule on that, judges will claim all the other violations will have to wait for another day and any relief will only be for those on old charges. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make this happen, and cannot afford to contribute money to such a fight.

It just makes no sense that the registration scheme can completely bypass judicial involvement that normally allows punishment and restrictions to be tailored on an individual basis while providing an appeal process and future motions for modifications as situations change. One size fits all and public shaming lists need to come to an end.

Odd… CASOMB is listed here, stating how homelessness makes it less safe in their research, but they aren’t really changing any legislation. It’s just a number and that’s it.

They’re controlling opposition. A red flag that supports that theory is their doublespeak. They say stuff that supports “us” but never support legislation that follows those “facts”. I highlighted certain words because I don’t agree with all of their “facts”.

CASOMB are a bunch of crooks!

CASOMB doesn’t have any power to pass any laws and can only make suggestions and recommendations.

CASOMB is an advisory board made up of mostly people that would never come close to being sympathetic to our cause let alone activists leading the charge to change laws. What gave you the impression that they would be expected to start crafting laws and lobbying to pass them?

The irony about this is that Nancy O’Malley prosecuted my case and after, I had to do the Tom Tobin’s treatment scam. O’Malley is CASOMB chair, Tobin is CASOMB vice chair. Both are terrible people who are either most interested in their political career (O’Malley) OR their business/power (Tobin) in my opinion. So the fact they run CASOMB makes me not trust CASOMB. CASOMB should not be trusted.

What good does it do to toughen sex offender laws, and using public notification to put the public into a frenzy and point fingers and humiliate innocent registrants for the things they’ve done in their past, whenever a crime related to a sex offense has taken place?

there’s some reason no one will challenge the Courts on the real issues besides the same old story it’s impossible or the registry isn’t going away…I call a big BS on that sad stance and guarantee that that isn’t what is causing the lack of motivation….

just emailed WAR to find out what the status of that motion that was supposed to be filed last fall…we’ll see what they have to say…it’s kind of disturbing that they now have advertising for attorneys on their site…

I’m part of that suit now too.

Why are lawyer ads a problem? It seems pretty smart to me. They need revenue and “we” need lawyers. I’ve thought of selling ad space to lawyers too. Right now it’s costing me $8 a month but that will grow as the server traffic does. I really can’t afford any of what I’ve done with the site, only work 5 months since I moved here 4 years ago. I’d welcome attorney ads.

Don’t know if I answered your question or someone else, but I as well as a member of the legal team spoke with Miriam Aukerman from the Michigan ACLU a couple of times and her suggestion to us regarding our suits was take your time and cover all the bases meaning think through and analyze every thing that the opposition could come back with before you file. If you don’t you could cause more harm than good for registrants. So, the process slowed a bit. Also, we never expected to receive almost 700 submissions. As a side note, there is a class action suit being prepared in the 5th District Court. Vicki Henry

It seems that sufficient data showing current trends in sex-offender legislation is increasing rather than decreasing recidivism. Given the right set of unfortunate circumstances, a town, village, city, state….. could be potentially found at fault for passing these laws knowing that these restrictions do not do anything other than increase recidivism, and give the public a false sense of security. An unfortunate victim of an offender, along with a shark of an attorney, could do well to fix this problem.

yep deriliction of their duties…

how long before acsol has paid ads on here??? we’ll see i guess…

man I love this statement i believe by the Michigan court..

The 2011 amendments also included a requirement that registrants notify authorities “immediately” and in person when they move, change their names, buy or borrow a car, enroll in school, start a new job, switch to a new email address, or plan to travel for more than seven days. Failure to comply is punishable by fines and prison terms as long as 10 years.

The 6th Circuit observes that “SORA resembles, in some respects at least, the ancient punishment of banishment” as well as “traditional shaming punishments” and parole or probation. It notes that the restraints imposed by the law are “greater than those imposed by the Alaska statute by an order of magnitude” and “relate only tenuously to legitimate, non-punitive purposes.”

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”

magical music to my ears…

Indeed and here is further proof
Great Article with actual facts (imagine that) –

Listening to Sex Offenders

Read this…Pass it along…post it in comment sections of websites, blogs,
and news sites

These articles always talk about Registered people being forced into homelessness and then being unable to track them, as if the main problem with that is the people can’t be tracked! F them. If I ever get to even within a hundred thousand dollars of being homeless, I’m going to hurt some people.

I don’t think the people who support the Registries get it. I’ve always had high standards and I’m not going to let them affect that. It’s not just that I’m going to have a good, normal life, it’s that I’m going to have a life that is a lot better than theirs as well. I am also going to try to do it on their backs. That is what their Registries are getting them.

The Registries completely turned me into a different person. Decades ago I was a very good, contributing citizen who felt a moral obligation to my fellow citizens. I was pro-government and pro-law enforcement. No longer. The Registries freed me from my obligations. I have a very, very long list of things that I’m not obliged to do any longer. I help my family, friends, and known allies. I will never take a chance of helping someone who may support the harassing, un-American Registries.

The other aspect that these articles never talk about is that some Registered people actively retaliate simply because the Registries exist. I am around random children all the time, just because the Registries exist. It is also how normal people typically live. So that is what I am going to do. I will never allow law enforcement to communicate with me. I will never help them with anything. And if there is anything that I can do that I think people who support the Registries would not like, I do it as often as I can – as long as it is not illegal or could possibly give them some other way to further attack me. Because then I would have to retaliate for that also.

America belongs to Americans like me. F the people trying to destroy it.

I believe the paid ads are a slippery slope since I already am concerned that the lack of motivation from these organizations to try and abolish the current registration scheme may be based on the fact that their organizations would not exist without it…adding paid advertising just seems like it would give them more incentives to not challenge the government…I hope and wish I am wrong but the lack of a real challenge on real issues from any of these organizations is inexcusable and very suspect..just my opinion that’s just how I see it..

“I hope and wish I am wrong” if that were true Mike r, why do you keep repeating this same statement over and over again. We all know how you hate this organization, but why must you keep repeating your same negative views over and over again, every month in every news post. We get it, you don’t like how Janice is representing us. You offer no positive contribution to this site.

He’s an activist trying to get the ‘advocates’ to change their ‘behavior’. I see that as very positive.

New name, same game. 🙂

I actually like reading mike r’s contributions. I relate to what he says more often than not. Especially when it relates to the ridiculous tier registry that this organization SEEMS to keep trying to pass behind our backs.

Mike R is stating his opinion, which just so happens to be the opinion of mine and others. The registry is still unconstitutional even if it is tiered. Like putting 👄 on a 🐷. Still a 🐷.
After over 20 years of research and studies to back the abolishment of the registry, the question that needs to be addressed is, why? Why has this organization not argued for the abolishment based on the facts that he has pointed to? He backs up every argument he presents with a study or report. Nothing wrong with that.
My 2 cents.

I also get the sense that Acsol is trying to pass tier registry against our will (or behind our backs, as you put it).

Against whose will? Not mine. I know there are some of you who feel that a tiered registry will not help you, may even make your situation worse, but do not universalize your anger, disappointment, and frustration about the bill to all of “us.” The bill, if made into law, will help many Registered Citizens in California, and is a step forward toward making life bearable for RCs and their families.

I don’t think that there is any RC or family member who wouldn’t say that they want “no registry, not a tiered registry!” However, like all major civil rights and social changes, these wars are won one battle at a time. Look at all the “skirmishes” going on in the courtrooms across the country right now. Victories are being won and although they may not help all of us right away, they certainly are important to our goal.

As for being transparent in their agenda, Janice Bellucci and the entire ACSOL board have been very careful to keep everyone abreast of current decisions and actions. Read the articles, Janice’s Journal, go to meetings, and “show up” at events. Then you will feel like part of the “action.”

Thank you for your much needed words! Not everyone feels this way. Most see the invaluable contributions by this body and the progress. Guess what? Without Janice and the gang who would be out front on these issues? No one. These are changes for the GOOD, movement in the right direction. That anything positive comes our way is a miracle, period. And should be celebrated as such. There are not many people in America that feel the registry is unconstitutional except us stuck on it. Even (to date) the Supreme Court feels this way. Though we hope to change that of course, it will take efforts like this to slowly turn the ship. Come on people, stop biting the hands that feed you and support those who profit none from helping you.


You said: “Come on people, stop biting the hands that feed you and support those who profit none from helping you.”

Maybe Acsol should take this advice. Because this tier registry will betray many of its supporters who will end up being elevated to Tier II or Tier III under this bogus tier registry scheme. How about this organization not support legislation that alienate the very people it purports to help?

Why is it OK to push for laws that are at the expense of other people being pushed to high, more “dangerous,” tiers? Like it’s been said by others, it’s very WRONG for Janice and Acsol to be pushing for laws that are at the expense of other people’s rights.

ACSOL doesn’t support the bill.

In fact, ACSOL has reiterated the use of empirical evidence if a tier is to be created.

You don’t realize this, but it’s a very subtle, yet obvious dig to the tiered system. Consider this a poison pill.

If the people who created the tiered system utilized empirical evidence, then they’d be forced to actually scrap the registration system b/c of the fact that less than 1% re-offend. When compared to other convicts, the numbers and finances involved would prove to be a waste to have a registration system to begin with – if based upon empirical evidence.

ACSOL didn’t support this tiered system nor was it a part of creating it. But there’s a genius involved is making the creators to use empirical evidence as ACSOL’s stance. ACSOL also listened to its constituents as many cited how it could get worse. Thus, the use of empirical evidence actually works in favor of not making it worse.

People don’t realize that ACSOL isn’t a large law firm. It’s just a couple or few lawyers doing this on probably limited or no funds. Some of the lawyers are former registrants. So those lawyers are doing ACSOL work as well as their own work.

ACSOL is not sponsoring or pushing this new bill. This bill will be submitted regardless of our desires. Janice is only asking our opinions on this bill so she can try and influence the politicians on submitting a bill that will be more fair than a bill that would otherwise be written without our input. Get a clue people, she’s trying to help us! Do you really want this bill to be submitted to Sacramento without any input from Janice? We and ACSOL don’t have any choice about whether this bill gets submitted to Sacramento or not. If Janice just told the writers of this bill we were completely against a tiered system, then they would just write the bill without any input from us. At least this way, we may be able to have some influence to mold a bill we can live with for now. And if this bill is submitted, there is no guarantee it will even pass. If it does pass, it doesn’t change anything for us on the many other bigger constitutional issues we will be fighting for in the future.

These are all perfectly plausible conjectures, on your part. Unfortunately, we haven’t heard them articulated by Janice or the ACSOL board (unless I missed that). I have been asking the following, in one form or another, for several months now but, to date, have not heard any replies from Janice or ACSOL:

“Has ACSOL been asked for its support for this bill by, presumably, CASOMB? From anyone? Has ACSOL been asked for its opinion of the proposal or provided any input into the bill’s language? Do you think that our support is in any way critical to the success of this bill? For that matter, have there been any ongoing discussions between ACSOL and CASOMB (or anyone else) with a goal of forming, to any extent, an alliance?”

You know, it would be helpful to know the answers to at least one or two of those questions before leveling complaints against individuals for alleged “ingratitude” which several have made in this forum.

I’m not sure how “ingratitude” can be imputed when our opinions are (to Janice’ credit) being earnestly solicited but ACSOL’s role in this policy arena is completely unclear.

Further, speculation upon what is, and what is not, reasonably achievable within a socially dynamic context are bound to be points of dispute especially in the absence of an articulated organizational posture. Different individuals are coming to different assumptions of what is possible with little or no acknowledgement of the controversies inherent in this dispute and, apparently, little willingness to concede that there is any room for good faith disagreement.

Indeed, all we know is ASCOL has asked us for our opinion, and that opinion is of no value unless it is an honest representation of our individual views. We don’t need an organization to validate our first amendment rights, that is a given right under the Constitution. Yet, when an organization encourages expression of the first amendment from the people it represents, it is saying to those in power, it is practicing what it preaches. That will not muddle its moral standing, but strengthen it.

Have you taken the time to contact Janice directly to answer your questions? I find that she is easy to contact and get answers.

I know I am not alone in opposing the tier registration. I keep in contact with 3 other registrants who attend the quarterly meetings in our city. Not even 1 of the 3 contacts support a tiered registry!! After reading the draft, all of us feel disappointed. I don’t want to blame any person, but when we attended the meetings Frank, Janice and Chance had us cheering for this allegedly great tiered registry. Now we are given the actual draft of what a tiered registry may look like…. some of us are like: “What the f***! This isn’t what we expected!” No one even mentioned the static 99 part! To me, this tiered scam is a lot like the TV show The Walking Dead. Remember when everyone had high hopes for Terminus? They all ended up very disappointed (except for Carol, who used the opportunity to save the day). That’s how I feel about this whole “tiered registry” thing. Disappointed.

There are many, not some, who don’t support this bill nor a tiered registry. Nobody asked before now.

It may “help,” but this bill will also harm. Why does this organization think it’s perfectly acceptably to “help” some at the expense of others? For that reason alone, the “some” of us that disagree with the tier bill have an absolute right to be “angry” for what the bill is (and also, what it is not).

Great to hear from you, Margaret! You don’t post often enough these days.

I have a question: has ACSOL been asked for its support for this bill by, presumably, CASOMB? Has ACSOL been asked for its opinion of the proposal or provided any input into the bill’s language?

Do you think that our support is in any way critical to its success?


We are guest advisors to ASCOL at their request, and I thank them for that. Noone else asks our opinion. This is as close as we get to having a collective voice, but it is not that in reality. We are not voting members per se and the voice of ASCOL is the members on the board. If it was structurally a democratic organization like some unions, that might be taken seriously. By you saying our voice do you mean the 80,000 non incarcerated registrants in California? Who knows what they want beyond what one can intuitively derive from comments made in lawsuits or rarely a registrant speaking up. A few express their views here. That is a paltry minority maybe 0.01 % at best. The rest are accepting of their fate or ignorant that there is an organization advocating for them. The COSOMB and the legislators got to know that and act accordingly. Unless there is some solid constitutional argument against this tiered registry and threats of suits or masses of registrants soliciting their representatives, we are a silent and invisible and inconsequential force.

And that is the concerning part, Timmr. People just accepting the ridiculous notion of a tiered registry without questioning a lot of its inconsistencies. Equally troubling: most law-abiding registered citizens are not even involved in the process to fight for their very own civil rights.

For one, CASOMB’s draft bill isn’t a “risk” tiered registry as CASOMB claims on its promotional tiered registry video. The tiered registry draft is still very much an offense-based registry, which is quite dishonest when you take an actual look at the words of the proposed bill versus what is said in the video. On top of it all, the added ‘risk’ component is based on the Static 99R scam. For me, currently an unpublished registrant (from what I have been told by family and friends), I will be elevated from not even being on the website to Tier III because of my Static score. It appears from other posts that I am not alone. And this bill will have a negative effect on a lot of the 290.006 offenders (i.e. non-contact offenses which aren’t even listed under 290). Even for myself: a first-time offender, with no other history.

So there is a lot of injustices to CASOMB’s tiered draft in general. And unfortunately, it really is about pushing CASOMB & SARATSO’s “risk assessment” agenda. It has the political effect of making it seem that the government knows what it’s doing by making things sciency. But in reality, “risk assessments” like the Static instruments have been discredited by academics, case law, and legislative studies. Why CASOMB & SARATSO continue to obfuscate and minimize the limitations of the Static tests are beyond me. And quite frankly, it’s quite disgusting.

You would think the right to a jury trial would be needed to class you or me as dangerous or not, like is done with civil commitment — that’s not considered punishment, either — and have our freedoms curtailed for the 10, 20 or indefinate years, beyond the original sentence… A trial would bring us an opportunity to challenge the Static 99 score as well as other assuptions. The problem with this tiered proposal is it allows a DA and a judge to prevent you from getting off the registry. It is assumed you are guilty and need to be on it because of the type of crime, not risk analysis that can be challenged. I would amend that to require DA and court in the beginning to prove you needed to be on the registry, bringing in all known evidence to bear on the decision and having council to defend you. If they are going to charge you with a possible crime you haven’t yet commited, adjudicate so. See how many actually end up on a registry this way.

Good idea Timmr. I also think the tier draft is quite unfair. Nonetheless you are right to say that we deserve a trial to determine whether each of us, based on our unique circumstance, deserves to be on the registry. If the politicians and Casomb were not dishonest, one practical alternative to reducing the registry would be simply extending Certificate of Rehabilitations to ALL registrants (no crime or Static 99 scam exceptions) after one has lived a crime free life after incarceration for so many years (like 15 to 20 years). Make the amendments so the Certificate of Rehabilitation is not based on a judge’s discretion, but based on objective post crime factors that happened AFTER release from incarceration: like crime free life after release, volunteer work, employment, character letters, evidence of a person’s good insight to prevent reoffense, RECENT psychological sit-down reports NOT BASED on the Scam 99 (Static 99 scam). If a judge sees these things, then strike the 290 requirement.

I like Mike D.’s suggestion. Rather than advocating for a convoluted (and dishonest) tier, why not extend the privilege of the Certificate of Rehabilitation relieving 290 duty to more people?

Extending the Certificate of Rehabilitation to more people (i.e. removing preclusion of certain crime(s)) is a very straight-forward solution — and would require only minimal amendments to the Penal Code. Also, in addition to extending the privilege to more people, add mandatory criteria (after the 10 years) that would give a judge no option but to grant the C of R. As Mike mentioned, offense-free period, character letters, 10+ years offense free… those are all good places to start.

In fact, extending the Certificate of Rehabilitation to more people addresses the heart of the problem: it gets people off the registry.

I don’t see how many politicians and/or voters will object to granting a person a Certificate of Rehabilitation after they’ve been offense-free for at least 10 years. Such an amendment would give people a second chance. And I think this may end up being a politically popular solution. (Though I wouldn’t know how the corrupt CASOMB scam would view such a proposal.)


I like the idea, but it can be better.

1) 1203.4 gets you off of the register.
2) Include more people who can apply for the CoR after a decade.

As for proof for the CoR, character references isn’t a direct proof as being offense free for a decade. Be offense free for a decade and you automatically slide off the registry.

That’s it.

The current form of the registry doesn’t have a direct path to obtain privacy. Did you know that contradicts the California Constitution of “the right to privacy or obtain it…” as registration is Lifetime for all who receive it in California? It inherently removes that option to privacy that is an inalienable right. Should someone sue the state of California for starting off with “lifetime” contract with no direct path for relieve of privacy. You’re not in jail that you need need a panel to be judged again in order to be released back into society. You’re already a part of society if you’re reading this out of custody. So why is there direct path to obtain privacy again? Is there a scientific reason to take away said inalienable right as stated specifically in the California Constitution? Even if there exists a scientific reason, the option cannot be taken away, which lifetime inherently implies for a person no longer under custody.

New Person,

I guess you are right.

Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution states the following: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

Interesting that the Legislature specified the rights above as “inalienable.” But what the Legislature write and what is reality seem at stark contrast. At least when it comes to “sex offenders.”

As for 1203.4, I agree with what you say. But even for people who were sentenced to state prison and have successfully completed parole: they, too, should also be eligible for relief under 1203.4. Perhaps once a former [successfully discharged] parolee obtains a Certificate of Rehabilitation, a person sentenced to state prison can, too, obtain relief under 1203.4.

We seem to be coming up with better idea than the Legislature with two simple suggestions:

1. expand eligibility of the Certificates of Rehabilitation that terminate registration obligation based on objective factors that happen >10 years after successful completion of sentence; and

2. expand 1203.4 to all people, even successfully discharged parolees, after obtaining a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

I think your suggestion would be a good incremental stategy, simply expand who may apply for a COR and make the process more automatic. That sound reasonable to me. The more complex the laws get, the more chances we lose.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would contact me…My husband is an offender but the laws are destroying our lives. They are all considered the same (monsters) when in reality every offender is not the same.

AND the sad part about the tiered registry is that it sends the message that a registry is perfectly acceptable. I’ve read the draft bill and it (in many ways) sucks more than our lifetime law. I say a big “NO” to the tiered registry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It wouldn’t suck for me. I’d be off in 3 years. What sucks is being on a registry for life right now even with my cleared record (1203.4); Lifetime registry is all we have. You think that’s any better? Leave things status quo?

Well I guess there’s always the CoR.


The problem is that this tier bill also is at the expense of others. If it helped all registrants with no strings attached or at no cost to others, fine. But this is not what the tier scam does. It helps some, but it is also at the cost of other people who will be put into Tier II & III. This is inherently wrong. Especially for a civil rights organization like Acsol to overlook or minimize.

Thank you, Landon, and others for your opinon regarding the registry, in general, and the tiered registry bill, in particular. We have considered and will continue to consider all opinions as we move forward on this important topic.

The position taken by ACSOL on the tiered registry bill is the result of much consideration of input on this website as well as public meetings it conducts. This process is transparent and anyone who has something to say is encouraged to do so. Our position on this bill is public and there is no private agenda.

I found the following amendments to the California Constitution to be very interesting..note how it states no government agencies or entities shall have any immunities against prosecution or redress that only the people have such a right..

Article 1, Section 3, is hereby amended to read as follows:

The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and peaceably assemble, without penalty therefor.

(a) No person shall be denied the right to prosecute any petition in any court on its merits, and in particular, on the basis of prior petitions or his performance in pursuing such.

(b) No person shall be denied the right to prosecute a claim against any official or office of government on the basis of any practice or doctrine, such as “sovereign immunity”. Only the people are sovereign and immune, when met in convention, referendum, or election, and not public officials, agents, or assets.

(c) Any person shall have standing in any court, either in a separate action or in part of another proceeding, for declaratory or injunctive relief, or both, from any statute, regulation, administrative order, repeal, or other official act on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unlawful, or inapplicable, without having to first become a defendant under such act, and without a presumption that such act is lawful or applicable.

In spite of what is written in articles like this, isn’t it what law enforcement/political statisticians want? More crime by sex offenders to pad their statistics and make life more difficult and oppressive for the million or so registered citizens of the country? Rarely do they differentiate between a homeless sex offender and a registered citizen who has made a go of it when there is a repeat offense. To most, it makes no difference; a sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender…all the same to them. I imagine them skipping and dancing with glee when any sex offender re-offends. S**t like that gives them ammunition to pass even harsher laws.

im letting any negative comments towards just fky by me..I’ll say what I want when I want and if someone doesn’t like ignore me…
merry Christmas everyone….and I don’t hate janice or this site just because I respectively disagree with the tactics..

Well….no matter what happens to the Registry, there will always be a need for people like Janice and Organization’s like this and others to watch over and rise up against hate and oppression.
And I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Mike R does not have anything positive to contribute either.
Sometimes we need to be reminded to keep the fire going and do our best to speak as one voice. Everyone here is an important piece of the puzzle.

Janice can you any one tell me are the amendments valid in the following page. Its from the constitutional society. I just cant find references to this no where else but there…Thanks..

Margeret moon… just wanted to say amen

Gotta disagree. Any tier bill is junk.

thank you for your response Vicky Henry. I agree you must cover all your bases and try to address ever argument that the government or the court can bring because it’s been obvious the courts are no longer there to keep checks and balances in our government that they are now just an extension of the legislative body..I really hope whoever brings suit that they get the court to apply the intermediate or strict scrutiny standards by a showing of definite violations of a fundamental rights. although if argued correctly I believe the registry wouldn’t even pass the rational basis requirement since there is so much evidence showing it to be counterproductive and doesn’t reduce recidivism as the legislative objectives claim or suggest, especially when applied to fist time ex-offenders..

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x