ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

Action ItemsCalifornia

CA Action Alert: Support SB 421 – Call Assy Approp. Committee

The CA Assembly Appropriations Committee will be hearing the Tiered Registry billSenate Bill 421–on August 23.

For many reasons, ACSOL is not planning on attending this hearing and we do not recommend you attend either.

However, all registrants and supporters should call ALL the Assembly Appropriations Committee members at their Sacramento office. Here is a link to the members and their phone numbers:

http://apro.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff

The deadline for calling is August 22, the day before the hearing.

Tell the staff person that you know the Assembly Member will hear the bill in the Appropriations Committee so you want to comment on Senate Bill 421. Say that you support it, and that you would like the Assembly Member to support it. Even if he or she is not your Assembly  Member, mentioning the committee hearing lets them know that this is a situation where your comments have value to them as a committee member.

Please join us and invest a few minutes in working toward our freedom!

 

 

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.  
 
333 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is my frustrated rant that I just need to get down on the page and out there. It’s not directed at anyone here. This bill was originally sold as most people would fall into tier 1. Tier 2 was going have people who had enhancement for priors and violence. And tier 3 was going to have all the actually dangerous people with multiple offences and very severe crimes (I’m aware of the previous and still current prevision of the damn Static-99 solely placing people into tier 3 as well). Now seemingly the only people in tier 1 will be… Read more »

I can’t see how a 311.4 can be the same tier as someone that actually molested a child. None of this makes any sense to me.

what was the subsection of the 311.4? B, C, and D are automatic tier 3 it appears

Mine is 311.4a. These amendments seem to make it all inclusive. It was for upskirting my victim.

I’m curious why you say b, c, and d are in T3? Do you mean in general or this bill?

@AlexO Tier 3 – [The person was convicted of violating subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10] The ” OR” means it pertains to subdivision b, c or d of those penal codes. If you read tier 2, you will see how they word the inclusive codes. They don’t list codes one after the other spaced by OR this, OR that. 311.4a is a misdemeanor. 311.4 (b) ( c) and (d) are prosecuted as felonies. The way I read it is that 311.4a is tier 1 because it is not specifically listed in tier… Read more »

I thought that at first as well but 311.3 and 311.10 do not have b, c, or d (they actually do but those points talk about how everything above doesn’t pertain to officers in line of duty, or offer a definition of the preceding statue). Also, 311.2a is the only point in the entire 311 section that isn’t minor specific. It’s only about obscene material. Everything else specifically deals with minors. And notice how “section” is repeated twice. Once for the first PC and then again for the three other PCs, grouping them together as a whole and all inclusive.… Read more »

You’re right it doesn’t make sense and it’s not fair. Did you know many contact offenses are still Tier 1. For example, any 261.5s (Stat rape) and 288a(b)s, Oral sex with a 17, 16, 15 or 14 year old minor! Some 286’s as well. Tier 1 No web disclosure; Tier 3 Disclosure with full address! This bill is 100% politics as you would expect from an LE sponsored bill and weak legislators. Further this really starts in 2023! SB421 says ‘2021’ but the DOJ can add “24 months” if a tier can not be immediately determined: ie no STATIC 99… Read more »

I’m more than just a little concerned…when ACSOL says they aren’t attending and recommend we do the same without saying why, to me that’s huge flashing yellow light saying danger…am I the only one seeing that?

As I already said above, some reasons are:
(1) The committee doesn’t allow public comments
(2) The committee meeting is transmitted live on the internet
(3) There is a lack of networking with other ACSOL members for this event

If you want to go to a meeting where you aren’t allowed to talk, that you could view at home, and do it alone, you are of course free to go.

Please read my posts above for more details.

Really? Did you read any of the other 190+ posts, many of which explain this?

I just received a response from the analyst of SB 421, this is what he said:

“My apologies, you are correct, the automatic termination provision for pre-1987 offenses was, in fact, deleted from the August 21, 2017, version of the bill.

I have revised my analysis on the Web.

Thank you,
Pedro Reyes

After checking, he did not revise his analysis, he only deleted it from the internet. I can only assume he’ll put it back later. Maybe I should also have him put in his analysis that many lower tiers will now be put into tier III?

I would think people being shifted to t2 and t3 would be very relevant to the goals stated. This is driving them farther away.

I looked again and his corrected analysis is there.

Hi AlexO, Just wanted to say hang in there. I’ve appreciated your posts – good, bad, or indifferent – doesn’t really matter. You’ve helped a lot of people on this forum. You’ve consistently helped to explain what most of us have had a hard time understanding with all of these changes in the bill and current law. What resounds most in your posts is the very essence of what all of us who have to register experience. The constant roller coaster ride of ups and downs, periods of hope, and then periods of utter devastation. Not to mention the yearly… Read more »

Thank you. I appreciate the kind words.

If I have a felony 311.11a that was in 2011, would that still make me tier 1? I thought only those 311 charges AFTER 2014 are NOT eligible to be in tier 1.

I believe you’re confusing it with expungement. In 2014 they moved 311.11 to the no-expungment list. Convictions prior to that are still eligible. If you were granted probation, go and get it expunged and reduced to a misdemeanor via 17b.

According to these new amendments, only felony 311.11 are T2. Misdemeanors fall into T1.

So if 311.11 is the California equivalent to Federal (2252A(a)(5)(B) {and the plea deal included lifetime supervised release which we are trying to get released from} it sounds like your saying we could still try to get it expunged? Offense date was in 2006. I’m confused.

Ugh. I just typed up a whole thing on how to get it done but then checked and it looks like Federal level convictions are not eligible for California expungement. I’d consult a lawyer anyway as almost nothing is really written in stone if it can be argued well. Janice and others constantly fight these set-in-stone rules that sometimes end up getting overturned (it’s really what the whole battle about the registry is about).

Sorry I couldn’t provide you with better news 🙁

Thanks AlexO. Being Federal always makes it confusing!

You would be in Tier 2. However, you can try to get it reduced to a misdemeanor and you will fall under tier 1 (I believe) and would drop off after 10 years after release. The amended version states all felony 311.11 would be in tier 2.

An important correction: This bill does not drop anyone off. It only allows you to petition to get off. How easy that’ll be is still to be determined. It could be almost automatic like an expungement, or a hardcore roller-coaster like the CoR.

@AlexO. A post-conviction specialist attorney thinks SB 421 relief will be somewhat easier, but similar to a COR. After all, many judges hate granting a mandated Cal 1203.4 even when it doesn’t grant relief!

I imagine the Public Urinator from the 1970s will be granted relief..

But the number of Registrants will continue to increase so maybe granting relief will be unavoidable. Hopefully.

Yup. I imagine it’ll fall somewhere in between. But the important is that everyone actually has to actively file for it. Given that the vast majority of people are not up to date on all the latest rules and laws, that’s going to mean a ton of people will remain on the registry simply because they’re not aware of their options. There’s a staggering number of people not filing for expungment even though they’re eligible, it’s simple, and all but automatic, simply because no one really explained the options to them. And this is for a law that’s been in… Read more »

If I read correctly, I would fall under tier 1 if I was convicted of misdemeanor 243.4 (e)(1) sexual battery(subdivision (c). This is not the sexual battery with restraint. Can someone confirm. (1) (A) A tier one offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years. A person is a tier one offender if the person is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c), or for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c)… Read more »

I would have to agree by what I am reading!

2021? here’s a thought, why do we need to wait an additional 4 years to pass?? why wouldn’t it be made to law in 2018? if individuals have passed the 10 years *or* 20 years than petition to get off registration the beginning of 2018, its been 70 loooooong years *enough* already

“Tier-to-be-Determined:” For those who think you are in Tiers 1 or 2 but have no STATIC 99 (most on the registry for ~12+ yrs), the DOJ will put you in the “Tier to be Determined” for up to 2 more years : 2023.

Any missing info will also “allow” the DOJ this Tier tactic. You can bet this Tier-to-be-Determined will be posted.

So really, Petitioning for relief is a minimum 6 YEARS away for most registrants with enough years already to qualify. And then the courts will be bogged down.

Sorry to say, at least as I read it. Others?

Sounds about right.

Relief 2023,

What happens by pushing you up to 2023 and that’s your 30th year? Will you be automatically taken off or do you have to go to the courts?

No one is going to be dropped automatically no matter how many years have passed.

Not as of the current bill. They removed that provision entirely. So once it goes into effect it will not be dropping anyone off automatically.

@JAB No more 30 year relief. Now EVERYONE has to petition for relief ($$) after the DOJ weighs in by Tier.

110,000 RCs now. ~ 5K a year added. So ~125K in 2021. Maybe 10K in built-up relief petitions in ~2023. About 2K a year after that will qualify. The numbers of registrants will NOT go down from here.

As currently written and proposed.

It can’t go into effect that quickly because 3 months isn’t nearly enough time to convert the entire system and classify everyone. Originally the bill was going to go into effect in 2019 but they added 2 more years in the current amendments due to the much heavier changes. They all the extra time to classify people, set up a new database, and bring all the courts and paperwork up to speed. The have to prepare as much as possible because the first few years could potentially see tens of thousands of people hitting the already overwhelmed court system with… Read more »

Why wait 70 years? Why does an aerophobe postpone getting on a plane for another 4 years? Hoping it won’t ever happen. Aerophobe also means someone afraid of fresh air. We need fresh air in government. That is the real problem.

Hey all, it looks like Sb 421 will be heard today about 30 bills in. I will try to update the status once it gets closer.

Whoever said the public doesn’t show up to assembly appropriations is not telling the truth. I am watching live on tv and they are doing the same thing with members of the community stating they support for other bills.

I’m watching the hearing and so far they are taking public feedback on all the Bills they have considered so far. A large number of people are giving opinions on the Bills so far.

There are not enough members present currently to vote on any of these bills? I guess 6 figures salary is not enough to do their job.

Enough assembly members have shown up.

Looks like this bill was moved to suspense file due to not having accurate numbers on how much it would cost. Suspense file is known as a place where bills go to die.

Oh gee, what a surprise that the numbers weren’t accurate. Might have something to do with the fact that 40k people wouldn’t be automatically dropped as previously stated which means that 40k people that the courts must now actively dedicate time to in addition to everyone else. As well as now having to actually classify those 40k into tiers along with everyone else. AND the fact that they moved a ton of people into tier 2 and tier 3 which results in further cost increases. I pretty much expected this to happen with all these major revisions and the very… Read more »

Here, kids. Let’s edge-a-kate ourselves….
http://sapro.senate.ca.gov/sites/sapro.senate.ca.gov/files/committeerules2013-14.doc

opening paragraph:
The committee, by a majority of the members present and voting, shall refer to the Suspense File all bills that would have a fiscal impact in any single fiscal year from the General Fund (including general obligation bond funds) or from private funds of $50,000 or more.

Note the word, “shall.”

Let’s not lose our collective minds just yet…we can always do that tomorrow.

This bill must be voted by the Assembly by Sept 15 at the latest. If not, it will be considered dead. I think people are ignoring that part. If this bill was introduced earlier, I think it would be very possible to pass. I am just worried about the latest in the year. With that being said, why is it that people are commenting on here that the Appropriations Committee does not listen to public opinion at these hearings? There were many people present. If you do not know, do not just make up stuff. My guess is that is… Read more »

Is anyone actually at the meeting today?

I am listening to the hearing right now. They are, indeed, hearing from Bill’s supporters and opponents. (However, this portion of the hearing seems to be addressing only Bills remaining or being placed in “suspense”.)

Sb421 was placed in suspense file. I think we are running out of time and this bill is about to die.

SB 421- Has been moved to the suspense file.

So does that mean its fully dead or it can be moved out? Any reason stated for moving it there? I imagine the most recent amendments make it far less cost effective as it actually increases the amount of work needed to maintain the registry rather then decreasing as originally intended.

It can be moved out, but if I remember right, this bill had to be in Assembly by September 15th. I am not sure how they will be able to unsuspend it and vote on it in 3 weeks with the information that is being asked (financial). What is crazy is the person who Senator Weiner was working on this with, blasted even the amended version. Erin Runnion July 11 · Locke · Sadly, SB 421 passed the State Assembly public safety committee today. They did say that they want me to work with the bill’s authors to suggest amendments.… Read more »

I’m guessing we probably have this person to thank for these most recent amendments?

Yes. There were posts that she posted after the amended version as well

I have a 289A “in concert”. I went to a party with my girlfriend when I was 18. My friend called me upstairs and there was a drunk naked adult woman on the floor playing with herself while about 10 people (men and women) watched. She was an adult. I didn’t have sex or participate, but I was on video in the room laughing because it was a spectacle. Anyway, I didn’t have money for an attorney and just took a plea deal because they said I would just have to register once and be done with it. I am… Read more »

SB 421 still has a chance.

We have seen bills released from suspense very recently.

Lets not give up hope.

Maybe Janice can chime in on this?

Here, kids. Let’s edge-a-kate ourselves….
http://sapro.senate.ca.gov/sites/sapro.senate.ca.gov/files/committeerules2013-14.doc

opening paragraph:
The committee, by a majority of the members present and voting, shall refer to the Suspense File all bills that would have a fiscal impact in any single fiscal year from the General Fund (including general obligation bond funds) or from private funds of $50,000 or more.

Note the word, “shall.”

Let’s not lose our collective minds just yet…we can always do that tomorrow.

The bill has a deadline of sept 15th… Its more worry about if there is enough time. If it is not passed in the assembly by sept 15th, its dead. So continue to educate further.

Well, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that this version of the bill is all but dead right now. These last set of amendments completely sent it off the rails from its intent. I obviously do not have any actual facts to back up my following statement, but simple logic would state the following would actually increase the work load and cost for the system. – Removing the provision to automatically drop tens of thousands with convictions prior to 1987 is a huge cost increase. Without the auto drop, that means that potentially that many people would clog up… Read more »

@AlexO However, at annual updates, the item where Registrants have to initial “Registration is a life time requirement” will need to be modified and any RCs that out of touch would then become aware.

Btw, the pre-’87s that met the original auto-relief qualifications is ~5,000 to 10,000 max. But yes, you are very likely correct; No significant drop in the numbers of registrants below ~100K and so no longer cost effective.

Don’t discount people not taking advantage due to not having money to hire an attorney. Some of us may be able navigate the system alone with research, but for most that would be about as easy as building a car from scratch. Not having automatic drop off after X years like other states have is going to be a huge burden on most. Remember: a whole lot of RC’s are homeless and have very little money due to poor employment options because of the registry. This will certainly be a huge burden for the majority and counter productive to the… Read more »

What if the point of not automatically dropping was due to wanting more money from RC’s as well as giving the DA’s more power over those petitions? Plus, it does create a construct of unequal protections upon the same banner: Why can 10,000 registrants be automatically signed off the registry while the other 100,000 do not? Probably runs into problems with the Cal. Constitution, Art 1., Sec 7(b): ================= (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may… Read more »

Right. They are already ignoring that clause under the guise of “regulatory” rules. Them auto dropping those people would create a few bad feelings (though most wouldn’t even know given how the information is disseminated, or, more accurately, isn’t) but it wouldn’t be out of line with how the registry already works. Them suddenly being concerned about equality of justice would certainly be a surprise.

To Relief Is 2023, Registration is still a lifetime requirement under SB 421, however it gives you the option to petition to get removed similar to a COR that is available now. I see no need for them to update their registration form. I’m sure if this was to pass we may not see any official notice directly from DOJ, except it will probably be mentioned on the ML website like other policies and forms they post now. However I imagine some of the nicer registration officers might advise us during our annual of any new option for removal. I… Read more »

From: http://assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines

September Deadlines
Sept. 1 Last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the Floor (J.R. 61(a)(12)).
Sept. 4 Labor Day.
Sept. 5-15 Floor session only. No committee may meet for any purpose (J.R. 61(a)(13)).
Sept. 8 Last day to amend on the Floor (J.R. 61(a)(14)).
Sept. 15 Last day for any bill to be passed (J.R. 61(a)(15)). Interim Recess begins on adjournment (J.R. 51(a)(4))

The appropriations committee still has a Aug. 30 meeting.

They could take 421 out of suspense then, right?

Of course they can. Just cutting it close.

All their petty amendments made the Bill unworkable and, apparently, incalculable.

After today’s news, is it ironic that the emotional support meeting is scheduled for 8/26?

If I am seeing this right, the committee only gets together once a week, every Wednesday, at least according to their calendar on the website. That means in order for assembly to hear it, it would have to be released and approved asap. How soon does the assembly hear a bill once the committee has passed it?

Hi all – No our bill is not dead. Really. This is what happened today – As others have already noted, in the assembly appropriations committee every bill with a fiscal impact to California’s budget over a certain amount of money was AUTOMATICALLY moved to the suspense file. Today’s committee meeting WAS NOT a pass or do not pass vote on any fiscal impact bills. ALL the fiscal impact bills in the suspense file will be voted pass/do not pass FOR THE FIRST TIME by the assembly appropriations committee on September 1st. This process is unique to the assembly; it… Read more »

Thank you, Pamela.

Thank you, Pamela.

Could the bill be further amended before the rescheduled vote, and then again at each step after?

Not worried about it being suspended. More worried about the Sept 15th deadline. Especially when the next committee meeting is the 30th of August

Thank you for the clarification, Pamela. (That delay will give lawmakers an opportunity to remove some of their absurd, obstructive amendments. Not likely, huh?)

It’s not over till the large rotund lady sings, right?

This bill is bad for almost every person who is registered. I cannot believe anybody would still endorse this when 2/3 or more would wind up in a worse position than they’re in now? Read the bill people! It’s a bait and switch. It moves almost everybody to a 2 or 3. It makes people more dangerous tomorrow than they are today. And to have a “chance” at getting off sometime down the road? Absurd. This bill needs to stay exactly where it is. If it comes out of suspense, and passes, law enforcement will use it to justify bloating… Read more »

It’s certainly not good (as written) for the majority.

Hi Matthew, David, TG, AlexO and all – Right now our bill is neither late nor is it running out of time. It’s actually right on time. These are the next steps: 1. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will have one more meeting on August 30th. This meeting will be much like today’s meeting as there are still outstanding bills that need to be either moved to the assembly suspense file (fiscal bills) or get a pass/no pass vote (non-fiscal bills). 2. On September 1st, all the fiscal bills will be considered by the Appropriations Committee. This meeting is not open… Read more »

Thank you very much for the explanation of the process. I’d be a lot more fascinated by it if it didn’t impact our lives so greatly. It’s hard keeping calm on this roller coaster when we don’t know if swoop down will be a bed of pillows or jagged glass.

I have seen bills amended by the Assembly accepted in total by the Senate but I have also seen all the Assembly Amendments removed from a bill and then the bill returned to both houses by the compromise committee exactly as it was first proposed by the Senate. This really does happen. Sometimes amendments really are just political which means even the person demanding the amendment doesn’t actually think the end bill will include the proposed changes (“Constituents I did my best and tried very hard to amend the bill so everyone on the registry would have to live at… Read more »

Hey Pamela,

Thank you for your remarks and making sense of it all. I am glad you are here and assisting with the language and process. So it would be wise or possible to make contact with the senators and ask for them to reject the changes based on how much money it will take and the time consumption for this process and should go back to its original plan? ;). We could even state it will not clear up registry and focus on those of risk to reoffend? Who is with me..hah

That’s a great question. If appropriate, I would love to write in for the bill but against these new amendments. I could even use myself as an example. Again, only if that would be appropriate.

Alex, this is a scam. You are being set up.

So what you’re saying is that we should roll the dice and see if we get something worse than what we have now. Sounds great. No thanks.

There is a lot of speculation about everything that is happening. But no word from Janice. I am hoping she has the time to give her thoughts on the latest developments.

I wish there was a live chat during certain times so that way we can communicate. While I know having an administrator monitor posts, it would be easier to be able to talk live and help each other out instead of keep checking if you can assist or look for answers constantly

Matthew, You seem astute to the goings-on here, as do a lot of other people. So my message is to everyone here. =) What do you think is the best way for us underlings to help get this passed at the next level? ACSOL is expertly doing its job at high levels, thankfully… which is why we’re here talking. So there MUST be a way for us commentators to help keep this bill alive. The thing is, most ordinary folk don’t take notice to the plights of people under this particular “offense” rule. So getting regular citizens to support it,… Read more »

Anna… have a team consisting of families and friends of registrants send out letters to registrants in Ca starting from the top of the list to recruit, inform. I’m quite sure theres thousands of suffering families who are completely in the dark of any movements (ASCOL)and of such and simply have no hope. Money, donations and or volunteers to initiate this would indeed be the primary factor. Is this legal? I’m not an attorney so I wouldn’t even no 😳

Thanks!!! I’m gonna do that. No one in my family has ever written in support of any legislation, so I’ll be rounding them up!

Hey Anna, I think at this point its going to be passed or failed based on all the information that is out there. Yes, for those who want their voice heard, can simply contact the assembly (if it passes the appropriations committee) and let them know about their stance. In my opinion, what we truly need to do is separate ourselves from the reoccurring offenders that give all registered citizens a bad name. We need to reach out to those who are affected and organizations and let them know that we do care about the effects it had on them… Read more »

Agreed, Matthew! And nicely said. I don’t know of any forum that really connects the two, with people wanting to reach out and share. But it’s a great idea. I think even the victims (I’m a “victim” as well, so I can only speak for myself really) want this tiered registry to go through. There needs to be a clearer definition of offenses, not just for safety and fairness, but because if a punishment for any perceived sexual offense is for an entire lifetime, what’s the point of offenders coming to terms with their mistakes/tendencies and striving to reform? There… Read more »

I should add here that what happened to me was extremely violent in nature, yet the offender (who was caught by the police and jailed) doesn’t even have to register. Yet my brother, who was on the opposite side of the spectrum and made a mistake a long time ago with someone who lied about their age, has to register for life. It has ruined so many things for him.

@ Anna ,,,,, at what point is it one might be viewed as a person that level 3 it that might be safe to say a person that a person has changed ? maybe there should be a level 4 or why not a five , sky is the limit , how many years would be enough ? not doing sex crimes ? we just being stuck in limbo no matter what we have become as good people with familys , how bout this ,,, we do the time the court gave us and how ever many years of paper… Read more »

Just read revised SB421 Bill.
Commencing January 1, 2021?
For real? Really?
I’ll be 66 years old if I live until then.
Really? Please tell me I’m wrong.

It is true. They amended it to say 2021.

I might feel better knowing what Janice thinks about this. Coming to this website and getting involved with all these issues is becoming an emotional roller coaster.

Lake, Here’s what you need to know: As the bill is written, 85% of the people on the registry will have a worse condition than they do now. What else do you need to know? I have emailed Janice a few times. I get an auto-response saying she is unavailable until the 28th. Almost everybody winds up as a 2 or 3. The notion that we might be able to get off the registry at some point after 2021, by applying for mercy, (after spending thousands of dollars) is a pipe dream at best. Stop wishing for the best and… Read more »

In my personal opinion and to respect to all, we are all capable of giving our own opinions on a bill by simply reading the bill and research. Sometimes we get so used to people doing stuff for us that we don’t realize our full potential. Someones take, with all due respect, is going to change from one person to another. I can assume she will give feedback to the sort of “It is not as great as we thought but it still brings change and those lawmakers are willing to make any change which is good in its own… Read more »

It’s hard to properly research legal documents. They’re not written with layman in mind. Sometimes a simple comma may mean the world of difference in the result. We can try and analyze what we’re reading, but ultimately we need to defer to experts like Janice who actually understand the nuances. Reading a legal document with no training is no different than reading a DNA sequence.

Take yourself out of it, then. See it from an impartial standpoint, if you can. Does it go in the right direction? It never benefited the majority. Where did you get that idea. It is supposed to be an incremental step, the concept of which you had once supported. The registry doesn’t end when you get off it. I warned that if we supported this bill, we will have to own it. It is too late to have second thoughts. Pamela is on the board and has laid out the likely course this bill will take. Just take a deep… Read more »

Thank you, Timmr, for your voice of reason. As you accurately stated, ACSOL has viewed and continues to view the Tiered Registry Bill as one step in an incremental process. It is not the final answer. If the bill becomes law, it will become a foundation upon which we can build in future sessions of the state legislature.

You are really sounding like a robot or a sheep by saying wait further instruction. Do you think another sex offender bill will be priority for lawmakers? Its time for people to put on their adult pants and review how they feel about something on their own

I have reviewed how I feel about this tiered bill in numerous posts when the discussion was fresh. I feel the recent concerns with the amendments. I have decided after long thought to simply support the people who know better about the process, and have the experience and the time to run around Sacramento and assess and address the situation and make recommendations. I don’t have that time and experience. I know my limits and it is not about me anyway. I can make some calls, write some letters and I am trying to earn enough money to go to… Read more »

Me personally Ive gotten no where, as for this so called thinning of the registry… since 90+ % of people cant afford the BS lawyer fee’s to PAY to petition the court, MOST all will be STAYING on the registry ANYWAYS, therefore in turn the REGISTRY WILL STAY BLOATED and still COST A TON OF $$$$$$$$$$$$$, so this so called BILL that is to have the objective of THINNING out the registry, well it will HARDLY go down in numbers…. someone mentioned 5000 a year + are added (dont know where that comes from im just requoting…) but if it… Read more »

It’s ironic that most won’t be able to afford a lawyer to get off the registry because the registry is preventing them from getting a good job to pay the lawyer.

@AlexO: For many petition cases, Registrants will also have to get a Psych exam (from a CASOMB approved provider). These are $3,000 – $5,000. Almost certain for anyone with a contact or CP or a 647.6. This is the Judges CYA plan.

And unlike a 1203.4 but like a COR, it may or may not be granted. That’s why losing the 30 year auto-relief has a big impact.

Interesting comment and I concur; in CA we now have a FUND in the state and LA County and LA City to help those here illegally get the lawyers and legal help they need to stay here. WE RSO are citizens and were citizens before our offense and continue to pay taxes but when it comes to legal help to get relief from the registry we have to pay full price to lawyers. I have been quoted $5,000 to $10,000 to get a COH; expunge and with NO guarantee any of can happen. So WE are even lower on the… Read more »

Can someone please clarify – are the tiers going to be based in conviction or static 99 score ? Very confused as I keep seeing people comment on both.

If you static score is defined as well above average, it is tier 3. Other than that its conviction

333
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.