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)

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

Join the discussion

  1. AlexO

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

    • Janice Bellucci

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

      • AlexO

        Great, thank you!

      • Hopefuln

        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

      • DavidH


        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!

  2. David

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

  3. Worried

    Will potential legal challenges to the Static 99 be addressed?

    • Edie

      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.

      • steve

        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.

        • dohow

          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” when all along, she continued to pursue me. A few years ago the “victim” misrepresented herself on a social media site. When I responded she made herself known. She was apologetic and was willing to do what she could to help resolve the matter, unfortunately, she was still trying to have a relationship. I declined her advancements towards me as well as her help, and although I was guilty of being involved, I was the pursued not the pursuer.

      • AlexO

        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.

        • Mr. French

          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 measures “violence;” but it seems completely ignored by the tiered registry bill.

          Again, the Static-99R does *NOT* measure violence, but merely claims to measure risk of recidivism within 5 years. This is a problem because, again, all offenses are lumped together into the measure for ‘recidivism.’ Rape or child molestation is not equal to exhibitionism or voyeurism. But the Static-99R assumes so.

          The state gives recent male offenders both LS/CMI *AND* Static-99R assessments. Women offenders are only given the LS/CMI assessment. However, for whatever reason, it seems that CASOMB has completely ignored the LS/CMI assessment for men. Which is a bit perplexing because it is entirely possible to score high on the Static-99R and low on the LS/CMI. In such a scenario, does a high Static offender deserve to be placed into Tier 3? Because I fear the Static-99R is given wayyy too much credit than it deserves.

          As others have claimed, I believe the Static-99R to be no more than an elaborate scam.

        • AlexO

          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.

        • Not Really

          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.

        • Not Really

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

          Where’s Toto?

        • Mr. French

          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 fact is Hanson’s Static-99 and Static-99R “actuarial” lumps all offenses together. In other words, Hanson’s so-called actuarial compares apples and oranges.

          LS/CMI predicts violence. The Static-99R merely claims to predict recidivism. But what type of recidivism? That is why a study, published in the The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, states the following:

          “Unlike other arenas in mental health that seek to address potential risk of harm (e.g., risk for suicide) where individual factors are weighted into the assessment, sexual recidivism risk seems to be stalled in ‘actuarial-land’ with the veneer of ‘quantification’ belied by shifting ‘norms.’ Although they purport to be empirically based, the current Static-99 and its newer iteration, the Static-99R, violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual. Two core elements must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome. Both of these elements are lacking in Static-99 and Static-99R research reviews. Thus, a call for caution must be sounded when using these tools to make weighty decisions involving an individual’s liberty and the protection of public safety.”

          CASOMB continuously cites one or two studies, both co-authored by Karl Hanson (i.e. he is in conflict-of-interest in said studies), that boast of the Static-99R’s credibility. So in other words, CASOMB cites studies in which Hanson writes about how great his own creation is. Problem is that said studies only examine the Static-99R for five years. And said studies are unpublished!

          In case you are wondering, Mr. Hanson has not adhered to American Psychological Association’s (APA) Code of Ethics Section 8.14 in permitting independent psychologists and/or researches from examining the data from which the Static-99R is derived. Mr. Hanson maintained that the Static-99R is a ‘trade secret.’

          California licensed psychologists, as well as other psychologists licensed in most other states, are required to adhere to APA Code of Ethics. But because Mr. Karl Hanson is not licensed to practice in the State of California, or anywhere in the United States for that matter (at least not that I’m aware of), he is not bound by the APA Code of Ethics!

          Karl Hanson, the Static-99R’s creator, is only licensed to practice in Canada.

        • AJ

          “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.

        • dohow

          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 out to purposely harm a minor, the only way would be behind a lie.

  4. JCrsn

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

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

  5. Not Really

    Starts in half hour!

  6. Anthony

    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?

  7. Anthony

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

  8. KM

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

    • Not Really

      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.

    • KM

      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 willing to request an injunction when the time is nigh. I’m certain the Justice Department will read it as written and as I have described. You can argue against it all day long, but once they publish it, it’s kinda moot. It’s on the internet forever.

      • Not Really

        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, being not even a lawyer, I sure can’t make any guarantees.

  9. 7mot

    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

    • AlexO

      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.

  10. Not Really

    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 Janice and Chance stated, if I understood it correctly, that we would have to pay for a Static 99 privately. Part of a psych eval that included a Static 99 could run up to about $1000 and we might need the Static 99 score, or it would at least help, when petitioning to be removed from the registry.

    Of course, I would prefer that the legislation took into account that the Static 99 validly expires after so many years and it would therefore become moot and not reliable, hence the “upon release” language to avoid staleness and possible ex post facto issues. We can’t have it done privately “upon release” when we were released over 20 years ago. Might be an open door to challenge if indeed a private Static 99 is required.

    • AlexO

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

      • Not Really

        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.

  11. Peter C.

    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 and lacks any logic!

    • AlexO

      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.”

  12. Edie

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

  13. New Person

    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!

  14. Patsy

    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 cost money, and we went in debt for $30,000 for a lawyer that got the same sentencing for him as all the other’s in the courtroom who used public defenders. I want so much, since he served six years, and has been on supervised release for three years now, working, has not offended in any way, that this hope will not be a repeat of 9 years ago. I so want hope. I will do, my other sons will do, he will do whatever it takes to make this happen…….and that is the right thing to do….is there HOPE? Is there?

  15. Jesse

    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.

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 *