Senator Ricardo Lara, the primary author of the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 695), has pulled that bill from further consideration. The bill had been scheduled to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 18. The bill could continue if either co-author Holly Mitchell agrees to serve as the bill’s sole author or a new author is identified.
In order to remain viable, the bill must be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee during its hearing on April 25.
Related
California state Sen. Ricardo Lara announces he’s running for state insurance commissioner in 2018
Does anyone know if Lara gave a reason for this?
Two convincing arguments I believe can be made to Lara & Mitchell their Assistants, Managers, & Office Staff!
1. To Lara it can be put forth of his lose of opportunity to demonstrate his courage and leadership to follow true justice in seeking the Wholeness of the Community at large.
2. To Mitchell it can be shown to her that In picking up the Torch of True Justice she would Doubly benefit in demonstrating her Advanced Thinking Skills & a Mastership of Foresight which will yield great returns in the Steps into the Future, by Loyal & Appreciation of Skilled & Experienced fighters of the Trenches of Death.
I speak Truth,
as Yehovah Lives, so should we
———————-<<<<<>>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ricardo Lara: 3 offices to contact. / Holly J. Mitchell: 2 offices to contact – Making contact with Senators, their personal Assistance, Office Managers, & Staff would create opportunities for Present & Future Clarifications of the Serious Issues at Hand. It’s a win win win opera unity!
Ricardo Lara:
Democratic — Senator — District 33 Available Terms:
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Ricardo Lara represents Senate District 33 in the California Senate, is a member of nine committees, and is the primary sponsor.
SENATE OFFICE:
State Capitol, Room 5050, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Phone: 916-651-4033
Email: senator.lara@sen.ca.gov
DISTRICT OFFICE:
3939 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 107, Long Beach, CA 90807 (562) 256-7921
DISTRICT OFFICE:
6550 Miles Avenue, Room 214, Huntington Park, CA 90255 (323) 277-4560
——————————————
Holly J. Mitchell
Democratic — Senator — District 30 Available Terms:
2015 2016 2017 2018
Holly J. Mitchell represents Senate District 30 in the California Senate, is a member of seven committees.
SENATE OFFICE:
State Capitol, Room 5080, Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
Phone: 916-651-4030
Email: senator.mitchell@sen.ca.gov
DISTRICT OFFICE:
700 State Drive, Suite 113, Los Angeles, CA 90037
Phone: 213-745-6656
Click to EditDelete (3 minutes and 53 seconds)
More yet–where does that leave us? Now that we have the CASOMB’s video.
1) Should we be in a wait and see mode?
2) Should we just sit and follow the progress on any of these new pieces of legislation to get a sense of what these fools are really doing.
3) Are they simply waiting to see what happens in the 6th circuit case that will give meaning to ex-post facto laws and registries ( I put my money here). They have us here it would make no sense to begin a lawsuit challenging any part of SO management until the SCOTUS has had its say.
Until the SCOTUS decides if they wish to review the case and decides the matter if they do–looks like 2017 is dead for these type challenges
Of course, no author is pulling SB-26, are they?? 😡
I pray that SCOTUS will ultimately defeat ALL this crap by declaring it illegal & unconstitutional Ex Post Facto punishment!
Lara is running for State Insurance Commissioner in 2018. He probably doesn’t want to hurt his chances.
Frankly, I didn’t have much hope for this bill.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-state-sen-ricardo-lara-announces-run-1490115547-htmlstory.html
It’s not much, but you should all call Lara’s office at 916-651-4033 to ask him to bring the bill back.
This is a big disappointment to me. After 20 years, I was hoping to be done with registration. Hopefully it will come back with some of the improvements we wanted. At least those of you that thought the tiered registry might make your life worse will now not have to worry about it. We can all just stay stuck registering for life together.
In other news, we’re screwed…false hope once again. Carry on nothing to see here
This is not a bad thing. Everybody was excited to have just something better than life. But the truth is that many people will have twenty years and ten years and some still have life and that is a pretty dismal prospect, especially when registration laws imposed on an individual after probation is complete are inherently unconstitutional; when Gang members, drug dealers, murderers, arsonists, gun sellers, drunk drivers, domestic abusers, et al don’t have to register, but an entire class, regardless of severity do, then it is unjust and hysterical. Why is addicting a teenager to meth less serious than what 50% of SO’s did? I’ve seen teenage meth addicts, and I’ve seen the devastation it does to the parents, but no registration for the dealers. I’ve been to funerals caused by drunk drivers, but no registration. No, keep up the faith and the fight. A real bill is in the making. One that is fair and not exclusive and punitive to a stigmatized group.
If you take a look at Senator Lara’s twitter feed, he has made numerous tweets about all the bills he has sponsored or supported this year going back to February. Several mentions of sb31 which bans a Muslim Registry, and bills that aim to reform the criminal justice system for juveniles and adults ( with a video of him giving a speech talking about the actual bills) but absolutely no mention of sb695 .
Why would he make enthusiastic public statements about these bills and not even mention the one he “authored”?
It’s all about money and reelections. If this bill let 1 person off the registry it was doomed from the start.
We must protect the Children for the Drunk drivers to harvest.
So is there a plan of action? What can we do to help make sure this bill gets picked back up?
Actually, first things first, could please someone explain what “pulling the bill” means? Does it mean the author will have nothing further to do with it? Is it just pulled from this subcommittee meeting, and the author could repost it later? Did Lara take his name off as sponsor? Quirk-Silva, as it was mentioned, pulled her AB558 bill, then she “unpulled” it, apparently. You who wrote the main post or the people who follow this legislative stuff, could you explain a little better what “pulling the bill” means?
Questions to be considered: Where does churches stand on getting rid of the sex offender registry? We are told to obey the laws of the land but after someone has paid their debt is it not evil to keep adding punitive measures after the fact? If so then shouldn’t the church stand against such evil? Anointing comes not just from doing good for others but standing against evil Prv. 16:25 (…ways that seems right but are evil). If the Church refuses to stand against these fundamental wrongs how can they expect anointing and growth to take place? The Lord’s view on who’s a sex offender is anyone that looks upon a woman in lust has committed adultery already in their hearts. With that standard in mind how many sex offenders attend your church? Your argument might be well we are under Grace and forgiven those transgressions. Really? Then doesn’t His Grace reach as far as those being wrongfully punished after they have paid their debt to society? You might also say well those are consequences of their sin/crimes. What are the consequences to the church for not Abiding in Christ and walking as he did in the Earth? Lost anointing and spiritual growth perhaps? How did God’s Grace (through Jesus) handle the adulteress (Sex Offender) that was sentenced (by law) to death? Are you refusing Christ and His example by not showing equal compassion for those that have paid their debt to society? Where does this kind of harm stop? Shouldn’t we exercise Christ like compassion and stand against this LIVING DEATH called the sex offender registry? There have been children listed as young as 9 years old on that evil draconian thing. The church needs to stop following the popular dictates of the world and society. While we were yet sinners God sent His only son to die for us. Given the Lord’s example in this regard who are we NOT to stand against the sex offender registry?
Janice and Chase,
Will you please opine? Thanks.
Wait a minute, what is Ca rsol stance on this. Janice or Chance can you please help us out here before we jump to conclusions. I’m sure there is some positivity to this.
I am so sad. This was our last chance.
So again, …
***Are you talking about this comment from yesterday?
https://all4consolaws.org/2017/02/janices-journal-tiered-registry-bill-could-help-more-than-90-percent-of-registrants/#comment-173102
Was there. Is there. Always has been.
Any issues with moderation please address directly to us, at the email provided in the discussion guidelines, as opposed to the comments section. Moderator***
This smells of quid pro quo for support for his upcoming run for Commissioner. But it is surprising he didn’t line up another author/sponsor. Since he introduced it in the first place he must not be too scared politically of the “consequences” of supporting registered citizens but the establishment must have convinced him to withdraw his name so he couldn’t be tagged with it in the future.
Keep in mind that the California Senate is currently on Spring Recess [http://senate.ca.gov/legdeadlines]
Which means they are all back in their home districts and not conducting official Senate Business, which is why there isn’t much change since the pulling of this Bill was announced.
Now is the time to contact the senators at their home offices and ask that they resubmit this bill.
I would like to know if the leaders of this organization(ACSOL) are doing anything on behalf of its members to try and get this bill picked back up, or if they know of any other organization really pushing on this, while the Spring Recess is going on?
Hi, I think I understand this post as the Senators are on spring break right now, its the time to ask them to re-write the Bill, and from what I understand it will be brought up on April 18th or the 25th?
I am currently a Paralegal student and writing an argumentative Thesis on the Tiered Registry. I have a lot to say, especially on behalf of Women Offenders.
I will do and go anywhere to speak if needed, or wanted from me. Just let me know the and I will do whatever I can.
I am turning 50 this month, and an offender now for 25 years and it was when I was 26 and I had sexual relation with a 14 yr old neighbor. I am a woman. This has been horrible and unnecessary and it’s got to stop. The laws are not aimed at putting those who are truly pedophiles and getting them the help they need, nor are they aimed at those covering up behind relatives and priests. I could go on and on. Please clarify when it is being introduced, where and if there’s anything besides writing letters I can do.
Respectfully,
…in Los Angeles County
I have been in contact with several state legislators and other government offices regarding SB695. The word is that several people are moving to find a replacement author and we should know more early next week.
All states have not catagorized this manner in a appropriate way. Some circumstances do need to be addressed since the intentions are devastating. However, on the contrary of some situations a individual was never close to the accusations that have occur and having to be placed in a catagory of hardship and uncertain circumstances the law has violated the Constitutional rights of some individuals. Having to be told that they need to follow rules to gain respect back into the community, they are forced with double jeporpy and unusual cruelty punishment, and the law attends to feels to justify their actions.
There is not much time left. The last Public Safety Committee meeting is on April 25th. I imaging that time will run out for this session. We will likely have to wait until the next session starts in January, 2018. Maybe with the extra time we will be able to lobby for changes that will make the bill better.
This fake and incredibly dishonest tier proposal is a fraud on registrants. This is designed to give us nearly nothing, while thwarting any possibility of getting something real going forward. This is a very deviously drafted bill — and the leaders here seem to be blind to that, which scares me. This is just giving us the COR we already have, and merely extending relief from registration for that to those in tier 2 who can’t now stop registering with a COR — if they can get the relief, which is doubtful. Those in tier 1 already can stop with a COR.
But it is nearly impossible to get a COR! And this bill is written to make that just a difficult for these fake tiers. There is no reason, with the way this bill is written, to think you will have any less of a fight from the prosecutors over relief when you reach your tier time than you do for a COR when you reach your COR time for that. They have written the COR review requirements into this bill for tiers, standards that have made it nearly impossible to get a COR — and that is because they intend to use them!
And once there are “tiers,” despite being fake, we will get no one, not a single legislator or anyone else, to listen to us to give us real tiers — that is clearly the reason the prosecutors have put forth this bill. They are giving us just about nothing, and will undermine any possibility of us even making an argument going forward.
We should be pushing to just conform to federal, meaning require registration only for those offenses the feds require it — many or most Calif. registrants would be able to stop the moment that took effect. And conform the tiers to the federal time frames for tiers, which is not 20 and 30 years or even lifetime! Tier 2 under federal would be 10 years — and you don’t have to get a review for it when you reach that time.
We can not get less than federal from the state, but once done, we can take our full fight to federal, all resources aimed at that.
To be pushing the idea that 90% of registrants will be able to stop registering under this bill — that is unconscionable to be telling people here. Any lawyer has to understand what this bill says and know that is a false statement. It scares me that we are promoting such assertions and so misleading people here about this bill.