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)

California

Assembly Committee Stops Tiered Registry Bill

The Assembly’s Appropriations Committee today failed to release the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421) from its suspense file.  As a result, the bill is dead and will not move to the Assembly floor for a vote.

       “We are disappointed that the State of California will continue a lifetime registry for virtually all registrants,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “The Appropriations Committee had an opportunity to correct this 70-year-old mistake, but instead decided to continue it.”

       The Senate passed the Tiered Registry Bill earlier this year, including all committees and a floor vote.  One Assembly committee also passed the bill, however, approval by the Appropriations Committee was necessary for the bill to move forward.

       “We thank all of the registrants and family members who helped move the Tiered Registry Bill so far,” stated Bellucci.  “It is because of their support that the Tiered Registry Bill almost became law.  We will repeat and build on those efforts in 2019.”

Related Media

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-bill-to-reduce-names-on-california-s-1504292042-htmlstory.html

Join the discussion

  1. Carlos Ramirez

    Was there an explanation on why this wasn’t released?

    • Matthew

      They do not give reasons for the most part. It could be no factual money numbers. The important thing right now is the Colorado Ruling.

    • Eddie V.

      They don’t need to give any explanation, how ever there are so many federal case s moving though the federal court that now it’s time to pititon the Federal Court’s here in cal, to move towards an equal opinion as those other Federal Courts that the system of life time registration is broking, & any law that is broking is nil & void

  2. AlexO

    Thank you for the post and effort, Janice. Thank you and all your staff and everyone that tried to help. It’s an unfortunate day for all RC’s.

    Two questions: Any idea on why it wasn’t released? And why a two-year wait to start something new?

    • Interested partying

      Thank you, to everyone that put in effort on this. While many views on this bill have been discussed the effort to try and improve our situation is always appreciated.

      Hope is a wonderful thing, and with organizations like this I have hope that the fight will continue … thank you

  3. someon who cares

    Well, I am on the fence on what to think about this decision. Part of me wanted this bill to come into effect if it gave hope for at least some to be removed from this unconstitutional list, and the other part was against it since it would somehow indicate that a registry, any registry is acceptable, even if amended. A registry is never acceptable and we need to work on making it unconstitutional. Maybe, the Colorado court case came at at the right time, and maybe we will have a better chance now to abolish the registry rather than amending it with the ever present risk of added “punishment”. I am curious to see what all of your opinions are.

  4. NPS

    I’m going to consider this a blessing in disguise. Although this bill would have benefited me, it was still incredibly flawed with the endless amounts of changes that made it harder for anyone to get off the registry. There were no guarantees of anyone’s petition getting granted. I’d rather take my chances and probably have a higher probably getting off the registry with a CoR in 2020 than wait an extra year with this tiered proposal.

    The news out of Colorado is probably the foundation for this organization to move forward with completely abolishing the registry at its core.

    • Thomas

      Colorado decision means NOTHING. It will move on to the US Supreme Court and be shot down as have any attempts to change or abolish the registry. What needs to happen is everyone on the registry needs to start flexing some political muscle with votes our numbers are growing they can’t keep turning a deaf ear for long

      • AlexO

        SCOTUS has already ruled in our favor on parts of the registration this year.

        http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-facebook-sex-offenders/index.html

        This isn’t nothing. And what does voting power have anything to do with SCOTUS? We can’t vote them in or out and they’re their for the rest of their lives. Even if you’re referring to voting in representatives, they have far more other voters that they’re more likely to listen to than us. There’s 100k of us in CA versus 39 million other residents.

        • Thomas

          AlexO,

          No I am not referring to voting for SCOTUS members. I to understand how our government works. Yes I am talking about our elected representatives. However, you are not seeing the big picture. There may be only 100k registrants now but the number will grow. Then add into that family members and other supporters and the fact that not everyone votes in a election. Our influence can only grow.

        • Thomas

          AlexO

          Your right SCOTUS has ruled on some parts but as for registration itself they side in favor of continuing it.

        • AlexO

          Not any time recently they haven’t. The last direct case was in 2003. A ton has changed since then. Even during the case I linked, one of the justice said something to the respect of “the amount of control over RCs life once of supervision is concerning”. They just couldn’t actually do anything about that as that wasn’t the case before them.

          Besides, the original key argument of “frighteningly high recidivism” has now been completely debunked, with 15+ years of data on how public exposure has greatly over reached the original intent. One can no longer claim being on the public registry is “no more of a burden than an average person would experience” (another key point in the 2003 case which wasn’t all that wrong in the 60+ years prior when the registry was kept under lock and key with only LE access). I don’t think anyone would debt that, even the biggest haters. They just think we all deserve this as punishment (which when finally ruled as such would make the registry go poof!)

          When another full case like that goes in front of SCOTUS, we stand a very strong chance of it being abolished, at least for those that are now off supervision.

        • Thomas

          AlexO

          I am one who would be over joyed if SCOTUS ended registration, but it’s been decades it still lives on.

        • i

          If SCrOTUS issued an opinion, how is it enforced?
          Registration and Account Security

          Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

          You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
          You will not create more than one personal account.
          If we disable your account, you will not create another one without our permission.
          You will not use your personal timeline primarily for your own commercial gain, and will use a Facebook Page for such purposes.
          You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.
          You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.
          You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date.
          You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.
          You will not transfer your account (including any Page or application you administer) to anyone without first getting our written permission.
          If you select a username or similar identifier for your account or Page, we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe it is appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user’s actual name).

      • TS

        @Thomas

        Don’t be like your Biblical namesake and start to doubt. The Tenth Circuit is possible next and that will be known sometime in the next 60 days if it is petitioned there or not.

        • Thomas

          TS
          Yes it may go to that but eventually the final vote is the Supreme Court which sides in favor of registration.

        • Josh james

          That’s not entirely true. The supreme Court only sided with the registry based on inaccurate research in the Alaska case. Without that, I think they are in agreement that it is a punishment and therefore requires due process. Don’t give up.

        • TS

          @Thomas

          If the Tenth does not take it, then it stays within CO as is and SCOTUS does nothing with it.

        • Thomas

          TS
          If the 10th does nothing with it it stays in CO does not become judicial precedent for anywhere else.

        • TS

          @Thomas

          Correct, stays in CO and no precedent elsewhere; HOWEVER, it gives case reference to use elsewhere in effort to chip away as long as it is not don’t facially. See other discussion points here and at NARSOL website for this legal angle.

        • Timothy Moore

          I think they will say in the end a registry is only a list and the legislature must try, try to clean it up. Our job may be to convince the most people that the making of the list itself was where it went wrong all along. The legislature took the list as a remedy for the aberrant actions of a very small group of convicts, applied it to large groups. Even for the very few it may not have prevented the crime. It was a mistake to apply it as a general remedy for sure. Best to present it as an experiment that failed. The constitutional issues will be that much easier to make once the failure is generally known.

      • Michael

        I agree. We need more organization against it so many voices aren’t heard

  5. Jack

    Fine, they wanna keep a registry so overblown that the public doesn’t use it? Great. Isn’t that something we’d prefer?

  6. Counting the days

    After reading the bill and its amendments, I am glad it died. I am sorry, but I don’t care about anyone else but me, and it screwed me over, maybe not as bad as lifetime, but then there’s not much difference between a head shot and a gut shot. I am leaving U.S. as soon as I possibly can, so I am just counting the days.

  7. Devastated But Thankful

    My deepest thanks and gratitude go out to Janice, her team, the Board et al. I can’t thank you all enough for fighting on our/my behalf. Everything you’ve done and are doing is so deeply appreciated.

    As a beneficiary of this bill, I have been hesitant to comment since I knew my benefit was another registrant’s burden (i.e. those who would be worse off with its passage). I would have been eligible to come off in the first year. So yes, this is a very devastating day for some (maybe many?) of us. And yet I totally understand that some may be quietly relieved.

    I hope we can do a post-mortem and figure out what happened. I don’t know the deliberations that go on in Appropriations, but I just didn’t think it would die there. It had navigated so far with many powerful proponents (including our LA DA). The decision today has taken the air out of my lungs. I promised myself I wouldn’t let that happen, but it did anyway. I guess it’s back to the COR for next year, but legislation would have been the just outcome. I hope more can be discussed about where we go from here on that front.

    But thank you Janice and Team. Your work changes lives. Please fight on if you can!

    • AlexO

      My guess is that this committee didn’t see any money saving, and even an increase in spending, were this bill to pass with the current amendments. It would cost a lot of money to create the tier and then place 100k+ people by going through that many files. And since it didn’t drop anyone automatically anymore, and required every to actually petition the court once they reached the qualifying time period (and even more cost), there was just nothing there of value to the state. I honestly don’t even know if the origin, un-amended, bill would’ve passed without the auto-drop once you reach your time period. That’s a lot of money for the state and city to be spending on current and future court proceedings.

    • JAB

      I agree. Thank you so much Janice and all that fought. I didn’t agree with all the changes, but I had faith in Janice. We have to keep fighting!!!

  8. j

    i dont know what planet you are from but a blessing in disquise “yeah right” this registry is waaaaaay over rated!!

  9. Jack

    Something tells me the Colorado ruling had something to do with this. After all, they said in the senate that they know this as it is, is unconstitutional. They were only moving to a tiered system as a means of preserving the registry itself. But then the ruling comes along when it’s on a tiered registry, and a reasonable person would conclude “what’s the point?”

  10. j

    with all the support from law enforcement, parole officers,judges,woman support group,some public officials,the general people,district attorneys, am i missing something to why it would not pass? is it to literally keep people in the system because it takes money out of the system? would it cost to much on manpower to take every one off? is it to create more government and city jobs in and around to monitor people? all these rules and facts that were passed by local cities were now in doubt from what they originally passed, im not sure what channel the committee was on or what newspaper they were reading but they all need a big time reality check, wake up and see whats going on..

    • AlexO

      The bill, as last amended, would not save much money at all, and in fact very likely increase the cost due to implementation and later a court hearing for everyone that qualified.

      Also, it may have had something to do with this news yesterday.

      http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/08/31/sex-offender-registry-constitution/

    • James A

      The common refrain is that “they make money off the system.” No. Registration costs governments lots of money. That money is money that could be spent elsewhere.

      • TS - loves the Oxford Comma

        @James

        Respectfully disagree. If can you show the cost is great to the government, before or after the registrant fees are included, please provide proof here in this forum. The basic cost really is only the software to register someone because the staff is usually already there and paid for since they process others in addition to registrants.

        If the cost to the registrant was dismissed and the registrant still had to register with an employee who is already there in place as a regular member of the department to do processing, the department losses money from the registrant. Departments can count on registrants needing to registry unfortunately, but cannot count on the number of them on any given day, week, month, quarter, or year. They can only go on empirical data of the past, which is not necessarily indicative of the future. All of this money is a plus.

        Given a RC registrant software package would normally be either a) purchased or b) licensed, the cost of it will probably not be greater than the number of registrants who would normally pay over the cost of the FY, unless it is based upon the number of registrants (which then the SW company is genius as long as the base cost is covered). The entire premise of the registry fee is to defray the cost of implementing the program, which usually is the software because staff is already there. The Fed Gov’t will spend the SORNA money regardless because they do anyway and it is the law. All the states of the Union could become non-SORNA compliant and lose their money, but the Fed Gov’t would still spend the SORNA money elsewhere through reprogramming actions.

        A department normally charges a fee for any processing, e.g. fingerprints, required by other entities, e.g. teachers, health care workers, et al, which also goes into the coffers to defray operational costs of those who are already on staff and would be paid already regardless to process others, e.g. other non-law abiding citizens.

        So, in conclusion, the money made by those who process registrants and others allows the department to make money and spend the overall money on other areas above and beyond the software needed for registrants. If all registrants moved out of the jurisdiction and no one else needed the processing by those who process, then department would lose money, a lot of it, that they normally count on coming in, but are not sure how much. The staff is a cost already included into the operational budget.

        • James A

          In California, no fees can be charged for registration, so the foundation of your arguments is flawed.

          The costs incurred are the labor for law enforcement officers and civilian staff to register 110,000 persons, and police to ensure compliance. These costs come out of each agency’s general budget, leaving fewer resources that can be spent on basic police functions.

        • TS

          @James

          Actually James, who said the basis of the argument was CA? It could be and is many of the other 49 states of the Union and it’s territories. Get rid of the registry, no more fees or the ability to charge a fee if it is chosen to down the road, but money is still lost at that point.

          You also seem to forget the money these departments receive from outside entities, e.g. DOJ, to enforce the laws too. Look at the recent compliance checks in Sac Town with how many different agencies/offices? If they were not doing that, what do you think they would be doing? Sitting at Dunkin’ Donuts talking about little league baseball/softball? They would be doing another part of their job that is already in their scope of work to do. Therefore, their cost is already on the books to do their job within the scope they are charged to do.

        • James A

          This legislation is California, so, it is reasonable to interpret any discussion to be based on California law. Law enforcement officers are paid out of that government’s general fund – not reimbursed by the state DOJ.

  11. Harry

    With ruling in CO, I think it is best, now to take down the registry and there will not need for tier bill.

    • TS

      @Harry

      As someone once said on here, as CA goes the rest of the nation goes. Now, if CA did just that and took it down and the rest of the nation did too, then the world would be in a much better place.

    • James A

      Good luck waiting for the registries to be taken down entirely. Look at the politics. Let’s focus on reality.

      • kind of living

        @ James A <<< Who's reality ? and Who's perception ? , looking at many of the moods of higher courts in other state and Fed courts seem to be looking at things different than yourself , this is not a plea deal , no , many have already did their time years ago , I will not sign up for more punishment just because a dog bone is on the table . and someones point of view is that the registry cant fall

        • James A

          The reality is the animosity most of the public has towards us, in case you had not noticed.

        • kind of living

          @ James A ,,, ,, the reality is that regardless of what GP think , we still have rights if we all ready did your time , because I don’t remember making a new deal with the court , or have you just gave up because some a$$ mites don’t like you having rights ? give your own away , not everyone else’s , they are not yours to take or give , some want to stand for ours , not bargain for what already ours

  12. j

    hey counting the days,, see ya !!!!! you won’t be missed, there’s no reason at all for you to stay here, pack up and get out, there’s just another registry waiting specially for you wherever and whenever you go!! so all your talk,,,,, is just talk..

  13. CS

    Hope all that opposed are happy now, I am done visiting this site….It offers nothing but false hope and depression constantly.

    • Popeye

      I admit that I was excited and hopeful about the possibility of being free from registration.
      I have found many of the postings negative and belligerent. It seems like many frequent posters have an axe to grind or are just haters. I do believe sites like these could use some moderation.

  14. Rodney

    In regards to the end of the road for SB421, some of these comments expressing relief that it died have been very articulate. I don’t agree with them but I guess as a 62 year black man / African American I don’t know how to be relieved with losing an opportunity for change in the hope that something better will come along tomorrow. After 24 years on this registry I tried not to get my hopes up but I admit to falling into that hope trap. I guess I’ll need to find a career other than Addiction Counseling. Good effort Janice and team.

    • Timmr

      Are you implying addiction counseling has a high or a low success rate?

      • Rodney

        I have been a certified Addiction Counselor for 16 years and was able to slip through the cracks until a few years ago when the Live Scan Fingerprinting became mandatory to be employed at any treatment program that receives County or State funding. They cannot hire sex offenders anymore even if they wanted to. CDCR also contracts with most treatment programs to provide services to the criminal justice population and the contracts specifically prohibit hiring sex offenders. I was hoping that SB421 passed so I could be removed from the registry. I’m one of those who would have qualified hands down. Now I will need a new career because most treatment programs provide services to the criminal justice population.

        • Timmr

          I see, I am sorry. I wish someone could have benefited from this bill passing.

        • JAB

          I’m so sorry Rodney. This is exactly what I’m talking about, if you work in the prison system or you work with adults only, why is that an issue for sex offenders? Yet a murderer or a drug dealer who takes more lives and affects more lives than a petty sex crime one can mutter as young person, can’t do shit… I’m just so frustrated!!

        • AlexO

          I’m sorry this is occurring for you. Hopefully the Colorado ruling will snowball in dismantling the entire registry. Keep in mind that the failed bill wasn’t going to take effect until 2021. So who knows, maybe even better things than the bill will happen in the next three years.

  15. Chris F

    I’m sorry for all those this would have helped, and like others on here I hope you’ll look at the bright side.

    With all of the recent decisions across the country in our favor, this setback just helps the case for Californian’s on the registry to challenge the core of it in a class action suit. The fact it is lifetime for all gives you even more ammunition to challenge it than other states.

    We’ll have to see what Janice says in the future. I haven’t heard her opinion on a challenge to the entire scheme, as everything has been directed at stopping bad legislation or supporting smaller steps forward.

  16. Eric

    This was only a small hope for some. We were settling for a registry that is in itself unconstitutional. Every single person here has paid their debt. Why is selling drugs to children, carjacking someone, shoving a gun in someone’s face and threatening to kill them for heir money, grabbing an old woman’s purse, or driving drunk any less a danger than looking at photos or having minor contact? The entire registry in unconstitutional. My crime an punishment should be dealt individually with my actions. I should not be paying the price for something that someone else did or might do.

  17. Timmr

    Just my opinion and why I went with the ACSOL position of this bill. Sweeping government actions are great, but even they are vulnerable to the culture biases. If you want a type of permanent change you have to change the cultural mores, and that is done best by increments, not one revolutionary action. Our Bill of Rights came about by centuries of case law. Cultures evolve, they just don’t spring into being. The culture of America was in the making, including some bad parts of it (Hey, Salem witch hunters), long before the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln freed the slaves and African Americans for about 8 years after had a measure of freedom, being elected to legislatures and founding schools, before the forces of oppression gathered strength and the government lost interest in Reconstruction to cater to the expansionist dreams of monopoly industrialists (hey, native peoples, move aside, we need your lands for our tracks), in effect recreating a form of slavery that was legal, chain gangs, segregation, institutional poverty enforced with mass incarceration, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
    Like it or not, the registry will not just disappear tomorrow. It will never disappear unless the majority of citizens oppose it or at least see it as more trouble than value.

  18. CR

    Dear Janice et al THANK YOU for your extreme efforts thus far. I was hoping and praying for a better outcome today, but I’m not giving up hope. Shake it off, something better is coming!
    I am so thankful and grateful to have you on our team. This is not the end.

  19. Mark

    Strength and courage aren’t always measured in victories. They are measured in the struggles they overcome. The strongest people aren’t always the people who win, they are the people who don’t give up when they lose. I am proud to say that I participate in the struggle which ACSOL represents and I am grateful for everyone who has has worked on SB 421, especially those not on the registry. I have found great comfort in knowing that I am not alone in my desire to make this world a better place and have known the love of all those who care about all registrants. While all the crybabies and naysayers can find great comfort in knowing they got what they wanted in opposing this bill–exactly nothing–I see all the attention this bill has attracted and the media which is reporting on this issue. I heard the voices of many people today speak on behalf of those who are still incarcerated and who should be eligible for good-time credits but are being denied. I shall grieve at this loss for a short time and then regroup to see what we and others can do to continue our fight for we are not quitters.

    • Nondescript

      Very well said Mark. Just want to thank Janice and this Organization for your steadfast effort in trying to make a huge difference in so many people’s lives. You’ve accomplished so much thus far for us in California. I hope one day you will ascend the steps in Washington DC and help to put an end to this ploy that has been perpetrated on the American people, because I do believe that all of us could end up on a registry of restrictions of some sort or another in the not so distant future.

  20. Follow the $

    Thanks to Janice and ACSOL and Sen. Wiener and everyone who lobbied for this bill with calls and attending hearings. The tide is rising and I think this has brought the necessary attention to a serious problem. Next year I hope someone’s courageous enough to rewrite a more fiscally sound bill that will get through Appr.

  21. Ca

    The governor would not have signed it anyways !!!

  22. Hope at last

    My most humble thanks to Janice and everyone else who dared to stand up and make a difference. In my eyes you are all angels!

  23. anon

    I’m very disappointed, but there looking at it from a longer term perspective, I see the progress that we have made. We have been stopped in the Assembly Appropriations Committee before. We have been stopped on the floor of the Assembly. We have been stopped for lack of an author. Each time we’ve been stopped we learned a little bit more.

    I think our lesson this time is that the bill is too complex. When we read a bill and see complexity, others read the bill and see cost. I know that we no longer drive this car, but to the extent that we have contact with those who do, we should urge them to simplify, simplify, simplify. For example, I think they should rip out the entire DA review process. Maybe do something simple like misdemeanors are 5 years, non-serious felonies are 10 years, serious felonies 20 years and SVP 30 years.

    It is up to other and not me. But to those who want this to pass: simplify.

  24. American Detained in America

    I am so glad this bill was stopped, because in truth, it was NOT a good bill for us. Now they have an opportunity to try again next year with a better version that hopefully isn’t amended to the point it creates more confusion and delays implementation for years and years. We should all be relieved, not bemoaning this. It was going to create more problems than it fixed.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Perhaps but it was better than nothing and many would have benefited from it.

      Now we have nothing – the light at the end of the tunnel has gone out.

      It is NOT back to the drawing board is is GAME OVER.

      • Josh james

        You will lose battles in every war. That doesn’t mean to stop fighting. The oppressors want you to roll gives over and give up. It’s time to rally. Call your representative and let them know your story.

  25. G4Change

    Maybe the next tiered registry bill can have automatic removal from the registry for Tier 1 and Tier 2 after 10 and 20 years respectively. Then there will be no petitions or static this or static that tests. Then they can’t say it will cost too much.

  26. New Person

    I’m disheartened that this bill was stopped. Although not perfect, it was a step in chipping away the 70 year old edifice of lifetime registration.

    Note, this still means Ca supports a lifetime term of registration. The registry is a privacy issue, as denoted by the Colorado courts today (although, I’ve been making the point it always was about privacy). Meaning a lifetime term of negation of pursuing and obtaining privacy still continues.

    Here’s Ca Constitution Art 1, Sec 1:
    =================
    SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
    inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
    liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
    and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
    =================

    Either the California Constitution is wrong or the “Lifetime registry” (a lifetime negation of privacy, to pursue or obtain it) is wrong. Both cannot co-exist. Regulatory nomenclature matters not as the CA Constitution denotes the inalienable trait. Only when you are in custody do you lose your inalienable rights, but those are restored once you are no longer under custody (as proven by the statute of Involuntary Servitude that it is prohibited unless to punish a crime). So an a free person, those are inalienable rights that the California govt cannot take away from its free citizen.

    We have a state constitution. Let’s use that to negate the lifetime term. Other states have been using their own constitution to refute the registry, so why can’t we?

  27. Bill

    I’m still proud that we’ve gotten this far and I have all the confidence in all my heart that we can all have our lives back someday.

    Just one question: why do we have to wait till 2019? Why can’t we try again in 2018?

    • Tired Of Hiding

      What difference does it make with the years of our lives ticking away.

      It might as well be 2055…forget it. I have hoped and been opportunistic enough for 10 lifetimes well no more. Government has unlimited funds and the propaganda and manipulation politicians get from the sex offender registry is too valuable for them to EVER LET IT GO!

  28. Has Had it...

    The more I think about it, the more it bothers me. This is the stupidest and most ignorant reasoning for State finance officials to say that it would involve “significant ongoing cost in the tens of millions of dollars for technology costs.”

    Since when does it costs tens of millions of dollars to REDUCE your workload?

    I used to work in the IT business, and I worked for one of the biggest websites in the world, so I’m no stranger to database-driven websites. Trust me, the Megan’s Law website is NOT that sophisticated. It’s prehistoric compared to the other platforms that are available today. Without getting into a lecture about a database and its objects and variables, you can create a batch command that could take half of the registrants off the site in maybe an hour or less.

    The only extra work I can imagine is just assigning tiers to each registrant and even that wouldn’t be an insurmountable job. The government’s use of “technology” is amateur. They still use Dells that are 10 to 15 years old.

    It’s truly insulting to expect all of us to accept that kind of answer for not releasing the bill. Just once, I challenge anybody in Sacramento to come forward and tell us just what changes in the “technology” would require tens of millions of dollars.

    Come on, we’re living in a world now where 10 year-olds are making smart phone apps overnight, for free.

    Are those people in Sacramento THAT stupid or do they think WE are that stupid to accept this sorry-ass excuse?

    • TS

      @Has Had it

      It doesn’t cost that much money as you alluded very astutely. It is a profit scheme to supplement the coffers much like asset forfeiture is. You are correct obviously in the technological methods in which things could be easily corrected with a few keystrokes. You would think they are thinking of punch cards with the amount of money they are citing.

      Just like those who have to register paying a fee to defray the costs for folks who are already employed fulltime and have a job regularly with now an added duty, they can do this without extra infusion of money. If a person was hired who’s sole purpose to was to do this, I can see extra money needed, but not the extent quoted.

    • New Person

      I think the government is using “fear” in stating the cost of the technology to do changes, disregarding using technology to start up the program.

      Starting anything costs significantly more than maintaining it.

      I’d like to see the specifics of the cost regarding technology.

  29. Ross

    I was on the fence with the first two drafts of the tiered registry. But with the most recent revisions, I felt that the bill began to evolve into legislation that many would likely regret.

    Personally, and I know many of you differ from my opinion, I think that the death of this bill is a blessing in disguise. Some things that bothered me with regard to SB 421 was how the most recent draft limited SARATSO / Static 99R scoring to one’s score at the time of release. This was logically faulty in light of the 2016 Coding Rules that stated need for reevaluation every two years, “risk” level halved after five years offense-free, the fact California only evaluated the damn Static for five years, and the fact the Static is not to be used after ten years. How was the Static 99, with all these limitations specified in the Coding Rules, supposed to determine *lifetime* classification??

    Then on top of everything else: requirements to petition (with no guarantees), offenses being moved into higher tiers (with nothing barring more offenses being elevated to upper tiers in the future — as what was already being done *before* the legislation even came to effect), and the requirement that “treatment” programs be “CASOMB certified” (i.e. creates business for Tom Tobin’s Sharper Future scam).

    Until registration is deemed a form of punishment, any legislation like the tiering scheme would have been only an illusion designed to buy more time for the state to impose its registration punishment under the guise of civil penalty. In my opinion, and I know many of you differ, the failure of this bill probably saved a lot of us the trouble of “chasing a phantom” and even spending thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees only to be disappointed in the end.

    IMO, this is a battle to be fought and won in the judiciary.

    • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

      I tend to agree with you, Ross. Although, I thought the inclusion of the STATIC-99R/SARATSO SCORE within the bill was unintentionally brilliant and to our ultimate advantage. Brilliant, because it will instantly become their nightmare. Or, at least, in the fullness of time (as measured in several months).

  30. Mark

    The real question which needs to be addressed is “who” in the Assembly actually voted against this bill and is there any recourse to let this person(s) know that we will eventually find out the truth and let it be known? Perhaps we need to start paying attention to those who are biased beyond reason and are only imposing their will no matter what their colleagues decide as a majority on behalf of the voters. San Diego might be a good starting point.

  31. Aero1

    California loves flirting with this bill they don’t want to force this bill on everybody right away because they’re afraid of the backlash so just like everything else there going to slowly start to push this bill on everyone whether they like it or not. I do truly believe this bill will pass one day sometime within the next 8 years. Until then the only way to live in peace and be free of all this craziness and keep law enforcement off your back is $MONEY$ every dollar you obtain is one inch closer to your freedom privacy and living in peace . I’m done with this website for a while I did like everybody’s personal opinions beliefs and Insight on the whole registry situation it was interesting and much respect to Janice and the whole ACSOL it’s always good to know if your constitutional rights as an American citizen are ever violated the ACSOL will have your back ..So good luck everybody keep your head up and stay positive no matter what comes your way and watch your back because there’s always some form of law enforcement out there watching you so be ready

  32. DavidH

    I personally could have lived with the Senate version and would have benefited, But the newest version I absolutely did not trust! And now I’m actually relieved to be back at the norm. I think we gained a lot during the process: We learned of their needs to reduce not grow the registry; We have in our possession a video by the CASOMB that shoots arrows all through the premises for these laws.

    We still have some un-seeming partners out there like it or not for them; we have December 2016 with being in a stronger position to begin the battle in the courts–the only place this can be won.

    Just look at what two decisions did for Michigan and Pennsylvania California courts must be next!! And Janice has had successes there.

    I think this is a blessing–we were being given a Trojan-horse!

    • Ross

      From this experience, I learned that CASOMB is absolutely *not* our friend. Don’t be fooled with that video. The CASOMB video was nothing more than propaganda designed to prepare us for a “risk” based system — which sounds nice. However, when ‘risk’ is based off of Karl Hanson’s Static 99R scam then they have/had the intent, all along, to peddle a “tiered registry” based off of pseudo science. This is further evidenced by the fact the most recent revision of SB 421 locked in SARATSO / Static 99 scores at the time of release, with no further opportunity for Static score correction and/or reevaluation. So it’s clear that the corrupt bigwigs from above wanted to give the Static 99 more authority, even coming to the point of doubling-down on it at the last minute before this bill died.

      But as Mr. Kennerly above perhaps wisely said, the Static 99 could have been a liability of theirs in disguise (had this bill passed).

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 *

.