ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio


Tiered Registry Bill Introduced as Senate Bill 695

Senator Ricardo Lara introduced today a tiered registry bill (Senate Bill 695). If passed by the legislature and signed by Governor, the bill would create three tiers that would allows most registrants who do not re-offend to lawfully end their requirement to register in either 10 or 20 years. The remaining registrants would still be required to register for a lifetime.

“We have just received a copy of this bill and have not yet had time to compare it to the draft bill distributed a few months ago,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We will provide a comparison of the two bills as soon as possible.”

Senate Bill 695 (pdf)

Senate Bill 695 (on CA Legislature web site)

Legislative Fact Sheet (Sen. Lara)

Join the discussion

  1. ReadyToFight

    Here’s to Hope.
    God Help Us…

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Let us petition The Eternal Father Possessor of Heaven & Earth Who formed Light & created Darkness be with us and Fill בָּרָא (bara) us & Janice with Courage, all say amen.

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    • Alex Payne

      Here’s to hope that an honest bill is eventually voted on! I don’t mean to offend anyone on here, but apart from being more grammatically sound, this bill is no different than the first draft. It’s the same bull****! No one gets off automatically, except if you were sentenced before 1987. What’s so magical about 1987? Then, add insult to injury, we would need to spend a lot of money to file these so-called “petitions” before judges who are put into office by voters! Do you people really think a judge will put their career on the line for you or I? Then add insult to injury, we would all have to sit through DA hearings with them making a case that we should be required to register many years after we discharged from custody. Almost like a mini trial with no guarantees in the end. Unfortunately, my gut tells me that this bill is opening a can of worms. Until registration is deemed punishment, this bill does nothing but serve as a mirage in a barren desert. This bill will make it worse for a lot of people.

      • KM

        Judges aren’t as free to be as crooked as you think. They are overseen by non-elected Appeallate judges and if they arbitrarily deny these petitions one can appeal.

        • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

          KM I concur, in a general sense that:

          “Judges aren’t as free to be as crooked as you think.”

          As a “Rule Thumb”: “The United States Of American’s” has practiced in it’s system of Courts “Justice” as a “Centre” of it’s focus for The Peoples Desired Product. – It is one of the Beautiful Attributes that Attracted people of the world to Invest their personal Gains in what ever form those Gains may be encapsulated into that Being a Material or Abstract Form.

          At this present moment in history the effects of Global Initiatives, Global Agendas, & A Dividable Cultural Impulse. have produced Beared a rotten produce and have all proven Globally a Force Manifesting Poison to all Nations, in particular Western Nations.

          For example, a expert “Clinical Opinion” on the subject of a Judges mind set:

          Ben Stein on Justice with Judge Jeanine 02/12/2017 , Introduced the subject of “Legal Realism”.

          When asked if the Judges of 9th were motivated by Politics?

          Ben Stein Testified that :

          “Of course, of course: Judge I went to Yale Law School, at Yale we learned “Legal Realism”,

          Judges do not make Decisions based on what is in the Laws or what is in a Precedent,

          They make it based on what will please Their Friends & Neighbors, will make Them Big Shots & Big Wheels.

          In Seattle do you think anybody is going to consider Them Big Shots for being friends of Donald Trump?

          No F way!! – They are Big Shots if They put their nose, uh thumb in Trumps eye and that’s what They did, They wanted to Show Off”

          Since 1962 the Courts of America begun the process of mutation from Focused on Justice Centric to Legalism System Centric.

          The Ugly Truth is that it will and We Will continue down the Path that Devolves the Foundations of The United States Of America’s.

          Unless We Repent and Cause ourselves to Return From the Paths of Incorrectness and Return to the Paths Founded upon Objective Morals that We Built Our Joys upon.

          I speak Truth!

          As Yehovah Lives, So should we!

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0


          You are incorrect. Appellate judges in California’s intermediate and Supreme courts do not have lifetime tenure. State appellate judges, too, are elected officials. Only federal judges have lifetime tenure. (Federal judges will *not* have subject matter jurisdiction over any potential appeal challenging a judge’s discretion over a petition denial made under this draft bill, as it is potential state — not federal — law.)

          Judges in California’s Courts of Appeals, as well as the California Supreme Court, are reelected or unseated every 12 years during gubernatorial elections.

          Furthermore, the standard for abuse of discretion in California is that a lower-court’s decision must have been proved to have been “arbitrary or capricious or ‘exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.’” People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228, 234 (1993). It’s a standard that provides high deference to the discretion of a lower-court judge.

          This is one of the many reasons why this tiered registry is a bad idea. It gives a lot of power to *elected* judges. When it comes to reviewing a judge’s discretion, appellate courts rarely reverse the rulings of lower-courts.

        • a mom

          I agree that the tiered registry is not a good idea. No registry or at least non-public registry is the alternative but unfortunately I don’t think anyone on the other side of this issue is ready to dismantle the registry just yet.

      • Tim Lawver

        tierany[sic] or TYRANNY same same!

    • Eddie.V

      If it goes before the Governor, and is sign into law how long after would the tiered law go into effect,

      • James

        As this is non-urgent legislation, if passed, it would take effect next January 1.

    • Hope

      A friend of mine got off the registry because she committed her crime before a set date. Though she cannot move to other states because she would have to register again. So basically she is a prisoner of one state. In the larger scope of human biology where all things that humans do is sexual related, all crimes are basically sex crimes. Nothing is going to change until all prostitutes have to register as sexual offenders.

  2. BSL

    This is nothing other than a MIRACLE that started with Janice B! Thank You Janice! And others that have done their part in the movement!

  3. Matt

    The devil will be in the details. Let’s hope that this an honest attempt by the creators of the bill to do the right thing. I am not holding my breath, but I will reserve judgement until I have seen the actual bill. And then, I will reserve judgement, pending amendments…..This could get bumpy.

    • Jayson A.

      I read the details and it is no good. This bill is riddled with games.

      • Matt

        A agree, to a certain extent. But it’s important to keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of registrants will have a chance, even if it’s a slim chance, to achieve forward motion after serving their time, where no chance previously existed. Remember that almost every person in the country absolutely hates registrants. Most people would have us jailed for life or executed if they could. The fact that anything resembling something good for us is even being considered is a huge step forward. No bill or law will be perfect. And yes, there are several potential problems with this one too. No doubt about it. But tens of thousands of people may now have some hope that has been missing for years or decades. I think that’s a good place to start. We will have to wait and see what the amendments look like. This could go from potentially good to totally horrible before it’s all over. That said, lifetime registration for everybody, with the only avenue being a COR that may or may not be granted, was a zero-sum prospect. This offers a small opening to a future for many, many people.

  4. AP

    I have a 647.6(a) misdemeanor and I’ve had exclusion from the website since 2012, will my exclusion still hold or will I be put on the site?
    Are Tier I gonna be on the website or are they excluded?
    Please help clarify this.
    Thank you!

    • Mr. D

      At first glance this looks extremely promising . In addition it has a provision for expungements via 12:03 .4

      Will have to see what the end product is let alone if it will pass but I am hopeful

    • Quint

      At first glance, it looks like no Tier 1 registrants would be on the website.

      • AB

        What if I would normally qualify for Tier 1 but have a “1” score in the Static-99 test which puts me at “Average Risk”?
        Does that mean I would be pushed up to Tier 2?

        • D

          I don’t see anywhere in the bill where a person who is *currently* required to register who would he a tier 1 can be bumped up to a tier 2. The only place that mentions something like that for tier one offenses is in 290.06 and says that the judge has to make that decision on the record, which since your case is already over cannot be changed. That is only for new offenses where the judge imposes registration based on a serial compulsion to commit the crime.

        • AB

          Thanks for the response, hopefully that is the case.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          If someone scores a 6 or higher on the Static-99R, they can be bumped from a Tier I to Tier III for a 290.006 offense. Even if it’s non-violent, non-contact, first-time offense committed at a young age. The implication is that because the Static-99R perversely scores non-contact offenders with an extra point penalty, there is a greater chance than not that non-contact offenders will be placed into Tier III.

        • D

          Yes, that is the case for *newly convicted* persons. I was answering AB’s question, and like I said, if your case has already been adjudicated, the judge has no way to state “on the record” why the the static score is bumping the tier up.

        • D

          Sorry, misread your response. Disregard my comment above.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          To clarify, *any* Tier I offender can theoretically be bumped up to Tier III because of a high Static-99R score. This is found in 290(d)(3)(D) of the draft:

          “A tier three offender is subject to registration for life. A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies: […] The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”

          One simple solution to mitigate the Static-99R from increasing Tier I’s to Tier III’s is to make the following amendment:

          “The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument, provided the registrable offense is listed as a violent offense under subdivision (c) of section 667.5.”

          (Note: I propose adding: “provided the registrable offense is listed as a violent offense under subdivision (c) of section 667.5.”)

          In theory, the above suggested change to 290(d)(3)(D) would prevent non-contact, non-violent, first-time offenders from being classified as Tier III. Non-contact, non-violent, first-time offenders do *not* belong into Tier III!


    Well so far I like this bill. It looks to me that the DA’s office will need a really good reason to deny our request to end registration. I’ll be able to get off the registry right away once they start taking applications. After 20 years of registration, I’ll be thankful to be off that website. I think the best thing to do if our registration ends is to change our name and move to a different area where we can try and start our lives over. Thanks for all your help Janice, it’s appreciated!

    • Notgivingup

      ONE DAY AT A TIME, I truly hope this bill is good and it helps you get off soon, 20 years is way too long, I have been on this for 13 years, It is time to allow people who paid their debt to move on. Best of luck and Thank you Janice and team.

    • Lll

      Lol or file off our fingerprints learn Spanish and come back in as an illegal. But whatever works.

    • David

      ONE DAY, just be careful not to move to another state that says “all convicted sex offenders” must register. Despite being removed from California’s Registry, you would still fall into the category of “convicted sex offender”. 😔


        Very true! One must do a lot of research before deciding to move to another state. Personally, I’m not going to ever move from California.

        • Tired Of Hiding

          Personally I just want to move out of not only this state but this country and never return.

          I will not miss this culture of mass surveillance or the police state this nation has become.

          There are MUCH better places to live your life than the USA by FAR!

          Looking forward to the day I can wipe my butt with that blue book and they can use that s^it stain for the identifier on my passport!

          Love it leave it…Ok, I will gladly leave it! Just let me out!!

        • Matt

          What other countries did you have in mind? Serious question. I have considered it myself. But going to a place where the future is unknown is more frightening to me than staying in a place where I know what to expect. At least I can plan and compensate for what I expect the idiots in government to do. Where would we have better options?

        • Lake County

          So what modern countries don’t have mass surveillance? Technology is cheap and getting cheaper and becoming commonplace in all modern societies. So where are you going to go?

      • Joe

        That also goes for people who might want to move to California if this law passes. We have seen a number of states inlcude the old “or whichever is longer”provision that says that even if you get that 10 year rule, if you come from say Alabama where EVERY offense carries a lifetime registration,etc, or Florida where it is life with a chance of removal you will be subject to the laws of your state of conviction. I have seen that in places like Connecticut,Rhode Island,Washington. It has also used as a “workaround” in states like Ohio AFTER they lost cases in the courts where they say that if you had been convicted Ohio, then you would be done, but since you weren’t, your Southern “life for any offense ” automatically makes you a “predatory” offender/Tier 3 even if you were convicted before the passage of the AWA.

  6. ReadyToFight

    I’m not changing my name. Eff that.
    I’m done living my life on my knees.
    If you can call this Living.

    • Cool CA RC

      “I’m done living my life on my knees.”

      Does this mean you are done praying?

  7. JC

    This bill is kinda confusing me. So someone who is going to be classified as a Tier 1 after the 10 years has to file a petition to be relieved of the duty of having to register? Also, does a Tier 1 person show up on the website at all? Thanks Janice and team for all you do.

    • Quint

      At first glance, no tier 1 would be on the website. Also, it looks like after 10 years you can petition (they would say yes unless they had a good reason) to get off the registry. It’s not automatic.

  8. Not really

    It appears to be carefully considered and well written.

  9. Steve

    If third party sites can still post our info it doesn’t help any of us.


      That’s why I recommended a name change after being relieved of the duty to register. All you need to do is spell your new name just a little different. That is the only way to keep your registered past name from haunting you from the 3rd party sites and news stories that will last forever on the internet. There is no other way to hide your past conviction on the internet. If your name was never publicly placed on Megan’s Law website or any newspaper, then you probably have nothing to worry about.

      • Joe

        Didn’t one of those private websites get a million dollar plus judgement against then Texas for refusing to remove someone who was no longer on the registry unless they paid the $500 blackmail?

    • Nicholas Maietta

      I am working to put an end to this, in particular the worst of any of them.

      • Ca

        Nicholas, are you referring to these bull#%*? 3rd party sites? What can be done to end them? Yes because even if you get off the registry, those 3rd party sites can still show our pics online!😬
        Can we sue them ourselves? They say its public record, however if those of us are not on megans law, the state felt our convictions are not disclosible. IN MY OPINION THIS IS ONE OF ,IF NOT THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE FOR US AT THIS TIME!

    • DPH

      You got that right Steve!
      I am still working on how much in atty fees it is going to cost
      to sue those third parties on the web let alone find them and get them to remove or sue.

      We are in for a surprise the ones that pass the petition DA -process and those who auto off.

      I still wonder what we can do, if any, for the National bs site, the FEDS one, never seen it, but were in their database. Co. and or employer searches Nationally for a bg check to get a real job. Thanks Steve for reminding us all post happines.

  10. Bay area RSO

    Now, how do we get the general public to vote in on this bill, if and when it goes that far..

    • Janice Bellucci

      The public will not vote on the Tiered Registry Bill. Instead, it will be state senators and state assembly members. Please write letters, send E-mails and make phone calls to the senators and assembly members who represent you. In addition, please write letters, send E-mails and make phone calls to members of the Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees. Information regarding committee members will soon be added to this website.

      • Rick H

        Any suggestions on what we should say in the letters?

        Thank you

      • DavidH


        Please provide us some guidance on writing letters and making calls. I feel at a loss on where to begin, as with:

        Dear Honorable so and so:

        I’m one of the most hated and reviled persons on this planet; I’m as low as a Jew in Germany beginning in around 1933. Right now you have a piece of legislation before you that while I dont concur with its foundation could possibly make a positive impact on my life. As a constituent I am asking that you support this legislation.


        • Timmr

          Dear Constituent,
          Thank you for taking the time to write me concerning your thoughts on the matter. It is constituents like you who truly make democracy work for the good of all. As you know the main goal of government is to protect the children. Each year thousands of child sex crimes go unreported. How do we know? It is just common sense. There are over 100 thousand sex offender registrants in California. With so many out on the streets, there has to be something going on. It is just common sense. They can’t stop themselves, but you would already know that.
          I will keep your comments in mind when it comes to cast my vote against you. I must defer to the media in this one, because they can sink my political carreer by labeling me soft on crime.
          You are cordially invited to our annual Constituent appreciation day where you may meet yours truly. This event will be held April 1, 2017 at the ________ County sheriffs offices, address below.

        • Timmr

          PS. Our district attorney, Tony Rackauckas, will be handing out raffle tickets at the door. Register to win!

  11. New Person

    From the PDF, pg 20 of Sec 4 (3)

    If the department determins that a person who was granted an exclusion under a former version of this subdivision would not qualify for an exclusion under the current version of this subdivision, the department shall rescind that exclusion, make a reasonable effort to provide notification to the person that the exclusion has been rescinded, and, no sooner than 30 days after notification is attempted, make information about the offender available to the public on the Internet Web site as provided in this section.

    Ummm… ex post facto for those who fall into this section?

    Also, we have this:

    ( d) A person who was convicted or adjudicated prior to 198 7 of an offense
    requiring registration pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, who (1) is not a
    tier three offender, (2) has not subsequently been convicted of an offense requiring
    registration as a sex offender which is described in Sections 290 to 290.006, inclusive,
    and (3) has registered in the community for 10 years, which time shall not include
    periods of incarceration reflected on the person’s criminal history record maintained
    by the Department of Justice, shall not be required to file a petition for termination
    from the registry pursuant to subdivision (a). Within 12 months of receipt of the person’s
    annual update of registration in 2018, the Department of Justice shall determine ifthe
    person is eligible for termination pursuant to subdivision ( e) of Section 290, based on
    information in the person’s criminal history record maintained at the department. The
    Department of Justice shall notify the eligible offender at his or her last registered
    address and shall notify the registering law enforcement agency.

    I am confused at the lack of consistency here. All the persons who fit in the aforementioned quote do not have to petition to get off the registry as long as they have registered for at least 10 years. Well, why do those person not have to petition, but everyone else has to petition? That is not equality of persons under the same grouping.

    Also, this bill makes 1203.4 seem like a meaningless piece of achievement b/c in 1203.4 it states that a person will be released from all punishments and disabilities stemming from the offense. The only thing 1203.4 does is removes you from the web. But there are laws that already remove people from the web. So what exactly does 1203.4 do in terms of loss of privacy disability by the registration? 1203.4 says a person is rehabilitated and should be treated like a normal person like your neighbor. This bill solidifies that 1203.4 just takes you off the web and are not restored to who you were before the offense.

    This bill is littered with inconsistencies and denigration. What is this “new entity” in charge of all of us? Who’s gonna fund that? Who’s gonna fund the petition? All of this for less than 1% recidivism rates??? This bill just affirms that I am still working for the state despite being no longer under custody. If this isn’t punishment, then it’s involuntary servitude b/c I already served my time.

    Illinois just called it unconstitutional to criminalize normal behavior.

    • Timmr

      Inconsistencies? You made a good start. How about CASOMB’s findings that the public registry does not prevent recidivism, but can increase it? If you are going to decrease recidivism, why would you require public notification of the more serious offenders? You want them to reoffend more? Why 20 years for tier 2, and lifetime for 3, when their expert Karl Hanson claims the reoffense rate is no more than the general population’s after 17 years? Those extra years are just punishment for the original crime. This is still a offense based system. There is little difference in recidivism rates amongst the range of offenses. The only thing that is consistent with a risk based system is putting repeat offenders on tier 3. Again, though, is this archaic system of branding people for crimes really a path to progress? Once one is on the internet it becomes nearly impossible to get off. Or is moving towards a restorative system more progressive rather than regressive? Slavery is indentured servitude when you put a term limit on it, but under the current SCOTUS opinion, anyone can be thrown back in service at will of the legislature. I don’t think there is much we can do about this tiered registry and our support for it as registrants may even hinder it. Yet, we need to make sure it doesn’t get even more incosistent as it moves through the legislature and the registrant haters have their say. As long as everyone keeps pushing for much better through better organizing and education, we will have better. Although we are not going to quickly reverse the deep seated hatred of registrants and the system that profits economically and politically off it, just as it once did off of chattel slavery, the courts are looking more promising at putting the brakes on. If anything ASCOL needs to remain consistent with the facts and stay a course.

      • New Person

        The worst of it all is there will be a new entity in charge of all of us as well as we have to petition off of the registry.

        That is about capital and job security for judges and lawyers. A judge did denote that the petitioning is an unfunded program that doesn’t exist. Now, add that there will also now be a new entity in charge of all of us, meaning another new program to fund.

        As you state, ACSOL needs to continue to bandy up stats.

        Look at the cost of a new entity. Look at the cost of a petition and how it can clog the courts even more.

        Janice just stated only 10% will be in tier 3. The recidivism rates are under 1%. Karl Hanson stated the max for being tagged like a seal or dolphin is 17 years. So why is tier 2 placed upon a 20 year tagged system and a tier 3 on a lifetime tagged system?

        Isn’t all this registration system flawed and simply an expensive placebo for thought of public safety when all these stats and context are brought about?

        Also, now that Illinois says you cannot criminalize normal behavior, then shouldn’t all living restrictions be rescinded? Shouldn’t all work restrictions also be rescinded? Shouldn’t the ACLU actually come to our rescue b/c any signs that implies segregation of registrants is a violation of the constitution such as “registrants not allowed to live here” or “registrants cannot work here”. If you are no longer under custody, then why are you still being treated like a criminal? If you earned your 1203.4, then why are you still being treated like your offense was never vacated?

        This bill relinquishes what 1203.4 is supposed to do for a person in California – which is to state he or she is rehabilitated to where he or she is released from all penalties and disabilities from the offense. If being removed from the web is considered a disability, then so is being on the registry. I think 1203.4 needs to be re-emphasized to mean something other than, “you didn’t screw up on probation.” – which is what this bill implies. No, 1203.4 is supposed to tell the state that I am a REHABILITATED PERSON and all my penalties and disabilities need to be restored b/c nowhere under 1203.4 does it state that I need to continue to register after being awarded the 1203.4.

  12. G4Change

    I would like to throw in my 100% support for this bill. I just read it from tip to tail, and it appears to be well-thought-out. I now live out of California, and I do wonder if I would be able to apply given that I’m not a current resident. I know that for a CoR, you need to be a resident. I’m hoping for my sake that I can apply. However, regardless of my personal situation, I know this will be a huge blessing for many people. As I’ve said before, this would be a first step.
    Let’s stand up, show up, and speak up! We must support this bill. I pray that it passes!
    Thank you, Janice, Chance, et al for all of your hard work.

    • BAM

      I also live outside of California and have been on the registry for 20 years, I am hoping for the same. I live here in florida and at some point if the law passes in California, i will try to petition the courts here in Florida to be removed because they state that I am only registering for my California offense. I thank Janice and her team for keeping hope alive. Lets move forward. I know that Florida is currently a Sorna state that continues to register for life, however , I have just received word that Florida has a group that has just stepped up to the plate to form a tiered registry. I am praying that all is well.

      • Janice Bellucci

        It is our understanding that the bill does not require an individual to live in CA when he/she petitions for removal from the registry.

        • BAM

          Thanks Mrs Janice! This is the best news that I have heard in 20 years. So hopefully , we can petition a California Judge if we live out of state!

        • G4Change

          Thank you Janice for this interpretation! The state I’m in now is also a lifetime state. However, they are working on a Tiered Bill here too. While I would also be Tier 1 in this state if our bill passes, I would never be able to petition off the registry unless I can show that I was relieved of my duty to register in my state of conviction – which is California. So, my future is in the hands of 2 different (but very similar) bills in 2 different states. I place my faith in God!

      • Joe

        Don’t hold your breath. You may still remain on the Florida website forever even if you are removed in California AND leave the state. The State of Florida actually went to court so that they could keep ANYONE who registered in Florida for any reason on the website even if they left the state and are no longer required to maintain their registration. That includes tourists who were just there for a week or so.

  13. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    – A person “convicted or adjudicated” prior to 1987, who does not fall into Tier III — and who has not recidivated — will no longer be labeled a “sex offender.” This subset of people will not have to petition a judge.
    – It gives hope (albeit, perhaps a false sense of hope?) to those who are classified as Tier I or II.

    – There is no automatic off for anyone, except for those whose convictions were pre-1978 (and are otherwise eligible).
    – *Elected* judges retain absolute authority in determining whether a registrant’s “petition” is denied or granted.
    – A petition to get off the registry will cost *at least* $3,000 to $5,000, due to attorney’s fees, psychological assessment fees, as well as Court fees.
    – This bill gives weight to being required to successfully complete a “Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program,” such as Sharper Future — which may cost several thousand dollars — PRIOR to filing your petition. See 290.5(a)(3).
    – Prosecutors retain absolute jurisdiction over whether to request a hearing to object to your petition to the court. All the prosecutor would need to prove is that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.” A judge would need to agree with such assertion.
    – There is no automatic off for anyone except those pre-1978 eligible individuals. See 290.5(a)(3) [“If the district attorney requests a hearing, he or she shall be entitled to present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration. In determining whether to order continued registration, the court shall consider: the nature of the registerable offense; the age and number of victims; whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registerable offense; the time period during which the person has not reoffended; successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.”].

    Very strangely, this bill does nothing to address the fact that a “well above average risk” on “the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO)” [which is, at least right now, the Static-99R] is one of nine superseding determinations under 290(d)(3)(A), 290(d)(3)(B), 290(d)(3)(C), 290(d)(3)(D), 290(d)(3)(E), 290(d)(3)(F), 290(d)(3)(G), 290(d)(3)(H), 290(d)(3)(I).

    The Static-99R is only designed to be used 10 years after a person’s release. It makes no sense for it to be used in the superseding *lifetime* determination of placing someone into Tier III.

    Finally, this analysis does not take into consideration what this bill may evolve to in the future. As with other states — such as Nevada — they have reclassified Tier I offenses as Tier III offenses. Further, it will take many years before this fairly convoluted bill is reinterpreted and “ripens” in the appellate courts. Since our state appellate courts are also elected judges, they have proved generally conservative — and it’s hard to believe that this bill will be interpreted in our favor.

    • KM

      Judges aren’t as free to be as crooked as you think. They are overseen by non-elected Appeallate judges and if they arbitrarily deny these petitions one can appeal. No one has absolute authority. If you have the statutory right to be taken off as outlined in this bill then you probably will be.

      • New Person

        I will give you one example to counter your thoughts.

        A judge and DA denied my request for a 1203.4 initially informally. The probation dept said I had completed eveything to their satisfaction, but still wouldn’t recommend me for 1203.4.

        With more information, we requested a second time. The same reaction occurred from the judge, DA, and probation dept. Except, the judge reluctantly awarded me 1203.4 b/c it is by law that I be awarded it for completing my probation successfully. The judge, DA, and probation’s thoughts and recommendations mattered not b/c I automatically receive 1203.4 for successful completion, and yet all three chimed in like they had a say.

        Nay. There should be no petition. It should be exactly like 1203.4. Once successfully completed your term without a new registrant offense, then you’re automatically awarded off the registration list just like the all those pre 1987. You can’t have separate rules within the same group. What is that?!

        • KM

          That really doesn’t counter my thoughts. You were given what you were statutorily permitted. Your story supports my conclusion, that if its in the law the Court will grant it even if the Judge personally disagrees with it.

        • New Person

          You can be denied a maximum of five times, extending your registration to five years.

          All the DA has to say is “this is for public safety as stated in the legislation”.

          In the 1203.4, all three had no say whatsoever. You don’t think five years isn’t much?

        • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

          New Person I concur with your assertion

          The actions you observed of your Adversaries: “and yet all three chimed in like they had a say.”

          Demonstrate the Wicked Adversaries Evil Inclinations to Covet & Usurp Rights & Titles they are not Heirs To.

          How do they place Themselves in the position of The Heir Apparent?

          A: In the Style of the Wicked Angel Watch:

          They utilize from Their Coveting Hearts the Venom & Poisons in the Poor Forum of:

          “Implicitly Drafting” & “Implied Contracts” – The Practice of Innovations & Traditions of men

          They then wait and observe if The Heir Apparent is Frightened & turns away exposing their Backside!

          past tense: frightened; past participle: frightened
          make (someone) afraid or anxious.
          “the savagery of his thoughts frightened him”
          synonyms: scare, startle, alarm, terrify, petrify, shock, chill, panic, shake, disturb, dismay, unnerve, unman, intimidate, terrorize, cow, daunt; More
          deter someone or something from involvement or action by making them afraid.
          (of a person) become afraid or anxious.
          “at his age, I guess he doesn’t frighten any more”

          The Wicked Usurping Servants Seek & Lie in Wait for: The weak, young, and Not yet Mature!

          I speak Truth!

          As Yehovah Lives, So should we

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0


        You are incorrect. All California state judges, including those in the California Courts of Appeals and California Supreme Court, are elected officials. Only federal judges have lifetime tenure. And if you were to hypothetically appeal a case involving a judge denying a petition to not have to register to higher courts, federal courts would not have subject matter jurisdiction over a request for discretionary review because this proposed bill would be a question of state — not federal — law.

        Furthermore, the standard for abuse of discretion in California is that a lower-court’s decision must have been proved to have been “arbitrary or capricious or ‘exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.’” People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228, 234 (1993). It’s a standard that provides high deference to the discretion of a lower-court judge.

        This is one of the many reasons why this tiered registry is a bad idea. It gives a lot of power to *elected* judges. When it comes to reviewing a judge’s discretion, appellate courts rarely reverse the rulings of lower-courts. They generally protect their own.

    • Joe

      The GOOD news about using Static 99R like Oregon is doing with the new law is that if your conviction is old, they use your CURRENT age and not your age at the time of conviction. They told me that this and the “cluster offense” theory (you were charged with several things but they all arose out of the same basic incident/arrest and you were only convicted once of multiple the offenses.) 1s the difference between me being classified as a 0 point below average risk offender and and a higher moderate risk one. In Oregon, that means the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 minimum.
      What is interesting about the latest 2016 versions of Static 99R is that while child pornography counts an an offense, the person in the pictures do not count as “victims”for puposes of the stranger victim questions.

  14. Angel

    God is in control,I really appreciate all the efforts and love who support and figth for all of you ,we know that you’ve been through a lot of hardships,just hold on…My prayers for all of you..Good things come…Thank you Ma’am Janice and your team..God bless…

  15. Quint

    Thank you Janice. Thank you Chance.

    • John Coffey

      Yes, we can’t thank you both enough for starting the fire under CASOMB in Sacramento and to suggest amends to the Tier Bill for them to open discussion and for them listening and not shunning since its not a court of law.

  16. BA

    Well after 13 years personally I will take this as a large improvement if with get the funding to do so, The registry will not go away though for many………..unfortunately.

    • Janice Bellucci

      According to statistics provided during a recent meeting of the CA Sex Offender Management Board, less than 10 percent of those now required to register will be placed on Tier 3. That means that more than 90 percent of those now required to register will be placed on Tiers 1 and 2 and therefore able to petition for removal IF they do not re-offend.

      • Political Prisoner

        Let me ask you this Janice, are you or Chance go to handle the petition for anyone wanting to get off the registry? Or is it, Oh sorry it is your case handle it yourself and foot the bill?

        • Lake County

          You expect ACSOL to represent 10’s of thousands of RC petitions? How would they ever have the time and money to travel all over this entire state for everyone? That doesn’t seem possible. Hopefully the DOJ will make it simple enough for us to submit the petition ourselves or our local Public Defenders office might be able to help. Plus (as far as I know), Janice only handles cases with constitutional civil rights issues. This is more of a civil administrative issue. Maybe someone here that gets their paperwork completed properly can post it here so we can all just copy their paperwork and submit it ourselves….Janice and Chance did not get us into this situation so yes, it’s our case and we will have to handle it ourselves and foot the bill.

        • Lake County

          Also, one good thing California does is make filing petitions as easy as possible compared to other states. And in most cases, you can apply to get your filing fees waved if you can prove low income. So if you don’t want or need to hire an attorney, the costs will likely be minimal.

        • A

          You really think it’s a good idea to represent ourselves when the DA will probably challenge each of our petitions? Don’t kid yourself. You ain’t fooling no one. This bill is a farce.

        • KM

          Well you’re being rude. This is good news for everyone. Chill out.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          “Good news for everyone?”



          You should try out to replace Sean Spicer.

          It sure does not seem that “everyone” agrees with this bill.

        • Timmr

          No, ASCOL opposed that part of the bill in the last draft, so that is an unfair accusation; nonetheless I am befuddled about them asking us to write and call legislators in support of a bill that has that requirement to petition the DA still in the bill. It doesn’t seem to have changed from the first draft.

        • Lake County

          This is the best bill they are willing to submit to the State Legislators that “may” have a chance at passing. If you want to have a chance of getting off the registry anytime within the next few years then this is likely the best chance we have. If this is not acceptable to the State Legislators as written, then don’t expect them to pass any future tiered registry bill that is written in a way that we would like better. Remember that politicians really don’t care about what we want.

        • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

          Lake County speaks The Ugly Truth, Charm Being in Short Supply!

        • Timmr

          If they don’t care about what we want, why bother?

        • David Kennerly, Still Radioactive After All These Years!

          ACSOL has now made that leap into advocating for the bill, it is true.

          I’ve been pondering this for a few days now and am trying to be as objective as possible. Any enthusiasm I may have for the bill is definitely tempered by what I see as a toolkit it provides to D.A.’s and judges to thwart the efforts of individual Registrants to be free of their yoke.

          The list of aggravating factors stemming from the original conviction, about which the Registrant can do nothing, such as ages or multiplicity of victims or “positions of trust” are among those tools as is “successful completion” of whatever ersatz “treatment” program the Registrant may have had to endure.

          The burden of proof that is placed upon the petitioner with this bill is apparent and will necessitate that significant resources of time, if not money, be expended with no clear (to my eyes) assurances of relief from the burden of registration.

          With this process, Registrants will be subject, as much as ever – to the vagaries of their county, prosecutors and courts, their moods and temperaments, their ambitions and reputations, for that relief.

          I can also easily imagine the role local television news might play in these mini-trials. The sex offender registry has become an entitlement for the public, in their minds an inalienable one, which they will not willingly relinquish. So this will also be a tool in the prosecutors’ toolbox since, with one call to the local “Eye Witness News”, he can sabotage our petitions through the deployment of the typically breathless and dramatic set-pieces that will play-out before the camera.

          I’m not sure how one can imagine 90% of Registrants dropping off the Registry with this bill.

          I hope my skepticism will be proven misplaced because, from what I can tell, this is probably the best that we can hope for today, given that we have very little or no influence on the actual structure of legislative bills.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0


        I read in your previous post that anyone classified Tier III, who is made that only because of being called “high-risk” by the Static-99R, will have a chance to petition a judge after 20 years. However, I do not see that change made to this newest draft bill. (Unless I overlooked it?)

        One of the reasons I disagree with this bill is due to the fact that the Static-99R will be the only reason I will be placed as Tier III under this bill. So I will be one of the “less than 10 percent” who will be treated more unfairly with this bill when compared to current law. (Otherwise, I’d be classified as Tier I.)

        Under current law, I’m not even on the website. But this bill will place me into Tier III — and I will be placed on the website. This doesn’t make sense, as my crime was a first-time/non-contact offense. Furthermore, I successfully discharged supervision early after having no violations.

        At minimum, does CASOMB still plan to incorporate this change of letting Tier IIIs “petition” off?


      • Alex Payne

        Less than 10 percent seems kind of low. Should we REALLY be trusting Casomb’s figures after they’ve supported polygraphs, containment model, has failed to be transparent on many occassions. And let’s not forget: Casomb introduced this highly divisive bill in the first place. It seems like Acsol has soldout to pressure and has ignored the fact that we would all need to “petition” through an ELECTED judge. I know this bill has alienated quite a few other people who used to attend the Carsol/Acsol meetings w/ me. I’m actually thinking about writing a Yelp review about how this civil rights group is willing to support law that is at the expense of other people’s rights! Wake up people! This is not a fair bill!

        • Jayson A.

          I agree with the Yelp review. ACSOL should be looking out after ALL sex offenders. Let’s say 10% are made Tier 3 and 60% are made Tier 2. That’s about 70,000 people who will be made to register for lifetime and at least 20 years.

          Then what if they prolong the tiers like they are doing in NY state? This bill is full of games, inconsistencies, that give more power to DAs, judges and CASOMB. Unless you were part of the before 1987 group, this bill does nothing for us as a group as a whole.

          I’m pretty sure if you weigh the pros & cons of this bill, this bill will prove more harmful in the long term.

      • Doug F

        Where can we find information on which tier we would be classified under. I only did 7 months county jail time, however, I was charged with 290 and kidnapping. This was in 2015, no reoffense, in fact, have gone back to school and received my BA.

  17. David

    How could one find out if he is designated Tier 1, 2, or 3?

  18. HopingFor Hope

    So, someone please help me understand this. For Tier I and II, even after your 10 or 20 years mandatory registration period has been met, you STILL have to petition to be removed?

    • Lake County


    • Matt

      Correct. You must apply. And you may be denied. But at least you have a chance with this new law, if it’s passed, where you didn’t have a chance before, outside of a COR, which can be a long shot depending on where you live, what your crime was, etc.

      • Lake County

        And if denied, they will state why and advise you when you can reapply. You can always keep reapplying and keep working towards whatever it is that they want to see in order to approve your application.

      • Jayson A.

        It looks like you have to wait 2 years after you’re denied before you can reapply. Nothing in this bogus bill would keep a judge from continuously denying. And the DA will just keep fighting and fighting.

        • Matt

          You’re probably right. I fully expect mine to be denied, over, and over, and over….until I am dead and don’t care anymore. I would be Tier 1, and I’d be able to apply in 2018 for relief from registration. My case was relatively minor in terms of what was alleged, but it was high profile. If this bill becomes law, and I try to get off the registry, I will certainly be denied. But I am supporting this bill, even with all its flaws, because it looks like tens of thousands of people would be able to start anew. Seems like the right thing for the most people.

      • A

        We may have a “chance,” but it’s gonna cost thousands of dollars in atty fees and there is zero certainty that we are successful at the end. As for comparing this dumb bill to a C of R it is really no different because this outlandish petitioning process will still depend on a judge’s say. The way I see it, the petition process is just a money making scheme for the lawyers. Just like how a judge needs to consider whether you’ve completed a casomb certified treatment course as part of being successful toward petitioning. The question is, how much money is this all gonna cost us? And there aren’t even any guarantees of success after putting so much time and money into petitioning. Clearly, I feel this bill is a farce.

  19. USA

    Hi, I didn’t read anything about PC 1203.4? I read the last part regarding an expungement is required to obtain a Certificate of Rehab? Does the PC 1203.4 remove you from the website?

    • Matt

      A 1203.4 does not remove you from the public access website. A 1203.4 is required prior to application for a COR. If you completed probation without a violation, and did all the things that were required of you during probation, (like a “therapy program” for example) then it is your right, under statute, to obtain a 1203.4. The same is not true for a COR. COR’s can be denied. But it is my understanding that as long as you did not violate your probation, you cannot be denied a 1203.4, if the crime you were convicted of falls under certain criteria. In other words, there are certain crimes that cannot be expunged. If you have a conviction that can be expunged, you must do that before you apply for a COR.

  20. John Coffey

    Thanks Robins Tools 2.0 for detailed clarification so far. Looks as though my family member will be…”A Lifer” even though its bee over 33 years from release and Parole. Sad.

    Janice, bombarded as you are, could you see any further into petitioning for a 40 year ???
    Spouse was a latent teen of crime. Suggestions Janice and/or Chance? Do we have hopes for Tiered three folks?

    • Lake County

      It looks to me that even a tier III registrant has a chance to be lowered to tier II under limited circumstances.

      A tier three offender who obtains early release on a conviction for which registration pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act is required and for which he or she was sentenced to a life term may file a petition with the superior court for placement in tier two if the person has registered for 10 years pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290 and the person has not been convicted of a new offense requiring sex offender registration or an offense described in subdivision (c) of Section 667. The court shall determine whether placement in tier two is appropriate, based on the following factors: whether the victim was a stranger (known less than 24 hours) at the time of the offense; the nature of the registerable offense, including whether the offender took advantage of a position of trust; criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after the conviction for the registerable offense; whether the offender has successfully completed a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; whether the offender initiated a relationship for the purpose of facilitating the offense; and the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if known. The tier two registration period shall commence on the date the court grants the petition. If the petition is denied, the person may not repetition for placement in tier two for at least one year.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        So the appellate courts would need to define “early release on a conviction.” One of the many phrases that would need to be interpreted through our *elected* appellate courts.

        This bill is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that our Courts must recognize registration as punishment. And ex post facto imposition of sentence — which is barred by the U.S. Constitution — must be recognized in our cases. Otherwise, passing these tiered schemes, like this ridiculous draft, is not of help. Especially if the “petition” requirement remains.

        • Timmr

          The real issue is why this country is adopting a Nazi, Stazi like approach that makes people incriminate themselves by posting personal information online and constricting their every movement. It is no wonder that they have 100 or so thousand people not in compliance. They are criminalizing normal behavior, not the behavior that will prevent more sex crimes. The few out there locked in an offense cycle must love this system as it provides them cover as the cops are out there checking up on all the people who are trying to understand and follow these Byzantine laws. Where in the blazes did they come up with the idea that people who really want to commit a crime will go to the police and register their correct location? It was a knee jerk reaction to begin with and never was well thought out. Now a whole political culture has been built around it. No one has the courage to question the whole concept because someone will be blamed for letting what they consider a pervert get away with something. Like the communists and fascist found out, this approach will only create an over extended police force and ever growing number of dissidents living in the shadows of poverty and despair, not better citizens and a safer society.

  21. mike r

    Janice I noticed this bill states on or before July 1st 2019 does this mean that none of these policies will take effect until July 1st 2019???????

  22. HopingFor Hope

    Sounds like filing a petition will be the name of the game. Does anyone know at this point how that process will work and will Janice and or Chance be able to assist, or will that go through non-legal administrative channels that each individual will need to work through on their own (or do we even know yet)? Gets complicated, particularly if you no longer reside in the same county or moved out of state.

  23. DavidH

    Does anyone know if this assessment tool is different from the static 99: ” static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO).”

    I sure wish these periods of registration were shorter– it gets to a point in one’s age where it doesnt matter much any longer; For instance i’m 61 and have been offense free for 14 years. I basically have another 6 years as a tier 2. but at 67 that consumes the entire remaining good years of my life to travel etc. off registration wont matter much, I dont get harassed as it is! Shorten these periods please!

    • Jayson A.

      From what I read, the Static 99 stays unfortunately. Speaking for myself, I plan to call the lawmakers to oppose this bill.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        You will not be alone. I, too, plan to oppose this bill. As some others have mentioned, it’s an intellectually dishonest bill. If the empirical data says that even alleged “high” risk offenders are not likely than anyone else to reactivate after 17 years offense-free — and the Static-99R is not intended to be used after 10 years following an offense (with California having only evaluated the Static-99R for a five-year interval) — then what is the purpose of having lifetime or even 20 year registration periods for a non-recidivist?

        This is not an empirically-based bill. And I concur with those in dissent with this bill. It is no different than the first draft introduced a few months ago. Yes, it is more concise and doesn’t have the grammatical errors of the first bill. But when it comes down to it, it still requires those eligible to “petition” to get off (i.e. expensive attorney’s fees, psychological assessments, Court fees, etc.), this bill still incorporates the Static-99R, it still gives the DA absolute right to oppose an attempt to get off the registry, it leaves the ultimate decision to an elected judge, and it does not bar ex post facto application and/or recognize registration as a form of punishment (despite this potentially being codified within the PENAL code). [“Penal” being synonymous to punishment].

        As some others have mentioned, what will prevent the tiers changing in duration and/or crimes being reclassified to higher tiers in the future? Nothing!

    • Timmr

      I hopefully have another three years, but I am worried about bills like AB 558 coming up in the mean time. I do not have your experience of being left alone if on the web site. When I was on the public website my family and I were harrassed. In these next three years if that happens, I might as well abandon my business and look for what work at age 60?. I would still be too young for social security, so I don’t know what I would do.
      Nonetheless, if this bill gets passed I would likely get off. I don’t see any reason to be denied, but this is a crazy thing, this registry, and who knows what horrendous crime will be commited in the mean time by someone that will put DA’s on notice to make an example of registrants. Those who will be moved from no public website to tier 3 because of a static 99 score will have the most to be concerned about. They have a valid beef with this proposal. Lawmakers will now be freer to make laws specifically tailored for tier 3’s. I hope the tier 3’s will be organized enough to be able to file a lawsuit when that happens, and have a chance to get the whole registry scheme declared punishment after the fact. We can all hope. Don’t count on those 90,000 who can get off helping out. It has been a dismal turnout so far. Once off the list it will be so long. Me, I will be occupied with repairing the damage from being a registrant most of my prime years.

      • steve


        I have been on for 19 years with my oldest in 6th grade at the time it went on the internet. We have suffered thru a lot of garbage but those who find out and who have known you will be surprisingly supportive at least that’s what I’ve experienced. I appreciate those friends more than they can imagine. I did have my share of idiots to deal with but in the long run none of their crap harmed me just major stress. I am going to guess all of these new bills will be put on hold by committees until this tiered registry is figured out.
        As far as the tier 3’s go. I imagine they put in that they can petition because of the 4th district ruling. At least they have a shot.

        • steve

          I meant to least the 3’s were given a chance to petition. They had to put that in because of the 4th Circuit ruling. At least they are paying attention to other rulings.

  24. Jayson A.

    This bill is disgusting. After taking the time to read this bill, it really is not different from the 1st draft. Don’t be fooled, this bill is plagued by the same problems as the 1st: we all would still need to petition (meaning thousands in attorney fees, as trust me this is a petition you would not want to go without an attorney with). Then all the psych assessments, etc. Static 99, more power to District Attorneys, more power to judges, more power to casomb.

    Like the 1st draft, only the attorneys win with this bill. They will make out like bandits, while we all have to come up with $$$$$ to pay for a petition that is not guaranteed. Also, CASOMB put a ban that you can’t refile for 2 years after it is denied. So if we are denied, you have to wait 2 years to refile lol.

    This bill is a sham because as it is now, I qualify for a certificate of rehabilitation in 2020. If this dumb bill passes then I am put into Tier II and have to wait 20 years to petition. So I would have to wait until 2030?

    No sense in supporting this bill when it’s taking away something I can do in 3 years. This bill will make me wait 13 years. Lol so ridiculous!!!!

  25. USA

    Well, here is something to think about. I have an expunged offense and never had any legal issues otherwise. So, if I fall into tier 2 with a battery, how will they classify me? I’m sure (20 years later) I can request an exemption from the website. Furthermore, as noted in the Megans website, the SARATSO test isn’t applicable to those crime free for 10 years or more! Lastly, can they really do a SARATSO on an expunged ex offender? Hmmm. I think if your crime free etc on tier 2, you can get an exemption: Lastly, how can they put someone on a tier 2 with an expunged offense/summary probation? Guys, stay positive. I also thought the bill stated you could request to be removed after 10 years for a tier 2? Stay positive. A judge will be accountable and must state reason for denial! I recommend (later) filing your own request (I did for the 17 B and expungement). The court clerks where very helpful. Good luck

    • Nondescript

      If you have an expunged 243.4 offense with probation, I am assuming it is or was reduced to a misdemeanor.

      ” A person is a tier 1 offender if the person is required to register for a conviction of a misdemeanor described in subsection c ”

      Subsection c describes every offense that would trigger registration including 243.4 section.

      Tier 2 proscribes persons convicted of 243.4 as being included in the 2nd tier , but 243.4 can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. If it is a misdemeanor or reduced to one( for ALL purposes) wouldn’t it considered tier 1?

      This is certainly one area of this bill which seems to cause uncertainty. Tier 2 243.3 should be clarified as a felony or tier 1 should not say all misdemeanors.


  26. HopingForHope

    It appears this will throw thousands of people up on the website who are not there now, if I read this correctly. Is that the trade off they’re giving us for being granted the ability to petition?

    • ExpatRFSO

      Did you read this new bill? It’s different than the draft bill. I didn’t see anything that would add people to the website.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        I will be added to the website. All for being one damn point too high (6) on the Static-99R scam. (Otherwise, I’d fall into Tier I.)

        Maybe I should go find a “lover” to live with for at least two years. That would theoretically remove me from Tier III and back into Tier I. Though how difficult will it be to get a Static score changed once it’s set in our records?

  27. cool CA RC

    Can’t we just go and file a lawsuit and get the registry removed?

    • Drummer

      It’s apparent that having your info plastered on the web makes it so difficult to obtain housing, employment and vulnerable to vigilantes along with humiliation being looked at as some monster. Im sure a lot of individuals here on this site can testify to that which my heart goes out to. I’ve read and learned so much from all your post gentlemen and I come no were close to all your intellect regarding how to interpret this tiered bill. I don’t understand why they make this draft so complicated to interpret. Im rt there with u USA on the 1203.4. 22 year old index offense, 17b, 1203.4 granted and Internet exclusion. It may seem like I’m whining but if I end up on the web I can be sure to loose my job and possibly my home of 17 years. Married for 20 years with 4 wonderful girls who are all adults now. How does a hard working, provider, father and good husband and grandfather all of a sudden have to explain to them why I’m on there. I’ve read in some of your post that my situation would fall into tier 1 which isn’t exposure but than read that my expungement means nothing and tht my battery 243.4 will land me in tier 2 and exposure. Uuugh so confused. Hey thanks to all, I appreciate all your post. I wish this nightmare would just go away. For Gods sake it’s been 22 years of this and it seems like no matter how good of a life I live it doesn’t account for anything especially when the troops come banging on my door every 6 months as if I committed a crime yesterday.

  28. CS

    13 year registrant here, For the longest time we had no hope, I even stopped coming to this site for awhile cause all the news just seemed bad-Negative and it actually depressed my day, but finally we have hope and we all should take a second, take a step back and appreciate that. Very thankful for Janice and partners for fighting for us and caring when no one else did. Here’s to all of us rising above our label and moving on once and for all.

    • Nondescript

      If this bill passes ( which I think it will , because the powers that be want uniformity across this nation instead a mixed bag of State Laws ) it would be very helpful for those formerly registered in other States to articulate the petitioning process .The bill doesn’t make it sound like the petitioner would have to prove they have been a model citizen with letters of good character from their Pastor, neighbors, employers etc. It just says the district attorney MAY request a hearing if the requirements have not been met. The requirements are that a person has registered on time each year for x amount of years and they haven’t committed another offense. If those requirements are met, then the the district attorney must prove/convince a judge that the petitioner still poses a danger to the community. Well, if they are not now, nor have ever been listed on the public website, how could a district attorney argue that the petitioner is ” dangerous” ? If someone is deemed “low” risk already and has been for decades, What purpose would this serve? I can see tier one petitioners getting off the registry quite easily. Tier 2’s may have a taller hurdle to overcome.. Tier two people should be dropped to tier one after 10 years, so they too can have the same low risk designation immediately preceding the petition process, at the 20 year time period.

      Remember , not all judges are bad. There are many who like to put overzealous prosecutors in their place. I’ve seen it happen many times.


      • Nondescript

        An addendum: tier 3 people should be automatically dropped to tier 2 then tier 1 respectively after a certain time period has elapsed. Lifetime registration for anyone who has been offense free for decades is a total miscarriage of justice.

      • New Person

        While you might think you don’t have to collect a lot of resources on your behalf, you do. You are petitioning off the registry. You are not applying off of the registry.

        • Nondescript

          Petition: a formal application in writing made to a court asking for some specific judicial action.

          My point was that in this petition process it seems like the DA will have the burden of proof, not the other way around as with a COR where it is the the applicant that must prove they are rehabilitated. Letters of recommendation, possible input from any victim, volunteering in the community etc.

          They probably want to slowly diminish the current ever expanding registry, not out of a sense empathy or even justice, but because California is broke.


  29. mike r

    this is great news for most of us but dont believe for one minute that all these government agencies that are supporting this bill is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts like they’ve all of a sudden found their consciences…their doing it because they know over bloated and out of control and all its going to take is for the right person to come along and file a well articulated brief and the entire scheme comes crumbling down…all they are doing is trying to appease the court before it happens by claiming we now have a path off the registry….hate to tell em that weak assss attempt comes nowhere close to negating all the other constitutional violations as a result of these registration laws… neither will the little fact that some wont have their addresses on line make any difference.. if anything that only boast are argument that the registry is absolutely useless…why would we have to be put on a public website if people cant know exactly where we live….makes it totally and blatantly useless instead of just useless….

  30. D

    So I’ve been reading through the text of this bill, and I had some concerns because I like the idea of being able to get a Certificate of Rehabilitation (COR) and what that wording “meant” to others including employers.

    I have some insights I’d like to share.
    1. Yes this does remove the ability of a COR to stop registration
    2. Getting a COR has harder requirements to meet than the new “petition” to stop registering
    3. People that were able to apply for a COR prior to this bill can still apply for one, and if you can get it, then it should pretty much be a “slam dunk” to get the petition to stop registering approved.
    4. For teir 1, I would assume that you could have your lawyer submit requests for both at the same time, which may in the end give you a better shot at the petition since the judge may go for the “middle ground”
    5. For tier 2, you may still be able to file for a COR after 10 years, but still be required to register. This makes absolutely no sense at all, but politicians rarely do.

    • New Person

      Great catch on point 5.

      Wow… that would actually worsen the possibility to get off the registry early for some Tier 2s under this new bill.

      That’s just one of many points in the tier bill that makes the situation worse for some. Thankfully, Michigan courts have expressed succinctly that any changes now fits into the ex post facto category as it is increasing laws after the fact.

  31. PIA

    WASTE OF TIME !!! Probably around 90-95% of 290’s here CAN NOT AFFORD A ATTORNEY to file the BULLSH*T needed to get removed. 90-95% of ALL 290’s used a PD that is why we got a SH!T Deal to begin with. Since no one can afford $300-500 or WHO knows how much $$$ and to fight a LAME DA… WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!

    • A

      I agree PIA. But it seems a lot of people, janice, frank, etc have sold out. Someone, or as a group, needs to start an organization that looks after all of our rights… not just a few or most… but ALL of us!!

    • AP

      Please don’t speak for others. For many this is, at least potentially, a positive step.
      And how can anyone have “sold out”? Sold out to what? It seems that Janice and her team are doing the best they can with the limitations that already exist.

    • donhoh

      Although I do understand the concerns of many of you, I can’t help but feel saddened by the many pessimist on this site. People, we have a chance! Prior to this bill we only had few avenues to fight our respective cases. I was able to petition the courts to have my 288 code reduced to a misdemeanor; it was considered to be a “WOBBLER.”

      I did not pay for representation, instead, I conducted my own research and addressed the court with the assistance of a Public Defender. The reduction in my case was in 2010 after I moved back to CA. from Az. For many of you, Arizona may be a great option. Arizona does have somewhat of a tier system in place, which classified me as a level A or 1. That classification had me removed from the Internet, and if I remain in the same location indefinitely, I would not have to register again or only after I move; there was no posting or anything……I was free versus living here in CA. I believe in God and he appointed Janice and others to come to our rescue. Please, stay positive.

  32. NPS

    Who says money has to be spent? I filed a 1203.3, 1203.4 and 17b. The cost? $0. No attorneys required nor consulted. The result? I won.

    Anything can be done in Pro Per. Perhaps petitioning for removal can be done the same way. However, based on my reading of the bill, you only serve the petition with registering law enforcement office and DA. A hearing may not be required.

    If this bill is passed, I will file a petition in Pro Per in July 2020 (when I hit the 10 year mark). Anyone who does file in Pro Per before that and does so successfully, please be sure to post your experience as it will help others.

    • Mr. D

      Folks – The reality is the registry is not going to just disappear overnight . It’s going to have to be torn apart in pieces and over time. While the tiered Bill is certainly far from perfect and is likely to contain some risk, It does provide an opportunity for many. Probably the biggest obstacle will be that some counties will be easier to petition for relief than others. We need a vehicle made available to us so that we can move forward and right now this is the best opportunity that we have. I would encourage others to stop complaining about the bill and look for any potential opportunities in it that it may provide you.

    • Melissa

      Somehow I doubt this will be in the same dimension as filing for a 1203.4 or 17b. Those statutes require that a judge “shall” and “must” grant those forms of relief after probation. But this tiered registry bill doesn’t order any relief through “shall” or “must”. It seems that a judge/court can find whatever reason to deny a petition. I also find it hard to believe that a district attorney will not object to most of these petitions. The unfair advantage of the DA objecting will make petitioning even more unbearable. So it’s more likely than not that if you want at least a decent shot of having a successful petition, you’d have to come up with at least a few thousand dollars in lawyer fees. My husbund and I are not happy about this bill. We live in Orange County, which have very conservative judges that don’t ever help registrants. We know that even with this unfair tiered registry, his chances remain slim even if we come up with the money to fund a petition attempt.

      • NPS

        Filing a 1203.3 (early termination of probation) is not a “shall” or “must” situation. You have to give very good and compelling reasons why you should be granted that motion, AND you’re going up against the DA. You’ve got to be prepared with the counterargument. It was a heck of a lot harder to obtain than filing the 17b and 1203.4. But I still did it in Pro Per, and I won. Based on the language in this bill, this looks to be easier than the 1203.3; at least there are a lot less requirements. The burden of proof is more on the DA than the petitioner if they want to deny the petition.

        • New Person


          I think where you are filing things are more favorable than your southern cal counterparts. In my own experience, no way I get 1203.3. I mean, they tried to deny my 1203.4. 20/20 hindsight, I know how if you complete your probation successfully, then you can do it pro per b/c it’s automatic by law. If I didn’t have a lawyer, then I would have been denied due to my lack of knowledge of the law.

  33. PGM111

    I am generally in favor of this bill but I have two issues that perhaps people will weigh-in on:

    1. Can someone tell me definitively if Tier I registrants are excluded from the public registry”

    2. It is my understanding that registrants with a Federal child porn case are currently NOT eligible for a California Certificate of Rehabilitation (COR). Is this true? Does the proposed bill address this issue? Can we request that the bill be amended to enable registrants adjudicated in Federal court be given access to and relief via a COR?

    Comments from all are welcome.


    • Lake County

      “Can we request that the bill be amended to enable registrants adjudicated in Federal court be given access to and relief via a COR?” State law cannot modify a Federal Conviction and cannot get a Governors Pardon. Who may apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation? Cal Pen Code § 4852.01 lists the qualifications for a COR. This bill has nothing to do with a COR. So no, we can’t get this bill amended. At this point, I doubt we will be able have any additional influence on anything in this bill. Although (I think), there is a chance some small modifications could be made if the State Legislators request a change be made while it is in committee. And any constitutional issues with any of the details of this Bill will have to be fought after this bill is passed. As a individual voter, our only influence on this bill is to contact our State Legislators and advise them if we support or do not support this Bill.

  34. hh

    Does anyone understand what would happen to someone who was previously granted a c of r ?

  35. anon

    Those who are concerned about the ability of judges (politicians) to deny removal from the registry should remember that the overall effort to substantially prune the registry does not come from the legislature’s deep affection for us. It is based on the system’s inability to devote so many resources to something that has no value. Judges will be driven by the same practical issues. It’s not that I am unconcerned about the discretion they are granted under the legislation, I just want to temper my concern with the real world.

    • Timmr

      Good point. The registries still have toxic levels of political value, but hopefully, the actual lack of practical value is being recognized.

      • James

        I must say I am a bit distressed by the…fact(?)…idea that this does not take effect until July 2019…that seems a damn long way off to me.

        And being selfish, for me.

        I was hoping for Jan 1, 2018.

        I suspect that this will also take some time to work its way through the system even after enacted…so maybe mid 2020?

        (not complaining, but complaining a little…{grin})


        • anon

          I think this bill is progress, but just a little progress. This is not a gift to us, but a gift to DAs who want to get an opportunity to mug for cameras. Some DAs — not all — will look at a petition for removal from the registry as an opportunity to show how tough they can be on sex offenders. However, some registrants will get off and there will be some hope for others. So we make a little progress and may be we can make a little more later.

  36. deegoh

    As an individual who has registered for almost twenty years, I am pleased to know that there is an opportunity for us to have a fighting chance at being relieved from this oppressive law. We all owe Janice and the committee a thank you for putting their collective reputations on the line for us all. Keep in mind that nothing comes easy nor for free, but while we wait, I strongly recommend that we do everything in our own power to fight the law; we must demonstrate to all that we deserve to be removed from the list. Lets be more appreciative to those who are fighting for the change, after all, there has to be some compromise in getting things done. I am expecting to be removed from the registry within the next 24 months, and I expect our Lord to do just that for us. Lastly, can someone tell me what is a static test, who has to take it, and what it consist of? Thanks!

    • j

      I have 21 years on this roller coaster (since the age of 19) i did the “legal” way of hiring 3 attorneys and all put the very minimal when i hired them, they mentioned nothing about me completing college, did not mention i make average $51,000 a year, never mentioned i never re offended, never ever been in trouble, maintained a solid work history, been working for a military warehouse the last 13 years, never went to prison, my bail was only $900, did probation 2 years was kicked out early, my p.o even told me he didnt see me re offending, i even physically went to a court house last week and asked for some advice from a D.A and a attorney and both said there was no way off! for me it was a 290 case which was not force full, basically i took that deal because i was only 19 and slapped in the face with the system, i only wanted out and wanted to be left in peace (so i thought)

      • Nondescript

        Why does the law as it pertains to the deregistering process always refer to it as ” relief”.
        Obtaining relief, petition for relief , relieved of duty, etc.etc.

        Relief means “deliverance from or alleviation of anxiety, pain, distress”
        They are admitting that registration is all the aforementioned, year after year after year and yet it isn’t suppose to be additional retribution or punishment for the initial offense.

        I wonder if anyone has brought this up in a court case?


  37. ExpatRFSO

    I don’t see anything that would add people to the website that aren’t already there. Janice can you clarify?

    • drifter

      I am one that was excluded 8 years ago on a misdemeanor 243.4(e)(1) sexual battery and I would be one that that gets added to the website if this tier bill passes.

  38. drifter

    What is subdivision (c)? I am at 8 years on the registry and I am one of the lucky ones that was excluded on a misdemeanor 243.4(e)(1). Trying to figure out if this tiered bill passes if I will be classified at tier one or tier 2.

  39. USA

    I think this is a no brainer! Like myself, many of you mentioned getting a PC 243.4 expunged. The PC 243.4 (a) restraint is considered physical etc. So, we would be probably considered tier 2? It’s been 21 years for me. So, I would be curious how the Department of Justice would address expunged offenses? By law, we really haven’t been convicted? Otherwise, as stated, we could request to not be posted on the Megans Law website after 10 years, unless your a repeat offender etc.

    • Drummer

      USA, you make valid points. Would that be 10 years from the conviction date or 10 years from the expungement. Thanks for your input.

    • drifter

      What about a misdemeanor 243.4(e)(1)? This is driving me a bit crazy right about now.

    • drifter

      P.S. 243.4(e)(1) is not the same as 243.4(a) there was no restraint. So I figured it out that it would be tier one.

  40. USA

    Drummer, the tiered proposal states 10 years after release from jail or prison? What if the person was given probation? I assume it starts from there! The expungement comment was made because how could you determine a person’s tier if they are no longer convicted of anything? Do they go by your initial conviction? Well, as noted, you have never been convicted of anything per PC 1203.4? I’m sure this will come up as the bill progresses !

  41. ReadyToFight

    Sure hope they Justify the auto drop of people prior to 87 yet keeping other good law abiding citizens stuck on a hit list for years to come…

  42. Trader Joe's

    This “tiered registry” law discriminates against the poor and impoverished because many sex offenders can’t afford the petitioning process to begin with (such as hiring a lawyer, psych assessments, any “certified” therapy, court fees, and so on). The average sex offender probably can’t even find a steady job that pays a sustainable wage (let alone a job to begin with). Jance should know that there are thousands of homeless sex offenders. How does this bill help the overwhelmingly poor sex offenders? Again, this tiered registry bill discriminates against the poor and impoverished! Also, many (but certainly not all… especially when it comes to “sex offenders”) of the impoverished tend to be minorities.

    I say “NO” to this tiered registry bill! This bill disproportionately hurts the many underemployed or unemployed sex offenders who will not be able to afford the petitioning process.

  43. USA

    Trader Joe,

    You don’t even make sense! Zero! I had my charge reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17 (B) and expunged by myself. I researched it online, called the court clerk and downloaded the form on my own! The clerk was very helpful! You clearly have Internet access etc if your on this site! As noted, this isn’t s Certification of Rehabilitation? Otherwise, if your lacking funds, contact the public defenders office? This is pretty straightforward!

    • H.p.

      If the DA requests a hearing, which I am sure is more likely than not depending on your situation, then filing for a petition will be just like filing for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. So in that case, we’re either on our own against the DA or have to pay $5k+ for a private attorney. Realistically, do you really think the Public Defender will represent those without money? Even with thousands in grant money, the PD offices are backlogged in filing for Prop 47 petitions. Will there even be grant money given for our 290 petition attempts? I’m just being realistic here. I agree that this bill has the likely result of harming a lot of the poor or even homeless sex offenders.

      • Lake County

        ” filing for a petition will be just like filing for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.”

        Why do you say that? This bill has very different requirements than a COR has. You don’t have to prove rehabilitation, just that you have been crime free since conviction. If the DA contests your petition, then the DA will need to show the judge why you are still very dangerous.

        • H.p.

          Where in the bill does it say that? That “the DA will need to show the judge why you are still very dangerous?” I don’t see that standard anywhere on this bogus bill. The only standard I see is that a DA has to make a case that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s registration.” That’s not the same standard as proving a person is “still very dangerous.”

      • Nondescript


        “Realistically, do you really think the Public Defender will represent those without money?”

        Yep. That’s what they are there for.. My husband used a public defender in Los Angeles criminal court to successfully obtain a 17b reduction and expungement. The lady judge was actually very nice and admonished the DA for being overzealous.

        • H.p.

          You conveniently left out the sentences after: “Even with thousands in grant money, the PD offices are backlogged in filing for Prop 47 petitions. Will there even be grant money for our 290 petition attempts? I’m just being realistic here.” Also, what if the judge orders a risk assessment? Will the state pay for it or are the poor on their own? See… this dumb bill has a lot of ways to potentially screw a lot of people!

    • Lake County

      USA, just give it up. some people are just too stubborn to reason with. There are those that go through life always saying “I can’t” and there are others that will always have an “I can” attitude. Prisons are full of people that figure out how to write their own petitions and win, even without internet access. I’m sure if this bill passes, many of us can post copies of our petitions so others can just cut and paste to write their own. And all California Courts are required to wave any filing fees if you don’t have the money. This really is not that hard to do. And even if you hired an attorney, it shouldn’t be that expensive since this won’t be as hard to get as an COR. If the DA does not contest your application, there really won’t be any need to hire an attorney at all.

      I have no money to spend either, so I will ask my local Public Defenders office for help. If they are not available, I’ll write my own and post it for others to copy.

      • H.p.

        Lake County: One thing I learned after being labeled a registrant is to be realistic. When acsol says this bill “could” help “more than 90 percent” of us, that seems to good to be true. One other thing I’ve learned the hard way is that “if it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” What differs you from me, sir, is that I am looking at how this bill will actually harm people rather than help them. It’s evident from reading the posts that a lot of people will get screwed more with this bill than if it were not to pass. So this bill is really at the cost of those people who do not benefit or are even harmed by this tiered registry’s text. As someone wisely said, just because this bill doesn’t hurt YOU, it doesn’t mean it won’t hurt others. But I assume that you know it will hurt others, yet you STILL want it to pass? Maybe you should go to the mirror and take a look at yourself, buddy.

        • steve

          Fact of that matter is this registry is not going away anytime soon. A lot of people will get relief me being one of them. And yes I want this to pass for my family’s sake. I am confident tier 3’s or whoever this bill is hurting will get relief as well..eventually. Janice will not leave anyone hanging out to dry. You should know that about her by now.

  44. Timmr

    Whether this bill passes or not, the fight for fair and just laws will need to continue.

    • Roger

      Timmr, I agree 100%. The war against the registry and other unjust laws has many battlefields. Janice will use her expertise to pick and choose those battles efficiently.

      It is good for any of us to discuss anything in depth about any issue, but when the time comes where we have a legislative deadline to take action, we will be far more effective in winning our goals when we are united.

      We have seen incredible progress here in California. We can carry that momentum to other states that historically follow our example.

      • Timmr

        I don’t see how being united behind uncritical support of this bill is going to be anything but a giant rock in the road if your goal is to really reach a registry free country. You are going to be dragging along a record as an advocate as you head towards opposition of the registry concept. I just don’t see how you are going to nuance this. This is going to be interesting to see played out.

        • New Person


          What if this tiered proposal is the avenue to actually posit the recidivism rates into the state and make it official. Make the dept of Public Safety acknowledge the very low recidivism rates, Dr Ira and Tara’s research work, and Dr Hanson’s research findings. It’s like sending in a trojan horse.

          This might be akin to the Peckingham oral argument. Let the NC lawyer continually cite “frightening and high” recidivism rates aloud to the justices. The Peckingham lawyers didn’t contest the validity. Why? Stating conjecture doesn’t overcome substantiated research work. There are a mass of research work done to prove the contrary that is not by conjecture, but by several different sources that all reach the same conclusion – the high recidivism rate is a farce.

          So this tiered business, I truly believe Janice and team will be asking public safety on why the tiers are what they are. What reasoning developed a certain time or why petitioning is included or why Static 99 is just as useful as polygraphs?

          While Janice does her part, we can do ours but watching what happens with Michigan’s Snyder case. Snyder has already been cited in other cases. So even if the tiered proposal passes, it cannot pass the muster that was set precedent in the Snyder case to increase penalties after the fact. See, a lot of these people don’t know the law all that well and hope you’re just as ignorant to never contest them.

          Like I’ve mentioned before, the judge and DA all thought they had a say in my 1203.4 to deny it to me. I had to do more research work to rebuttal with “the law states I am granted 1203.4”.

          Heck, the bill that’s supposed to now make all registrants appear on ML’s is so blatantly increased punishment after the fact that we all can point to Snyder case and say, “I’m sorry, but you’ve been caught red handed.”

          I don’t think many of us like the bill as it is, but then again, no one on our side was part of the process. CASOMB doesn’t even count. ha ha ha Now, Janice and team are gonna make their voices heard. Equality California jumping on can make that voice bigger. We have a contingent to question why it was designed the way it is.

          I am still watching what happens with Peckingham and Snyder’s case at the SCOTUS level. A recent court just stated, “you can’t deem a normal activity as a possible criminal act.” Maybe Janice can use that in respect to jobs, employment, and travel.

          In one of the latest “Suits” tv episode, a pyschologist asks a panelist, “Are you here to rehabilitate or to punish? If you’re here to punish, then why are you on the panel?” This is what I hope to have Janice employ to those making the bill, to the state, and to the public safety.

          TBH, I never thought positive movement would occur in my lifetime. Yet here we are… re:Taylor, presence restrictions lifted, Snyder case, Peckingham case, and the illinois case where the judge stated, “you can’t criminalize normal behavior”. I joined this site two years ago. I’m still in disbelief of the movements. Especially after the IML was passed by a so called constitutional President.

        • David Kennerly

          I believe you mean that the appearance of supporting the bill now will then be at odds with later arguing for the Registry’s destruction.

          No one honestly expects an organization to not continuously and strategically support the rights of its constituents. Renegotiating demands is the mark of an effective and responsive leadership. If anything, it will win the admiration of those in the State House and a recognition that CARSOL is a force to be reckoned with. That’s exactly what we want.

  45. michelle

    Does anyone one know what tier 261.5c/261.5d would be set in?

  46. Roger


    I agree that this bill SHOULD have a path for us to get off the registry.
    HARD FACT: FREEDOM FOR WE TIER 3-ERS CANNOT HAPPEN IN THIS BILL because no politician wants to appear soft on RC’s. They spent so many years demonizing us that they have painted themselves in a corner. All the logic I see stated in these comments will not change that, no matter how true it is.

    SAD FACT that we must accept: HUMANS ARE DRIVEN BY THEIR FEELINGS, and rationalize what they want to believe with contorted logic. It is a rare person that is willing to dramatically change their beliefs based on facts alone. People have to FEEL RIGHT about something in order to change their attitudes. This is especially true of politicians! Until we change the PERCEPTION that the public and politicians and the courts have of us, this bill is the only alternative that exists to start bringing sanity to the wild west registry that we have.


    Much of our efforts is spent on fighting bad bills that keep popping up. If we get one law struck down—and we do—2 more appear.

    That is why the ONLY PRACTICAL WAY OF ACHIEVING LONG TERM CIVIL RIGHTS FOR RC’S IS to INCREMENTALLY CHANGE THE PUBLIC’S PERCEPTION of us. And that incremental change starts with the foundation of a three-tiered registry, however imperfect.


    We can and will continue to take action in the courts, but here is the harsh fact: The courts are not going to be our knights in shining armor that will save us because they have the same prejudices, as you can see by their justification of harsh decisions based on politician fear mongering and a bad Psychology Today opinion from long ago. Yes, there is an occasional judge that sides with us, but that is a recent development. We can wish and complain and wait forever for that Perfect lawsuit that will save us, but it will not happen as long as they believe we are dangerous and will never change.

    Dramatic court wins for us are rare and can be overturned, as we see with the transgender decision reversed in the Supreme Court. We need solid legislation.


    Senate Bill 695 may not seem like a big leap in how RC’s are perceived by California politicians, but it is a HUGE leap for a politician to make! Allowing tier 3’rs to get off the registry is too giant a leap of a change in attitude for politicians and the public to take right now. Contrary to what some RC’s seem to blieve, ACSOL is not writing this bill. The two politicians who did this did have tremendous courage. They face being accused by their fellow politicians as being soft on RC’s.

    It has taken YEARS of ACSOL members going to Sacramento and writing letters, telling politicians our stories and showing them the facts and statistics to come to the point where there might be enough politicians that are willing to risk their political skin to vote for this bill. BUT…

    HARD FACT: Without the support of law enforcement, progressive RC legislation will NOT pass! Politicians have to slowly be walked out of that corner of fear of RC’s incrementally. A key requirement is they need political cover to be able to walk out of that corner, so they must have law enforcement backing this bill to make them politically safe.

    The bill is based on the CASOMB (Calif. Sex Offender Mgmt Board) recommendations. Even though California politicians created the CASOMB, it has taken years for them to listen to it!

    There are many conservative agencies represented in CASOMB, including lots of law enforcement. Even they can see our current registry is an unwieldly mess.

    HUGE SIDE-BENEFIT OF SB 695: it can slow down the torrent of anti-RC bills because it will define how we are treated. Right now, politicians can treat us anyway they want by proposing whimsical bills. The structure built into the tiered registry will make that harder.

    HOW INCREMENTAL CHANGE USING THIS BILL WILL HELP THREE-ER’S: As more RC’s are released from the registry, politicians will see that there is no huge increase in sex crimes, and that will assuage their fears enough to allow incremental improvements to the registry.

    HARD FACT: if this bill fails, ALL RC’s will be stuck on the registry for at least a couple of additional years, and we will lose 2 years working to make it possible for tier-3’s to get off.

    Changing perceptions takes time. Look how many decades it took for the increase in media attention on the damage that anti-RC laws have done.

    I’M WRITING A LETTER as soon as I submit this comment. ACSOL’s fight to reform the California registry frozen glacier is hitting full steam during the next few weeks. Will you help your friends and family write those letters and make those calls ASAP?

    United we can accomplish great things.

  47. Anonymous Nobody


    I see this bill is rife with problems and prosecutorial hate that is going to blindside a lot of people.

    One major one is that this is not set up as pure tiers. It is set up as smoke and mirrors, as it is more like a COR than like tiers. That checkpoint at the end of your tier, the court hearing, is specifically set up like a COR, the prosecutor can argue that you remain a danger and should have to continue registering, regardless of your lack of reoffense throughout registration, just like they always do for a COR. The bill specifically says that! Oh, that argument by the prosecutor might be uncommon in the overwhelming flood of cases in the first year, but after that, all we have here is the equivalent of an earliest opportunity to apply for a COR, kind of like a first opportunity to apply for parole, but you might be denied and have to try several more times.

    Also, and in particular, anyone registering anywhere outside California for an offense in California, even a single misdemeanor from 1944 for which the federal government does not require registration, will get no relief ever under any circumstance. This is because this bill deviously shunts aside actual reasonableness, sensibleness and compassion in favor of hateful prosecutorial checkpoints to make sure California can have the pleasure of personally oppressing those people for at least 10 years for even the most minor of offenses, no matter how old — no matter even that these people have no subsequent offense, so already have long since passed the test of time.

    The bill is NOT designed with the primary purpose being public safety and that shown simply by how old your offense was or your last offense was — but that is all that matters. It is too surgical and with checkpoints that instead leave it designed to make sure no one avoids suffering oppression in California, and is being used as a net to cobble up all those people and oppress them, despite their offense being many, many years ago and nothing since — its more important to punish them — oh wait, registration is not punishment, that’s right — than recognize the test of time shows the issue has been resolved, California registration or not.

    This net appears to be designed also to nail anyone in California who has avoided the oppression – but again, who cares, since they already have passed the test of time; just make this like a statute of limitations, who cares about making sure oppression is suffered if the test of time has been passed, the problem has been solved, if their danger period immediately after the offense is history. If registration is truly not punishment or a sentence, than that is all that matters. Anything more shows that registration actually is punishment – they are approaching this as a matter of you must serve your sentence and under our screws.

    Gee, even the relief for in-state registrants whose last offense was more than 30 years ago is designed like that. That should simply be a general and immediate amnesty for any offense from more than 30 years ago (actually, from more than five years ago — there aren’t even any legitimate studies showing 10 years accomplishes anything more than five, after five years, hardly anyone for any offense, including sex offenses, recidivates!). But instead, you must show you have registered in California for at least 10 years, and you can only initiate that old-case relief by going in within five days of your birthday in 1918 and registering, and you must live here now in order to do that, and a year later you should be able to stop registering — so if you move or otherwise trigger a registration requirement during that year, you have to go in again. This for offenses from more than 30 years ago, maybe a simple misdemeanor from as long ago as 70 years!

    Forget about a net to snare people who have not offended in more than 30 years, who cares, problem is already solved, the net simply proves registration is punishment, a sentence — but that is the only way prosecutors can think.

    I have to think that part of the net is aimed at nailing all the people who decades ago were relieved of their registration requirement by getting an expungement under 1203.4 – which used to absolve you of the registration requirement. That relief was lifted for felons at about the same time frame as this 1987 mark for the old-case relief in this bill, and in the early side of the mid-1990s for misdemeanors. It was decidedly applied retroactively when Bill Clinton took registration national in the mid-1990s. I expect there are lots of those people who do not realize they are now required to start registering again — they are probably the bulk of the people the state says have not been registering! If they haven’t spent all their time looking into the details of this stuff — stuff they put behind them maybe many years earlier and never looked back — they will not know they were supposed to start registering again, even though they had worked for and met the standard for relief and attained the relief and stopped registering.

    In fact, now that I thought that through, this bill absolutely should immediately restore that relief to those people! My god, they worked for it, they earned it, they got it — and years later it was taken away as part of the registration hysteria and retroactivity. Gee, to now try to nail those people and oppress them for 10 or more years — that is unconscionable, and it is unconscionable to overlook that in this bill, and instead try to nail them for not realizing they were supposed to start registering again, and now make them register and for at least 10 years!

    A clause relieving all those people, provided they have no subsequent registerable offense, must be added to this bill! This bill must recognize and rectify that gross injustice of taking away that previous relief! You have to realize, all those lower level offenses that got probation got maybe a year or two of probation, and then got their 1203.4 relief and stopped registering. This bill leaves them facing a resumption of registration until they hit at least the 10-year mark, which will probably mean a full 10 years as I doubt there is any record around any more showing they registered for a year or two in 1981. That is unconscionable to deny them relief in this bill, and instead make them register for at least a decade to get any relief. I would bet you none or nearly none of the legislators have any idea this happened.

    How can we now not be arguing for a clause to that effect to be added? How can the legislators not agree to include that in this bill, it would simply correct an incredibly gross injustice?

    On another matter, under this bill, even minor misdemeanors are being handled as one size fits all, they too are a “danger” to society, poor demeanor. Gee, they should simply be dropped from registration at this time, the federal government does not require registration for them. Instead, this bill is chasing them down and making sure they suffer California oppression for at least 10 years. Who even cares if some misdemeanant who hasn’t offended in more than 30 years has ever registered, who cares if some misdemeanant from five years ago has registered. Forget about it, just do a general amnesty for the old cases, even better, just use this opportunity to drop misdemeanors from 290, along with all other offenses for which the federal government does not require registration — save the state and local police departments all the money of doing that pointless registration, all for poor demeanor!

    How can we not be demanding this at this one and only juncture when 290 is being rewritten — we will never get another chance to argue this, the legislators must at least hear these ideas!? Instead, this bill uses its relief as a prosecutorial tool to set up checkpoints to pointlessly catch people to make sure they suffer oppression, checkpoints that serve to deny others any relief, such as those out of state but registering for offenses in California, and put burdens even on those who eventually might get the relief, such as the requirement that those whose offenses were more than 30 years ago must go in and register in 2018 anyway, and wait a year beyond that to stop registering.

    Mind you, the only point of those checkpoints is hate; since the people already have passed the test of time, it is only to make sure those people do suffer oppression – that outlook makes it a sentence, punishment. This is not about solving a problem and public safety, it is about punishment — these checkpoints prove that. You can’t now impose registration on people whose offenses were 30, 40, 50 years ago and have no offense since that, whether they are out of state or even if in state, and argue it is not for purposes of punishment. And in many cases, at least as pointed out for those who had been able to stop registering many years ago because they got 1203.4 relief and did not know the law now makes them start registering again, you cannot of good and honest conscience chase them down now and nail them when their supposed offense is actually a gross injustice done to them by taking away the previous relief they earned and got.

    This bill and its checkpoints is set up as if it were addressing an escapee who has failed to serve his/her sentence! This bill is giving less than it seems, as providing for an extension of your tier once you get to its limit. We, of all people, cannot overlook this in a frenzied rush to pass anything the prosecutors want, any old crap at all. These points absolutely MUST be addressed.

    • Roger

      Anonymous Nobody, I agree with much of what you said.

      However, you can’t see the forest for the trees, so you miss the prime reason of supporting this very imperfect bill, which is that it is the FIRST step in registry reform, NOT the last.

      Are you content with your life sentence on the registry? Maybe you are wealthy and not concerned with finding housing or employment.

      Why else would you be completely against our only chance for 2 years of modifying the bloated, unjust, life-sentence registry?

      Why are you comfortable with blocking any chance for tier 1 and 2 RCs to get off?

      Are you speaking as an attorney with Janice’s experience?

      ACSOL has a long-term strategy. What is yours?

      How much experience in real-world politics do you have? You said “we will never get another chance to argue this”. That is false. Laws are modified constantly. But there has to BE a law for us to make suggestions to modify.

      You sound like you personally have attorneys developing the perfect solution. Maybe you do. I doubt it.

      But instant, perfect solutions do not exist in real-world politics. It is going to be hard enough to get this passed as-is. There is a limit to what is possible. Much of what you list is not realistic now. In the future we will work toward some of those issues.

      Without this IMPERFECT bill, the situation for California RCs won’t get better.

      Please join us in getting the registry change glacier moving. We will try to modify it later.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Roger, thank you for your comment. But that has been my point about this since day one. This is NOT simply a first step. This is the first AND FINAL step. Inexperienced people won’t see that. Inexperienced people will not know the differences and the nuances and the realities, they will think that this issue will be dealt with in the manner that “Laws are modified constantly.” This is not even close to being one of those laws. Our issue is in a world unto itself.

        This topic is NOT like every other topic that comes along, which you can always go back and tinker with. Have you heard of tampering with Social Security being the third rail of politics? Well, our issues are far worse for a politician than that, they would rather eviscerate Social Security than touch our topic. This will NOT be taken up again, it is far, far too toxic. Whatever you don’t get this time around, you are not going to get — period. They’re done. You will not get it in two years, not in five years, not in 15 years.

        This is moving this time only because the Feds called for it years ago (that’s where the mindless 10 years comes from, the federal minimum, but that is for much more serious offenses), and they got a list of prosecutors to endorse it, who endorsed it because they got to put in all the crap rather than have the more simple federal version — that gives the politicians serious cover, they can blame it on the prosecutors. And the prosecutors will never endorse taking their crap out and addressing issues not in this bill.

        This topic is so toxic that we were flat out nixed from even getting to have any input on what was being recommended to the legislators for a bill! We were cut out of the discussion, shunted aside, even as they let the prosecutors have full sway on the recommendation — this is the prosecutors’ bill. So, the legislative floor is the only place we can do it — and you say no, we should shut up. In reality, if we demand more, that will only make it more likely that this bill would be passed! This bill would then be seen as a compromise. To shut up leaves it looking like too much. But we might get something better in the process.

        As Anonymous Nobody, I can’t tell you my experience in politics, government and law. But I would recommend you not presume. I also find it insulting for anyone here to be dismissed with such a comment, as if no one else can know anything or have a good idea.

        Meanwhile I do really think this net this bill devises to impose registration on people missing it now proves that registration is being handled as punishment, not as a solution. That effort here could undermine the legal point that has undermined us all along, it could prove that registration is the punishment we all know it is. Registration cannot be a sentence if it is not punishment, and they are handling it here as a sentence. If we want to strengthen our argument for that now, we need to get that on the record in the legislature now, not instead applaud this bill. The record in the legislature during consideration of this bill makes a difference later in court. Sure, they will deny it, but they already have established their denial. We need it on the record now in a way that later we can show they knew what they were doing and did it regardless, so they knew they were imposing registration, despite any assertion of their intent.

  48. Anonymous Nobody


    As I look more into this tier proposal, it is becoming ever more obvious it is NOT a tier proposal. This is an incredibly devious proposal to block us from real tiers. This proposal is little other than a word game, redefining a COR as tiers. That means this is simply giving us what we already have, the possibility of a COR.

    You are not going to find “90%” of registrants getting relief from registration under this proposal any more than they get it under a COR.

    A tier proposal would let people out automatically after they finish the time for their tier. But that is NOT what this does. This sets up a possible court review — to be determined by whatever prosecutor you are stuck with, such as Rackauckas in Orange County — pretty much as deep and intrusive as a COR. Consider what the law will now say MUST (“shall” means “must”) be considered in any court hearing at the end of your tier:

    “In determining whether to order continued registration, the court shall consider: the nature of the registrable offense; the age and number of victims; whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registrable offense; the time period during which the person has not reoffended; successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.”

    So, even what your offense was can be used as a reason to deny you the relief!
    That makes your tier irrelevant, it is just a COR time frame to be allowed to apply, but to be denied! The nature of your offense is already known in deciding how long you must register to get this relief. As a tier, its already supposed to have been decided that that time is enough for that offense. But its not, under this bill your original offense can be a cause to deny you this relief! And absolutely, if your offense was a higher one, and they let you plea bargain to a lower one, you now are going to be judged on that higher one, on the “nature of your offense.” If that is your situation, you better start getting used to the idea that you are not going to get out of registration at the end of your tier, that dismissal of the charge you got in the plea bargain is not going to be worth as much as you thought — absolutely, that is exactly why the prosecutors put that language in this bill, to in effect put you on trial on that dismissed charge after all.

    Gee, they can even use your PRIOR or subsequent perfectly LEGAL conduct (behavior) as a reason to deny you this relief! That is, even though you have now learned to not cross the line, never violate a law, you have proved via the test of time that you can keep yourself contained within the law, that is not good enough! That’s good enough for everyone else on the planet, but that is not good enough for you, you must be better than that just the same as you must be to get a COR. That is, for example, what consenting adults do legally and in private behind closed doors can now be used to deny you this relief — or whatever else it might be that the prosecutors want to assert or wherever else you might do it. Any of the requirements of a COR can come in under that language — all those requirements for a COR are considered to be “relevant.”

    Mind you, if you had ANY criminal “behavior,” not “conviction,” since your registrable offense — and it does not need to be a registrable offense or even sex related — that can be used to deny you this relief. It even specifically writes that clause so that that criminal behavior does not even need to be “relevant!” Only the non-criminal behavior must be “relevant,” whatever that means, and that’s another point, that is just too vague, that will allow anything that’s surrounded with some hyped up language.

    And of course, the bit about your current assessment by SARATSO. This is a major, this means your tier time is irrelevant — other than to deny you what your SARATSO score says you should have a LOT sooner. This makes the tier proposal nothing but a smoke screen, only your SARATSO rating is relevant! And the various things that get you negative points on that are unconscionable, such as simply that you are single – – tell me, how many women want to marry, or have anything to do with, a convicted sex offender who is registering and suffering compliance checks!?

    Gee, it even requires the court to consider the time period during which you have not reoffended, as in does the court agree with the times set for the tier! But that is what the tier time is supposed to already have decided, that that amount of time is plenty enough, it is not supposed to be overruled by a judge with a different opinion of, or less respect for the tiers, a judge who wants a longer “tier” to decide you are safe.

    And again, I note, they are NOT dealing with this as a time frame from your offense or release, which is all that should matter and which a tier would be. They are measuring this as the amount of time you have registered, as in a sentence, and even more specifically, that registration must be in California, as in a sentence to California. I have advocated since day on that a real tier should be measured as time from offense or release, not time on registration – bad attitudes produce bad bills. A tier is supposed to mean you have passed the test of time, not that you have served enough of your sentence. A tier should be more like a statute of limitations that a sentence. Gee, those people who were not prosecuted before the statute of limitations ran get full relief from all of this, but those who suffered the conviction are now to suffer more if they registered out of state or maybe just didn’t start registering again in the mid-1990s when their previous relief under a 1203.4 “expungement” was lifted, but they never realized it was lifted and that they were supposed to start registering again. All this because this is not being handled similar to a statute of limitations, as in how long have you not reoffended, you have passed the test of time, period.

    These things just make this tier proposal nothing but an indeterminate sentence! That’s not what a tier proposal is supposed to be. This is making this relief nothing but the earliest time you can have your first parole hearing. None of this should be involved in a tier proposal, this is all for a COR. A tier proposal is supposed to be more like you have reached the end of your sentence, they cannot hold you any longer. A COR is what is supposed to be more like a parole hearing. The prosecutors have come in on this proposal and played word games, simply taking out the COR as a means of relief and calling what had been relief via a COR a tier, but handling it like a COR. Gee, it even conforms to the times for a COR, except for the lesser offenses that before this bill could have gotten relief in seven years — those we are now being lengthened to 10 years, getting the COR at seven years will no longer end registration for those people.

    Yes, this change is taking away any relief one might have gotten from a COR. If you got a COR and with that were allowed to stop registering, under this bill, you will now have to start registering again come Jan. 1 and, if or when you get to the end of your tier, you will have to file for removal from registration, and possibly have to suffer this court hearing — its up to the prosecutor, although I would hope, since you already got a COR, they don’t demand the hearing, but I would not bet on it, especially if you had some behavior they don’t like, perfectly legal or not, after your COR.

    And another egregious thing completely unrelated to tiers this bill is exploiting is to take away the relief from being posted on the Internet that some registrants applied for and obtained. That is now being taken away, and they will again be posted on the Internet! This is like when they took away relief from registration obtained via a 1203.4 “expungement,” required those people to start registering again. And now this bill will be taking away relief from registration attained by getting a COR.

    And how many years will it be before relief you might get under this tier proposal is taken away? As the state high court said in Doe v. Harris, you should know you can lose this relief at any time via subsequent changes in the law. That has already happened in the past for all those who had obtained relief via 1203.4, it is now about to happen for all those who were relieved via a COR, and it is now about to happen for all those delisted from the internet after applying for and earning that relief. And we are not complaining about this!

    This is NOT a tier proposal. This is NOT attitudes changing to be more reasonable, this is just a shell game.

    There are loads of details all through this change that have nothing to do with tiers, and which no one is focusing on but do make our situation worse.

    • JCrsn

      You need to make this concise. People aren’t going to read a huge novel, if you want people to read this you need to cut out all the extraneous material and concentrate on your actual points.

      • Lake County

        I quite agree. I never read posts that long. Most important points can be made in a much shorter post. In general, once you’ve gone past three paragraphs here, you’ve lost a majority of the readers.

        • Mr. D

          Lake County – I concur with you. Once one starts rambling they tend to lose their audience . In addition it almost becomes like a sales pitch. None of us that currently post comments and read the content of this website are going to have any immediate impact on the bill that Will be reviewed and voted upon in Sacramento. I’m very sorry that this bill will not help everyone. But like it or not it is progress from our current conundrum.

    • Steve

      Wrong some of us, currently, have no opportunity at a cor.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        The point was simply about those who were in the position to be able to stop registering after getting a COR. Those are only lower level offenses.

  49. Mike D

    Does anyone one know what tier 261.5c/261.5d would be set in?

Leave a Reply

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 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 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *