ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLCalifornia

A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, L.A. County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey and other criminal justice leaders have won state Senate approval to remove names of low-level, nonviolent offenders after 10 or 20 years. This would also include people who are considered not to reoffend. Under current California law, people convicted of certain sex offenses must register for life. Proponents of the bill argue that low level offenders are unfairly categorized with a blanket public perception of sex offenders, affecting offenders’ ability to obtain work, a home and even maintain safety. Radio Program or here

 

Join the discussion

  1. Mot

    Heard Janice on the radio today. So glad to hear what she had to say. The ‘opposition’ seemed to even be on OUR side in this. Keep up the public exposure of what is needed and how we can all finally get our freedom.
    Sending my letters on 421 to morrow

    • Steve

      She is hardly for our cause. Her entire bologna story of having a “weird feeling about a new neighbor” and looking him up only to find hew was on the the list. Then some new people move in and she goes to warn them only finding out he was offering to ” baby sit” was total bs. Her ammo is to create fear to enflict more pain on us. I do not feel bad for her at all.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you, Mot, for writing and sending letters. It is very important to do this in order to stop AB 558 and to pass SB 421. The hearing for AB 558 is next week, June 27, and the hearing for SB 421, is July 11. Please join us in person if you can. It’s worth the effort!

    • Neil Fisher

      The most important thing we all can do now is to voice loud and clear that if you don’t support SB 421 a system that is both stable yet flexible and works , and are still in support of the system we have today that is out of date and is broken and does not work any longer for what it was in ended ,then one is being weak on sex crime and the dangerous sex offenders.
      We all want SB 421 to get 100 percent passed and signed into law by the Governor and once all persons concerned are aware that by not supporting SB 421 one IS being weak on sex crime. And by supporting it one is being strong on sex crimes and the dangerous sex offenders we have a good chance of seeing it passed. So voice this loud and clear to anyone ,everyone and any media like news papers, radio, TV, Facebook, google news yahoo news everywhere. Trust me that will give us a much greater chance of seeing it through.
      Everyone reading this have a great and wonderful day.
      Neil B Fisher

  2. Marty

    Excellent job by Janice presenting the case for lower tier registrants, vigilantism, and the fact that most sex offenses are committed by people not on the registry. Ms. Moulton, with all due respect, dealt with a horrendous tragedy in which her child was murdered; however, she seems to equate all registrants with murderers… obviously an agregious error (and the basis for the Adam Walsh laws). This misinformation needs to be challenged albeit with care so as not to attack the parents of murdered children. The only point I would have liked to hear from Janice, and I’m sure she would have had they given her enough time, is the damage the registry causes by destroying the opportunity for reformed registrants to lead productive, non-offending lives. After all, take away jobs,housing, and support, and you potentially leave at least a few homeless on the streets who may no longer care what they do or who they harm. In short, the irony of the registry is that it has the propensity to create and enhance the exact same danger it alleges to protect society from. Perhaps the next show can give Janice a few more minutes.

    • Harry

      “…the irony of the registry is that it has the propensity to create and enhance the exact same danger it alleges to protect society from…” Marty this a great talking point that needs to be headlined.

      • Chris F

        Unfortunately, the registry does even more than mentioned above to make things worse and not better.

        The stigma of potentially being on the registry is now so great that a child molester could be more likely to murder that child than risk being caught by leaving a witness alive. I am the father of two young kids, and as much as I would be devastated if a pervert got his hands on them, I would be infinitely more devastated if he killed one of them just from the fear of our lynch mob society.

        I don’t think it’s fair for someone else’s desire for vengeance to put others in more harms way and exacerbate the original problem. There is some middle ground between victims rights and the good of society as a whole, and I would prefer it lean more toward society to prevent more victims

  3. G4Change

    Great job as always, Janice!

    Also, I have to say that I applaud the journalistic style of KPCC. No yelling. No sensationalizing. No b.s. Sounds like a great radio station.

  4. Laguy

    Thank You Janice!

  5. C

    Did anyone happen to catch Scott Weiner on KABC this afternoon talking to John Phillips and Jillian Barberie?
    I just caught the tail end when they were summarizing their discussion and making the point that rapists and aggravated children molesters would not be coming off the list.
    I’ve heard Barberie frequently rail against RCs, perpetuating the typical myths and ignoring facts.
    Would love to heard the whole interview.

    • David Kennerly's Spectral Evidence

      I tried to find it online at their site but, no luck. It does appear that it will be available later since there is a four-day delay between the broadcast and its availability as a podcast.

      Here is the address where it will appear, hopefully, Saturday, but perhaps on Monday:

      http://www.kabc.com/the-drive-home/

      I am concerned about any pressure being exerted to ensure that certain “classes” of “offenders” will never get off the registry. I am keen to hear Scott Weiner speak to that and see how far he is willing to stand on principle.

      Someone mentioned here an adverse change that had crept into the bill. If someone who has done a side-by-side comparison between the most recent version, as passed in the Senate, and its earlier form, I would appreciate hearing it. Thanks!

      • AlexO

        When viewing the bill on the official site, they actually have an option to see the difference between versions. It’s a drop-down box option in the Compare Versions tab. It uses the current bill and compares it to whatever previous versions were available. All the changes are in blue.

        https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421

        The two biggest changes I noticed is that they add a lower time frame for juvenile offenders (5 and 10 instead of 10 and 20 like for adults), and a few revisions involving 647.6. Now if you have multiple convictions at separate times of 647.6, it’ll automatically land you into tier 2 (a single conviction is tier 1). They also added 647.6 to the tier 2 internet exclusion portion. It seems to read like 647.6 convictions will still remain on the public site, but Ms. Bellucci replied to this question and said that currently if you’re tier 1 you will not be included on the public site. I guess we’ll see when it passes, if it remains in the current form.

  6. Mot

    Just listened to KFI John and Ken from yesterday (6/20) and Erin Runnion talk about AB421 and making her false point that the tiered registration will unleash all sex offenders on the public. No mention of the facts about how much it will take to get off the registry. I know there was another call this morning on KFI from Erin and I did not hear it but the same I am sure as last night.
    Need to get Janice on KFI and bring the true story to the public; probably will not invite her but need to try and get on that station

    • Mot

      I Emailed KFI and got a reply that they do not WANT Janice on the JohnandKen show guess they are fearful of the truth

      • James

        Hey, Mot, just a quick shout out of praise for you…

        That was fast and effective action on your part.

        Smart.

        I appreciate it.

        (not that I am anyone special or anything that you would want thanks from me, but I know who my friends are…so thanks again).

        Best Wishes, James

      • Harry

        Truth do hurt liars, really bad.

      • Joe

        Not a surprise. You can listen to Erin Runnion’s “interview” here. Facts are NOT her friend. John and Ken are.

        https://www.facebook.com/TheJoyfulChildFoundation

        (partway down the page)

      • Harry

        Sent KFI another email, Mot and ask them if they want the truth on the air?

        • No, not the truth!

          No, they can’t handle the truth and will order a code red!

    • New Person

      ================================
      Erin Runnion talk about AB421 and making her false point that the tiered registration will unleash all sex offenders on the public.
      ================================

      Ummm… I hate to break this news, but every registrant not under custody (and some under parole/probation) are already part of the public. Ask Frank Lindsay how long he’s been on the registry and part of the public.

      It’s quite an asinine thought stating “sex offenders will be unleash upon the public” when we’ve already been part of the public. But seriously, they going to unleash under 1% recidivists onto the public! That’s from the CASOMB’s report. Is that a scary thought? (a rhetorical, sarcastic thought)

      Should email KFI a question: Once you’ve paid your dues to society, should be forced to continue to serve the state?

      Also, have them define what’s is an “inalienable right”.

  7. Nondescript

    It seems odd to me that this Moulton person is the only real vocal opponent to the tiered registry. Even those couple of people they paraded out to oppose the bill in the safety committee were weak at best, and the usually spirited Mark Klaas kind of just threw in the towel. Can they not find anyone to passionately articulate an opposing argument? I thought there would be enormous opposition to the removal of 90 percent of “sex fiends” from public disclosure. They sure are controlling the narrative quite well.

    Regarding the interview, when Ms Moulton admitted that perhaps teen sexters should not be subject to the harshness of the registry, her solution was that, that is something that should be fixed that through legislation. Considering her advocacy for children, has SHE done anything to get that changed? Lobbied the law makers perhaps? My best guess would be NO. I also think her sex offender baby sitter story that was articulated with a strange tone in the inflection in her voice was dubious at best. Her worries about the potential dwindling public registry shows where her true concern lies. It doesn`t matter whether someone is dangerous or not, because just like the rest of the pathologically curious public, they have been programmed to feel entitled to know everything about everyone. If there was a way to find out every trifling detail about all our neighbors and work colleagues with the click of a button- most people would use it. The fear about ones safety is just an delusory excuse- it is really a fear of the unknown which makes people feel at dis-ease with themselves. But alas, there are poor souls entering the system everyday as new registrants. There will be plenty to be had of new facades , tattoo locations , and aliases to make the public feel better about themselves in short order.

    • AlexO

      Her story was short on details and big on fear. What was that person convicted off? Was it molesting young children or streaking at the ball game? Was he just released or was the conviction 30 years old?

      • New Person

        shhhh….

        fear only works with fewer facts, if any.

        remember, it’s the story that matters more.

  8. USA

    This is a wonderful article! I can’t even imagine where California would be if Janice and her organization didn’t exist! We would be banned from living in certain areas, banned from beaches/parks/libraries and who knows what else? I can’t even imagine how many lawsuits have been filed. Now, we have an opportunity to finally see the light at the end of the tunnel!

  9. Mike

    “This would also include people who are considered not to reoffend….”

    Does this also include a Level III offender who has not commented a crime for 10, 15 or 20 years??

  10. USA

    Mike

    I believe you can petition the court to have your Level 3 reduced to a Level 2 if your crime free for a certain number of years. Good luck! Stay positive

  11. Andy020

    I moved to Cali from Washington 2 years ago.. I was no longer required to register there (20 years passed).. and now I see i’m in trouble..

    I haven’t registered here, in fact, I didn’t even consider the laws would be different

    are there any provisions in the new law about relocating to CA? can’t find any.
    I really feel I need an attorney, but can’t afford one

    • AJ

      @Andy020
      Since you cannot afford any attorney, I suggest you try hitting up one (or more) for a free 30-minute consult. You can take knowledge gleaned from one and use it as part of your, “here’s what I understand things to be,” discussion with any subsequent one. I am not an attorney, nor am I a CA resident, but you definitely need to get it resolved. Any proactive action on your part will be better than the State’s reaction if/when they discover you.

      Personally, I’d high-tail it back to WA where I’m clean and free, if that’s a possibility.

      –AJ

    • Someone who cares

      The rules for registering in each state are so convoluted and most attorneys won’t even know. So, what happens if the tiered registry goes in effect and a person gets off in 10 years but then moves to a life time state? He or she can’t possibly be required to start registering again? This becomes way too confusing for anyone, including LE and lawyers. Also, other states may have different criteria for the various Tiers and someone might be a Tier 1 in CA but a Tier 2 in another State. Who can keep track of all this? Impossible!

      • AJ

        @Someone who cares
        “So, what happens if the tiered registry goes in effect and a person gets off in 10 years but then moves to a life time state? He or she can’t possibly be required to start registering again?”

        Since it’s considered regulatory, s/he will have to comply with the regulations in the new state. It’s just one more way those states with onerous registration requirements try to keep RCs, current or former, away. Were registries deemed some form of punishment, any change to the original registration would be blatantly unconstitutional (double jeopardy, due process, and/or Full Faith and Credit).

        –AJ

  12. someone who cares

    Another problem with different rules and regulations that nobody is able to comprehend is this. Let’s say you are off the registry here in CA, whether it is through a COR or the Tiered Registry letting you off and you want to visit Las Vegas. Do you still have to register with their local PD if you stay longer than 48 hours? It is just too ridiculous to even enforce any of the rules, and hopefully, all this will crumble soon. It’s time!

    • AJ

      @someone who cares
      “Let’s say you are off the registry here in CA, whether it is through a COR or the Tiered Registry letting you off and you want to visit Las Vegas. Do you still have to register with their local PD if you stay longer than 48 hours?”
      >>Yes, as it’s regulatory.

      “It is just too ridiculous to even enforce any of the rules, and hopefully, all this will crumble soon.”
      >>Those who create(d) these laws don’t give a crap how complex it is for the (former) RC.

      –AJ

      • Mr. D

        AJ – if your conviction was in the state of California and you receive a COR or relief from the future tiered registry bill you should not have to register when you travel anywhere after you are no longer required to register in the state of California for an original California offense. If you believe otherwise please provide a reference or link.

        • AJ

          @Mr. D.
          CA’s COR or similar only releases you from the regulatory laws of the State of California. Every other State in the Union has its own regulations regarding RCs, based upon the legal outcome of one’s case. As it’s a regulation, and not punitive, there is no Full Faith and Credit aspect. That’s the problem: each state has its own maze one must follow, despite how things are in one’s home state!
          Which State’s SOR would you like provided as a link? Any that I have reviewed are enforced based on conviction and/*or* being required to register in another state. They are typically written that if you have ever been convicted of (insert list of crimes) or similar offenses, you have to register, and your being done in any other state is of no consequence.
          Take FL (please!): http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/775.21
          How about NV: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-179C.html
          Or maybe IL: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2009&ChapterID=55

          >>Please show me any language in these laws to the effect of, “unless the State of conviction says you no longer have to register.”

          –AJ

        • Mr. D

          AJ – sorry I did a poor job of explaining my position. My assumption was based on someone having a COR from obtaining an expungement via 1203.4 which then relieves you and eliminates your conviction. If the tiered registry bill passes and a person has an expungement through 1203.4 they should not have any issues traveling or moving to other states .

        • AJ

          @Mr D
          No worries, I know full well I have misspoken my thoughts many times! Yes, an expungement is a whole different matter. I know MS had a SC case where a guy from another state (MD?) was on their registry. He got the conviction expunged, yet MS still wanted to make him be on the registry! Their SC decided that he was not required to register, as an expungement made him status quo ante, meaning it was as if it never happened. And that is in MS!

        • New Person

          So your conviction still stands in Nevada after you’ve had it expunged as well as received a COR to be off the registry?

          Isn’t that added penalties without a jury? I didn’t know about that. Also I didn’t know about Illinois still had restrictions after you’re off the registry?!

          None of that makes any sense b/c you’re still serving the state after you’re off the registry? Now that is beyond scope and should fit into a Bill of Attainder as no other free citizens who don’t have to register share those penalties and disabilities.

        • AJ

          @New Person
          I don’t know how NV handles expunged offenses. I didn’t read their statutes closely enough to find that out, as I was interested in the 48-hour residency section. I don’t know if there are any states that use expunged crimes for registry purposes (though if forced to guess, I’d say FL, MO and/or NC). An attorney licensed in the state of interest would be one’s best bet to find that out.

          Your question as to it being added penalties without a jury is what the Snyder case is/was all about. Since Smith, it’s all been run as a regulation (i.e. civil) scheme, thus there’s no due process entitlement. My feeling is there’s a growing consensus that SCOTUS will accept Snyder, and will declare anything imposed upon someone after conviction and/or completion of parole/probation requirements is punitive and unconstitutional. Once that happens, there’s a whole can of worms for the State regarding who to regulate how, Full Faith and Credit issues, Equal Protection issues, etc. I personally believe it will make the whole registry restriction scheme come crashing down, leaving just the public registry itself. After that, I think a renewed challenge to CT DPS may be possible–if someone challenges on substantive (not procedural) due process.

          Finally, about IL. There is a case before the IL SC about just what you mention. (http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2017/03/court-finds-park-policy-prohibiting-sex.html) It’s not being attacked as a BoA, rather as being unconstitutionally broad. Here’s the thing about the IL case: he’s not even on the registry, but is still subject to the ban!

      • ExpatRFSO

        “Let’s say you are off the registry here in CA, whether it is through a COR or the Tiered Registry letting you off and you want to visit Las Vegas. Do you still have to register with their local PD if you stay longer than 48 hours?”
        >>Yes, as it’s regulatory.

        AJ, someone who cares, this exact question (About a CA RC travelling to LV for more than 48 hours) was asked and answered multiple times at the ACSOL Conference. I won’t name them by name but according to a panel of lawyers who specialize on this topic, (one a former registered citizen himself) if you are not required to register (i.e. if you get off the registry via this tiered registry) in the state which you reside and you travel to another state to visit (this is important, it’s only to visit, NOT reside) you are not required to register as a visitor. This is because the laws governing notification requirements for visitors are dependent upon the required person being a current registrant in the state which they reside, not whether they would be one in the state they are traveling to if they established residency there.

        Having said that, Las Vegas and the state of Nevada have separate laws for felons in general. That’s different and nothing to do with the registry. The list of felonies that require one to register seems pretty narrow, but a very cursory search online showed there are a few sex crimes on that list.

        • someone who cares

          ExPat ~ I would have to agree with you on this. I don’t even think having to register in another State if you are off the registry in the State that put you on the registry sounds right. Having to register is part of your sentence. If you are off the registry, you should be done with registering anywhere unless you get tried in that new State again, which would not happen unless you commit a crime in that State. Wouldn’t this be a lot more logical?

        • AJ

          @ExpatRFSO
          Thanks for the info and update. I have to say that I wouldn’t want to find out the hard way that those attorneys are wrong! Nowhere in the laws do they exempt those who are done with their home state’s regulations. It is 100% based on your conviction. Once in NV for 48 hours, you’re no longer considered a visitor for the purposes of RC registration. I’m not disagreeing with attorneys about legal opinion, but unless they also supplied case law, they remain just opinions. I’m sure one could just as easily find a bunch of other attorneys (AGs, DAs, etc) who have the completely opposite opinion.

          I really hope and pray what the lawyers say is correct, but unfortunately they are not the ones in the black robes staring down at someone charged. Maybe someone done registering in their home state should go hang out in FL for a while and let us know how it works out.

          Check out MS’s law (http://state.sor.dps.ms.gov/so_law.html), § 45-33-47. It essentially says that no matter what another jurisdiction says about the length of registration, the following apply to anyone deemed a resident of MS. And, like FL, they don’t remove you from their list if you move away–or even die!

          So let’s take this MS example and run with it a bit. Suppose I’m convicted in a state where I have a 10-year registration requirement. I then move to MS, where the minimum time is 15 years (with 25 and life options as well). According to the logic put forth by you and those attorneys, all I would have to do is move from MS back to the state of conviction, establish and maintain residency to allow the 10 years to expire, then move back to MS. That makes absolutely no sense, and I have to think MS is going to say, “umm, excuse us, but our law says you still have 5/15/life years left.”

          Again, I’d be quite happy to be totally wrong on this, but absent proof from a court decision, I’m very wary of that legal advice.

          –AJ

        • AJ

          @ExpatRFSO
          “[T]his is important, it’s only to visit, NOT reside.”
          I wholly agree with what the lawyers said about *visitors* not having to register. Of course I don’t have to follow the rules for residents if I’m only a visitor! The problem is that, for registration-law purposes, the states specifically define, and shorten the length of time regarding, residency. NV says you are a *resident* after 48 hours. MS says you are a *resident* after 7 (temporary) or 14 (permanent) days. IL says you are a *resident* if you visit the state for any 3 days, contiguous or non-contiguous, during a calendar year.

          The question to be answered is: if I become a resident of a given state, must I follow their registration requirements even if my convicting state has released me from its registration requirement?

        • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave

          Consider this: visitors must, in most jurisdictions, including in Nevada, pay a HOTEL TAX which is justified by lawmakers for those visitors enjoying government services WITHOUT being resident in that state or community. This is one of those taxes levied on those who are clearly not residents (or regular taxpayers or voters) in those communities. Further, a bright line distinction is made between residents and visitors, and acknowledged by government officials as such, in these tax laws. Having made that distinction, those same lawmakers in turn claim that those same hotel tax payers are RESIDENTS for purposes of sex offender registration. This may be an issue that can be utilized in a legal argument against residency periods for sex offenders which strain commonsense credulity.

        • AJ

          @David Kennerly
          “[V]isitors must, in most jurisdictions…pay a HOTEL TAX which is justified by lawmakers for those visitors enjoying government services WITHOUT being resident in that state or community.”
          This is a flawed point, as hotel taxes are paid by all those who stay at a hotel, residents and visitors alike. You seem to be equating “visitor” with “non-resident.” If I travel across my state and stay in a hotel, I will pay the “visitor” hotel tax, even though I’m a resident of the state. Likewise taxes and fees on rental cars. Tourism taxes are certainly nothing new.

          “[L]awmakers in turn claim that those same hotel tax payers are RESIDENTS for purposes of sex offender registration.”
          I don’t have to stay in a hotel for the RC residency rule to kick in. I could be sleeping in the desert and after 48 hours I’m considered a resident for SOR purposes. At any rate, you’re pretty much making my point that in the SOR chapters–and only in the SOR chapters–“resident” takes on a whole new meaning. So the advice from the attorneys (based on what ExpatRFSO said) about visitors seems as it’s only good for 47h59m59s in Nevada.

          Are the lawmakers talking out of both sides of their mouth? Of course, that’s what they do. Hypocrisy? Again, of course.

          –AJ

  13. Confused SO wife

    So, my husband and I live in CA and are wondering how exactly are they tiering registered citizens? My husbands offense is 288 (a) Lewd and Lescivious acts with a child under 14. He was convicted in 1999 and released in 2006. He completed parole in 2009. I am asking because I noticed he doesn’t have a risk assessment score on Megan’s Law and some registered citizens do. Is that what they would use to determine this?

    • Steve

      He would be tier 2. 2026 would be 20 year mark unless parole is different then probation.

      • mq

        hello my conviction was the same 288 a and was in the year 1989 so where would that put me

  14. Bill Arthur

    I don’t think you are correct about being convicted and then getting off the registry in CA (or another state) and then visiting or moving to a state where the residents do have to register. In Florida, for example, it seems to me that if you are “convicted” in any state of an offense which would require registration in Florida, you have to register if you visit/move to Florida, even if you are no longer required to register in your former home state. It’s based on your conviction in the other state, not requirement to register there.

    From the Florida law regarding who must register — “Conviction means a determination of guilt which is the result of a trial or the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. A conviction for a similar offense includes, but is not limited to, a conviction by a federal or military tribunal, including courts-martial conducted by the Armed Forces of the United States, and includes a conviction or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a sanction in any state of the United States or other jurisdiction. A sanction includes, but is not limited to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional release, control release, or incarceration in a state prison, federal prison, private correctional facility, or local detention facility.”

    I don’t think you can hope to get off the registry in CA (or my state IL if the Task Force recommendations are implemented), and then travel around the US (or move to another state) regardless of their local registration laws.

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please 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 *

.