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

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

Phone Meeting to Discuss New Tiered Registry Law (9/26, RECORDING UPLOADED)

ACSOL will conduct a phone meeting on Tuesday, September 26, at 5 p.m. to discuss the new Tiered Registry Law. The 90-minute meeting will begin with an overview provided by attorneys Janice Bellucci and Chance Oberstein followed by questions and answers.

To join the meeting, call 1-712-770-8055 and then key in access code 983459.

Listen / Download call

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Will there be a recording of the session to listen at a later date?

Yes, this meeting will be recorded and a link made available on this available.

Great, thank you!

I can’t listen… I have a felony cp case and this new law makes me want to just go all black lives matter and speak the only language the idiots in the public understand


Just a suggestion: it’d be nice if we followed the practice of RSOL on phone conferences and take the calls from those of the state affected in order of priority!

Unfortunately, I will also be unavailable.
Will the phone meeting be recorded?

Thanks for recording it & providing the link! 👍

Will potential legal challenges to the Static 99 be addressed?

I certainly hope so! My son would be lower risk if he was related to his alleged victim. So sick. Such a horribly flawed assessment tool.

It would be lower if you just knew the victim. It makes sense to me that you are higher risk if your victim is a stranger to be honest.

Not necessarily, molesting a close family member is easier due to access versus a stranger. Also, like in my case, how do we know that the teenage girl tells the truth about their age? Although my case is a misdemeanor, I never really knew what the age of the young lady was……….I know that she was not honest until after the fact. I am disappointed how our system punishes some minors as adults, but not punish the young women who purposely lie about their age. When I was on probation, I kept hearing about not having contact with the “victim”… Read more »

My victim was a stranger as well but it does make sense for this to be rated higher as it shows your willingness to pick victims at random which makes you more dangerous as your scope if much more open than those who focus on people they know (vast majority of sex crime victims are either related to the victim or know them).

That aside, the Static-99 is bogus, even more so because it’s own implementation and sustainability documentation is being ignored by the courts and legislation.

Ah, but there is the problem! Where in the Static-99R rules does it say it measures dangerousness (as you claim)? No where. The Static-99R merely claims to measure risk of recidivism within a 2 to 5 year period after release (whether it’s 2 or 5 years isn’t exactly clear; but it certainly is *NOT* lifetime). That is the problem with the Static 99 and 99R: they both lump all types of offenses together and assume that all offenses are equal in severity/dangerousness. This is clearly not true. The SARATSO tool also supposedly contains an LS/CMI risk level. The LS/CMI specifically… Read more »

Would recidivism and dangerous be sort of the same thing?

Definition aside, the real issues, as you said, is that the courts are ignoring the very relevant portion of Static-99 in that its on a declining scale over time. It’s like an expatriation date on food. The system is ignoring this and are stating its just as fresh today as it was 30 years ago when it was packaged despite the fact that the package clearly states it was best by 20 years ago. No one in their right mind would ignore this, yet here we are.

Excellent analogy, the best I’ve ever read on the topic. Kind of reminds of the expiration dates on execution drugs too. Day late? Can’t use ’em.

Is the great and powerful Hansen practicing medicine in California without a license?

Where’s Toto?

I would say that “recidivism” and “dangerousness” are *not* the same thing. Refer to definitions from Webster’s Dictionary: recidivism – a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior; especially :relapse into criminal behavior dangerousness – able or likely to inflict injury or harm a dangerous man Again, the Static-99R lumps all types of offenses together. For the Static-99R to be valid in predicting ‘dangerousness,’ or even valid at predicting anything at all, Mr. Karl Hanson would have to say that crimes like exhibitionism and voyeurism are just as severe/dangerous to crimes like molestation and rape. The… Read more »

“The state gives recent male offenders both LS/CMI *AND* Static-99R assessments. Women offenders are only given the LS/CMI assessment.”
I’d think this could be the basis for a lawsuit, either under gender discrimination or Equal Protection.

That’s only if the victim is obviously young….but what about those who could pass? some lead hard lives that puts age on them. Can you always tell, and I did not go out in search of some kid to molest but yet because of a fast young girl, I am a registrant. Today, I am not naive; no one comes into my circle unless I know everything that I need to know. I left the door open during a time of need; I never thought that I would allow her to be that comfort. I never in my life set… Read more »

I hope 647.6 misdemeanor public site inclusion/exclusion is addressed.

I cannot join the meeting as I’m working during that time.

Starts in half hour!

Ms. Bellicci I just want to say thank you for all the hard work, time and dedication you have put into helping us to be able to breath. From the bottom of I and my families heart we say than you and thank the almighty for the gift he gave you. Do you have an e-mail or another way to be contacted , I have a question or two?

I apologize for the misspell in your name, I was writing so fast.

Missed it because of time zone difference. Did Janice and Co address the 647.6 public website issue?

Yes. She said by her interpretation it would be tier one and unpublished as are all tier ones. I think, but can’t promise, it is about 3/4 or so in.

It is at 1:07.

I was able to listen to the recording as well. Janice DID say that her interpretation is that all misdemeanors will be excluded from website publishing. I must disagree with her. I’m not licensed to practice law in California but I am an attorney. So unless California has its own language and grammar structure, 647.6 WILL be published. It makes absolutely no sense to reiterate 647.6 if the legislature only meant the tier 2 version of 647.6. It was literally the ONLY tier 2 offense reiterated. If Janice wants to make that argument, more power to her, I hope she’s… Read more »

What other misdemeanor becomes a tier two and becomes published on a second conviction when it was a tier one misdemeanor and unpublished previously? That I think is what the difference hinges on. Take for example indecent exposure, which is a misdemeanor tier one, but can be a felony on second conviction, but it is not a tier two felony, therefore, it will still not be published like 647.6 when a felony. That could be the reason for the reiteration, to make sure it was specified when there was a prior. The courts will likely have to dissect it and,… Read more »

Static 99R…My offense is attempted 288(a) which is Tier 2? But my Static 99R score (self taken) is a -1 at the time of my release in 2003 (before Static 99R) so does make me a Tier 1

No. The only part of Static-99 that the bill cares about is if you’re 6+. In that case, you automatically go to tier 3, regardless of everything else. If you’re less than 6, then you go to a tier based on your code. The bill did not offer any wiggle room at all.

The conference call was outside of my telephone plan. Wish I knew that beforehand. Anyway, I just listened to it. Very impressive. We are lucky to have very such generous and noble people working on this. Thank you. One question that stands out after listening to it pertains to the Static 99. I thought maybe the scoring “upon release” limited the reach of the Static 99 to when it was adopted as a tool and was therefore implemented upon release. This could go to the overall tier system as centered “upon release” before the eligibility time period begins. Both… Read more »

Well it’s nice to see that justice will need to be bought, much like most of us thought.

A psych eval is not required and I believe Chance also stated that some petitions will be slam-dunk approved without them. Best to listen to the call for confirmation on that.

Ok sorry couldn’t call in, but I finally listened in to the recording. I share concerns with regard to the Static 99R. It says in the Coding Rules that the Static 99R is only valid for TWO years after release and that risk is half after FIVE years for a person who stays offense free. That kind of makes sense since CASOMB’s UNPUBLISHED study examines the Static 99R for only FIVE YEARS! So why is the tiered registry saying it’s OK to use this very limited tool to label someone ‘high risk’ and tier 3 for LIFE?? It’s absolutely insane… Read more »

I’m sure this will be challenged. Hard. This doesn’t even require any weird evidence or proof. It’s right there in its own documentation. I can’t imagine this could survive a challenge. “Well, we like how it easily measures risk based on 10 question and zero actual evaluation of the individual (woohoo! less work and money saving for us!), but we dislike that it has an expiration date, so we’re just going to ignore that bit.”

Thank you so much for this recording. It certainly answers many of my questions. Janice and Chance…..appreciated ALL that you do!!

Whoa. You incur an infraction that is not sex related in the future and it will affect your civil status for a sex conviction? That makes absolutely no sense. That additional years to get off of registry is added punishment!

I listened to the recording. As I understand it….Currently Fed CP felons are to be put on Tier 3. However we have three years approximately to petition for the reduction to a Misdemeanor charge, resulting in a tier 1 status and auto max of 10 years registry and, as it is now also, exemption from the public Megan’s list. Having said all that, the option of petitioning with the use of a lawyer, the possible static 99 test will cost each person a substantial amount of money. I am reminded that upon my son’s original arrest, he took tests that… Read more »

Janice is there any way to inform us; Will we need to pay a lawyer to place the request for removal or will we be able to place the request by ourselves ? Simply put if we have to pay for lawyer each time a request is made this could be very expensive considering that it is possible or likely to be turned down on multiple tries. I am out of state and am not required to register in the state I am in. Can you give an idea of how the process will work.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x