The struggle to pass the most recent Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 421) is over. The Assembly Appropriations Committee stopped the bill yesterday when it refused to release the bill from the committee’s Suspense File.
Because the bill was stopped, some registrants are breathing a sigh of relief. For if the bill had passed, they would have been identified as a registrant on the state Megan’s Law website for the first time.
Because the bill was stopped, some registrants are in shock, perhaps in tears or worse. For if the bill had passed, they would have been eligible to petition for removal from the registry and the Megan’s Law website.
The day after the Appropriations Committee’s decision, there is a lot we do not know. For example, we do not know why the author of the bill agreed to extensive amendments of that bill only a week ago.
From the perspective of registrants, the amendments weakened the bill considerably. For example, the automatic removal of those convicted more than 30 years ago was eliminated and the number of years for those convicted of possessing child pornography must register was doubled.
The fact is even the original version of the recent Tiered Registry Bill was built on a flawed foundation. Instead of empirical evidence, the bill was based upon myths such as the myth that registrants re-offend at a high rate.
The fact is that the original version of the Tiered Registry Bill was created by a group of law enforcement organizations and district attorneys. The group subsequently created a coalition when it obtained support for the bill from organizations representing a broad spectrum of views including victims’ rights organizations, Equality California and the ACLU.
Once formed, the coalition believed they had the political power to get the bill passed. The coalition warned off others that sought meaningful changes to the bill including changes that reflected the results of decades of research conducted by subject matter experts such as Karl Hanson, Jill Levenson and others.
In the end, the coalition did not achieve its goal of getting the Tiered Registry bill passed. As painful as that failure is, it provides registrants with an opportunity. An opportunity to create a new bill based upon a solid foundation — empirical evidence.
We have 16 months in which to do that. To draft a bill that can be introduced in the next legislative session set to begin in January 2019. To find a legislator brave enough to speak the truth about the registry and to fight for justice. To build a coalition of like-minded organizations.
We need YOUR help to do that! Please join us in that effort by Showing Up – Standing Up – Speaking Up at monthly meetings, conferences and protests. We are indeed all in this together.
— by Janice Bellucci
Read all Janice’s Journals
Can we sue in Federal like Colorado did?
Judge Matsch found Colorado’s sex offender registration & notification scheme
(1) IS punishment & violates the 8th Amendment
(2) violates procedural due process as to one plaintiff who had twice unsuccessfully petitioned in Jefferson County to discontinue registration for a juvenile adjudication
(3) violates substantive due process
TIME TO EXPOSE THE S.O.R IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!
A bill was just shot down to allow level 1 sex offenders to petition to be removed from the S.O.R under the cry it would cost multi multi $millions in cost to the state to do so. in reality the state would of lost $ multi millions to keep level 1’s on the registry
Can someone please contact an investigative journalist at a major Ca news paper that an investigation needs to be done on the real $$$$ the state would be losing if level 1 were removed from the registry- i have heard it is almost $40.000 yearly to keep a S.O on the registry
I want to thank Janice and her team for the work they are doing for RCs and families. However, for me I am 69 and by the time something like this get into practice, I will, most likely, will be off the registry because I will be dead. As a gardener, I the best way to get rid of weeds is pull them up by the roots. Trimming the weeds off makes them grow more. lets pull the registry up by the roots and we will not need tier system. It would far more beneficial, as an organization, to start using media systems to get the facts out to the public. We need to inform the ‘soccer moms’ that their child will have far more likelihood ending up on the registry than being sexually abuse. We need to pound the court system with the truth.
Im glad it FAILED… Supposedly was going to SAVE the TAXPAYER a TON OF $$ on the bloated registry, But on the other hand it SAVED US RSO’s a MASSIVE TON of $$ that we DONT have to PETITION and fill attorney’s pockets, and fill SHRINK’s pockets with money for BS Assessments.
It should be AUTOMATIC Based on 2 things….
the # or years, say 10-20-30
and as long as you have committed NO SEX or (possibley regular) crime period…..
none of this other LAME BS like filing a petition, getting a atty, fighting a DA that just wantes more notches on the lipstick case etc etc..
to the LAME GOVT: If you dont like sex offenders on the streets pass laws changing the amount of time they are in the slammer.
Quit punishing FOREVER someone that did something 10-20-30 +++ years ago.
Do you punish your dog that peed on the floor 10 years ago if he hasnt done it anymore ? no that is CRUEL and UNUSUAL Punishment.
I appreciate that tone of your post here — yes, we need a 100% turnaround in OUR approach. We need to set this year’s IDIOCY from US aside. The movers and shakers here need to turn their own thinking upside down — it was appalling hearing anything about this bill all year from US other than what you said here.
All the readers here were denied this truth — you should have been telling them the truth. I called the mindset here over and over on it — but no one would listen but a few of the readers here. So, in the end, the approach we took failed miserably — we better learn a lesson and never be such stupid cheerleaders again. Even the original bill was a MAJOR failure for us, for all the reasons I went to a lot of trouble to point out. This was a failure whether it ended now or whether it was passed into law. We were scared little mice afraid of speaking out in our own best interests. We were so desperate that we would take anything, no matter haw bad for us it was, anything at all.
Instead, this angle in the post, which is more along what I have said all along, should have been followed. If it had, even with a loss now, WE would have been in a MUCH, MUCH stronger position to go forward and argue for something real — if for no other reason than because our demands would have been heard, the process of the politicians starting to consider that and get comfortable with it would have been started, we could have planted a point of view for them to rally around going forward. But we did not make those demands, they have never been heard, the process to start bringing the politicians around was not started. So next time, we are not already started, we have yet to start. Instead, the lawmakers have never even heard the ideas that we should be promoting, because we failed to take this opportunity to expose them to it. I argued this was the time, which is where we could go before them directly and speak, this was the time to make sure they heard those ideas, not instead to let this bill contain the discussion, the entire things was opened up for discussion bu this bill – -we missed the best opportunity we had in decades! We should no understanding of the bigger picture, we took no overview of things, at least no knowledgeable one. And the ideas are not wild ones, they are merely sanity.
For god’s sake, even the LA Times said the original bill was not anywhere near what it ought to be, for a number of reasons, only one they said being that a lot of offenses caught up in this should have been dropped. But we didn’t say that. We didn’t fight for that. So we did not get any headlines about that. We didn’t fight at all, we accepted terrible crap designed with and loaded with ulterior motives to do a lot less that suggested on its face, and served as idiotic cheerleaders against our best interests — and every amendment that made it even worse, we accepted until the very last ones, when we didn’t even reject them, we simply went silent, leaving nothing but the resonating sound of our cheerleading! So of course we got even more amendments, what else would you expect!? And you won’t listen.
We were too busy being afraid, afraid to speak our piece, afraid to speak truth, afraid to speak humanity, afraid to speak minimal, basic fairness, afraid to speak about mass psychosis imposing this on us, imposing PUNISHMENT no matter they the lying courts say.
REAL means dropping all offenses from California registration for which the Feds do not require registration — that should be readily sellable, and the Feds provide the political cover. REAL means applying HUMAN (humane, but more, human) time frames if we must have tiers — 10 years minimum, and that actually increasing the time for some offenses, is insane, and we supported insanity. Ten years would be more the maximum for the worst offenses — a civil commitment is another matter, but registration beyond 10 years is NOT acceptable, 20 years is not acceptable; even 10 is highly challengable for even the worst offenses since research pegs five years as the mark for recidivism of ANY offender, including sex offenders and not only the lower level ones, not 10 years.
REAL means no big assessments other than your tier time has been served; all the tier time is based on should be your offense, an assessment only to lower your tier. REAL means you just stop registering when you reach your time, you don’t have to apply, notify, or have a hearing, you did your time, end of registration, end of discussion. BUT EVEN THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT, IT SHOULD BE MERELY THE TIME FROM THE OFFENSE, NOT HOW MANY YEARS YOU ACTUALLY REGISTERED, AND IN CALIFORNIA; IT SHOULD BE LIKE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NOT LIKE A SENTENCE. (Hey, if you sat out your 10 years in another country, so what. You have not had any further offense, drop it. Even if you simply managed to avoid registration, so what, drop it, you haven’t reoffended in that time. Maye those I have mentioned who previously were relived of registration bu getting 1203.4 relief didn’t know they needed to start registering again, so haven’t. So what, drop them — because, it seem so abhorrent to me that you can give them relief and then later through no fault of theirs, you can take it away — no matter anything else, that taking away HAS to be reversed. Once given, they cannot be allowed to take that relief back! Under that action, even a great bill for us isn’t worth the paper its printed on!) I’m sure you can produce some offenders who reoffend at the 10-year mark, the 20-year mark, maybe even the 40-year mark — that is the 2+% we talk of, you can’t be punishing the 98% for that, and you can’t be getting all out of joint over 2% of that, you can’t let anecdotes rule the day.
We will NEVER get something decent as long as we simply accept. As a rule, we should NEVER simply accept, as we did this year. We should oppose and demand better, much better, we should make a lot of noise over our point of view, not noise to cheerlead a bad bill. Anything less is a sign of weakness, and a sign of weakness will be handled like sharks smelling blood. And it was. We have now marked ourselves as weak. We didn’t even play poker.
And REAL means making these demands, over and over and over, until they start setting into politicians’ minds, until they start finally agreeing. One of the rules of persuasion is that if you say it often enough, they will start to agree with it. We have REFUSED to even say it! WE have been f-ing imbeciles, holding back, listing to the enemy, letting OURSELVES be the ones with the wool being pulled over our eyes. We have been followers, following those who hate us most and letting them have control, convinced they now really care about us, just want the best for us, Jackie Lacey is our friend, no a devious prosecutor designing a bill to completely undermine us. Next time if her turn to cheerlead OUR bill, and not watered down to suit her anymore than she watered anything down to suit us, instead just shut us out of the discussion, and so we responded by cheering her crap on, we let her fake us out, we let her persuade us.
Of course the appropriations committee nixed this. One of the points I have made all along was that we have big arguments against this bill because of its costs., costs that are completely unnecessary — this bill was setting up a HUGE bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that would serve as a powerful, major lobbying force against us going forward. That bureaucracy was one of the big points it was being done this way, not to help us but to make sure we were undermined going forward by a huge, permanent lobby!
And stop listening to everything the ACLU says. Unfortunately, for decades I have seen the ACLU constantly reach settlements of all kinds that are dramatically insufficient, and calling it a win (like Donald Trump would), and dropping that matter. Gee, they did that with the homeless on Skid Row in LA some years back, and refused to do any more, and so things only got worse for the homeless. Finally, one lawyer broke off in dismay and she has individually carried the legal fight for the homeless and against a settlement by the ACLU that was no better than then a piece of sh@@. The ACLU would not do anything more about the situation, they settle for a little ditty and leave it at that, think they have solved a problem but the problem remains and only gets worse. That is what we have been following here, the BS ACLU approach that fails. And it failed again. If the ACLU were ones to follow on this, they would have been out there since day one in the mid 1990s when Bill Clinton took this registration national. But not a peep from them (and when I personally contacted them, they just insisted they had no interest, its not something they care about. And I believe them. Any interest on their part is clearly very minimal, they only want the absolutely worst fixed, all else can remain — but that is not acceptable.) If the ACLU cared, they would have been heavily involved in fighting registration even before Bill Clinton came along — but that effort seemed to die off in the 1980s, the ACLU changed and no longer cared about us. And what involvement they are showing now — only at the level of very bad bills and anything good, even necessary, completely compromised out of it — just cave in, predictably, the other side will always demand more and more because they know you will yield
Nevermind the amendments to this bill, the original proposal itself was sorely bad for us.
And gee, you still insist those registering for more than 30 years would get people off “automatically” under the original bill. No, they would not. There were standards for them, and they would be reviewed. AND, the bill specifically said for ONE conviction, so if you got misdemeanor indecent exposure and two counts, that’s two convictions, you would not qualify for that relief — the bill did not time it 30 to years from your LAST conviction, it specified ONE conviction. How many times you offended should not matter if it has been 30 years since an offense! But under this bill, it completely mattered. AND the bill was decidedly linked to length of registration IN CALIFORNIA. It should not be linked to how long you register — or even to whether you ever registered — if you have not committed an offense in the time frame, then you don’t have to register, end of discussion. That viewpoint is NOT unreasonable. If the time frames mean anything at all, that viewpoint is actually required.
Janice. I really think the Colorado ruling is your opportunity here. At the very least, it provides the framework for the argument needed in court.
In the meantime I would like to look into a revision of the current registration requirements for California. Particularly #13 that states, “If I have more that one residence address that I regularly reside (regardless of the number of days or nights I spend at each address) I must register in person…with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction.” This is incredibly vague. Does the word ‘have’ mean it is my property or just a place I frequent? What is the definition of residing? Is that visiting, sleeping, or what? This could mean if I attend a bible study in someone’s home, play cards at a friends on Fridays, do regular maintenance work at a property, or have girl friend I occasionally stay with, I would technically have to register all those places. Is that correct???? Arizona and Utah define ‘residing’ as a place you stay at for several consecutive days. So I could stay at my girlfriends without having to register if I live in AZ. The key word is ‘have.’ Does that mean the residence is my property? If not, then technically every SO would have dozens of registered addresses, and could in fact be picked up for violation for visiting a friend’s home. Webster defines ‘have’ as to hold, own ,or possess. How does one change the reg requirements to make them more livable???
I’m thinking it’s probably a good thing it failed to make it out of suspense. As Janice says the bill was built on the false premise that if you wind up on the registry you will commit the same crime again, and again. One must consider that this whole sex offender “problem” was built on a false premise in the first place. It’s nothing more than one big lie. If one were to sweep away all the beliefs about people forced to register, all the laws and intellectual rhetoric both for and against the registry, all that’s left is a railroad job based on a lie. I’m not one bit surprised the original bill was changed beyond recognition by these people with the minds of children that hold power. Early on I was thinking of this bill as yet another costly gift from these nice people in the form of yet another mine field those seeking relief would have to navigate.
Now a question to the group. Is anyone aware of a scholarly study breaking down the numbers that will remove any doubt that this is all about money?
Janice and Team,
I’m sorry the bill didn’t pass. It was a step at chipping away at the 70 year old registry.
With that said, a new bill would be nice, but curious as to who would actually create it – the police officers or ACSOL? I konw ACSCOL has no part in the construction of the tiered bill, but rather just someone in the stands hoping it passes.
Also, could ACSOL challenge the existence of the registry like Colorado did? Frank Lindsey has been attacked just because he was on the registry. That plays into the Colorado statute that the people are administering added punishment. There is the fact that you’ve been fighting residency restrictions as well, winning with re:Taylor as proof of punishment via banishment. Then there’s in-person registering. It is at least one a year, but can be more with a change in housing, employment, schooling, or vehicle. (Which, btw, has been deemed monitoring after custody by the Colorado case.)
There has got to be a way you can state the Registry as one scheme, not a bunch of little ones so that it can survive. Kinda like one breech in a contract negates the whole contract. We now have several states who have identified the registry unconstitutional by violating their own constitution via long standing statutes, Ex Post Facto, or proof that 6 out of the 7 MM factors were deemed punitive in the Colorado case. We can cite all these cases.
Plus, use our own state Constitution with Article 1, Section 1 (right to pursue and obtain privacy) and Article 1, Section 7b (immunity must be equal for all or none at all, in reference to 1203.4). I mean, you probably can do a class action suit just with all the registrants who have 1203.4 and state that CA has denied the capacity de-register on two folds – equal immunity as well as the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. That could help out a lot of registrants right now while you’re still conjuring up a new bill.
Seriously, though… Article 1, sec 7b states equal immunity. There are some people who cannot qualify for the 1203.4, registrants included. But for those who did qualify and earned it, why was their immunity provided by the 1203.4 statue partially revoked? (Art. 1, Sec 7a is equal protection) California goes even further than equal protection by applying it to equal immunity in subsection b of section 7, Art. 1.
===========
(excerpt from 1203.4)
the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.
===========
Nowhere “as noted below” does the exception of de-registering exists. Therefore all the other immunities must still apply to registrants who do qualify for the 1203.4. In Doe v Smith, Snyder, and the Colorado decision, in-person registry was deemed punitive as it was a disability.
Negation of privacy has been deemed unconstitutional by Colorado, but as a free Californian, 1203.4 is a venue to de-register (a way to pursue and obtain privacy). Welp, this is akin to the Colorado case where the individual met all the requirements to de-register, but the state would not acknowledge it. Here, the 1203.4 states an individual has earned the immunity from all penalties and disabilities, which would include de-registering. The state of California has removed the venue to pursue and obtain privacy at this juncture with no court hearing. The next venue is to wait additional years for the CoR where one has to prove above innocence – which is, again, akin to the Colorado case.
Remember, the CA Constitution states it is an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Once out of custody, then that right must be restored. The 1203.4 is a certificate you are no longer under custody, but also rehabilitated. Thus the negation of removal from the registry from 1203.4 is unconstitutional by Ca constitution. But that occurred because registrants who were granted the 1203.4 were not given the same immunity under that statute like all others. Immunity covers both punitive and regulatory penalties and disabilities b/c it never stated relief from punishment.
Janice and team have already proven that presence restrictions are unconstitutional because it’s a form of banishment, then why can’t they use Art. 1, Sec 1 and Art. 1, Sec 7b? The “lifetime” registry is the negation of privacy for life – thus negating the right to pursue and obtain privacy.
The hell with the tiered registry, lets go for the whole enchilada! I’m like Harry, I’ll be 65 in a few months and on this God Damm list for 30 years. Janice, I really appreciate everything you and your team has done for us, but it’s time to quit fiddle fucking around with these clowns in Sacramento. If they are too afraid of their jobs,to help us and,do what they know in their hearts is right, then let’s file a class action suit against these unconstitutional laws and TAKE OUR FREEDOM BACK! Several States have filed suit, and found sympathetic Judges, why can’t we give it a shot! Janice let us know what you need, to get this done, and I’m sure we can find a way to come up money to do it!
I agree, though I refute classifying Karl Hanson as a “subject matter expert.” Did Hanson not create the Static 99??
If this has already been explained, then I apologize for asking: Why do we need to wait until 2019? Can’t we try to pass another bill in 2018?
New Person, great comment regarding PC 1203.4! I obtained mine years ago and I’ve had detectives/when changing cities ask why I was still required to register! Great point! I’m personally tired of hearing everyone complain when they don’t get their way. Everyone stating they are glad the bill didn’t pass must be a tier 3! Very sad
Just did some research to see if any pre Reagan appointed federal judges are still around in California. Turns out there’s one. His name is Manuel Real and he’s been there since 1966. He’s the only one you could go to in hopes of an actually impartial ruling in this matter, if Janice decided to file a lawsuit. Given that Mr. Matsch was pre Regan as well, I think he’s the only hope we have. It won’t be long before he either dies or retires too. He’s the district 12 judge in LA if you’re interested Janice.
Here’s the answer. Get a catchy name for the tiered registry act..ie public accountability and protection Act. Make a Proposition for voters to vote into law…define the crap out of how law enforcement and the DA’s Association was pushing for such a tiered registry anyway so it is needed. Although our registry bill will take a great deal of the DA’s fire out of it for voters to really vote for it it’ll have to have reasonable substance to it. Most don’t realize the far reaching punitive nature the registry is so defining even a slight part of what RSO must now do will seem extensive thereby reducing requirements down to a more reasonable level. Perhaps 5 years for misdemeanor no contact level 1. 10 to 15 for level 2. and 20 to life for level 3. This way ALL of those on the registry can petition at some point to getting off.
Do u guyes have mettings in modesto area?
@ Robert, something like that is definitely the least we should settle for now, since we know the tiering system in and of itself is unconstitutional. I believe in the less authoritarian states such as Vermont, removal from the registry is automatic at least for level 1 and 2 registered citizens.
In my view, people would sooner give up religion than the registry and for the same reasons.
I knew there was trouble when the August 8th article posted about San Diego. San Diego City Attorneys know what they’re doing. It’s not a matter of convincing them that offenses like a gay encounter, or exposing oneself 30 years ago are ridiculous to keep on the list for life. They want as many people incarcerated or on a list, prevented from getting an education, homeless, supporting the Prison Guard Unions, etc. as possible. Actual child welfare is way down the list for them. Watch how this unfolds over the coming months, then tell me I’m not right on the money.
Why did the author of the bill last week suddenly agree to all kinds of amendments? Isn’t it obvious the San Diego Gangsters made him an offer he couldn’t refuse?
Is there a point in waiting till January 2019? Can we sue them now?
I have some concerns on your plans going forward.
Knowing the legislature will not stick its neck out during an election year in 2018, wouldn’t this be a good time to focus on hitting the registry at its core, especially with all of the recent wins nationally?
This legal attack on the core registry could accomplish two goals.
1) It would potentially start the long process of declaring the registry unconstitutional and, if successful, would force legislature to create tools for the judiciary in regards to sex offenders instead of bypassing the judiciary with blanket rules against all that committed any type of sex crime.
2) It would light a fire under legislature to come to the table and work with us next time (2019) instead of allowing the most important parts of any future bill to be tossed out.
After typing this, I’m having second thoughts though on number 2, but instead of deleting my post, I’ll just continue and see what others think.
Legislators won’t work with us, election year or not. They’ve proven this time that even a problem with the budget is all it takes to stop the bill. They’ve proven they can’t undo half a century of piling on addition after addition without looking soft on crime. The legislators won’t admit anything they did was wrong in the past.
The only way to stop an out of control legislative tyranny is in the courts. Period.
Those who haven’t read up on “Bills of Attainder” can get all they need to know here:
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/05/Dick-63-Stan-L-Rev-1177.pdf
It’s time to get fed up with the status quo.
It’s time for someone to collect a group of the most sympathetic registrant examples to challenge the registry on all of the major Constitutional violations and strike while the fire is still hot.
Bills of Attainder: It is clearly a “Bill of Attainder” for the legislature to target a named and politically powerless and unpopular group with “pains and penalties” beyond that determined by a judge during the fair sentencing portion of the trial where it is the duty of the judge, not legislature, to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public and tailoring it to the individual and circumstances.
Separation of Powers: As above, it is the Judiciary that controls punishment, rehabilitation, and protecting the public. The legislation’s role in protecting the public is meant to provide laws for the general public and not trespass on or over-ride the Judiciary role during trial.
Substantive Due Process: As in the Colorado case that was successful, and was begged for a challenge by SCOTUS back in 2003 in Connecticut DPS V Doe, Substantive Due Process is denied to sex offenders because legislature assigns additional restrictions to liberty and punishments beyond the supervision period without it being part of the fair sentencing portion of trial or any other fair proceedings with the judiciary. The time on the registry, and its restrictions, are all arbitrary and pertain to the lowest common denominator of offender and are not legally tailored to the individual or the circumstances.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: See the Colorado ruling for this. Now that the registry clearly meets most of the Mendoza-Martinez factors it is hard to say the registry isn’t punishment. Legislature isn’t allowed to punish, as that is exclusively the job of the Judiciary.
What’s the biggest hurdle?
I can’t imagine any lawyer, even Janice, wants to be known as the one that toppled the entire registry. The uneducated public will unfairly place blame for any future crime committed by a former sex offender on the removal of the registry. Even groups like the ACLU don’t want that on their conscious, regardless of if it is the right thing to do. The general public, and especially victims and their families, will never believe the truth that the registry is actually causing more harm to families than good, and that any violation of the constitution will cause a cascade effect of bad laws and unfair treatment of people.
I’m with everyone showing interest in bringing down the whole REGISTRY. We should fight on this front and nothing less! It is a waste of effort and time to keep trying to introduce a new bill. Bills are at the discretion of these supposed legislators and politicians who don’t want to shake the boat. The only way to bring down something is to go at it head on with full force. I think it was a blessing that the Assembly Appropriations Committee dropped SB 421 since the writer of the bill wasn’t sure of his own stance on the issue.
Janice and Team, thanks for all your efforts and the efforts of all who showed up and spoke up for SB 421 but it’s time to maybe change course
@Chris F
As long as it is not facially and not in a class action mode, this is a good way to consider a path forward as I see it.
Make the list of those who are impacted with their own personal stories long and drawn out, just as the three in CO did. Doubt you could all of the CA registrants, but those who are lively here would be willing to provide testimony as well as others associated with them. Sure, it is a large case with a lot of witnesses, etc, but if that is the way it works, it appears to be the way forth.
I will say now, the CO ruling makes me wonder about the Women against Registry (WAR) class action case in MO and thoughts on moving it out. There was word it was being filed the last half of ’17. Reconsideration perhaps? Anyone know? Maybe Vicki can chime in here.
I love all you arm chair quarterbacks who have so much negative to say. I would like to hear what you are doing personally and on a daily basis to fight for the rights of all registered citizens…or are you just complaining like so many I know. Thank you for all those who understand that this battle was never going to be easy and that there was always a risk involved. I imagined the headlines reading one day “California finally adopts a tired registry after 70 years” followed by challenges to the registry followed by a California legal decision one day agreeing that the registry itself was cruel and unusual punishment. Oh, time to go. I need to get off my ass and get back to figuring out what I can do to help with the next battle on behalf of all registered citizens. Stay strong you who have faith!
It’s time to put your money where you’re mouth is guys, I’m in! What do you need from me, Janice?
Hi Janice. If you need plaintiffs, we would be eager to assist in any way. My husband was convicted of 1 misdemeanor, adult related offense , 3 month jail sentence, 3 years probation. Has been registering for almost 20 years. I was one of his “victims”. The incident which led to his conviction was forgivable and forgettable but for me to be further victimized by the State with random and aggressive compliance checks, restrictions on our travel is not tolerable anymore. I told the police on the last home visit in February I would pursue legal action if they bother me again. And I will. We live in Los Angeles. Where do I send money?