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 Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board

The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) made a formal presentation to the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) during the board’s monthly meeting on January 19. In its presentation, ACSOL notified CASOMB that it would lobby on both the tiered registry bill and Senate Bill 26.

ACSOL told CASOMB that while the organization supports the concept of a tiered registry, it has several serious concerns about the draft tiered registry bill. One of those concerns is the amount of discretion provided to district attorneys to stop the petition of an individual eligible to be removed from the registry. Another concern is the lack of opportunity for individuals assigned to Tier 3 to be removed from the registry. While some CASOMB members agreed with those concerns, others stated the board would not agree to those changes because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them.

ACSOL also told CASOMB that the organization opposes Senate Bill 26 because it would prohibit all registrants from visiting all school campuses for all reasons. The organization’s opposition has also been expressed in the form of two lawsuits challenging similar policies adopted by Fontana and Grossmont Unified School Districts.

Also during the meeting, CASOMB reported that there are currently 104,145 individuals listed on the state’s registry of which 6,830 are transients. Of that total, there are 6,368 individuals on parole.

Finally, CASOMB reported on the tiered registry bill stating that the bill is expected to be introduced as early as next week. The board estimates that the bill would result in about 24,000 individuals being assigned to Tier 1, about 64,000 individuals being assigned to Tier 2 and about 8,000 individuals being assigned to Tier 3. Individuals assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 would be eligible to petition for removal from the registry although individuals assigned to Tier 3 would continue to register for life.

In addition to individuals eligible to petition for removal, the California Department of Justice would automatically terminate the requirement to register for about 11,000 individuals convicted of an offense prior to 1987 provided they had registered for at least 10 years.

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

Well, this was to be expected. I just don’t know why the major concern of those opposing this bill was not brought up. All the comments on this site mentioned the worry of those not currently on the public site would now be in a higher tier and therefore on the public site. This is just not fair and shows how ridiculous the registry really is. How will it be explained to the public that for years they did not know about all these “dangerousl” people who now appear on the Megan’s law site? That seems like the ultimate deceipt to me. But this was not even mentioned when addressing concerns about this bill.

Well, I will be one of those who will be placed from not even being on the website into Tier III. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. This tiered registry is a complete scam.

M – I am confused as to how it is possible to become a Tier III from not being on the public site now? It has been mentioned here before but i just don’t understand it. Did you have to file for an exclusion or was your offense just automatically not disclosed. Without going into your type of offense if you don’t want to say, can you somewhat explain how you think you would be a Tier III?

My offense is not disclosed under current law (290.006). First-time, non-contact, happened about seven years ago. Never in trouble with the law before or after that one conviction. No parole violations. The thing that screws me is a “high risk” Static 99R score. I score a number 6… which is right at the borderline between me being Tier I and Tier III under this ridiculous tiered registry bill.

Funny thing is that every other “instrument” used to evaluate me showed me at low risk. It’s only the Static 99 scam that shows me “high risk.” And to clarify: I will never recidivate, regardless of whatever Casomb’s “tools” claim. The Static 99 tests are complete garbage.

(Plus, I doubt there would only be 8,000 people subject to Tier III under this bill. I don’t trust Casomb’s “estimates” — as Casomb’s recommendations and findings have not aligned with empirical findings that they only seemingly pretend to uphold.)

While I’m not completely sure about how to calculate correctly the static 99, I too believe it would make me into a tier III. I have no major issues in life–just an old fart now living out his life. However, a couple ridiculous incidences from my past I believe would result in a high scoring of me; for christ-sake, if anything that damn static 99 is only good for someone young in their life, if anything at all.

What really irks me is that I believe everyone here believed static 99 to be the problem–WHY WASN’T THAT MENTIONED!

I’ve never had a notification, in one of the 4 cities I’ve lived in while registering only one has paid me a home verification visit and that was when I first moved here and many years ago. I hardly think I’m someone they worry about.

It really sounds like with just a little effort and commonsense this thing could be some what useful maybe, as we all know there are at risk people out there, I dont know if that number is 8,000 as they suggest or what, but if they are snaring people like me and those of you not on the website currently then that suggests the number is going to be higher, as well as unfair and nonsensical.

Another assessment tool is needed! furthermore–while we (the State and us) clean up the SO database–how about the public defender’s office being staffed and charged with assisting people with this process–who can afford the certain high cost to roll the dice, but certainly we’ll all try!

It’s so ridiculous that the 10 questions of the Static 99R scam can be used to determine LIFETIME registration under this tiered registry. Like I wrote below (and as it’s been said by many other people before me), the Static “developers” say it should only be used up to 10 years after release. And Casomb and the AG’s carefully manipulated *unpublished* study only reviews the Static for a period of 5 years. Yet Casomb is recommending that this scam be used to determine LIFETIME registration!

How the hell is this bogus “instrument,” using its 10 questions, going to be used to determine our futures?

Look at the 10 questions. It’s a simplified joke:

I think if you have not been scored you won’t be. On the other hand that sounds like unequal protection to me. Someone gets on tier 3 because their offense happened after the scoring became law, while another gets the potential to end registration, because he was not required to be scored, but just based on the offense. How is all this based on actual, verifiable risk? Many of the offenses on tier 2 have less recidivism than others. But, maybe the DA will score you when it comes that your ‘tier of duty’ is up for termination. It looks like that requirement is in the draft bill, along with using other actuaries beside Static __. Then you may be screwed. Better to screw you later than never, I guess is the message. And the public cheers.
I think this law passing even in its present mutation is not such a bad thing in the long run. It is going to spawn a bunch of legal questions about fairness, unfunded mandates and due process, as well whether this version of the registry is any less useless than the present form. The lawsuits that follow will really let the poisons in the mud hatch out. The key is to be ready when that happens and not do anything as an organization that will limit your ability to strike when needed.

Are you kidding Timmr? This tiered registry has terrible long-term consequences. Firstly, it will take many many years for court challenges to make its way through trial/appellate/supreme courts at state and federal levels. By then, CASOMB and our legislature will simply move the goalposts further away. And during those many years of challenges making their way through the courts, everyone had to continue registering. So in essence, all CASOMB and the government did by enacting this tiered registry was buy more time in continuing to make people register. Anyway, after reading it, I feel that this tiered registry is complicated and unfair.

Neither the major concern nor that of ALL on this web site is publication on the web site. Sure, it is one concern for a portion of the voices on here, but hardly the major one. Sure, it may be personally disappointing, but ‘ultimate deceipt’ is hardly appropriate.

And how do you figure? Admittedly the pdf is difficult to read, but according to the proposal Tier IIIs (recidivists, those labeled SVPs and those with a Static-99R of 7+) will be listed with full address, Tier IIs will be listed with ZIP Codes, while there is no mention of Tier Is going on the web site at all.

That is a HUGE improvement over the current system. People not listed would remain unlisted, most people in the current ZIP code category would not be listed at all (misdemeanors, etc) and most in the current full address category would be knocked down to ZIP code only UNLESS they fell into Tier III (recidivists with a violent offense listed in 667.5 or yes, the one or two people with a Static-99 score of 7 or higher (true, that is a bone of contention).

Exactly where did it come from that everyone will go on the web site under this proposal? Is this one of them ‘alternative facts’? If I am misreading the proposal incorrectly, please tell me where I went wrong.

Look at it this way… should this pass, and if you are not on the public web site, there is a very good chance you are going to be Tier I, perhaps Tier II with an exception. 10 or 20 years until you are terminating registration as opposed to a life time of registration. I would take that.

And while we are at it… PC 290 in general and PC 290.46 in particular is such a reactionary hodgepodge law… none of this makes any sense or is ‘fair’. Like it makes no sense, is ridiculous and it is not fair that …

– a person who has sex with a 16/17 year old (I know – gasp!) is not on the public web site, but a person who has a crude conversation with the same 16/17 year old (I know – double gasp!) is (PC 261.5, 288a(b)(1), PC 289(h) vs PC 288.2 , PC 647.6)

– a person who exposes themselves to a 10 year old on a playground is not on the public web site but a person who has a conversation with and goes to meet – without any obvious misconduct – a grown adult / law enforcement official pretending to be a 13 year old – is (PC 314 vs. att. 288(a))

– a person who touches the rear end of the 13 year old neighbor girl will always be published while a person who does the very same to a direct family member under 14 can be exempted from public disclosure (under the guise of protecting the victim). While, furthermore, a person who actually rapes / penetrates the orifices of the same family member under 14 is publicly disclosed – saying to the victim that if their trauma is significant enough their privacy is not a concern.

None of that makes any sense. It is time to re-write PC 290 from the ground up, under today’s conditions and parameters. No time like the present.


You say: “That is a HUGE improvement over the current system. People not listed would remain unlisted, most people in the current ZIP code category would not be listed at all (misdemeanors, etc) and most in the current full address category would be knocked down to ZIP code only UNLESS they fell into Tier III (recidivists with a violent offense listed in 667.5 or yes, the one or two people with a Static-99 score of 7 or higher (true, that is a bone of contention).”

Firstly, it is a score of 6 (not 7, as you say) or higher on the Static 99R that puts someone into Tier III. Secondly, where in the bill does it say that “[p]eople not listed would remain unlisted?” Also, where does it say that “recidivists with a violent offense listed in 667.5” alone puts someone into Tier III? The way I read the bill, there are a lot more conditions than what you mention that would place someone into Tier III. Specifically, there are SEVEN conditions under 290(d)(3) of the draft (subsection i through vii) that can put someone into Tier III (of which, a person would only need to meet ONE condition to be placed into Tier III). A lot more than you mention:

Further, I don’t think it’s been mentioned before; but if you fall into Tier I OR Tier II, you’d still have to prove to overcome the DA’s likely argument that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration” 290.5(a)(2). It’s a hearing that the DA will likely request and fight tooth and nail. And probably a hearing that will cost those eligible at least a few thousand dollars (without any guarantees of being removed from the registry when it’s all over).

Finally, you say that there are “one or two people with a Static-99 score of 7 or higher.” Again, to correct you it is a 6 or higher that will place someone into Tier III. And for your information, I think there will be a lot more than “one or two people” who will be placed into Tier III because of a high Static score. For example, when I was in mandatory therapy the nine people in my group were all considered “high risk” under the Static. Yet strangely ALL of us had no violations, were mostly first-time offenders (except for one of the nine), our crimes were non-contact, and we all had jobs (for the exception of one retiree). So based on that therapy group and from I read on here, I think a lot more than “one or two people” will be scored “high risk” (and will therefore be placed into Tier III):

Joe, thank you for your post. First time on here and if I may kindly ask your thoughts as to what tier I may possibly fall into. I understand that anything said isn’t concrete however I just like to have an idea what to expect. I appreciate if no one bashes or attacks my post. From what I’ve read you’ve seemed to have interpreted the PDF with clarity. 22 years ago plead guilty to PC 243.4 felony reduced to a misdemeanor which will be expunged next month.
Internet exclusion the whole time. No subsequent sex offenses there after. Always have been in full compliance. I appreciate your time and thank you much in advance.

I especially despise those that complain about people being sneaky, then making a fake account right after, to pretend to pat the person on the back. They are especially weaselly!

I’ve had two names on this site, both registered with the state when they were active. Of course, “no more ” is no more, so I now have one active.

I guess the haters are right about some, that we can be manipulative. I as I’m sure many here feel the same, prefer to be straightforward about ourselves and our opinions.

On this part:

“In addition to individuals eligible to petition for removal, the California Department of Justice would automatically terminate the requirement to register for about 11,000 individuals convicted of an offense prior to 1987 provided they had registered for at least 10 years.”

Someone is going to have to explain to me how that isn’t a state violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Anyone with the same circumstances must get the same treatment, and the date of something occurring that is supposed to be “regulatory” and not punishment would have to regulate regardless of date. Otherwise, it’s punishment and you can’t change the terms of agreed to punishment or it’s ex-post facto.

I guess it’s best to let the law take effect and then file a case to get everyone off that has registered for 10 years. How will the judge explain that it’s ok to set an arbitrary date like 1987?

“….provided they had registered for at least 10 years.” That certainly sounds like punishment to me!!

Until the Courts correct registration as a criminal penalty (i.e. punishment) — and not promulgate it under the auspices of a “civil penalty” — our Legislature will continue to throw false prophets like this tiered registry bill.

I feel that this is an issue best fought in the Court system. And I think that this tiered registry bill is a terrible idea that will evolve to be something a lot worse than what it currently is. Open your eyes and look at the big picture. Casomb, the DAs, and law enforcement are agreeing to release about 10,000 pre-1987 offenders in exchange for being able to impose a more complex set of rules on a greater amount of us (without any Ex Post Facto prohibition). It’s pretty much a hostage situation. And it’s clear that Casomb is using people who are labeled “sex offenders” as political pawns to further the Casomb board member’s for-profit business or political interests.

As others have wisely said: Casomb is no friend of ours.

Registration may be a civil penalty, but its M.O. and results are to negate one’s privacy. They are collecting your private information, doesn’t matter if they’re displaying it or not, the state is requiring of your whereabouts as well as that information being shared to potential employers and housing communities.

California Constitution specifically states that the right to privacy and obtain it is an “inalienable right”. It is a right that cannot be taken away nor can it be prevented from attaining it.

I don’t know how registration came to be in California, but last time I checked, the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 did not amend itself to omit “inalienable right to… privacy… and obtain it.” Maybe somebody should query just how strong the California Constitution is in court b/c registration is the process of taking away your privacy… for life.


excellent point!

“While some CASOMB members agreed with those concerns, others stated the board would not agree to those changes because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them.”

So what? They’re not the ones in office. Nor are they ones who can vote yay or nay. Why is CASOMB trying to appease a group that clearly has zero power in the legislative chambers?

Yes, so what? The CASOMB is an advisory board, not a political party. They are there to advise on what is best for public safety, not to be a mouthpiece for the district attorneys. They are a public advisory board not the police union.

CASOMB reminds me of my probation office.

When filing for my 1203.4, they wrote in their paperwork that I had successfully completed my probation. At the end of the paperwork, which was turned into the judge, the probation office recommended that I not be granted 1203.4.

The DA for my case also recommended to the judge that I not be granted the 1203.4.

Now, here’s what I don’t understand – according to law, if one successfully completes probation, then they are automatically given 1203.4. If this is so, then why are both the DA and probation offices sending in their recommendations to NOT award me with 1203.4 when they have no say whatsoever?

The stigma of being a sex offender supersedes all logic as demonstrated in my 1203.4 hearing. I believe I kept the paperwork of what probation wrote to the judge to have as an actual artifact of the hypocrisy and bias to my situation. How can one successfully complete probation and NOT receive a positive recommendation? How can the DA, a person who should know the law, furiously fight to negate my 1203.4 after successfully completing probation? This implies the probation office had become the mouth piece for the DA in my case.

Anyhow, my experience has me cringing at the fact that judges and the DA will have a say after 10 years worth of being offense free. If they were willing to not award me my 1203.4 after successfully completing a 3 year probation term, then what makes you think that mentality has changed at all for this new tiered proposal? Thank God the law was in place so that the judges and DA’s had no say.

I’m living proof that such an incident occurred. If it has happened at least once, then for sure the probability will recur. The fact that the DAs and judges want a say after 10 years is definitive proof that such a possibility will occur.

Which is why I look back into California law: “inalienable right to privacy… and obtain it.”
1. My privacy was taken away when it shouldn’t have been. (inalienable right to privacy)
2. My right to privacy was disabled.
3. My privacy was kept away after earning my 1203.4. (inalienable right to obtain privacy)
(… be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense convicted of)
4. My privacy was STILL kept away after earning my 1203.4. (inalienable right to obtain privacy)
1203.4 states what are exceptions to those penalties and disabilities with these five specific words, “, and except as noted below…” There are no added statutes that states a registrant needs to continue to register below within 1203.4.

If the California Constitution law in Article 1, Section 1, “inalienable right to privacy… and obtain it,” is as strong and concrete as it is written, then why are we registrants allowing the state to neglect such a statute?

If my lawyer for 1203.4 hadn’t contacted an appellate lawyer and the appellate lawyer told him to reaffirm that 1203.4 is automatic as well as it can be appealed if the courts rejected, then the courts would have rejected my 1203.4 and I would have ended my attempts to acquire 1203.4 due to my ignorance of the law existing for my benefit. We withdrew the first attempt b/c my lawyer asked what the judge was going to lay verdict and the judge said he would deny it. The second time around, my lawyer made distinct emphasis that it is law that I be awarded 1203.4. The judge told the DA in court that the law is the law and he must award it to me.

How strong and concrete is the law of “inalienable right to privacy… and obtain it” is? I want to use a law that no judge nor DA can deny. Maybe this is a law that’s often neglected and we’re run roughshod b/c we aren’t emphasizing it enough. I’m really interested about restoring my “inalienable right to privacy and obtain it” DISABILITY awarded from 1203.4. Is taking away my “right to privacy and obtain it” a disability? If so, then all those with 1203.4 have a claim that needs taking up, especially when the “letter of the law” in 1203.4 doesn’t not say one needs to continue to register within said statue.

Well I can only imagine that without those not in office types behind this the in office types wouldn’t have the backbone or rationale to send this through

Maybe casomb realizes there is no chance any of us suckers get off this list unless they go with these terms. Only one politician had the nads to try to propose something and it went nowhere.

Great work! Janice, please advise. How would those with expunged offenses be affected? I have a PC 243.4 (a) expunged years ago with Summary Probation. I’ve never taken a Static 99 Test and 18-19 years has passed since my plea/crime free? Does expungement have an affect on tiering? I never noted anything via the proposal. Thank you

So CASOMB puts out a video showing that offenders are all very different and have a risk greatly lower than other offenses. They’re also in a state that showed a 4.8% average re-offense rate, being the lowest or all crimes, yet they STILL are moving forward with their plans? Does anyone use their brains anymore? Is it really that difficult to pay attention to empirical evidence rather than baseless emotions? You have to have a Backbone to stand up for the truth, which it seems many people especially in authority lack.

I still strongly disagree with the fact that a person would have to file a petition to be granted from registry relief. Unless that said person has committed another crime it SHOULD be automatic removal. It is just another burden put on registered citizens by big brother government.

Casomb = corrupt. A lot of us will end up in worse shape with this bogus “tiered” registry. What a joke!!

The concerns that Janice brought fourth truly serve “In The Interest of Justice” and the imperical data To Date at hand proves her case “Without a Shadow of Doubt”.

Yet we are informed that : “others stated the board would not agree to those changes because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them.”

We can Correctly Infer by their stated positions that the DA’s & LE officials desire to serve their Political Motivations and in effect have made Political Prisoners of 104,145 persons. We are now lead to see the Ugly Truth, that the reality that their policy’s keep the public safe is a Falsehood they have perpetuated for far to long.

They offer society solutions that Malfunction at the most base level and in practice have caused Evil (Want) for the parties involved.

The Justice they produce is equal to False Coin as contrasted with True Coin, the Fruit of their tree is a “Counterfeit Justice” a “Coliseum Justice” for the masses to consume.

In the same spirit as Moses came to Pharaoh and called out to him to repent and return from the wicked path he traveled upon, I too say the same message from The Most High Father in Heaven who formed light and created darkness: Set His Children Free, as Heaven and Earth is witness against you before the Court of the Only Eternal One.

As Yehovah Lives, I speak Truth

Kudos to ACSOL for their efforts to improve this bill. In case anyone missed it, an invitation to make formal presentations to policymakers is not easy to secure, yet Janice and her team were invited to the table because they have credibility and make well-reasoned contributions. Also, building influence requires recognizing the political realities involved with this bill, which is the product of negotiation between many powerful players in state government. I think Janice and the rest of the ACSOL board are smart to advocate for changes that have a realistic chance of being implemented. There will be problems with almost any bill, but advocating for realistic positions that help the maximum number of registrants is a better strategy than advocating positions that will be ignored by the government and therefore help no one.

“advocating for realistic positions that help the maximum number of registrants is a better strategy than advocating positions that will be ignored by the government and therefore help no one.”

Depends on who you’re advocating to. If you spend time and resources going the route of legislation, you’re almost guaranteed to always get the short stick. If however, you’re spending those same resources on direct challenges through the courts, you’re odds are much higher of winning something substantial.

By going through the legislators, you’re helping them work out ways to keep the scheme going. A lifetime suit should’ve been filed against 290 but now it can’t be, like it could’ve been, if any tiered bill gets through. They’ll always be able to point to “they have a way to petition for relief” as a defense, even when the effect of their bill, all but guarantees you’re staying right where they want you.

It’s the same tactic used in Texas and for restoration of gun rights, now with COR in California.

You’re getting screwed and some of you are asking for it.

If a court strikes down a lifetime registry because it lacks ‘a way to petition for relief’, they will simply allow the state to go back and hammer out some half ass way to provide some relief for some, so they can save SORA and say they are saving that one child somewhere. Hasn’t that happened all too often? The remedy would probably be worse than this proposal, certainly less thought out and ad hoc, and the judge may say it is good enough. Then it would be court precedent, which is stronger than legislative precedent and harder to undo, and you would have to go through the legislatures to do it anyway. I am not saying this because I think the draft bill and tiered registries are good, far from it, but that the process has be to attack from all directions if you really want to succeed.

Yes, there is a possibility that they’ll revamp it and try to reapply but I don’t know how it could be worse, since they’re offering worse now. There is a small chance that it might not make it through unscathed.

Now for the part I don’t think you get. We do NOT have the resources to attack from all directions which is why I and others, among other things, call for a direct core attack. There will be no workaround for hundreds of thousands of us that have had decades added to our time under the guise of regulatory high and frightening lie.

There’s a good book title for ya David Kennerly or anyone else that’s a good writer! .20 cent royalty on any item sold from this idea. 🙂

The High and Frightening Lie.
Written by:?

The dust jacket illustration would have to be from a very low angle looking up at scary-looking Supreme Court Justices towering, and glowering, over us. “Frightening and High”

I love it.

Make it so. 🙂

I can agree with everyone’s comments! Can a judge just deny your removal from the website for no reason? Or, is it your compliant/no further arrests and it’s straightforward? The removal from the registry altogether is also questionable? Is this just a straightforward request (compliant etc)? Or, is this going to be like a COR? I hope guidelines can be instituted? I’m presently not online after 20 years with an expunged offense? Will this change? I feel for you. This could drive the courts crazy! Just remember, stay positive and nothing has been signed into legislation!

That lifetime term of negation of privacy runs contrary to the inalienable right to privacy AND obtain it as specifically stated in California Constitution Article 1, Section 1.

This continued propagation of lifetime negation of privacy is a violation of the law. Thus, with this new bill, they are stating exactly that tier 3’s cannot regain their privacy whereas tier 1 and 2’s have the so-called opportunity to “obtain privacy”.

Also, with this new bill, they are admitting there were no direct pathway to obtain privacy for this group of convicts until this bill was introduced with their own way of doing so after a minimum of a decade with the power to negate privacy further at their discretion as opposed to meeting set criteria. Again, that is NOT a direct path to obtain privacy as discretion is far too powerfully vague.

Are we not allowed to use our California Constitution to combat the negation of privacy, which is what registration is? I’m giving my privacy away every year for the rest of my life without a direct pathway off of registery, to which California states in law that ‘privacy is an inalienable right as well as obtaining it’. Apparently, 1203.4 isn’t a direct pathway to “obtain the inalienable right to privacy”. If that doesn’t do it, then there truly isn’t a direct path to obtain it outside the whim of discretion.

Inalienable – unable to be taken away from or given away

Inalienable right – right that is unable to be taken away from or given away.

Why exactly are we not using Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution to do away with any form of registration outside of being in custody? We, Californians, have something written specifically for Californians that other states do not have – “the inalienable right to privacy”. Registration is taking away my privacy and giving it away (this includes giving it away to the IML). That’s all registration is… all about my private information.

::: sighs ::: I wish I could generate enough money to file a suit against the state for violating my California Constitutional’s “inalienable right to privacy and obtain it”. Was my right disabled for my crime (meaning did I lose it)? If I lost it, then how is that possible considering the terminology of “inalienable right”? And if I did lose that right (disabled my right to privacy), then why wasn’t that disability restored when I earned my 1203.4 as stated specifically within its statute and nothing “below” within that same statute says I need to continue to register after earning my 1203.4?

I really don’t know how the courts can work around “inalienable right to privacy AND obtain it”? According to our California Constitution, any form of taking away my privacy is a violation of the law. That means this registration scheme is a violation of the law as it is. Tack on the “lifetime” term of negation is a second violation as it’s also “an inalienable right to obtain privacy”.

Who cares about categorical punishment when you have this LAW telling you the state cannot take privacy away! Let alone not give it back to you! We aren’t part of a national registration program, so this is only a state program. And this program should be deemed unconstitutional as it violates it’s first section!

On reading this,, I am wondering if registration can be legally abolished in California as being unconstitutional or would federal law require the state to have a registry anyway?

There’s a difference between inalienable vs unalienable. In the final signed Declaration of Independence, Adams changed inalienable to unalienable. I often see people use the incorrect word thinking they mean the same thing.

“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”

“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

One can be contracted away by you and one cannot by anyone, including you.

Politicians and lawyers love the first definition that gets you to believe that you’ve given up your rights.

I haven’t read the California constitution but I’d recheck if I were you… If it says inalienable, you have your answer as to why you’ve lost your rights. They’ve given themselves the legal authority to screw ya.

Edit: Yep, says “inalienable”.

“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” — Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

For drunks sake.

I meant John Adams. I had a beer in my hand, while I wrote that lol! A little too free with my associations, I guess!

Ummm… I’m sorry to correct you about the difference in unalienable and inalienable.

You’re utilizing Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd edition. That was created in 1910. Guess when the Declaration of independence was created? Late 1770s. Thomas Jefferson used “inalienable”, a latin terminology of the use of “in” as a negative prefix. John Adams was part of the committee in charge of printing it, used “unalienable”, which is of English for of the negative prefix.

Thus, utilizing context and the interchangability in the 1770s, inalienable and unalienable meant the same thing. The prefix “in” and “un” both meant to negate a word, differences was preference in Latin or English. There’s no difference between cancelled and cacnceled, except one is an American term and the other a British term. It was only until later did Black sought to re-define was what already defined, in a very, very obscure text.

The California Constitution was first created in 1877. The second constitution was created in 1878-79. Pretty sure that the Article 1, Section 1 wasn’t amended and probably had remained the same. With that said, I’ve set context to the word inalienable has the same meaning of unalienable b/c Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, was not produced until 1910.

Thus, inalienable retains all traits as unalienable within proper context.

Hence, the state cannot take the right of privacy away nor take away the possibility of obtaining privacy. Boom. Now can we start a class action suit against California?

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 edition.

UNALIENABLE . The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

INALIENABLE. This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.

You’ll notice that inalienable is defined differently…. Cannot be lawfully transfered from one person to another vs incapable of being. ( period and boom)

The inalienable definition difference is just enough worming room for a weasel lawyer.

If you need an older definition I’m sure I could find it. Adams surely changed it for a reason.

There exists a problem here. Natural rights such as “rights of liberty”. You’ve denoted this in both inalienable and unalienable.

a) Cannot be commerced (such as public property).
b) Property that cannot be commerced.

Yet the natural right to life and liberty exist in both. Which means they are one of the same.

SECTION 1. 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.

Here, within the Constitution, it states what is a “NATURAL RIGHT”:
i. life and liberty,
ii. acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
iii. pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

From this website, you have the following info:

According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856), the meaning of inalienable began much the same as unalienable; but it changed over time starting with the 1910 definition. Inalienable has evolved to mean rights that can be transferred with the consent of the person having them. If someone consents to transfer their rights, those rights can no long be considered un-alienable, impossible to transfer, inherent human rights. They become rights “in commerce.”

Double BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is supports what I said about CONTEXT before the website I quoted.

Inalienable means not be alienated. This is applied to all three parts of the California Constitution. If your right to life and liberty cannot be consented to be transferred, then similarly it must apply to every other item within the same listing.

Hence, my right to privacy was never available for commercial use! Nor was my right to obtain my privacy – how can I sell something that which I do not have, but wish to attain? You can’t. That “right to obtain privacy” actually solidifies an inherent right that cannot be transferred due to the fact that “obtain” is a verb, not a noun, which signifies the potentiality to be property; thus ever solidifying the right to privacy cannot be sold, taken away.

Easy question, why is life and liberty in both unalienable and inalienable? Why was the California Constitution distinct in identifying “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.” Meaning here are the natural rights, to which the subsequent sentence lists those natural rights. Notice, it says people, not property within the natural rights.


Unalienable used during that time:

And Jeffersons own words.

“A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: YOU CAN NOT SURRENDER, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. YOU CAN SURRENDER, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

Note: Morrison v State is in the state of Missouri. Registration was an attached penalty that convicts were forced to surrender, not that a person wishes to surrender. There is no consent here as it was attached as a penalty or disability – disabling my right to privacy. I’ll come back to “disabling portion” at my conclusion.

I reiterate… is life and liberty a gift from the Creator? Yet it exists in both unalienable and inalienable.

The California Constitution states:

SECTION 1. 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.

The ‘All people are by nature’ implies a gift from the Creator. These gifts are to be free, independent and have inalienable rights. What specifically are these items?
i) enjoying and defending life and liberty
ii) acquiring, possessing, and protecting property
iii) pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Are you telling me the state can negate my right to pursue and obtain happiness? So if I go to jail, then I lose the right to pursue to be happy or obtain happiness? Nay. Once I am out of jail and custody, can the state tell me I cannot pursue happiness?

Now, as for privacy, in custody, it is suspended, not surrendered. Out of custody, once punishment is over, my privacy is re-enabled as per Article 1, Section 1. Thus the verb “obtain” is included. Since registration is not punishment, then it actually is violating my right to privacy as it has no jurisdiction of suspending my right to privacy. In fact, registration negates privacy and shares it to enact other regulations imposed due to my privacy.

Thus, if life and liberty cannot be transferred or taken away, then neither can the right to privacy and obtain it as the right to privacy shares the same weight as life and liberty as stated within Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution. Therein lies the context and is binding.

Now, let us agree that the state has, in fact, disabled my right to privacy. It was disabled due to a conviction of a certain offense. 1203.4 specifically states that all penalties and disabilities will be released from offense of conviction.

We’re right back to where I stated that State is violating a law. Check mate.

i) Inalienable right to privacy and obtain it (negation of privacy law broken here as per California Constitution)
ii) Released from all penalties and disabilities from offense (negation of a disabled right as per 1203.4)

I want to emphasize that “right to privacy” is an inalienable right. It was never consented to be surrendered. Yet let’s assume it was suspended, then that “right” was disabled – thus making it a disability. By Constitutional law, I have a right to obtain privacy (crazy how that right seems impossible to remove as a free person) and 1203.4 specifically states I be released from all penalties and disabilities – to which my “right to privacy” was disabled.

So the state screwed up with Registration with rights that cannot be surrended as given by the Creator or it’s screwing up in removal from Registration via 1203.4 as my privacy is a right denoted in the Constitution.

Maybe someone should discover what inalienable rights mean in the California Constitution. And while you’re at it, ask was the right to privacy disabled if the State believes it has to power to take it away.

You proved my point. The words are different and mean different things in the legal system. That’s all. Obviously they are morally wrong to do it but it doesn’t stop them.

@New Person,
Count me in on that!

I’ll third your motion.

Position is important. The right to privacy is in Article 1, Section 1 and that section is the first in the Declaration of Rights in the California Constitution. That has got to be significant.

By all means, try it. But you people will have to do it yourselves most likely.

By that I mean, I support you but you’ll have to get a lawyer yourselves, if you know what I’m saying.

Thank you for being my voice and my pillar of support. I am proud of the team.

I thank you ASCOL for being active. Although I may not agree with every position you take, that is immaterial to the fact you are providing a physical presence for us before the boards of power and is much appreciated. Our greatest danger is to remain invisible and voiceless. When that happens, those who should know better will fill in the void in their perceptions with monster myths and lies provided by the background culture.

Thanks, ACSOL!!!

Beat them down with facts!

Regarding: ” In its presentation, ACSOL notified CASOMB that it would lobby on both the tiered registry bill and Senate Bill 26.”

By “lobby on” do you mean “lobby on BEHALF of” the tiered registry bill and, as we already know, not on behalf of Bill 26?

ACSOL does not have a final position on the tiered registry bill because the bill has not yet been introduced. If the bill hasn’t been introduced when we lobby on Jan. 30 and 31, we will discuss our support for the concept of a tiered registry as well as our significant concerns about the draft bill that has been distributed by CASOMB. In addition, ACSOL will lobby in opposition to Senate Bill 26 because that bill has already been introduced.

because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them.

The above quote is a major problem, not just with this bill but all legislation drafted by those outside of government at every level. District attorneys, law enforcement, lobbyists, CEOS and other executives, and anyone outside of a legislative body should have zero influence on the exact language for any proposal that could become law. A person or group is free to propose an idea with whatever details they might want, however no person(s) in a legislative body at any level of government in the United States of America should allow anyone outside that body to write potential law. The coalition here is not serving the people of California, they are only serving themselves by pretending to assert their authority and expertise in one area they directly oversee.

Legislators are free to draft bills based upon advice from outside of the legislature. We are able to lobby them as individuals, non-profit organizations, corporations or as any other kind of group who might appeal to them in an effort to influence policy. We can write model legislation and offer it to the lawmakers for their consideration, bring pressure to bear upon them and speak to them as citizens in public hearings with the goal of getting laws passed or defeated. That is completely fundamental to a democracy.

The powers of law makers to rely upon interested parties to craft laws is beyond question. Stepping back, how would we disallow it? Tell them that they have to make a certain number of changes to any proposed law offered by outside groups in order for it not to be identical?

Don’t forget that We the People can also draft new laws. All we have to do is get enough fellow citizens to agree with us and sign a petition. Then get it on the ballet for a vote of the people.

The CASOMB is an advisory board, not a lobbyist.

Right on!

In other words, “I won’t get reelected if I don’t have these people’s support, endorsements and money when I need it most!” If what they said is not the most “sell out” comment I have ever heard, it is close to it! All they have done is politically sold themselves for ego, etc and made the red neon arrow point right at them.

Isn’t this type of lobbying nature what gets those in WDC in trouble so much? Just asking….

Also, by inserting themselves (judges and DA) into this specific equation, they are adding cost to registrant to be removed from the registry. This is a second judgement???????????????????? At the extra cost on behalf of the registrant????

Isn’t this akin to saying every registrant need to take a polygraph and one of those people who wrote the law is part owner of a polygraph production company, thereby standing to make profit from it? Crony capitalism?

Also, if this isn’t punishment, then why have a second hearing as if we were in jail seeking to get out of jail? Isn’t that a form of punishment practice?

hmmm… a second judgement without an actual crime to where a restriction can be extended, thereby enhancing the penalty. am i missing something here?

Thank you for helping us!

I am very torn on this…

My gratitude for the work and taking the fight to our enemy to improve the station for our people is hard to express or quantify however;

I do not trust our enemy, the people of the United States, in particular the future legislators of the main enemy, the State of California. I am afraid I will live to see the day where the changes sought and achieved will be considered dangerous loopholes that need to be closed for good and that in 2025 our enemy will place us under far more post-punishment punishments than we endured up to 2017. All it takes is one offender, even a first time offender, to do something horrible, truly shocking, and the newly elected enemies in the legislature seeking to continue their sucking off the California teat via votes, will see an opportunity.

The motto for our legislative enemies has always been “Never let any tragedy go unexploited.”

I trust those people like Janice who are fighting for us. I do not trust anyone else in the United States. No one….


One day at a time,
Is everyone tiered based on that listing? What about the static 99? Does that supercede the tiered chart? If so, what if you’re unaware of ever having a static 99 and it’s been more than 10 years since conviction, can they still give you one?

Lastly, based on the levels chart, if you fall in tier 1, does that mean you won’t be listed on the website? I’m concerned because I currently have never been listed and don’t want to be listed now. I’m unclear as to who would be listed if this bill passes.


No one has those answers yet. First, the bill needs to be finalized and submitted to Sacramento. Then it must get passed by the relevant committees, which is where most bills stop and die. Then it has to be voted on by our state legislators. Often the bill will have had some changes made to it by this point. If it is one of the few Laws that make it this far, then the Governor must sign it. No matter how this bill is written, it’s still a “soft-on-crime” long shot that will not likely pass just like the last one that died in committee. If it does pass, we still will have few real answers about the interpretation of this law. It will likely be contested in court for several years after passing while they figure out the details of how they will interpret this law. I would imagine that ACSOL will also file a suit involving this law. In summery:
1) not likely to pass,
2) if it does pass, we won’t have details of how this will be interpreted for several more years.

Yes, the Static 99R does “supersede” the tiered chart. You can otherwise fall into Tier I; but if you score a “6” or higher on the Static 99R scam, you’re out of luck and are placed into Tier III (without even being the benefit of the doubt and being placed into Tier II).

What’s crazy about the Static 99R part is that the so-called “test”/”instrument”/”tool” is only supposed to be used up to 10 years following release into the community. Even worse: Casomb and the Ca Attorney General’s *unpublished* (i.e. not published) “studies” only validate the Static 99R scam for its so-called accuracy for a period of only 5 years.

Further, Casomb and the AG’s most recent *unpublished* “study” only selected a sample of 114 “high-risk” sex offenders (HRSO), when there are at least a few thousand HRSO’s. Even more troubling, here we see Casomb giving us the figure that there are 6,368 sex offender parolees. Yet this very same unpublished study only reviews a sample of 1,198 sex offenders (both parolees and probationers). So not accounting for the probably several thousand sex offenders on probation, Casomb’s bogus study — courtesy of pseudo psychologist Karl Hanson — conveniently omits at least 5,170 parolee sex offenders from its “study.”

This makes me wonder whether Casomb, the CA AG, and Karl Hanson carefully selected who to include in their “study” in order to “validate” the Static 99R’s so called accuracy so that it is in accord with Casomb and Saratso’s political agenda. Casomb and the AG certainly have the Static data to include all CURRENT parolees and probationers in its sample. Why only choose to include 114 “high risk” offenders (with a total of only 1,198 parolees AND probationers)?

In case you are wondering where I got the figures, look at the chart on page 12 of the following “study” to see how Casomb and the AG, along with the help of Karl Hanson, manipulated statistics:

from what i see tier 1 is for 10 years for misdemeanor charge described in subdivision (c) which 288 (a) is mentioned “or” for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) which 288 (a) is mentioned that was not a serious or violent offense as described in subdivision (c), tier 3 must register for life if there is another conviction or put in a mental hospital or a 187 with the intent to commit another conviction, this is a draft which is set to hide and disguise and make it difficult to retire from registration with all,,,, mentioned offenses described in subdivision (whatever code it may be) but except this code “or” that code but yet described in this section, tier 2 mentions a person convicted in subdivision (c) will register for 20 year, but check out the draft and try to put the puzzle together, good luck.

That is incorrect.

288(a) is among the list of offenses classified as a “violent felony offense” under 667.5(c)
It is also a straight felony (not a wobbler), so the misdemeanor part of what you quoted is irrelevant. It therefore does not meet the criteria for Tier I.

288(a) is a Tier II, and if there is a second charge (as a re-offense), the RC would be moved up to Tier III.

The presentation at the CASOMB was not just on ACSOL’s concerns about the tiered registry bill. Janice also talked about our success in Sacramento over the last two years – our successful lawsuits and that ACSOL killed all but one bill directed at registrants and their families. There was a time (not long ago) the board actually told Janice they didn’t want her (or us) to lobby against legislation and that “we really, really mean it.” When Janice was done with her presentation the board had a new respect for her and her ability to bring people together and they understood the importance of ACSOL and real effect we have had in Sacramento. For the first time, they actually saw Janice (and by extension all of us) as an asset and not a liability. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS VICTORY.
The tiered registry bill will be heard before both houses and will probably go though many changes along the way. You can choose to work hard on shaping the bill into something better by making phone calls, writing letters and attending hearings in Sacramento, you can choose to work on passing the bill as it is currently written, you can choose to work on killing it all together, you can choose to support ACSOL’s efforts on behalf of all registrants with your donations or you can choose to not participate at all.
Whatever you choose to do, please recognize how far we have already come and how much further Janice has taken ACSOL in the eyes of the CASOMB just this last week. Understand that while we do have a long way to go, together we will get there and then my friends, choose wisely.

Speaking for myself and a few other registrants I occasionally speak to (met them at the CARSOL/ACSOL meetings), all of us feel unhappy about both the way this tiered registry was written as well as the way it has been sold to us thusfar. We would appreciate a more straightforward bill. The CASOMB video speaks noting about petitioning, the static 99, or how we would need to complete one of Tom Tobin’s CASOMB certified “treatment” courses to get off the damn registry. So while we generally support ACSOL and Janice’s hard work, I suspect there will be a few of us calling and writing to politicians to let them know how and why we disagree with this tiered registry.

The focus of the CASOMB video was not about the tiered registry bill. Instead, it was meant to be a generic education of the public regarding myths and truths about registrants. That type of education is sorely lacking and it is significant when the information in the video comes from the state’s policy experts on this topic.

I have some questions about the Static-99 as it relates to this bill.

First, if the crime one has committed determines the tier (according to the bill), how does the Static-99 even factor into the tier classification? Obviously, in many cases, the initial classification would be contradicted by the classification determined by the Static-99. Someone please clarify.

Second, how can one tell to which tier a person would be designated based on his Static-99 score? I saw a comment on another post on this site that a score of 5 would designate someone as a Tier 1, but a 6 would be a Tier 3. So what is a Tier 2? And where in the bill are these classifications by Static-99 score outlined? Perhaps I overlooked that section.

Finally, when is someone given the Static-99 assessment? My husband has no recollection of ever being asked those questions, and he certainly never received any paperwork regarding his assessment.

So you go through a court procedure to get off the list. Spend a lot of money to be removed only to have some whacko starting a new website who thinks they are saving the world by posting public information. It’ happened in washington st. What do we add in this legislation to keep that from happening. If there is nothing to stop anybody then what is the point?

This is an great point that I brought up before and does need to be addressed or everybody is wasting their time and money. This is one example of such site and there are many…


I believe your comment summed everything up! Change doesn’t occur over night! We could be dealing with a Klass Registry? After reviewing other states Regustries, I’ve noted almost all of them have instituted a tiered system and only repeat offenders remain on for life. So, something must and has to change. I personally filed my own 17 (B) wobbler/reduced to misdemeanor and expungement PC 1203.4 expungement. I was even detained by error after released on bail /never charged and later filed a PC 851.8 Seal Arrest Records! All where granted! I did this on my own! I had to re-file the 17 B twice/initially declined. I went online and everything is downloadable and a clerk will walk you through it! Filing a COR was different. I filed it, but the DA was a monster! I imagine California will do the right thing! I believe removing yourself from the Internet after 10 years and the registry will be more straightforward. Work hard!

Yet ask any registrant who lives in a tiered state whether they like their “tiered” registry. There aren’t many (if any). What makes you think California will be any different?

But but it’ll be different with my tiered registry, he’s different! He’s just a little stressed right now because of the economy…..


Query on your PC 851.8, Seal Arrest Record. I looked online and it says that if you were ever convicted, then you do not qualify for PC 851.8. Although one of the conditions was that your case was dismissed, the supposed caveat is that you were not convicted. If you applied for a 1203.4, then that means you were convicted.

Is there something else that I didn’t read or that it was updated to where it’s no longer possible if you’ve been convicted to seal your arrest record?


I completely concur with you! As your already aware, people currently in California are basically on a tiered system as we speak (other, medium and high risk). The only difference now is we have a chance to be removed from the registry?

Not everyone will have a chance to be removed. I don’t want to seem like a jerk but have you read the draft tiered registry bill? The devil is in the details and even if you fall into Tier I or II you still have to meet all sorts of conditions to get off. Plus, there is already a method that allows some registrants to get off: it’s called a certificate of rehabilitation (which this dumb bill takes away). I hate to steal some other people’s idea that I read on here: but why not just extend the certificate of rehabilitation to more crimes and make the conditions to be granted one objective, clear and mandatory after someone has been offense free for a certain time? Now THAT would be straightforward (without playing this stupid “tiered” game)! Plus it has the added benefit of us being able to earn a “certificate of rehabilitation,” which will at least help mitigate our past while helping us in any state licenses that we may try to earn in the future to help improve earnings. I don’t buy into this CASOMB baloney.

If you think the CoR process is just, equitable and attainable you do not know the first thing about it… talk to anyone who has ever attempted one – successful or not – and you will find there exists no greater and more subjective baloney in the criminal justice system.

And no, not everyone on this list has committed the same offenses or has circumstances that are the same. Therefore they should not all be treated the same. That is the main objection to this registry. Other than, obviously, its very existence.

This CASOMB proposal is in need of tweeking, but absent abolishing the entire registry (should be pursued in parallel thru the court system as it is never gonna happen in the legislature) it is a sane approach providing relief to tens of thousands who DESERVE it. As they have demonstrated over DECADES.

If this leaves one person behind (regardless of how many times they post their objection under different names on this web site, let’s not kid ourselves) – I can live with that.

Let’s get real… this organization is NOT in position to write / rewrite this proposed bill, even less get it through the legislature. They have put themselves in a position – through hard and persistent work as volunteers – to be allowed a few minutes of time to comment on this in an official hearing. They will do what they think is best – as decided by the organization’s Board of Directors – taking into account the voices on this web site, to the best of their abilities and conscience.

I am in full support of and grateful for ACSOL’s efforts. I just feel that that needs to be said after all the negativity on this forum.

I believe I’ve seen more than a few people say they’ve gotten a COR even before thus current tiered bill came forth.

I’d be in agreement ( in principle, somewhat) with you if it only left one or two behind but it doesn’t and that’s why the pro-tier lose the argument.

And yes, I believe also that weasels try to change names to inflate their numbers but it’s happening on both sides, I’m sure. That’s the interwebz forts. I’m not referring to the person or persons that are being obvious about their name changes. Ya know, the people that make continuously changing statements with their names. Some of the name changes can even be funny.

So Joe, how is earning a petition through this confusing tiered draft bill that you want passed different than trying to earn a certificate of rehabilitation in the first place? If CASOMB was really honest they would just introduce a bill to simply let those convicted before 1987 off without the complication of labeling the thousands that will remain as Tier I, II or III AND the greater amount of laws that come with doing so. You also misunderstood and misread my emphasis that that any proposal should make the certificate of rehabilitation standard “objective, clear and mandatory after someone has been offense free for a certain time.” Your support of CASOMB’s tiered registry doesn’t address the fact that its petitioning process under CASOMB’s draft isn’t much different than trying to earn a certificate of rehabilitation in the first place (which is something this bogus draft ALSO takes away because apparently CASOMB and its DA’s may not want to render anyone “rehabilitated”).

People, I have a 288 misdemeanor and I had a “failure to register” dismissed. I have registered for almost 20 years, can someone please tell me what the “static 99 is and consist of?” My sentence did not require prison time and I don’t recall ever taking such a test.

The registry should have 5 tiers, not 3, because there are literally hundreds of different circumstances that could lead to a conviction. A suggestion;

Tier 1 — Register for 1 year (example; urination in public)
Tier 2 — Register for 3 years (exposing yourself intentionally)
Tier 3 — Register for 5 years (s*x with minor)
Tier 4 — Register for 10 years (forcible s*x with fear)
Tier 5 — Register for 12 years (continuous forceful abuse over time)

If the static 99 is applied in this scheme my 234.4(d) a misdemeanor with 1203.4 dismissal. currently not subject to internet disclosure would become a tier 3 offence Notice on the static 99 it goes by charges filed and not convictions, it doesn’t matter if those charges were dropped as in my case.

Lll, no. The Static 99 question you have is for repeat offenders. Read it correctly: prior sex offenses! Prior. Read it more carefully

Just remove the whole reg thing.

To all individuals contacted over the last five years. ​All of you know the issue: sexual offenders are hated and feared. The two news articles attached will begin the change we need to promote in every community. The editor, Carol Feineman, will present a positive series of articles over several weeks. This is the beginning of a nation wide effort. Promote, forward, and discuss this issue with everyone you know.

My role is to;
1. Expand awareness to help offenders instead of hating them
2. Build community support to provide housing and jobs
3. Help offenders prepare, plan and present themselves as ready for release to the state evaluators and the court
4. Provide a Hub; Fresno will become a central location where any offender will have all the community services they need to succeed
5. Be a Liaison and mentor who teaches Self-Regulation Success
6. Create transitional housing statewide (we now have 3 homes in Fresno)
7. Create a community volunteer support program using Restorative Justice Principles.
8. Encourage the medical experts to survey successful registrants and ask them why they were able to change.
(No organization has ever done a detailed survey.)
9. To make sure no one who is released will re-offend.

Thank you for your support in what ever way you have an interest.
Frank Jarez, “Founder of WHITEFEATHER Community Release Liaison.”
posted by:, Bruce Fein, “WHITEFEATHER Spearheading Research Coordinator.”

I like the tier registry but because I was 22 at the time of my offense, entrapment. I am now 25, and I am automatically Tier 2. Will the static-99 change as well?

or what now?

I think time served w/ good behavior as well as time on probation/parole with no violations should count for time off (early release from the tier)
The other side is always searching for ways to punish and destroy us, we need to find ways to use the system in our favor wherever we can.

I would have expected a Static 99 was performed on you already? Your age, relationship status and possible criminal history would clearly have an impact on your scoring. Simply Google Static 99 testing and take it!

I will have to admit, as I think about the tiering, I’m a bit concerned about which tiering people should be on. For example, what if s person had a PC 243.4a and went to prison and was released on parole? Then, compare that to a PC 243.4 a County Time, summary probation and the charge was expunged? (both pleas or convictions where felonies)

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x