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
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!
I plan to, great cause! For us all
Fair enough. Though I’m fairly certain that the Static-99R is *not* “empirical evidence.”
Will Leyva’s bill be going to Public Safety first? I would like to make sure my letters go the right people.
Thanks
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.
A new bill similar to this one?
https://all4consolaws.org/2013/04/tiered-registry-bill-introduced/
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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.)
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!
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?
So what will the duration (time frame) be after one petitions for relief? will one be granted from registering?
@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.
Thanks!
“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!