ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: It’s Time to Topple California’s Lifetime Registry

Less than two weeks into the new year, it’s clear that we have a lot of work to do in the State Capitol.  We are already facing a bill that would prohibit all registrants, including parents, from visiting all schools for all reasons as well as the promise of a bill that would end the state’s lifetime registry.

It is understandable that Senator Connie Leyva would introduce a bill (Senate Bill 26) with a zero-tolerance policy toward registrants on school campuses.  After all, the district she represents includes the City of Fontana whose school board passed a similar policy a few months ago.  School board members there hastily adopted that policy after a heated two-hour discussion in which parents angrily demanded that school board members pass such a policy or face ouster

Senate Bill 26 is a terrible bill and must be stopped!  If passed, Senate Bill 26 would harm school children because it would rob them of parental support during academic and athletic events as well as in cases of medical emergencies.  Also if passed, the bill would prevent registrants from worshipping at churches that meet on school grounds, attending local government meetings,  and even voting.

We cannot let the cancer created by the Fontana Unified School District board to grow and spread statewide.  Instead, we must stop Senate Bill 26 by sending letters, making phone calls and attending committee hearings.

It is also understandable that a tiered registry bill will be introduced in order to end the state’s lifetime registry.  A coalition of district attorneys, police chiefs and sheriffs has formed to create such a bill that has now been endorsed by the California Sex Offender Management Board.

ACSOL has serious concerns about the draft tiered registry bill created by that coalition.  Chief among those concerns is the unbridled discretion given to district attorneys to object to the removal of registrants from the state’s sex offender registry.  As currently written, the bill would allow a district attorney to object if he or she believes that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”.   Such an objection would result in a costly court hearing and conclude with a decision by a state judge, who is unlikely to rule in favor of registrants because he or she is subject to re-election.

ACSOL is not concerned and in fact is pleased to report that Senator Ricardo Lara has agreed to author the tiered registry bill.  As Chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Lara has “the right stuff” to get the bill through the Senate.  As a publicly announced survivor of sexual assault, Senator Lara also has credibility on this subject.

ACSOL looks forward to working with Senator Lara and staff toward creation of a tiered registry that is based upon empirical evidence.  It’s time to topple the state’s lifetime registry during 2017, the year in which that registry marks its 70th anniversary.

Please join us on January 30 and January 31 in Sacramento to share your views on these bills.

It’s time to Stand Up, Show Up and Speak Up!

— by Janice Bellucci

Read all Janice’s Journals

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

Something has got to give in Jesus name for us all amen!!

Great work Janice and team!

About this part:

“Chief among those concerns is the unbridled discretion given to district attorneys to object to the removal of registrants from the state’s sex offender registry. As currently written, the bill would allow a district attorney to object if he or she believes that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”. Such an objection would result in a costly court hearing and conclude with a decision by a state judge, who is unlikely to rule in favor of registrants because he or she is subject to re-election”

Like I’ve stated before, I agree and all you need to do is look at Texas for an example. Only around 1/3 get off the registry early even with approval of Sex Offender board regardless of any or no opposition by the DA! Judges just don’t take the risk of doing it when they don’t have to. Even when they can point to approval from our Sex Offender Management board they fail to get off of it.

Completion of a treatment program, time free of re-offense, and not being a repeat offender should be all the criteria needed for automatic removal and restoration of “innocent until proven guilty” like everyone else.

Don’t fall for it California! It’s a trap!

As of a few months ago, the total number of applicants to deregister successfully was 58. That was in 2016 and the law, although passed in 05, became functional in 2011. So in almost 6 years, only 58 have been successful. Most of that is due to the judge, being an elected official as well as the prosecutor oppose and that is all it takes. The judge can deny with no comment, even after the RC spends $10,000 on the process and testing. That is justice the TX way.

I agree if you have met the conditions of treatment and time then a judge or DA should have no say into whether a person should be allowed to stop registering. As well as they should not have to petition at all to be removed, it should be automatic.

It undermines the entire structure of the Tier idea.
It’s just another way to strip us of our rights and due process to show contempt for a group of ppl mashed together with violent individuals to justify what is really a death sentence.

I plan to, great cause! For us all

Fair enough. Though I’m fairly certain that the Static-99R is *not* “empirical evidence.”

You know that’s what she means.

Will Leyva’s bill be going to Public Safety first? I would like to make sure my letters go the right people.


Leyva’s bill has been scheduled for consideration before two Senate committees — Education and Public Safety. We don’t have any dates yet, but will be sure to share them as soon as they become available.

Are you able to give us any insight on what your team intends to address with this Tiered Bill moving forward?
Also, I feel like we should be writing Mr Lara asap.
I intend to voice how the Registry robbed me and my children of a stable life and point out that if America continues down this path, a Muslim Registry will come to pass and more will spring up.
Any input from you would be appreciated.

ACSOL will meet in the office of Senator Lara on Jan. 20. After that meeting, we will have better insight regarding the most effective way(s) to be heard. We have already met and will continue meeting with other organizations in order to build a “coalition of reason” that can weigh in on both the tiered registry bill and Senate Bill 26.

You have my support Janice. I just hope you will be able to influence them to make the needed changes.

My shuttle bus is a few months from being converted to my new RV. I’ll be going where the fight is as soon as I can, wherever I can. If I can lobby, i’ll lobby. If I can protest, I will protest. If I can donate, I will.

I’m really hopeful with the tiered registry, but I fully expect us to be unsuccessful with SB 26. As it stands now, I don’t think it will matter anyway, because it is up to the school superintendent as to whether to allow the registered citizen to go on school property. I’ve been denied going to my kid’s middle school and now high school graduation even though I am low risk and have no real victim.

Although this bill (SB26) is a paranoid step in the wrong direction, I’m not sure if it will change much for many families. Even though we have no evidence of a known registered citizen committing a sex crime on a K-12 campus in recent history, I can’t imagine the average school principal taking the risk of angry parents causing them to loose their job because they allowed a registered citizen on their campus.

Please contact me directly, Detained, so that we can discuss your situation. You should not have been denied access to your child’s graduation.

Hear! Hear! Good job, Janice. Thank you for representing our interests in Sacramento.

Janice, I’m so glad you’re able to give the politicians our/your opinions on this tiered registry bill. If it’s going to pass, it will pass with our input on the details or without our input. I’d rather we provide our input on this bill rather than just saying no, we don’t want anything to do with this tiered registry and just be stuck with their first draft. They certainly don’t need our approval to pass this in any form.

You say you’re concerned about the current bill then you say you’re unconcerned in the next paragraph? What are you now unconcerned with? Is the current bill being scratched/amended through your participation?

Janice, I’m 100% committed to stopping SB 26 and supporting a tiered registry bill with the protections you discussed.

I hope there will be a far greater turnout in Sacramento than we have had before, because we RCs know a California tiered registry bill has the potential to push the momentum in our favor, even nationwide. The bill will not be perfect, but it is a key battle in our war for civil rights and humanity.

Senate Bill 26 is a disaster for parents and family members up and own the state. I am in favor of pulling out all the stops and get very aggressive with the FACTS. Here are some facts:

1. It is far more likely that someone will be sexually assaulted by a police officer or a teacher than a registered citizen.
2. According to the Department of Education, the teaching profession contains the highest concentration of people with pedophilic interests, not some random dad who was unlucky enough to land on the SO registry.

When is empirical evidence win the day??

“Please join us on January 30 and January 31 in Sacramento to share your views on these bills.” I would like to come Sacramento, however, I can do January 31th only. Can a person come without lobbying experience and be there on the 31th?

While we would prefer to lobby on both days, lobbying can be done on one day only. In order to join on the second day, I must be contacted directly so that arrangements can be made. Lobbying even on one day can be a worthwhile experience.

This tiered registry can easily blow up in our faces. The current tiered registy draft is pretty bad. I hope there are many major revisions to it before it is voted to pass.

If this proposal is enacted into law, just imagine how effective the result of seeing thousands upon thousands of released citizens living a life of propriety and without costing the state another dime in wasted taxpayer funds and manpower.
I see this as a step forward in proving that lifetime registration is a lesson in futility and every citizen removed from the shackles of these unfounded fears can be a testament to open and constructive reasoning regarding growth and rehabilitation.

I, as well, share the belief that a tiered registry is an extremely bad idea. It is often mentioned that California is one of only three (or four?) states that still require lifetime registration for all sex offenders. But the tiered states hardly seem any better. For example, Nevada has recently experienced increasing problems with greater restriction imposed on people in Tier 1. Just recently, Nevada reclassified about 2,700 previous Tier 1 registrants into Tier 3:

Further, the “conspiracy theories” with regard to a tiered registry evolving to AWA is not unfounded. Again, it’s happened with our neighboring state (Nevada) — when it passed AB 579 a few months ago:

And of course, as others have mentioned, New York is currently pushing to expand Tier 1 reporting requirements from an automatic 20 year removal… to a 30 year minimum (with a “clear and convincing” standard) that would also require a petitioning process, much like the CASOMB bill being introduced by Lara:

I have spoken to many registrants from other tiered registration states through my recovery organization’s convention. Not even one of the registrants that currently live in a tiered state say anything good about a tiered registry. Most claim that their state’s tiered registry is worse than the previous legislation that their state had had.

This should be troubling in itself.

The tiered system is a wonderful idea. The ban is a terrible idea. This bill would prevent me from participating in my child’s school, ban me from dropping them off, attending back to school night and picking him up if ill. What if I was a single parent with s deceased wife? Very ignorant. I can maybe see if there was a ban for someone on parole, but who poses more danger? A recently released gang member, drug dealer, prostitite, drunk driver or spousal abuser? What about a recently released murderer? Or, should we ban a guy with a summary probation offender with an expunged offense related to massage parlors 20 years ago? Wake up!

How about we ban the assholes that are telling you that your acceptance of a tiered system is going to give you an ever expanding rule set.

Let’s put the guy who frequents massage parlors on tier 3. They have a higher reoffense rate than murderers. (Hee, hee).

Good Point America

Good Point USA, the general public forgets about the bad one’s

Hoping that the tiered bill will allow for anyone and everyone a way to get off the registry.when one completes parole,thats when it should end.god,help us.

Since registration is considered regulatory, then it doesn’t have to abide by punishment laws such as ending punishment once out of custody.

But what’s the difference between compliance checks before and after parole? See, there shouldn’t be any compliance checks as that’s a trait attached to punishment.

So we need to start listing things done under punishment and things that continue once out of custody. If there are similar things still being done after out of custody, then we can hopefully use this information to show there isn’t a difference.

I just don’t know when we’ll utilize this information, though. = (

Moses said, “let my people go!”
“Can’t do,” replied the Pharaoh, “who’s going to build the pyramid industrial complex without slaves? Can’t do it. It is here to stay. Who’s going to pay the overseers if there is noone left to oversee? Jobs are in short supply. Can’t just put any more in finance. We have a good thing going here. Public works, it’s called. Good for private business, too. Lots of spin offs. People love it! Yeah, people do get hurt. People always get hurt and some deserve it. Besides, the people would actually kill me if I got rid of it. I see your point, but no deal.
“Hmmm,” said Moses. “Looks like I’ll have to call a plague of lawyers upon you. Sorry. Have no choice. Got these instructions from on high.”
“Wrong,” spat out Pharaoh. “Wrong! Got that covered. You lose. I have the most amazing judges on my side. Sorry, loser. Everything is legit. But look, i am a resonable fellow. We got too many slaves already. I admit. Some too old, been at it too long, basically worthless. Some homeless, hiding in the reeds. Can’t watch them all.”
To which Moses replied, “Yeah, I have been telling you that, you got too many. You can’t watch all who needs to be watched. Hey man, can you get by with just the Hittites? Let us go.”
“Yeah, like, I am a reasonable fellow, I have a board looking into this, Fabulous people. Top notch. Professionals. They told me we don’t need so many. There is a test they give, separates the grain from the chaff. Great image. They are so intelligent, they blow me away! So, I am making a deal. The deal, set in stone. Let’s get rid of the older ones. See how that works. Let some off now. Retirement, if you like. Let them get back a life. Some now, more later. I’l choose, just in case. I have the final say. I’ll be generous and fair. I promise. Always new ones to take their place, always new ones. We have the laws for that. It’s a perfectly amazing plan.”
Moses thought for awhile, then said, “OK, but you don’t get to chose who gets off. That has to be based on science.”

“Well Moses, how did it go”, said God, casting his eyes away northward to a promising piece a real estate.’ “Did you free my people, so they can move to the better place?”
“I made a good start”, Moses mumbled in his beard.
“Eh?” Said God.
“I said, ‘let some of my people go.’ ”


oh my! love the satire!

Thanks. It helps me process all this.

Toppling lifetime registration…

Isn’t not in fact inherent that a lifetime exclusion of privacy is contrary to Article 1, Section 1 that states citizens of California have an inalienable right to and obtain privacy? This inalienable right supersedes all different types of nomenclature, whether be it punishment, regulatory, or other. The fact there is no direct path to obtain privacy is a problem.

This is why knowing the success rate of CoR to registrants matters. If there is a low success rate, then the state truly is suppressing the right to privacy as well as obtain it. Yet, as things stands right now, there is no direct path to obtain privacy excluding a CoR and pardon.

Negation of privacy, under California Constitution, is a disability (at the very least – but could very well be punishment as it is an inalienable right), in the opinion of a layman as it is specifically stated that privacy is an inalienable right as well as the right to obtain it. That right is ‘disabled’ when you become a registrant due to the attachment of a crime.

It is apparent that the CoR isn’t a direct pathway as its certainty of success is moot. The only built-in statute that could have direct relief from divulging all privacy is the 1203.4 which states,

the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted

It is not specifically stated within 1203.4 that one needs to continue to register as 1203.4 has specific language to denote ‘and except as noted below’. But the courts of California state the ML does supersede 1203.4 statute. Seems to me there is a conflict in the binding contract in 1203.4 that has specific language ‘and except as noted below’ constitutes that if there are any exceptions to removal of all penalties and disabilities, then it will be noted below the first paragraph were all of the other amendments lay, all within 1203.4.

Anyhow, b/c the courts ‘believe’ ML supersedes 1203.4, the courts have now shown its bias in negating the right to obtain privacy despite the 1203.4 statute stating ‘… released from all penalties and disabilities from the offense…’

So, in essence, can lifetime registration be toppled due to the fact that, not only inherently negates privacy for your entire existence, but there exists no high success rate of obtaining privacy as well as have one plausible path to obtaining privacy (without any DA or judge be a part of the process – 1203.4) negated when California Constitution dictates privacy and obtaining privacy are inalienable rights.

Note, though, 1203.4 qualifies for a certain segment of registrants, not all registrants.

Can we sue the state of California BEFORE it tries to change away from lifetime registration? It seems quite contrary to have both in statutes:
1) an inalienable right to privacy as well as obtain it (California Constitution Article 1, Section 1)
2) lifetime registration – the negation of privacy for life as the only set term (ML)

Now, there are many different categories to registrants, but all share the same disability – no privacy for the rest of your life. Oddly enough, the many different categories of registrants don’t all share the same punishment levied. (Could this grouping and it’s collateral damages reflect Bill of Attainder? Ex. If a person is a Commie, then they’re all Commies. We need to punish all Commies the same way b/c they’re no different from one another!)

Anyhow, as a layman, it is impossible to have an inalienable right to privacy (and obtain it) and a lifetime term of no privacy co-existing upon the same book of laws. That is unless one of those laws is not being upheld. I would like to re-emphasize the California Constitution’s inalienable right to privacy as well as obtain it so that we can file a suit against ‘lifetime registration’. The California Constitution is binding and hasn’t been amended within its section to allow ‘lifetime registration’ as an exception to the right to privacy or obtain it.

I’m pretty sure inalienable right to privacy supersedes any regulatory scheme to negate privacy. I’m quite sure the inalienable right to privacy and obtain it supersedes any lifetime regulatory scheme to negate privacy for a life’s existence. See, it’s the lifetime term that should be an automatic trigger that violates the right to obtain privacy in California. Note, I said IN CALIFORNIA as California has specific language within its constitution that values privacy as an inalienable right.

You figure the inclusion of “and obtain it (privacy)” was probably written within the Constitution for convicts to regain privacy after completing their punishment term. It is apparent that a convict does lose liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and privacy when under custody. A free person doesn’t have to worry about obtaining privacy as their right to privacy was never taken away. Thus, the inalienable right to obtain privacy was designed for convicts such that they may be able to start their lives all over again without molestation, at least in the eyes of this layman.

This all comes down to specific language in the statutes:
1. California Constitution Article 1, section 1: inalienable right to privacy and obtain it
2. 1203.4, paragraph 1: released from all penalties and disabilities, and except as noted below
(assuming part 1 holds that negation of privacy is a disability – disabled privacy)

If the courts are adamant on using the law that registration is a regulatory scheme, then let’s use California law to help undermine to undermine said regulatory scheme. The courts cannot say the laws we use in defense/suit are wrong. We didn’t create this binding contract, we’re merely re-emphasizing what that contract says and means to a layman, especially when upholding specific language in a contract: The inalienable right to privacy or obtain it were disabled and nowhere within the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 or 1203.4 identifies lifetime registration should continue to exist.

(BTW, the Maryland lawyer who helped many registrants get off the system is who motivates me to keep looking within our written laws to help relieve registrants from registering. She said to look into existing law to combat it. She couldn’t prove registration was punishment, but she founded verbiage within her constitution to help registrants from registering in her state. It’s obvious the western states all presume registration isn’t punishment in recent rulings: Ca, Ari, and NM. So this is why I’m always trying to find laws that work around the punishment title. I’m hoping one of these ideas makes sense to Janice and her team. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We’ve all been trying to get registration to be called punitive and it’s always been thwarted for several years in the California Courts. So maybe it’s time we look outside the box by looking deeper inside the books.)


Good question. Just wondering though would federal law trump the states constitution?

California isn’t a part of SORNA.

The Maryland lawyer was able to make it work for her state b/c there was something in their state constitution that prevented newer registrations to be retroactive. Here in California, we surprisingly have a strong privacy law – so strong it’s called an inalienable right within its constitution. All registration is is the negation of all privacy. Since it’s lifetime registration or no registration, then it’s a blanket negation of privacy for your whole existence if you have to register – a clear contradiction to the inalienable right to privacy or obtain it.. It inherently means you have no way of obtaining your privacy again with that term that has no direct plausible path for removal built into the said regulation. That’s automatically unconstitutional within the state when taken within the context of a layman. Lifetime negation of privacy vs Inalienable right to privacy or obtain it – two extremes on the same yardstick and contradictions to one another.

There are gradients of registrants, which is why some can apply and receive 1203.4. Yet receiving the 1203.4, you still share the same lack of privacy as someone who cannot apply for the 1203.4. That doesn’t make any sense at all and puts everyone into one category. Well, why not look into Bill of Attainder if we’re all mistreated as one big group? We’re all limited on where we can live, work, or volunteer after we have served our time. No other group of convicts share all these restrictions.

Anyhow, I want to topple registration. Registration is the negation of privacy. The state of California calls privacy an inalienable right as well as obtaining it. The fact registration is only given out as a lifetime term should scream obvious contradiction as the state is negating an inalienable right to privacy as well as obtain it. It is apparent to lose rights when under custody, but you should be able to regain those rights, especially the inalienable ones!

Steve, yes federal law in all circumstances trumps the state constitution.

Great views! Those attacking others views are comments are clearly immature and probably repeat offenders. I read the comment regarding PC 1203.4! I had my offense expunged pursuant to PC 1203.4 after a 17B. I believe there are now limits on who can now do this. I’m just wondering how those with an expunged offense and no longer eligible for Static 99 Testing (10 or more years have passed crime free) will be tiered! Keep up the great work Janice!

Static 99 will not apply to those who have never taken it and it’s been longer than 10 years since conviction. It says it in the bill “to those who it applies to”

OK GREAT STEVE. But then if what you say is true (limit of 10 years use for the static scam), why are the geniuses at casomb proposing to use the static 99 scam to make the ultimate decision to put someone into the lifetime tier? Doesn’t make sense!! The draft is not consistent with casomb’s evidence and “science.” Lol

The fact that more limits on who can apply for 1203.4 is a sign of an increase in penalty.

But hey, if you’re out of custody and earned a 1203.4, then why are you compelled to continue to serve the state? By state and federal law, involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. Thus, any forced serviced after custody is prohibited. In layman’s terms, involuntary servitude means “forced service”.

The description of involuntary service is any consequence above losing pay or losing the job that pays you for your service. Well, we’re not paid and if we refuse to do said service (job), then we will be punished and probably be put into jail. Whereas any other company will simply just fire you and you go on your way to find another job.

So the consequence dictates registration has a consequence higher than loss of pay or loss of job from the paying employer.

Then there’s four classical points that must be considered involving involuntary servitude (forced service). Recall, involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.
1. Was the contract done in full freedom? No. It was attached to a criminal offense.
2. What is the compensation? There is no compensation for a lifetime of forced service. NONE.
3. What is the term length. LIFETIME. That alone should draw ire to involuntary servitude.
4. Are you domineered? Yes, by law, in fact. If I refuse to do said service, then I will be hunted down, put into jail, punished, and still returned to service of registering.

Remember, registration was attached to the criminal offense, but it is not considered punishment. If it is not punishment, then why am I forced to serve the state out of custody and have earned the 1203.4? Again, this is another form of contradiction from the California Constitution as well as the federal Constitution. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. layman’s translation: It is against the law to force service unless it is part of a punishment for a crime. Hence, if it’s not punishment, then any forced service, regardless if it’s regulatory or something else, is illegal.

So… if registration isn’t a punishment, then it’s breaking a law within California and US Constitutions. One simple, elegant sentence: Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

I have a question for those who are against the static 99. For those who have a single non contact offense and are saying they score in the high risk zone is it because you had a previous conviction or post conviction for something else other than a sex offense?

You’re obviously asking that question so you can do what a certain other person did… Separate yourself from the people who are “inferior”. I don’t like it because it’s faulty much like polls are. It seeks to hem people up based on 8000 other situations, so compared to actual recidivism rates, it would lock up thousands upon thousands on the “possibility” of reoffense unjustly. Solely on the tests predictions. It’s a wholesale price club approach. If they want to make it constitutional, they’ll call it punishment, add it as part of direct probation/parole, give individual personal evaluations from a doctor, designate their term and cancel it out automatically upon completion of their sentence. They don’t want to do that though, because they’ll have to justify each term limit and they’ve grown accustom to their powerful conveyer belt justice system. They’ll need to be made to do it by cutting their legs out from under them, not helping them grease the conveyer wheels so the machine can run a little longer.

Conspiracy theorist gone wild. Simple question to try and understand how its possible.

One more point… If all of that above was done, then they could use static 99 as a gauge to whether or not someone on probation needed to be watched closely…. But as a tool introduced in the court system to help decide whether you spend and extra 15 years to life on probation…from a test that has an accuracy curve from 59 to 95%? Bullshit!

I even question the High end… As with Australia, they based one if their assessments it looks like from a sample of 6 violent offenders… Come on…. Yeah, lets test one oerson, then we can get a 100% accuracy score! To their credit they go on to explain the issues with even large group samplings.

It should NEVER even come up from an advocacy group. With it’s low accuracy, it’s like they’re arguing to bring back lie detectors as evidence. Is that great or what?

Steve the static 99 is a joke. You don’t need to be a recidivist to score high. Even a 1st offender can score high. The static 99 “test” (if one can even call it that) is harsh against one who is young, never lived wih a lover for at least 2 years and had a unrelated/stranger victim. Even if non contact and 1st offense. BAM… enough to alone put anyone into Tier III. Pretty stupid in my opinion. Don’t believe me? You can look at the static 99 SCAM coding form for yourself:

Thanks Ralph that’s all I was asking.

Here’s another link you might find interesting.

A few more reasons and a concession by the developers as to its faulty assessment ability. No rational and logical person would back something that had such serious consequences as good without strict long term analysis/peer reviewing/full disclosure of methodology etc… This crap is being used BECAUSE of its overestimation of risk most likely from oversampling, among other things. Now we have ALL of the advocacy groups including W.A.R. quoting Hanson. It’s troubling to say the least.

The tiered registry integrates, by giving more credibility to, “the static risk assessment instrument forsex [sic] offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.” See Cal. Penal Code 290(d)(3) of the draft bill.

Note how CASOMB expertly phrased the above excerpt by specifically avoiding the phrase “Static-99R.” The draft bill gives CASOMB and SARATSO — the latter of which which includes representatives from CDCR and the California Attorney General’s Office — wide discretion in selecting a replacement for the Static-99R when it is eventually discredited. Maybe in 10 years, Karl Hanson will come out with the Static-100. By then, how many rights have been violated by the Static-99R? In sum, this tiered bill would permit SARATSO to come out and use any type of future “static” test, without legislative approval.

By demanding a registry predicated on “empirical evidence,” I propose that ACSOL oppose any integration of an actuarial instrument — such as the Static-99R — that lumps all types of offenders (violent/non-violent and first-time/recidivist) together. If ACSOL allows the Static-99R to be used, it is — indirectly — advocating, though covertly, for a registry that would still lump all types of “sex” offenders together.

Even for violent offenders, the Virginia legislature has discredited the Static-99R (not even accounting for its use on non-contact offenders — which CASOMB intends to do):$FILE/HD5.pdf

In a *published* medical journal, professors from USC and Duke Medical School have discredited the Static-99R:

In a published opinion, the New York Courts have discredited the Static-99R:

Yet CASOMB and SARATSO still peddles the Static-99R scam, often referencing to Karl Hanson’s very own work to “validate” his very own “accuracy” (Do you see what’s wrong with this?).

It should be pretty obvious to anyone (at least anyone with some basic common sense) that 10 questions can’t predict human behavior… especially more than five-years into the future.

Life is not “static.” And very few things are definitively “set in stone.”

I score rather low on the Static99 and would clearly be a Level 2 according to it. To answer your question, I have only one conviction. Considering that I have been dutifully registering for nearly twenty-five years now and haven’t been charged with any further crimes, let alone sexual ones, it seems that, if one is to believe this proposed tier bill, that I would immediately benefit although I’ll believe that when I see it. More likely, in my opinion, is that the D.A. would oppose my relief from registration.

I’m opposed to the Static99 because it is a very bad instrument and completely unscientific. Worse, it is a bad and unscientific instrument in aid of injustice. I’m opposed to the Registry because it is fundamentally unjust and always unconstitutional, regardless of who it applies to. I would remind you that a SCOTUS up-or-down vote on “constitutionality” is not infallible, especially when it applies to such a social hot-button as sex offenders and the concomitant cognitive derangement that necessarily accompanies it. This is why the Supremes can find sodomy statutes perfectly reasonable in one decade and unconstitutional several more later. “Humans” are the weak link in the mediation of individual liberty and often it is what is popularly accepted as “common sense” that must be overcome to achieve it.

Karl Hanson can only look scientifically credible (and “moderate”) when contrasted with the outright obsessives and hysterics in the sexual abuse treatment industry who were the rule for several decades and who still likely predominate. His test instrument is unquestionably pseudo-science but then, one is hard-pressed to name any thoroughgoing science being conducted in this realm, that most embarrassing wing of psychology as viewed by serious researchers: sex offender “forensics” and treatment. We would be wise not to lend it any further credibility.

A very cynical way to view the tiers bill is that it will lend their proponents an air of respectability that is conferred upon the ostensibly “moderate voices” but will, in reality, serve both to cleave our nascent movement in two and give the California Registry a new lease-on-life that will keep it going another decade or two without further amelioration.

Having said that, it is true that compromises are the only near-term statutory improvements we can hope to enjoy but we would do well not to enthuse excessively over whatever scrap is on offer and to demand something more, something more just. We are not well-served by a posture of abject servility any more than we are by letting the “least offensive” among us create a hierarchy of virtue that salves their conscience, boosts their egos but divides our ranks.

I hope that helps.

‘it is true that compromises are the only near-term statutory improvements we can hope to enjoy’

All very well written as usual David, but I disagree with the above part. I believe a big win, without compromise, is waiting for someone to file. It’s simply takes the desire and resources for such a person or group to do so.

Well, I think we need to make a distinction between legislative and judicial remedies. It is in the courts that we can hope for abolition of the Registy or, at least, major constraints placed upon its powers.

In the case of amending the Registry to making it tier-based, then we are dealing with the California Legislature. Here, my hopes are considerably less extravagant.

Still, we should fight for our position tooth-and-nail. That was part of my point.

OK, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

So what will the duration (time frame) be after one petitions for relief? will one be granted from registering?

There is no guarantees to this bill, except if you were convicted before 1987 it seems. Which is one of the reasons it is much smarter to oppose it in my opinion. I will call and write to whoever to oppose a tier. Even though I respect this organization, it doesn’t mean I have to blindly support it in everything it does. A clear reading of the draft will show any layman that it is worse policy than what we have now. Equally worse is what a tiered registry may become in the future!

@New Person
You’re an effing rock star.
I haven’t been able to articulate what you posted here so well. But good job!
It speaks to what I’ve been dwelling on for months.

“Also if passed, the bill would prevent registrants from worshipping at churches…”

On this alone, please tell me that this will be fought tooth-and-nail in court if it’s passed. This is sick!

Again, no one seems to want to address tier questions. Are you tiered simply based upon your conviction/plea? Is it affected by either being a Felony or Misdemeanor? What if it’s expunged? Then, how does Static 99 Apply if it’s been 10 years or more? Does your probation affect your tiering? Parole? Formal probation? Summary probation?

Its called a draft for reason, its not final. most of you seem to want to shoot it down. it almost feels like its that phrase “misery loves company”. Everyone that opposes this bill doesn’t give facts as to why we should not allow it to proceed. it would be more productive if you give your reasons as to why we should oppose this bill. If changes need to be made, then please say what changes need to be made. Even i know some changes need to be made. I don’t like the fact that the DA needs to be included. it should be almost automatic that we get off the registry, unless there is sex offense case against us at the time off asking to get off the registry, we should just get off with no problems. It should just be a simple form to fill out, and we are done. Yes the Static-99 is a joke, because i was young when i had my offence, and it really seems unfair that i get an extra point for that. we cant just call each other names because some of us support it and some of us don’t support it. we need to work together and make this bill fair for everyone.

“Everyone that opposes this bill doesn’t give facts as to why we should not allow it to proceed. it would be more productive if you give your reasons as to why we should oppose this bill. If changes need to be made, then please say what changes need to be made.”

Obviously you haven’t read any opposing comments. They’ve all been pretty clear on the issues and evidently ASCOL agreed in part, enough not to support it.

Look, I really don’t want to fight with people but there are some fundamental differences between our approaches so we aren’t going to all come together because we simply don’t agree on things.

For whatever reason, whether self-interests or illogical assessments, people keep on with pro-tier statements such as yours. It’s fairytale thinking to believe they’ll come out with a tier that’s fair to everyone firstly and here’s the fundamental difference part…. No tier that usues static-99 or the like to determine your future status is OK nor is further support for any system that ignores the injustice that a regulatory scheme hiding as non-punishment does.

So “we’re” never going to come together to work towards what you want.

People who are against this so called “tiered registry” have far more convincing arguments than those for it. I think tiered is a bad idea.

Does a “zero-tolerance policy toward registrants on school campuses” = higher educational campuses?

Guys, the Registry isn’t fair, but it’s here to stay! So, you propose no longer move forward with passing a tiered system (abolishing lifetime registry) because your either a high risk or High risk per Static 99? I plead no a now expunged battery with summary probation? I’m still required to register/never re offended? I’m not happy as well, but I can now at least see the light!

Never take the first offer, Janice. The proposed 3 tier registry is barely better than the current scheme and leaves far too many to endure the Life Sentence of registration. I agree with you that the Lifetime requirement should be dropped. Murderers, Kidnappers, and Gang Members rarely have to register, so why should anyone who ever peed in public?

Rarely? When and where do murderers, kidnappers and gang members have to register? Child abusers, drunk drivers and animal abusers do have to register (an online search will show that), but these fine folks? Please show the data they have to do the same as a registered citizen.

Never take the first offer, Janice. The proposed 3 tier registry is barely better than the current scheme and leaves far too many to endure the Life Sentence of registration. I agree with you that the Lifetime requirement should be dropped.

Any tiered registry should include at least 5 Tiers, and 90% of convictions should be classified under the first three tiers.

Tier 1—- Register for 1 year after conviction
Tier 2— 3 years after conviction
Tier 3— 5 years after conviction
Tier 4 — 10 years after conviction
Tier 5— 12 years after conviction

Thanks to the internet, this punishment will be widely disseminated, and will be MORE than harsh enough for anyone.

This bill is not being offered based on anything Janice or us want. Local politicians wrote the bill and don’t care if Janice likes it or not. They are NOT writing this bill based on what we want. They are writing it in a way that they think Sacramento Legislators will support it. Janice was only able to tell them our concerns with how this law is written. They will be submitting this bill with their concerns and wording, not ours.

Thank you one day at a time for reminding some of these individuals what Janice and ACSOL overall position is.

Does anyone have an idea what tier I would be placed if this bill is passed. 22 years ago 243.4 felony reduced to misdemeanor and expunged last month. Internet exclusion and no sex crimes thereafter. I appreciate any input. Thanks and good luck to all.

I disagree with a tiered registry, especially the one introduced by the ca somb. My friends, family, and I plan to write and call the politicians to disagree with this bill when it is introduced. When we went to the acsol meetings months ago, we were all told by the speakers there how great this tiered registry was going to be. But now that we have read the actual bill, we know that this tiered registry has way too many flaws to ignore! The reality is that facts trump rumor and wishful thinking (despite what our current political climate suggests). When you weigh the pros and cons of this tiered registry, it is a terribly labyrinth and tortuous piece of legislation. I don’t know how any level headed advocate on our side can see any differently!

question I have been registering for approx. 29 years ., single count 288a ,,me 18 ,,victim 13, LL act under 14 , no force , no violence, no sex..,, crime date of conviction 1989 no other convictions,,RIV county ,, what tier am I ???? no stactic 99 test ever done etc

Your count is a 288(a). BIG difference from 288a (which would be a Tier I).

288(a) is Tier II

don’t forget here in cali arsonist and drug offenders also register, 5years for drug offense one time registration unless you move but I’ve never heard of it being enforced either…

There is no mention as to whether or not the static99 will apply. If so it goes by charges filed and not convictions even if those charges were dropped. So as in my case a 234.4 (d) misdemeanor with 1203.4 dismissal not currently subject to internet disclosure,quickly converts into level 3. With a SVP designation no doubt.

My problem with the tiered registry is that ever the lowest ranking people still face years before they can get off. My conviction was 2006 and I have been out since 2010 with zero police contact. As an older gentleman I will die before I can get off the registry even if it is tiered. I say that once you are off parole you should register with the police and be off the public registry. It is purely punitive and unconstitutional. I don’t believe this will ever happen.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x