ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: May 16 – Phone [recording], June 13 – Phone, July 11, August 15 details
Oct 10 and 11 – Conference (Los Angeles),

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: The Stage is Set

The stage is set. The Governor has signed the tiered registry bill into law, a law that opens a wide gap in the dam of California’s “Lifetime Registry for All”.  A dam that was in place for 70 years.  It is now our job to widen that gap.

The Tiered Registry will take effect in January 2021, about 3 ½ years from now.  While it is truly unfortunate that those who will benefit from the “new” tiered registry will have to wait so long, the lengthy gestation period for the “new” tiered registry could provide us with opportunities to address that registry through both legislation and litigation.

First, legislation could and should be pursued during the next legislative session (2019-2020) which improves the tiered registry by broadening its benefits, especially to those convicted of non-production child pornography (CP) offenses.  For there is no logical reason for, and no empirical evidence to support, the “new” tiered registry’s requirement for people convicted of non-production offenses to register for the rest of their lives.

There are additional problems with the “new” tiered registry that also need to be corrected such as the addition of people to the state’s Megan’s Law website due to a “high” score on the Static-99R at the time of their release.  The Static-99R is a controversial testing instrument that produces flawed results such as scoring all gay men under the age of 25 as high risk.  And even if the results of that testing instrument were considered valid, a score that is 10 years old or older is irrelevant because it does not reflect the results of post-conviction rehabilitation.

In addition, the “new” tiered registry requires a judge, when considering whether to approve a person’s petition for removal of the registry, to consider both pre- and post-conviction factors that are sure to result in prejudice against the petitioner.  For example, the judge must consider pre-conviction factors such as whether the victim was a stranger and post-conviction factors such as noncriminal behavior.  As written, this could mean that a judge must consider a ticket for jay walking and/or the late return of books to the public library.  These factors must be modified or removed.

Second, litigation could and should be pursued to challenge the need for, and value of, a public registry in California.  There are Constitutional issues, recent court decisions and empirical evidence to support such a challenge.

For example, the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution could be the basis for a challenge to why those convicted of a non-contact, non-violent offense such as possession of CP should be required to register for a lifetime similar to those convicted of multiple violent contact offenses against multiple children.

Another example is the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits governments from retroactively applying new laws that punish.  There is a growing number of court decisions, including Does v. Snyder in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognize that the requirement to register as well as its collateral consequences are punishment and therefore cannot be applied to individuals convicted decades ago.

Finally, there is empirical evidence to support the fact that public registries do not increase public safety.  In fact, there is even evidence that public registries may decrease public safety.   There is also empirical evidence to support the fact that the rate of re-offense for those convicted of a sex offense is very low especially when they have lived outside of jail or prison for 17 years or more without re-offending.

The stage is set.  There is much to do.  Please join us by Standing Up – Showing Up- Speaking Up at monthly meetings, annual conferences, legislative hearings and more.

— by Janice Bellucci

Join the discussion

  1. Cool CA RC

    and don’t forget to donate!!
    Click the donate button upper right hand.

    • Daniel

      I agree the organization needs donations to battle the unfairness of the new law. I also agree that the Static 99R is extremely unfair, a slippery slope if you will into pseudo forensic psychology having a say into people still being required to register for life merely because of a high Static with no regard to any other factors.

      I am taking a philosophy class right now. The Static 99 definitely implores into the realm of determinism vs. free will. Static 99 assumes that fate is determined by risk factors. On the other hand, contrarians would counter that the Static 99, “R” or otherwise, ignores free will.

      The Static 99R, even if they choose to hide it under the perhaps misleading phrase “SARATSO tool,” is really a slippery slope into the minority report style “technology” that literature and philosophy has warned us about. In that sense, the Static 99 is not only barely science… but I think the Static poses a very long term threat to civil rights.

      • concerned registrant

        Janice mentions that a Static-99R score that is 10 years or older is irrelevant. That was specifically true in the old Static Coding Rules — which implied a Static-99 shelf life of only 10 years.

        However, the new 2016 Coding Rules state *nothing* of a 10 year shelf life. Even worse, the new 2016 Static 99R Coding Rules specify a TWO (2) year shelf life — with risk halving every five years offense-free in the community. Invariably, under the claim that risk is halved after five years offense-free in the community, even the highest scored offenders cannot sustain risk prediction substantiating Tier 3 after five years offense-free.

        I know it seems completely absurd that our legislators would choose to use this “risk assessment tool;” but again, read page 13 for yourself:

        “The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

        This just shows how extraordinarily limited the Static-99R is. And how this “new” tiered registry is misapplying even the very Coding Rules it places emphasis on.

        • AlexO

          It’s why the new 99r has a total shelf life of 17 years, even if you score a 10. After 17 years it places you below 1 which would be below average what any average citizen age 35 or younger would score where they tested (+1 for being younger than 35, and +1 for not having been in a live-in relationship of 2+ years).

          Even if the test was 100% accurate without fail, legislation is very much ignoring this critical part of the test.

        • concerned registrant

          Where is the ’17 year’ shelf life stat that you mention? I looked through the Coding Rules and can only find the fact that the Static-99R is only valid up to two years (and that “risk” is halved after five years offense-free).

          As for someone scoring 10, that would be very difficult. I suspect that most people score at the borderline (i.e. 6s and 7s) that delineates “high” risk offenders — which IMO, makes the Static-99R test even more arbitrary. In other words, the difference of having one or two points on a “test” could mean the difference of being placed in Tier 1 (or Tier 2) vs. Tier 3.

          Again, it’s way to much power to give a “test.”

        • CR

          I was reading about the Static 99R recently, and I believe I read that the score range is from -3 to 12. I don’t know how that relates to a relative risk assessment (e.g., low, medium, high).

        • Tim L

          A law about human sexuality concerning too many American men thinking with penis’ heads born into law by Wild Bill Clinton who never did. (1994)Talk about PW!.

          LAND of FRED home of BRAVE. SOR FOR THE AFRAID!

          I wish all of you Californians good luck in court hearings where you will be adjudicated AGAIN for any wrong doing. A positive result will surely improve your individual liberty.. For if no liberty were at stake who would complain – J.P. Stevens.

        • Popeye

          A big “ALSO” If a STATIC 99R can not be used with non production CP offenses how do such offenders get scored? Tier three and not able to be risk scored?

          From the link text:
          Static-99R cannot be used with offenders only charged or convicted of possession or distribution of child pornography, unless their behaviour involved the creation of child pornography with a real identifiable child. Note that the creation of child pornography requires a real identifiable child. For example, an offender who takes pictures of neighbourhood children but morphs the images of neighbour children’s heads onto the images of child pornography, could not be scored on Static-99R.

      • Sean James

        I was 18 at the time of my alleged offence…that was 1992..I was charged and convicted in 1995…there was no such thing as an online registry at the time and my case was a “Wobbler” due to my age and that of the so- called victim. I plead out due to my fear of the 3 strikes law at the time and I was never told that the state could change its mind years later and add new punishment after the the online sex offenders registry. Had I known that then I would’ve taken the case to trial…there was no physical evidence of any kind and I plead out from fear of the 3 strikes law of the day

        How can I find out which teir I will likely fall under in 2021 when the California Registration laws are changed?

  2. Steve

    What about tiering without an individual assessment? As you know 6th circuit decision says unconstitutionall I believe I will be a tier 2 and hopefully off once this goes into affect but others deserve proper assessment.

    • norman

      your Judge and Deputy DA was your individual assessment

      • AlexO

        The judge and DA prosecuted you based on what you did, not so much how much risk you posed. If your crime was CP possession, there is no other code they can really give you other than 311.11. And it’s this black and white code that the tired registry uses to assign you to tier three regardless if you’ve become the new Dalai Lama and just ended world hunger and brought about peace. On the flip side, you could be a horrendous human being and be assigned tier one because of your code. There’s zero assessment at the moment to make this call.

        • norman

          The Judge and Deputy DA did assess me through a pre-sentence report done by Probation. I scored a zero. Very low risk of reoffending. 6 Months in county (versus 7 years if Federal) and 5 Years Probation. 300.00 fine and no victim restitution. No restrictions other than can’t own a firearm. It seems this report doesn’t mean anything to the Governor, Law Enforcement, DA and whoever else decided to move me into Tier 3. God Bless America..

      • Tim L


        You are correct, the judge,DA and jury are witnesses to wrong doing. The assessment of dangerous is determined through them and the court’s processes.

        BUT this new law IMHO is a SECOND OPPORTUNITY to ” judge” a convict based upon the original offence(s). BTW that is UNLIKE registration violations which commence based on a different set of facts. Therefore the ” new judgement” will violate the prohibition against DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

  3. Matt

    Legislation just totally shattered what was left of my life. Trusting legislation is a bad idea an the amended version of 290 PC is the most ridiculous, stupid, backwards law I have ever seen created. That said: If there is the right case or cases to litigate, and a serious effort is mounted, I will donate time and resources to that cause. We have to take this out at the knees, with a chainsaw, rather than begging the bastards for scraps. If we are fighting, I am in. If we are begging, not a chance.

  4. ab

    The requirement of a judge to weigh in ought to be really interesting. If someone is no longer on county probation, state parole, federal probation or federal supervised release the requirement to go to a judge will be tricky. The judge (if they are still active) who heard a case would be the most logical to seek legal permission from for registry removal but since supervision is over that judge may legally have no obligation to be involved in any capacity. Which means another judge must have access to all information the previous judge had and more (the pre-conviction judge didn’t have access to post condition factors as those factors were not yet formed). The whole thing outright seems like a giant confusing mess that will take years to figure out and that’s not taking into account conflicts between the federal tier system and the tiers in California.

  5. Tim in Calif

    A little off topic, but could those Ex Post Facto clauses in the constitution help in returning my original plea deal? I agreed to a 3 year sentence and 3 year parole. 18 months into parole, they pulled me in and said that some assembly bills have been changed and there for your plea deal is null and void. I should have been off of parole march of this year and am facing 6 1/2 more years of this. Anyone? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. (Two of the persons attending the same treatment program I attend were handed the same thing at about the same time and have been dropped from parole a month ago…my agent says nope. Not true.)

    Anyway, lets say that the litigation and such go and we get to the January 2021 date, when and how will we classified? I can’t tell what tier I am going to be.

    Thank you,

    Tim in California

    • AJ

      @Tim in Calif:
      Plea bargains are considered contracts and, as such, are typically binding on both parties. I would consult with an attorney about it. They cannot “null and void” your plea bargain without your being able to have a judge step in. Read for a little more understanding about it.

      • cool RC

        I think there was a case on this couple years ago. Judge said State can do whatever they want. posting our face online was one of them.
        I forgot what case this was.

        • G4Change

          I remember this decision, and man what a crock of crap that was!!! If ever something needs to go to SCOTUS, that decision does! It gives the government a blank check, and it gives the people the shaft!

        • AJ

          And yet just this past May, SCOTUS declined to hear a case in which our friend, the 6th Circuit, ruled (9-7 en banc) that release of booking photos is an invasion of privacy. In Detroit Free Press v US DoJ (, the 6th reversed itself from a case 20 years prior, during which time the 10th and 11th Circuits also said it was invasion of privacy. Despite this being a Federal case, I wonder if there’s any way to leverage it to our gain. I mean, c’mon, if it’s good enough for some dirty cops, it’s good enough for us!

          What I found of particular interest was this: The Supreme Court has described Exemption 7(C) as reflecting privacy interests in “avoiding disclosure of personal matters,” maintaining “the individual’s control of information concerning his or her person,” avoiding “disclosure of records containing personal details about private citizens,” and “keeping personal facts away from the public eye.” Embarrassing and humiliating facts—particularly those connecting an individual to criminality—qualify for these descriptors.
          Funny how SCOTUS sometimes says it’s invasion of privacy, other times it’s not. How it’s invasion of privacy for a criminal who is not on a registry, but not invasion of privacy for someone who is, I don’t get.

          FYI, there are more juicy tidbits in the Opinion regarding privacy interests. I wonder if, in the new light we’re enjoying, it could be used in a case for us.

        • TS


          Thanks for the mugshot tidbit. That would help with lawsuit against them to fight posting of those photos in those circuits.

        • AJ

          The case law only applies to those arrested by the Feds, though I wonder if the States would fall in line. At minimum, the favorable States listed in the Opinion would seem ripe for a challenge.

  6. HopingforHope

    I’m sure many who follow this forum have noticed the growing use of the word “punishment” in media coverage, as well as at least one reference to “punishment” that I heard when this Bill was being voted on in the Assembly. I hope this growing consensus that the registry is indeed punishment will somehow be used in arguments in court cases that are sure to come including, I pray, all the way to SCOTUS. Perception is reality, so it seems to me that it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that these registries are not punishment when there is a growing perception that they are, and that perception is now being held by lawmakers and even judges. The entire argument is weak. Think about it: These registries clearly punish people who had no connection whatsover to the offense, such as children whose parents are unable to attend school activities, and spouses who are ostracized by their community because of their association with the RC. Does punishment somehow “skip over” the RC? In other words, their loved ones get punished, but the RC doesn’t??
    Makes no sense whatsoever. There must a judge somewhere in California who, when given the facts, would see right through this charade.

    • Eric

      Of course it is punishment. I did a crime on the computer. How is placing me on a public forum for all to see, so all job applicants know, all housing applicants know, having police come to my door to check where I live have any relevance, yet I have a computer that is not monitored; the very item I used for my crime is not checked.

      • Matt

        Eric, don’t assume you’re computer isn’t monitored.

        • AlexO

          They could be but it would be highly illegal. They can no more monitor your computer without a warrant than they could set up a video camera in your home.

    • Patsy

      My son has a computer, PO approved…monitored. Yet, he has a drug test about once a month and has never used a drug in his life, nor does he drink alcohol. Nothing makes sense.

      • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

        This is all just “busy work” that the parole or probation people engage in to pad their statistics and provide the illusion of “metrics” and to convey the impression that they are ultimately useful.

    • reggie

      There are two general schools of thought. One is that the registry has nothing to do with punishment. Rather, it is a form of regulation that protects the public. The other school is that whatever a sex offender’s punishment, it was not enough and additional punishment is warranted and required. So as judges make a decision about whether or not to let someone off the registry, they first want to talk about the original crime. I guess the debate is over as to whether the registry is regulation or punishment.

  7. concerned registrant

    The Static-99R is not good for 10 years. Per the 2016 Coding Rules, the Static-99R is only valid for two years after release. Yes, just TWO (2) years! Not to mention, alleged “risk” is reduced by about half after five years offense-free in the community. 10 years might be giving the Static-99R too much credit than it truly deserves.

    Read page 13 for yourself:

    “The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

  8. Yeah right

    Does anybody realize how many people in the USA are added to this Registry of Punishment each week?? Come One, Come All To Witness The Greatest Show On Earth!! Bring Your Mothers, Bring Your Fathers, Bring Your Sisters, Daughters , Sons and Cousins. Step Us and Pay Right Here. Everybody Guaranteed a Seat with a View!!

  9. Yeah right

    The Registry doesn’t protect anybody. My co workers pass around my “Parents For Megan’s Law” internet page JUST FOR AMUSEMENT!!!

  10. Patsy

    I always need clarification for my son’s situation.

    From your letter: First, legislation could and should be pursued during the next legislative session (2019-2020) which improves the tiered registry by broadening its benefits, especially to those convicted of non-production child pornography (CP) offenses. For there is no logical reason for, and no empirical evidence to support, the “new” tiered registry’s requirement for people convicted of non-production offenses to register for the rest of their lives.

    So, if possible the entire group of registrants who fit in this group would benefit…as stated before, to be put in tier one, ad off Megans list, which Federal Felons are exempt from at this time. But the next step is when it gets confusing. Are you saying each individual case must go to court before a judge to petition for either reducing the charge to a misdemeanor ad or to request elimination from lifetime registration. Do we wait to see what happens right now……..or should we be aggressively finding a lawyer. PLEASE MAKE THIS CLEAR, PLEASE. I am so grateful for all the work that has been done, you have no idea.

  11. AlexO

    @Patsy – Yes to both. If you’re eligible for reduction of the charge, you must see a judge to do so. Then, when a persons time comes to come off the registry (T1 ten years, T2 twenty years), the person must petition the court to be allowed to do so, which can be denied (at which point I believe there’s a minimum of a year wait before you can petition again). It’s this part that Janice says shell try to fight, in essence making getting off the registry automatic when you reach your time limit (several states do this).

    • Already Reduced

      What if you’ve already had your 311.11(a) charge reduced to a misdemeanor and judicially dismissed/expunged? Are you eligible then?

      Does this legislation supersede the Certificate of Rehabilitation process?

      Is that still an option?

      • AlexO

        If your 311.11a is currently a misdemeanor, then you’re good to go for T1 under the current bill. At the moment expungement doesn’t seem to effect being on the registry in any way.

        This current bill removes the CoR as a path off the registry. The CoR is still there and you can still get it, but they changed the language of 290.5 which looked for the CoR to grant relief from registering. The language had been replaced with the new tired language.

        As to whether or not you’ll be able to continue not registering if you were previously dismissed via CoR, I have no idea. It seems like they may render this void like they’ve done in the past for people who didn’t have to register because of an expungement. Because registry isn’t considered punitive, it’s retroactive changes don’t fall under ex post facto. It’s what half the lawsuits are about.

    • Patsy

      Thank you I do understand. Since he is only 3 years into his supervised release…and has complied with all, it sounds like it would be wise to wait until at least five years to apply for Misdemeanor status…It is a scary thought, because honestly I have lost trust in the system. But, the hope for the other part tier one status will be to trust Janice and the organization, and then to petition for removal from lifetime registration. I think this is what I am understanding.

      • AlexO

        Well you can apply for 17b reduction to misdemeanor any time once you’re off supervision and can’t apply until you are. However, if his conviction of 311.11 was in 2014 or later, you may have difficulty doing so as 311.11 became a straight felony. Be sure to seek out a lawyer who specifically handles sex offense cases to see what you can do. Judges have a lot more leeway than a lot of people think.

        • Already Reduced

          I had a wobbler 311.11(a) in 2011 and only went to county jail not state prison. I got three years simultaneous county probation. I was granted early release from probation as well as 17(b) reduction and expungement in 2013 by the county court.

  12. AlexO

    Thank you for your help as always, Janice!

  13. Not Really

    It looks like I’ll be tier 1 and will be able to get off the registry when it is enacted in 2021. I have what is called a “fixed income,” meaning the budget is always tight. Even so, I just donated $10 and authorized it monthly. I plan on keeping it monthly for at least a year.

    If I can manage this, I think most everyone can. Even the homeless can squeeze out $10 at least once.

    So new rule: if you complain about the registry and didn’t donate, you’re only a whiner, not a fighter. If your family says you deserve better, ask each and every one to donate. Consider each $10 a mortar round aimed at the enemy.

    Spread the word to those who may not know about this.

  14. USA

    Congrats! Well done. I concur with the comment regarding the judge ie: jaywalking ticket etc. I certainly do agree that they should run your background check etc. But, the process should be black and white! I’m not complaining, but I think the process should take no more than 2 years. I have a reduced/expunged/summary probation battery over 20 years old. When I requested a COR, the judge stated he couldn’t find one reason to deny the motion, but it wasn’t enough?

    • AlexO

      We’re you able to get the CoR? Remember that it’s not the CoR that grants relief but code 290.5 in conjunction with the CoR. 290.5 has a list of codes which excludes relief even if you do have a CoR. Check the codes against your conviction code.

  15. Patsy

    I contributed 25 a month for some time. On retirement and SS it was the most I could manage. When my son came home…money got so tight, I could not even do that. He is working now, and we together have caught up on expenses, so I am now contributing $30 a month. The hard part is going to be hiring an attorney to handle the two petitions, but hey, I have been in debt before and I am willing to be again. Maybe he will even get a better job by then. I feel hope again, and that is better than not. You want to know my worst fear….I am a couple months away from being 72. If I passed away, I don’t know what he would do. I am trying to pay my home down so maybe he can refi and afford it. I want so much to live long enough to see him free again from all this punishment. I know, he knows, as of now he will never teach again, but, with misdemeanor status and no registration, maybe, just maybe he will. After all Chance has overcome some things and is practicing law.

    • Not Really

      Patsy, I very much respect your struggle and dedication. It is another example of the unintended consequences of these laws. Janice requests $10 from everyone and I would hope that two people would offer to donate $10 each and allow you to lower your payment. That extra $20 a month can make a big difference. If you keep donating the $30, well, once again, I admire your dedication but do hope you are able to eat and stay warm!

      Also, I just read my “new rule” post and I didn’t mean to sound like I was ordering anyone around. Just a suggestion, a pep talk.

  16. Ken

    I feel it’s best to focus on the fact that “risk” is halved after five years, offense-free, in the community. Here is my main point: Using the five year statistic, which is clearly stated in the Coding Rules, how can the tiered bill defend lifetime Tier 3 registration for (especially) those who score in the 6 or 7 range when their “risk” is halved after five years offense-free? Really, it seems, the Static 99R seems only valid for five years when a person has been offense-free in that time. Focusing on the 10 or 17 year statistic might be “missing the forest for the trees” when it comes to the Static 99R being able to elevate people to Tier 3. The tiered law emphasizes adherence to the “Coding Rules.” So yes, in that sense I see where concerned registrant is coming from. Just where is the 10 year or 17 year statistic in the Coding Rules? All I see is that the Static-99R is valid for two, but not more than five, years (assuming that, given the sample lumps all offense types, it is even valid to begin with).

    • AJ

      Yeah, I thought about that five-year half-life, too. Even if we assume 80% recidivism to be accurate and correct for every single RC, that means after 25 years, the recidivism is 2.5% (80 at year 0, 40 at 5, 20 at 10, 10 at 15, 5 at 20, 2.5 at 25). A recent statistic I read said the male population in general is a 1-2% risk of committing a SO, so at 25 years–assuming the asinine stats–there’s no difference between a random male and a former offender. Even assuming an impossible 100% recidivism, at 25 years it’s 3.125%. So if the State is going to rely upon that sort of reasoning, they have to (well, in sane world at least) let it run its course. Using their own system, anything beyond about 25 years is useless. Mind you, these half-lives do not include the reduction in recidivism age brings.

    • concerned registrant


      Where did you get 80% recidivism from? Smith v. Doe? I say this because even the very highest Static-99R scores do not even come close to 80% recidivism claims.


      In your last sentence, you mention that the Static-99R “sample lumps all offense types” together. This flaw was highlighted in an analysis published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. The article states:

      “Two elements must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome. This review demonstrates that both of these elements are lacking in the normative studies of the Static-99 and its revised version, the Static-99R.”


      In other words, the Static-99R sample lacks sample representativeness because the Static lumps all types of offenses (both non-contact and violent), as well as their varied sample of offenders (varying in age, education, ethnicity, background, etc.), together. The authors — all esteemed professors at USC Keck Medical School, Duke Medical School, and UW Medical School — emphasize that “sample representativeness” (which the Static-99R lacks) “must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual.”

      So I guess it’s a matter of who to trust. Do you trust Static-99 creator Karl Hanson of Carleton University? Or do you trust professors from USC, Duke, and University of Washington (Shoba Sreenivasan, PhD; Linda E. Weinberger, PhD; Allen Frances, MD; and Sarah Cusworth-Walker, PhD)?

      Personally, I would definitely trust Drs. Sreenivasan, Weinberger, Frances, and Cusworth-Walker of USC, Duke, and UW Medical Schools over Karl Hanson ANY DAY!

      • AJ

        Yes, I was using the much-cited, incorrect “frightening and high” number of 80%. I used it to show that even if one accepts that absurd number, the recidivism is pretty much gone at 25 years (i.e. Tier II) time frame, rendering lifetime useless…and punitive?

        • concerned registrant

          Ah, ok, gotcha!

          Personally, I think the only fair solution is for the government to finally acknowledge registration as punishment. Acknowledging registration as punishment bans ex post facto application of registration, as well as allows individuals to contend that extended registration periods of 10 year, 20 year, and lifetime terms violate the Eighth Amendment.

          As for the Static-99R, and as already mentioned, if the Static-99R was TRULY accurate then why are “low” scored individuals still subject to registration periods? Nevertheless, if you have yet to do so, read the most recent 2016 Coding Rules — as I cannot emphasize enough that, per the Coding Rules, using the Static-99R for more than five years is completely inappropriate. And it is certainly most inappropriate to label people “Tier 3,” and require lifetime registration, for the only reason of having a “high” Static-99R score.

        • AJ

          @concerned registrant:
          Somewhere long ago, I learned that when trying to prove or disprove a point or thought, it helps to take it to the extreme and see if it holds up. In this case, I took the absurd 80%, then went even further to the virtually impossible 100%. As for the Static 99-R and Coding stuff, I’m not in CA, so it doesn’t interest or concern me. I have empathy for my fellow RCs in CA, just no skin in the game.

    • Tim Moore

      The Static 99 makes no recommendation on registration length. Indeed, it makes no recommendation for registration, period. While the Static is maybe a dubious risk assessment tool, the registry is a proven non effective risk management tool. Put together you have a system founded upon faith and administered through ignorance.

  17. USA

    Here is the Big Question. My expunged offense occurred over 20 years ago. I never received a Static 99 test? I’m a score 3!!

  18. American Detained in America

    Let’s be honest, the “tiered registry” is a complete fail. I called it early on. I was accused here of being unsupportive of a tiered registry proposal that could get a lot of people off the registry. I didn’t buy it, I said at the time it was a bad idea and there were too many obstacles. Very few agreed. I would have been Tier 1 in all but the last incarnation of the proposed changes, and I couldn’t bring myself to agree that it should be supported. I said the powers that be would make sure we wouldn’t get relief from the registry, and people here kept calling me out for crying wolf. Whether it’s the DA arguing against relief in court or changing the proposal last minute doesn’t matter, the outcome was the same, we’re still on the registry. It doesn’t look like that is going to change until the registry as a whole falls.

  19. USA

    OMG, Mr Detained, your a complete failure for not looking at the big picture! The passage of this bill is a miracle! It certainly isn’t perfect for everyone, but your narcistic or self centered comments do nothing but tell us your sour! I might suggest being more positive, start donating and try and get your offense expunged! Bad karma and negativity get you no where!!!!

    • kind of living

      @USA ,,,, , that was uncalled for , you should save all that crap for the real enemy , we have a right to state what we feel about how we see the issues at hand , its not all about you , if this tier system is good for you ,(Great) , but its a disaster for many of us , how can you talk to anther person like that out one side of your neck? and then start talking about negativity out the other side about Bad Karma ? spiting your venom is positive ? Mr Detained stated his own feeling about the bill , he did not attack anyone , most of us are giving money right along with our family’s , and we have a say , you might want to look at your own Karma , there’s the little picture

    • American Detained in America

      @USA, there are a LOT of things you don’t know about me, the first being that I didn’t even do what I was accused of doing, the DA manufactured evidence, and I was manipulated into taking a plea deal(take the deal and get out today or spend a couple of years in jail fighting the case), all of which was a non-contact offense in the first place. The second, that in spite of that fact, I have never once looked down at other registrants who actually did the crime. Innocent of the crime or not, I am a registered citizen just like the rest of you.

      I wasn’t being negative, I was being realistic about what I saw when I actually took the time to read the proposed bill, saw the changes as they were happening, analyzed all of these and saw how flawed it actually was. We need to be real about this, The tiered registry we ended up with may help a few hundred at most, and even that is very doubtful because of the steps required to get relief according to this tiered system. There are over 90,000 of us in California, so in truth, they passed a tiered registry that maybe will help less than 1% of us. You accused me of failing to look at the big picture, but the truth is that I did look at it, not with fingers crossed and wishful thinking, but with intelligent analysis. The big picture is this, they passed a tiered registry that isn’t likely to do a thing for over 99% of the registered citizens in this state. If you are one of those very few that it may help, then that’s great and I’m genuinely happy for you.

      If after years of trying, if this is what we end up with for incrementally attacking the registry, then it’s futile to take that strategy. Here’s a little math to analyze this strategy…let’s be optimistic and say this tiered registry will grant relief to 5% of us in California. I’ve been following this movement for 5 years, so let’s say that’s when the push for a tiered registry started. It will be 3 1/2 years before it is actually implemented, and let’s be generous and say those 5% it helps are able to get relief in just six months of the registry’s implementation. That makes 9 years of effort to get relief for 5% of registered citizens in California. At this rate of fighting the registry incrementally, it could take 180 years to chip away at the registry in this manner. Since the average life span is around 80 years, and most of us are in our 30’s at minimum when we start registering in the first place, that rate would mean that less than 30% of us are likely to see relief in our lifetime. And again, I think the idea that this tiered registry may help 5% is EXTREMELY optimistic and I believe my estimate of around 1% is much more accurate based on the few charges that now quality for any chance of relief. That’s a big picture look at this whole thing that simply doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t work for you.

    • NPS

      @kind of living
      @American Detained in America

      It would do no good to try to convince USA otherwise. He is among the tiny minority of RCs who is IN FAVOR of the registry, which he has stated in previous posts over the years. He has even credited the registry as keeping him in line. Yet he constantly contradicts himself always talking about his now expunged summary probation, reduced to misdemeanor massage parlor sexual battery blah blah blah criminal offense but cries about remaining on the registry. So which is it? Registry good or Registry bad? He can’t make up his mind.

      He places himself above other RCs who would be Tier 2 and Tier 3. He has even shamed an RC solely because she is a woman on the registry. I’ve even been on the receiving end of his wrath where he assumed that I was a gay man (because I’m from San Francisco) who molested a prepubescent and thus deserves to be on the list. Wrong on all counts. I am a straight woman and my offense is no one’s business but my own. And I have no business knowing anyone else’s offense either because it matters not. We are all in the same SOR boat.

      But like USA, I too, have an expunged misdemeanor offense, and I will also benefit from this bill as a Tier 1 and will be off registry once it goes into effect. HOWEVER, a lot can happen in three years. There can still be changes for better or for worse. I’m hoping for the best not just for me, but for everyone. And once I’m officially off the list, I will continue to support ACSOL, which I truly believe USA will not do.

      The best thing to do is let him rant. Don’t take anything personal and just plain ignore him. Do not respond to him. He’ll only cause more unnecessary stress for you. Stress you do not need.

      • kind of living

        @NPS ,,,,, ,, I hope things get better as well , and I bracing myself for the worst so anything less than that will seem tolerable , I hope everything go well for you , thank you

  20. Aero1

    I’m still in shock that this bill passed I’ll be free of this nightmare in 3 years I’ll be 40 I’ve been dealing with this crap since I was in high school I was so young I didn’t even know how to drive back then …in 3 years my two oldest kids will be 17 and 18 my youngest kid will be 13 I must say did an excellent job of keeping my kids sheltered from all this they know nothing of what me and there mom have been through before this bill was proposed I was going to leave my wife and kids to move to a different state to free them of this burden not truly being able to explain to them why I had to go but I knew i had to do what I had to do to protect my family knowing it was going to be the hardest thing i ever had to do in my life and its sad because kids need their parents lifetime registration has and was destroying families for life I’ve always had hopeGod allways had my back words can’t even explain how many bullets i Dodge from law enforcement I’ve been in that courtroom fighting for my life many times even over traffic violations they would try to give me the Max on anything just because I was a register citizen they didn’t even care what kind of register citizen you were or what you were on there for they just see SO and try to send you to prison man it’s been a crazy ride can’t believe this bill really passed now it’s time to lace up your boots and do the footwork we have 3 years to prepare our cases why do you think they made it three years till it goes in effect because they’re doing their homework they know we’re about to all bum bar the courts so do your footwork because the district attorney is going to try and do everything they can to prove that your a threat to society and save your money for the next 3 years be ready and congratulations to everyone this bill will benefit and to the people this bill won’t benefit don’t give up and keep your head up

    • Tired of this

      Holy wall of text, Batman. Sheesh.

      Periods would make what you wrote much easier to understand.

      Having said that, I’m close to you in age (in 3 years you’ll be 40?) but I have no kids, no family of my own to burden, which made it easier for me to just leave the state, where things are only marginally better. Lesser of evils, so to speak. I’m sure my status burdened my parents when I lived with them when I got out, though. I often lament being still alone while my siblings and cousins have started families. But I suppose I have to look at it from the standpoint of having no one to burden with my situation. And if things get too unbearable, there’s no wife or kids who would mourn my loss.

  21. James

    Thank you Janice and Chance and all the hardworking ACSOL staff for their work! You have proved again and again your dedication to this very unpopular but important cause which speaks volumes of your integrity and character. You have my monthly financial support as of today. I suggest others to do the same and put aside their cynicism because I never imagined CA would enact a tiered registry. Janice and team, you guys have truly made me a believer that anything is possible as long as you keep your eye on the ball and be persistent and unrelenting in your efforts. Please stay safe and healthy! We need you.

  22. Andrew

    This whole thing confuses me greatly. Maybe Janice and some readers can shed some light. First question. what about all these lawyers who send letters to my address telling me that new changes in the law can get me off the registry, by reducing crimes to a misdemeanor and other means. I don’t trust them at all and don’t believe they can get me off the registry like they say. Secondly, I am coming up on 8 years out of prison and five years off of parole with no re-offense or police contact. I register every year on time and have no issues other than the registry. When I give myself the Static 99R and answer all the questions with complete honesty, I score exactly zero. And yet they have always listed me as moderate to high risk. I had a 288a 38 years ago for which I served probation and was released early. Twelve years ago I was charged with a 311.4 and also a 290 failure to register because I sometimes stayed over at another residence and didn’t report it. Who did back then? Most of us didn’t understand the requirement then. At any rate, the DA was on a vendetta and doubled me up for the old prior. Forced me into a plea and gave me 5 years and 4 months at 80 percent. I served 51 months with no issues. Even with all this discussion, I have no idea where I would fit into the tiers except that it sounds like tier 3 because of the charges. Been around more than 7 decades and don’t represent a risk to anyone. Looking at leaving the state, but it’s difficult to pinpoint any state that’s better. And I am only interested in Texas or Nevada. Does anybody want to comment? I’m happy to listen. Some of you follow this a lot closer than I do. I still work, self-employed and doing well so I’m pretty busy all the time. Also, I want to thank Janice and her staff for what they do. Janice has personally helped me with several questions in the past. She is wonderful.

    • Paul 2

      Andrew how do you score a zero when you already have re-offended?

      • Andrew

        The portion that addresses priors was answered correctly, but I started off at -3 due to advanced age.

        • concerned registrant

          With regard to the Static-99R: Unless you were released from incarceration (or granted probation) at age 60 or older, you do not get -3. Per the tiered registry’s exact verbiage, your Static-99R score is calculated “at time of release.” So if you were age 18 to 34.9 at your first offense, you start with 1 point. Then add points as it applies to you:

          Strangely, and rarely mentioned by the “experts,” the Static-99R does not take current age into account. Nor does the Static-99R take offense-free years following release on parole or probation.

          It’s proven that current age and offense-free behavior are the most significant risk factors to whether someone will recidivate. Yet neither current age -or- offense-free years is reflected in the Static-99R’s point system. The omission of current age and offense-free years from the Static-99R’s point system is quite strange — and is indicative that the Static-99R may very well be junk pseudo science (since the two most significant indicators are not even taken into consideration when scoring).

  23. Aero1

    I don’t feel that @USA was in the wrong for addressing Detained’s comments im sick of people being negative about this bill because of what they’ve done in their past it’s not our fault and even after all this you’re still a tier 3 man I don’t know what you did but anybody that has to register for life after this bill passes probably did something very horrendous and they are exactly the ones the politicians and law enforcement are gunning for

    • MS

      There will be a lot of Tier 3 people that didn’t have a physical victim (aka: possession). In my case it was for a total of 3 files they found in a P2P hoard of adult porn. The file that led them to my door (a file I had never even opened) had been renamed (not by myself) so that it would show up during a P2P search for adult porn. One of the words in the file name even included the name of the legal porn website that it supposedly came from. 2 of the other 6 words in the file name further suggested it was from that same adult porn website. Investigators never bothered to point out that little fact in their long winded report that included supposed statements by me that I never made. But I digress…

      We are all entitled to have and voice our opinions. With that said, I can’t say I agree with the statement that everybody that ends up a “Tier 3 man” under this new bill has done something very horrendous. A non-contact offense with no physical victim (regardless of the details) puts you in Tier 3 along with somebody that maybe raped a 3-year old.

      Fortunately for me I was able to have my felony CP conviction reduced and now I will be a Tier 1 rather than a Tier 3. Anybody that took a plea after Jan 1 2014 won’t have this luxury and will have to register forever. I feel for each and every one of them.

      • Relief

        @MS+ Are we certain “reduced CPs” will be Tier 1? It’s not in the new law’s text. Registration commenced with a “Felony Conviction of..” Will the DOJ be mandated to search records for a possible reduction and then use that info for a Tier reduction?

        I think ALL CP should be Tier 1, but affected registrants need to make sure a 17b reduction is Tier 1 prior to Jan 2021.

        • AlexO

          A reduction makes your conviction a misdemeanor for all purposes. So when anyone looks at your record for whatever purpose, they’ll see it as such, including when looking at what you were convicted of.

          The new tier system works both directly and implied. What I mean is that every single code starts of as tier 1. Then, everything is tier 1 unless elsewhere it’s stated otherwise such looking at tier 2 and tier 3 sections. So for codes that specifically state “felony”, misdemeanors remain tier 1 by omission.

      • michael

        can i ask what steps you took to get it reduced? i accepted a plea in April of 2011 when i was 22 years old for posession of CP

        • AlexO

          Got to your local court house clerk and ask for the expungement form or 1203.4. Then simply fill out the form and schedule a court date with the clerk. Any additional information or paperwork the form requires can also be obtained from the same clerk. After that it’s mostly a formality of showing up and having it happen. As long as you successfully completed your probation (you must have been granted probation and not sent to prison) without violations, it’s just about a given to be reduced. People who were sent to prison are the ones who really get screwed, even if the underlying charge is exactly the same as someone who was granted probation (as often is the case with CP possession).

    • American Detained in America

      @Aero1, my “horrendous thing” I did was to be a smart-ass when coming across a police sting in a chat room, something I saw as entrapment and had no respect for police doing. They kept after me to expose myself on my webcam and I told them I believed them to be law enforcement and that they should go first. They kept messaging me off and on over the course of 3 months, regularly making the request for me to expose myself, which I never did. Instead, I continued to be a smart ass about it. I was charged with a total of 5 counts, all relating to me “attempting” to get a minor under the age of 14 to expose herself, when it was clear that I told them I believed they were law enforcement, something the investigator even admitted to when questioning me. However, the DA’s office refused to budge because “what if” it had actually been a minor. In the end, I was coerced into taking a plea deal by several circumstances that I won’t bother going into. So my “horrendous thing” was exercising bad judgement and being a blatant smart ass. If you want to judge me for this, feel free. I still don’t judge you for whatever you actually did to end up on the registry.

      • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

        To be clear, never, ever engage with what may be, or you suspect of being, law enforcement, or anyone claiming to be a juvenile, online.

        Never play a game with law enforcement or think that you can get the better of them in a game of wits. While they are frequently stupid, they have the advantage of size and power and will win every time. Talk about a power-disparate relationship!

        • American Detained in America

          Yeah, I get that now. At the time, I had lost my business through no fault of my own other than trusting the wrong person and was just pissed off…I didn’t think it through and it got me in the end.

  24. Richie

    3 more years wait period to find out if a judge will grant your request to get off the registry. I dont feel as if anything was accomplished since the judge simply can deny everyone.

    • James A

      As opposed to there being no option for getting off the registry?

    • Not Really

      This is a common concern that I don’t understand. If judges were willing to grant a CoR and were willing to drop a sex crime to a misdemeanor, then why not grant these petitions that require more proof of dangerousness to deny? If there is no evidence of dangerousness then the only evidence that would be relevant would be if the conditions of the tier were satisfied, be it 10 years, 20, whatever, and if all the prerequisites were satisfied, then the judge would have to grant the petition.

      • New Person

        You still have to prove you’re beyond a saint, though.

        In my personal experience, the DA and judge were reluctant to grant me 1203.4. They thwarted me once, but my lawyer came back with statute that I cannot be denied 1203.4. I did everything correct on probation, but probation still recommended that I am not worthy of the 1203.4. Doesn’t make sense whey they say you did everything correct, but still don’t qualify for relief.

  25. steve

    Just noticed this about your Static 99r score at age of release and it is quite beneficial to those who have been on the list 10 years or longer.
    “Time Offence-Free in the Community After Release from the Index Sex Offence
    In some cases, evaluations may be for offenders who have had a substantial period at liberty in the community (since their release from the index sex offence; see definition and examples of “release” on pages 48) with opportunity to sexually reoffend, but have not done so. The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years. For offenders released for longer than two years and who have remained sex offence free, consider their overall behaviour and factors external to Static-99R in your overall risk assessment.”

    So if I’m reading this correctly if you score a 1 and use this formula above and you have been on 20 years you are now a minus -1. Deduct half a point for every 5 offense free.

    • The Good Wife

      Which is why it makes no sense to use the Static 99R for lifetime classification.

      For example, according to the coding rules, if someone scores a “5” or “6,” and their risk drops half after 5 years offense free in the community, then the person who scores “5” or “6” is no longer equal in risk to when they were just released from incarceration. So the “5” or “6” would probably be equal to a “2” or “3” after 5 years offense free in the community.

      So why is the Static 99R going to be used for more than 5 years in the tiered registry law? Not to mention, what is the Static measuring? It’s assuming that “recidivism” and “dangerousness” are the same thing. That’s one problem with the Static, because it lumps all violent and non-contact offenses together.

  26. mike r

    I have to chime in here……..That was so not right USA !!! I thought you were going to be making a sarcastic joke when I started to read your post against detained, and while continuing to read I realized that you were actually serious….. My god is right,, Who in the hellllllllll do you think you are to be calling out anyone and portraying yourself, once again, as some type of superior and all knowing………You are no better then anyone else on here, and your opinion does not supersede or lessen anyone else”s opinions. All you ever do is talk about you and your case and what kind of relief you’re going to get , and what will this or that do for you………It’s despicable and a downright disgrace that you continue to rant and rave about other peoples comments, and personally attack them for their opinions……….And you talk about getting up and doing something like donating to others to help them fight “YOUR” fight. Why don’t you stand up and do something instead of depending on others to do for you, and then try to disparage others that are not getting the handout that you are going to get…………..Go file your own petition and then come back and let us know that you have actually done something yourself instead of waiting for others to fight your fight, and taking what you can get from the overlords………..Disgraceful………….

  27. USA

    Thanks Mike! Aka disgraceful. Disgraceful is not appreciating what’s been accomplished within the past years! (Parks/beaches etc). Now, we pass a bill that will effectively provide an outlet for a high percentage of registrants (unless you have multiple arrests/high static 99 score/or you never had your charges reduced/expunged) to get removed from the registry, yet you still complain. This bill has been attempted now for years! It’s literally a miracle. Now, it’s not perfect, but time is on your side unless you want to complain instead? Although, it really doesn’t matter what you think! The most important thing is that a high percentage of registrants appreciate the hard work that’s been taken to accomplish the impossible! I don’t think Janice owes anyone anything. So, the next time you want to complain, think about why you are required to register and what are you capable of contributing? Your embarrassing! You guys can respond, but your not worth my time! I’m to busy to hear from those lucky enough to visit beaches and parks! Good luck! 😊😉

    • Already Reduced

      I had a wobbler 311.11(a) in 2011 and only went to county jail not state prison. I got three years concurrent county probation. I was granted early release from probation as well as 17(b) reduction and expungement in 2013 by the county court. Will this make me eligible for Tier 1 in 2021?

      • ExpatRFSO

        If you were convicted of measdeonor 311.11, and it sounds like you were, you would be in tier 1 under the this law as it is currently written.

  28. mike r

    Once again you seem to think you know what others appreciate, and and are showing your true ignorance of what is in this bill. High percentage of registrants are going to have an outlet off?????Uh, read the bill…..I don’t know where you get your stats from but I assure they are far from correct. I never said I didn’t appreciate Janice and all her hard work, but I am also not going to sit around and see wrongs occurring and not speak my mind. I am also not going to sit around and do nothing and expect others to fight my fight. I have worked for over two years to get my motion in front of a judge and it will be heard very shortly. Janices team is just now starting to come around to the realization that incremental was fine for awhile there, but it is ripe fr a real and complete take down of the registry like I have been fighting for for years now………….I am extremely stoked that her team is considering, finally, to attack the registry at its core, thats really encouraging, but for me it does not matter because my case will be heard well before anyone else in this state. And by the way, you might want to read that bill a little closer, I don’t see anything that says reduced or expunged charges will get you into a lower tier….From what you have said, and from common sense you may well be in tier three since you had a original felony offense for battery with a sexual component enough that it got you on the registry very well may put you right in that tier three along with most of the people on the registry………I would dig into that more if I was you, and just wouldn’t take it for granted yet that you are going to put in a tier that you think you will…….Felony battery with a sexual component sure seems like a tier three offense to me, whether expunged, reduced or even dismissed I don’t believe it even matters…….I could be wrong but I don’t think I am………..

  29. mike r

    What’s this “we” stuff ??? “we”passed a bill /???There’s no “we” about it, you had absolutely nothing to do with that bill passing. Like I said, you better read up on f your reduction and subsequent expunged offense is going to benefit you in any way when it comes to this bill and what tier you are in………………I bet you will be singing a way different tune if you go into tier three………….

  30. mike r

    I guess. according to the phone conference. reduction and expunge does matter, even si I bet uou would be singing a different tune if you are placed in tier three, and how unfair is that a person who had a felony contact offense is going to be a lower tier then non contact offenses? Makes no sense and as Janice stated is a huge equal protection issue…

    • Stumped

      Can you elaborate about the expungement mattering or not, what was said about that in regards to expungements? Anything about certificate of rehab?

  31. K.S.

    The Static-99R also gives ‘non-contact’ offenders a higher static score than those with a violent offense. Doesn’t make any sense that a non-contact offender should incur a greater Static-99R penalty than a violent one. Look at Question Number 7:

    • Gralphr

      Dont feel bad. After looking at your link I also see they single out offenders who had a male victim compared to a female as if its worse than the other somehow as well. Wouldn’t that be comparable to the anti homosexual rules of times past?

      • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

        It is exactly the same and with identical motivations. Also, to K.S. I would ask: Is there not something else in this spectrum besides “non-contact” and “violent offenses?” Are there not “non-violent contact offenses” as well?

        The idea of calling non-coercive acts “violent” simply by virtue of the age of the younger party is a perversion of justice as well as the English language.

        • CR

          Neither does coercion necessarily involve violence.

        • David Kennerly, the Very Model of "Containment"

          That’s true, and it is important to distinguish it from violence, even though it then falls somewhere along a spectrum of “unwillingness.”

          Research has shown that it is force or coercion that is most traumatic to the individual, whether it be a child, adolescent or an adult.

        • AJ

          @David Kennerly:
          You mean kind of like the perversion of the word “resident” as applied to RCs visiting a State? Resident only for the specific punitive, criminal aspects of SO laws.

        • Relief

          @David Kennerly: The ‘Hofsheier’ type offenses, ie 288a(b)(1, 2), etc, the consensual oral and anal equivalent of 261.5 ‘Stat rape’ of minors 14 to 17 are considered non-violent contact sex offenses per California 667.5 and will be included in Tier 1.

      • The Good Wife

        With regard to that Static 99R coding form (scoring sheet): Why are they so concerned with ”age at release” from incarceration? They should be more concerned with a person’s **current** age. I don’t see current age reflected anywhere in the static’s scoring sheet. Also, I don’t see the scoring sheet reflecting years that a person has been offense-free out of incarceration. I have read that both (1) current age and (2) offense-free time are the most significant factors in determining if someone will reoffend. But no. Not even a point minus or plus for current age or offense-free time.

        Why are they so concerned with risk, based on a “static” score, “at time of release?” They should really be more concerned with **current** risk, not past risk.

    • 7mot

      I took that test right now and base on my age at release can got a -1 but since mine is an attempted 288(a) from a sting operation I am told I will be a Tier 2 … still cannot figure out how they can look on at the conviction and not the whole story.

      • m

        288(a) is Tier 2 if it was an isolated case. However, most of these charges are paired with 288.2(b) which is Tier 3.

        So those who actually committed molestation are Tier 2 and those who were in sting ops are Tier 3.

        Someone please explain this insanity….

        • 7mot

          In my case it was only the attempted 288(a) and one Fed charge of possession of CP; not sure if that makes any difference since it was Federal??

        • steve


          Big difference between “isolated case” and convictions on different dates. If you have been convicted twice of 288 (a) with separate conviction DATES that’s tier 3.

  32. USA

    Something to think about for those of you who continue to self defeat:

    If you take no risks, you will suffer no defeats. But if you take no risks, you win no victories.

    Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.

    A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits!

    Good luck!

  33. bill

    if i was convicted of a 311.11 in October 2012 and given a felony conviction first offense as a wobbler will getting my conviction changed to a misdemeanor allow me into tier 1 when the new law takes place. I understood that convictions that happened after January 2014 were all sentenced as felonies.

    thank you

    • Matthew

      I am in same boat and it will. Trying to find out how to reduce it best i can. It looks very simple but want to make sure

      • NPS

        @Bill: If you did NOT do state prison time, the answer is yes. Get the 17b now.

        @Matthew, it is simple. I filed a 17b and 1203.4 in pro per and without any legal assistance. I won.

  34. mike r

    Whoa.. back up…Patsy, whats this about federal felonies not on the list? What exactly are you refering to?

  35. USA

    Guys, you can call your local court house and get all of this info! As noted, there are certain sex offenses (even a wobbler) that can’t be reduced to a misdemeanor! The law reduced the scope of offenses that could (sexually related) be reduced! NPS isn’t a lawyer!

    Go onto this website/it’s free. You can call and have your answer in minutes or submit a request for information. Read the fine print at the bottom/I also recall reading the scope was reduced! Good luck!!

    • Not Really

      Thanks, all. I didn’t know I would be eligible.

      Sacramento Superior Court
      Penal Code 17(b), 1203.3, 1203.4a, 1203.41,
      1203.43, 1203.49
      Petition Information and Instruction Sheet

    • NPS

      I never said I was a lawyer. In fact, I am proud that I was able to get my motions granted ON MY OWN with being or needing a lawyer.

      USA, I would suggest not posting inaccurate information on the site. You mentioned 288(a) is oral copulation that cannot be reduced. 288a is oral copulation and CAN BE REDUCED. I suggest not going to a lawyer’s website and instead read the PC codes which are are for more reliable.

      To everyone else: DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING USA POSTS!

      That is all.

      • NPS

        Oops…my apologies for the typos. “WITHOUT being or needing a lawyer.”
        And “read the PC codes which are far more reliable.”

        I still say ignore USA’s posts. He doesn’t know the difference between 288a and 288(a). He also doesn’t know 288c is a wobbler. He has no idea how much harm he could cause by posting false and/or inaccurate information. If that constitutes a bad/negative attitude, then I proudly stand by it. As for my individual case, USA, you don’t know squat about my case or my life to make any assumptions. You want to criticize the information I post, that’s fine, but commenting on my case or my life (and anyone else’s) is completely crossing the line.

        Again, to everyone else, read the PC codes. Do not go to a lawyer’s website. More often than not, they are not completely up to date with the changes/interpretations of new laws. It doesn’t take a law degree to interpret code. But if you need further help interpreting and need an attorney’s input, contact Janice and/or Chance.

  36. USA

    Here are the offenses you can’t reduce etc:

    3. Can I Expunge My Sex Offender Status or Obtain Relief From My Duty to Register as a Sex Offender?

    Like most other questions relating to Penal Code 290 registration as a sex offender, this answer depends on the exact offense of which you were convicted. There are actually a few options for clearing your sex offender status.

    The first option is to have your case dismissed after you successfully complete your probation. This process is known as expungement and is regulated by Penal Code 1203.4 California expungement law. The benefit of this option is that it takes the charge and conviction off your criminal record. The downside is that you must still register as a California sex offender.31

    This option is not available if you were convicted of

    Penal Code 286 (c) sodomy with a child,
    Penal Code 288(c) lewd acts with a child under 15 whom you are at least 10 years older than
    Penal Code 288(a) oral copulation
    Penal Code 288.5 continuous sexual abuse of a child
    Penal Code 289(j) sexual penetration with a person under 14 whom you are at least 10 years older than
    Penal Code 261.5(d) statutory rape with a minor under 16 when charged as a felony.32
    Certificate of rehabilitation

    The second option for clearing your sex offender status is to apply for a California certificate of rehabilitation. Unlike an expungement, a certificate of rehabilitation relieves your duty to register under Penal Code 290s Sex Offender Registration Act.33

    You may apply for a California certificate of rehabilitation seven to ten years following your release from custody or from parole or probation (whichever is sooner)34 if you meet the following requirements:

    the court expunged your case,
    you have not been incarcerated since your case was dismissed,
    you are not on probation for the commission of any other felony, and
    you can prove that you have lived in California for at least five years prior to your application.35
    Much like a California expungement, a certificate of rehabilitation is not available if you were convicted of the offenses listed above in the expungement section…the exception being oral copulation.36

    • Mr. D

      @USA – 288c is a wobbler and can be reduced. In fact I had mine reduced and dismissed via 1203.4

      • DLP

        Hi, just saw your post. I have court this Week to petition the court to have my 288(c)(1)
        Reduced to a misdemeanor but my attorney is telling me that it is not eligible for expungement. You say yours was dismissed or expunged. Can you provide any helpful information ?

        Thank you!!

        • NPS

          Yes, 288(c)1 is a wobbler and can be reduced.
          However, your attorney is correct. Any section of 288 is not eligible for a 1203.4
          See 1203.4(b) where it lists the codes that cannot be expunged.

          Here is the document you need to file your motion:

        • Mr. D

          @NPS – A 288c may not be elgible but it is possible. I was able to get mine reduced and then dismissed and expunged. I think in order to obtain that would depend a lot upon the county in which you were sentenced as well as the relationship your attorney has with the DAs office. Good luck !!

        • NPS

          @Mr. D: What? I never had a 288c. I was just replying to DLP, who needed information. Laws do change, so it’s possible that a 288c was once expungeable. The current law (1203.4) was last amended in 2014, so 288c could’ve been added to the no expunge list since yours was granted. Or there was a major error in your case and you got lucky. Be sure to keep a copy of your granted motion with you.

          As for my case…that is long over. I had no problem getting my 17b and 1203.4 granted a few years ago. I did it in pro per, too. Now I’m just waiting for 2020 to file a CoR and get off the registry. I’m not going to wait an extra year for the tier law to take effect.

    • Stumped

      Ok, my case was expunged but I still have to register, I’ve received a certificate of rehab but I still have to register, will this in any way be taken into consideration in regards to the tiers? It clearly states, expunging takes it off your record, correct? Getting a certificate of rehab is basically a judge saying you are no threat to anyone, my conviction was in 1996. Clean as a whistle since.

      • Matthew

        That is what the michigan supreme court is deciding soon I believe. A man is stating why am I on the list if it was expunged

    • Not Really

      288(a) is not oral copulation. That is 288a. Easily confused.

    • mjk

      Some, if not most, sections of 288a can indeed be expunged. 288(a) is a different story.

  37. Matthew

    Should I do it under my old county or new county? They are only 40 mins away from each other.

    • NPS

      Do it in the county where you were adjudicated.
      UNLESS: If you had your case and probation transferred to the current county in which you reside, then file in the new county.

      Example: I was adjudicated in Orange County, but after release from county jail, I immediately moved to San Francisco County and by law, OC was mandated to transfer my entire case to San Francisco (much to the chagrin of OC). As a result, it was SF’s decision to terminate my probation early and grant the 17b and 1203.4. It was the ultimate double middle finger salute to Orange County.

    • New Person


      If you were given probation and successfully completed probation without any problems, then you will be granted 1203.4. The judges and DA cannot deny nor recommend denial b/c it is by law you are granted it if you successfully completed probation, paid all fines, and aren’t in any current legal troubles. You can do this pro per as it cannot be denied, provided you fulfill all the requirements.

      Reducing your charge, as I’ve been told, is a little trickier – especially depending on where you live and how retributive your DA is. I find it odd that the DA can have any input if you were granted the 1203.4. The 1203.4 ensures your case is closed and dismissed. There is absolutely no way you can be given felony punishment, which is being sent to federal prison. Therefore, it should automatically be considered a misdemeanor. But I’ve talked to lawyers that state 17b is a petition.

      There are conditions to be met to try 17b. The one that pertains to most happens to be condition 3:
      (3) When the court grants probation to a defendant without imposition of sentence and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor.

      Notice it states that “or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter…” Thereafter what? I presume it’s thereafter the successful completion of probation. Then the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor because you cannot be sent to prison, which is a felony punishment. There is no petition verbiage in this conditional. It simply states the court will declare it a misdemeanor upon application thereafter a successful completion of probation. That’s the laymen’s interpretation… well, my layman’s interpretation. LoL

      But get to know your county’s DA. If your DA seems retributive, then get a lawyer to reduce. If your DA isn’t retributive, then pro per both like NPS.

  38. mike r

    Man sure seems like a equal process claim that a person with they exact same charges can get a reduction while a person that goes to prison with those charges cannot….Seems kind of arbitrary as well.

  39. 7mot

    Is attempted 288(a) a possible wobbler? If so can I go back to original judge or to the original DA?

  40. mike r

    Pro per, NPS, another warrior willing to fight his/her own battle and not wait for someone else to do it for them, or just take this crap laying down, Pro per your a….into the court clerk and file a motion for injunctive and declaratory relief (petition for removal) right now NPS, don’t wait for them to tell you when or under what conditions you can access the courts….My opinion…..Everyone can do it….All you need is a little knowledge and some ballllls and there you go…

  41. mike r

    We need one in state court too, I just don’t have the time at the moment with college and calculus, this is all a new way of life for me. I’ve always been a hands on working man, to switch to working my mind instead isn’t easy….

  42. USA

    Wow, please change your attitude NPS! It wasn’t OC’s fault you where arrested? People typically don’t get arrested for the 1st crime they committed/including myself. Bad attitude.

    As noted, your case (if a Felony conviction) is only a wobbler if you did any time in county jail rather than prison. Guys, it’s real easy to search this online!

    Please read below:

    Shouse California Law Group
    24/7 Help:
    Legal definition of a “Wobbler” in California law

    California law defines a “wobbler” as an offense that prosecutors can elect to file as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on

    the specific facts of the case, and
    the defendant’s criminal history.1
    If the facts of your case are severe — and/or you have a criminal history that justifies a harsh punishment — prosecutors will likely charge you with a felony. Conversely, if this is your first offense — and/or there are mitigating facts that can excuse or reduce some of your criminal culpability — prosecutors may be more likely to charge you with a misdemeanor.

    There are a wide variety of California offenses that qualify as wobblers. Some examples include (but are not limited to):

    Penal Code 459 PC California’s burglary law,2
    Penal Code 245(a)(1) PC California’s “assault with a deadly weapon” (ADW) law,3
    Penal Code 273.5 PC California’s spousal battery law,4
    many California sex crimes (including Penal Code 243.4 PC sexual battery5 and Penal Code 288 PC lewd acts with a minor6), and
    many California fraud charges.7
    Why classification as a wobbler is important

    There are certain rights and privileges that are revoked when you are convicted of a felony. As long as your offense remains a misdemeanor, you will preserve some of these rights (such as the right to own or possess firearms under Penal Code 29800 PC California’s felon with a firearm law).8

    And, in the unfortunate event, you are charged with a wobbler felony, you can later petition the court to have your felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. This relief isn’t available for “straight” felonies.that is, felonies that are not classified as wobblers. For more information on the benefits of felony reductions, please review our article on Reducing Felony Convictions to Misdemeanors.

    The bottom line is that if you’ve been charged with a wobbler, our team of experienced California criminal defense attorneys9 know the most effective arguments for convicting prosecutors and judges to minimize your potential penalties by charging you with a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

    Call us for help.

    Img call for help
    If you or loved one is charged with a wobbler and you are looking to hire an attorney for representation, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. We can provide a free consultation in office or by phone. We have local offices in Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and throughout California.

    In Nevada some crimes may be either a felony or a gross misdemeanor. Learn more about wobblers in Nevada.

    Legal References:

    1California Penal Code 17 PC — Classification of offenses. (“(b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, by imprisonment in the state prison or by fine or imprisonment in the county jail [which is, by definition, a wobbler], it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following circumstances: (1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the state prison. (2) When the court, upon committing the defendant to the Youth Authority, designates the offense to be a misdemeanor. (3) When the court grants probation to a defendant without imposition of sentence and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor. (4) When the prosecuting attorney files in a court having jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses a complaint specifying that the offense is a misdemeanor, unless the defendant at the time of his or her arraignment or plea objects to the offense being made a misdemeanor, in which event the complaint shall be amended to charge the felony and the case shall proceed on the felony complaint. (5) When, at or before the preliminary examination or prior to filing an order pursuant to Section 872, the magistrate determines that the offense is a misdemeanor, in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint.”)

    2Penal Code 459 PC California’s burglary law. (“Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store.with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.”)

    See also Penal Code 461 PC — Punishment. (“Burglary is punishable as follows: (a) Burglary in the first degree: by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years. (b) Burglary in the second degree: by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.”)

    3Penal Code 245(a)(1) PC California’s “assault with a deadly weapon” (ADW) law. (“(a)(1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.”)

    4Penal Code 273.5 PC California’s spousal battery law. (“(a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.”)

    5Penal Code 243.4 PC sexual battery (one of California’s sex crimes). (“(a) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000); or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000).”)

    6Penal Code 288 PC lewd acts with a minor. (“(c)(1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.”)

    7Most California fraud charges, including forgery, embezzlement, and elder abuse are wobblers.

    8Penal Code 29800 PC California’s felon with a firearm law. (“(“(a)(1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 12001.6, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (2) Any person who has two or more convictions for violating paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 417 and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any person who has been convicted of a felony or of an offense enumerated in Section 12001.6, when that conviction results from certification by the juvenile court for prosecution as an adult in an adult court under Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (c)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) or paragraph (2) of this subdivision, any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Section 71, 76, 136.1, 136.5, or 140, subdivision (d) of Section 148, Section 171b, 171c, 171d, 186.28, 240, 241, 243, 243.4, 244.5, 245, 245.5, 246.3, 247, 273.5, 273.6, 417, 417.6, 422, 626.9, 646.9, 12023, or 12024, subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 26100, Section 12040, subdivision (b) of Section 12072, subdivision (a) of former Section 12100, Section 12220, 12320, or 12590, or Section 8100, 8101, or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any firearm-related offense pursuant to Sections 871.5 and 1001.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or of the conduct punished in paragraph (3) of subdivision (g) of Section 12072, and who, within 10 years of the conviction, owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.”)

    • steve

      USA says::’Wow, please change your attitude NPS! It wasn’t OC’s fault you where arrested? People typically don’t get arrested for the 1st crime they committed/including myself. Bad attitude.”

      How do you possibly know everyone’s circumstance and how/why they were arrested. You don’t know JACK. I was arrested for first crime/offense. Sounds like you committed many crimes before and were never caught as you state.

      • NPS

        Steve, I appreciate the support. USA makes lots of negative assumptions about other people’s cases, and yet he criticizes others for what he perceives to be negative attitudes. Projecting much? As per my now expunged offense, again, the details are none of his business but I will say this…first and only arrest. And the offense doesn’t require registration. I was ordered to register under 290.006 even though the judge didn’t state his reason on record.

  43. mike r

    USA, your wayout. you first state something intelligent,

    If you take no risks, you will suffer no defeats. But if you take no risks, you win no victories.

    Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty.

    dont agree with this though..
    Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy youself.

    A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits!

    Then you go acting like you know more then NPS and you don’t even know the difference from a 288(a) and a 288a, or that they are different. Just saying…..

  44. USA

    NPS/MikeR, do everyone a favor and buzz off! I keep reading, I I I I? You must hold yourself in high self esteem! We don’t want you to represent us and your clearly not qualified to represent anyone or give legal advice. If anything you stated was valid, every attorney in Ca would have done it! Good luck and move on! Remember, your too busy 😈

    • NPS

      :::eyeroll::: pot meet kettle.

    • New Person

      I don’t comprehend the dissatisfaction to Mike R and NPS.

      Mike filed his cased. He’s waiting. The Peckingham case was due to one person and the SCOTUS decided for registrants. So Mike is trying something.

      NPS has successfully earned a 1203.4 and 17b reduction. She did it herself. Context is she moved to a more lenient county during her probation and that made a world of difference to do pro per.

      In my own 1203.4 earning, I did not have the lenient county DA, but did learn that you can do pro per for 1203.4 because it’s essentially a check-list. If you do all, then you’re awarded 1203.4 without rebuttal. The judge and DA did not like that outcome, but the judge was forced to award me 1203.4 because it’s entitled by law. As for 17b, that’s a different matter with too many interpretations with the same conclusion – 17b isn’t automatic like 1203.4. I’ve been told this by a SO lawyer and an appellate lawyer. Nowhere online does it designate it as automatic… no law cases… zilch. So you might want to know how your DA is in your county and the outcomes of 17bs. That should determine if you need a lawyer or not for 17b.

      I don’t understand why the animosity towards some people trying to empower others that have done things on their own. NPS succeeded. I hope Mike succeeds because that’s great for all of us in California.

  45. Anonymous Nobody

    In sorry, Janice, but you clearly have failed to listen. And it is very scary that you still do not understand. You are very wrong that there has been a LIFETIME registry with no way out for 70 years. That is completely false. Actually, that has only been the case since the mid-1990s, when the previous ways out were eliminated by the Legislature.

    Until 1981 for felons, and the earlier side of the 1990s for misdemeanants, anyone who got their record expunged via 1203.4 could stop registering immediately, no notice to the stare needed, no application, you have 1203.4, you no longer were subject to the registration law — the state already knew that.

    Also, for those not eligible for 1203.4, most of them could stop registering by getting a COR, and they could get that in a much fewer number of years than it is not available. And it was not so impossible to get as it snow. That COR standard has now been raised to getting the pardon — anyone who was relieved by getting the COR also had to resume registration when the last was changed and made retroactive.

    Lifetime registry with no way out only started in the mid 1990s when California eliminated those ways out.

    And with those changes in the law, and later it being made clear they were retroactive, all those people who had earned relief and were relieved of registration were required to start registering again — but how were they to know? I expect many of them are the more than 16,000 the state says are failing to register, they don’t even realize they lost their relief! They will find out the hard way.

    We have done nothing to restore that relief, we at least should have demanded that any relief previously earned would be retroactively restored with no further action needed!

    Even under this tier bill, those people could be forced to start registering again, and for potentially nine or more years (if they got, say, one year of probation) before they can even ask politely to be relieved, but maybe find they get rejected for that relief. Their failure to register would prevent them from getting any relief offered to those whose offenses that are more than 30 years old — and any number of other people with offenses that old might get rejected because of a second offense, maybe a year or two after their first, event that second one was maybe 50 years ago — that is what this bill’s language says, no matter what someone misrepresented it as saying. This bill says one offense, no repeat, it doesn’t matter if the repeat was 50 years ago, and even expunged. This bill does not say the last offense. It also says they have to be currently registering, and in California, or that clause does not apply.

    That 1203.4 relief and COR relief for more serious offenses was the previous way — and much better way than this tier garbage — to stop registering. It was exponentially better than these fake tiers — just a COR pretending to be a tier — we have, that you still cheerlead wrongly. It is that cheerleading and failure to assert anything else as an option that left us with this horrible tier bill that will only serve to build a powerful enemy — the state sex offender board that will now have huge hiring for this bill — that will prevent us from ever stopping this abomination of registration. Gee, thanks a lot.

    If I wanted to block ever ending or all but eliminating this registration horror, I could not have done better than this bill.

    Even the old system was unacceptable, it was fought vehemently for decades, event the state Supreme Court said it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment for at least some of the lesser offenses (the more recent right wing court overturned that decision). But this group did not even mention the possibly of reverting to that, a tried an true system that the legislature’s and prosecutors knew would work for their purposes, tested for decades. Few, if any, of the legislators in office now have the slightest idea of the old system, have no idea of options other than the garbage that was presented to them.

    Our advocacy — I should say cheerleading — got us nothing, we were not even respected enough to be included an any discussions! The ACLU, which has abandoned us for decades, was in them, and did what they routinely do nowadays, make a compromise that is garbage, and refuse to fight further, refuse to actually lead. Being spellbound by an ACLU reputation of old that is no longer applicable is not leadership. How the hell did the ACLU get status to represent us after doing nothing for us for decades?! Gee, I had been personally told by the ACLU that they have no interest in this issue — they had no problem with registration, they think it is fine. And what they advocated here shows that.

    • Roger

      Anonymous Nobody, your desire to go back to the good old days before 1981 is absurd. Pining for long ago is a waste of time. Deal with reality and stop whining.

      Do you really believe your absurd statements “we at least should have demanded” and “It is that cheerleading and failure to assert anything else as an option that left us with this horrible tier bill”? They make me shake my head in pity at your fantasy world beliefs. You seem to actually believe ACSOL used its secret powers to push the bill through committees, then forced Gov. Brown into pressuring legislators into resurrecting the dead bill and pushing it through and adding a pile of bad amendments.

      WAKE UP TO THE REALITY OF HOW REAL LAWS ARE PASSED: ACSOL DIDN’T WRITE, PASS, OR SUPPORT THE BAD AMENDMENTS, except in your warped view of reality! Once the cops and DA’s grabbed the tiered registry and ran with it, IT BECAME A POWER GAME AMONG THE BIGGEST LEGISLATIVE POWERS AND KEY SPECIAL INTEREST POWERS. Nothing any of us could do would change the outcome. ACSOL has worked for years to start and continue the dialog with legislators about how unfair the registry was and how a tiered registry would be more just and fair than the lifetime registry, but ACSOL DID NOT CONTROL THE LEGISLATURE AND FORCE THIS BAD VERSION TO BE PASSED!

      The tiered registry bill was a vast improvement until legislators piled on the bad amendments. Why did they pass them? TO COVER THEIR POLITICAL BUTTS, of course! They had to tell their constituents they were making a 180 degree turn and supporting the registry to FREE SEX OFFENDERS (scary!). The amendments allowed them to vote for the tiered registry. NOTHING ELSE COULD HAVE STOPPED THE MOMENTUM OF 70 YEARS!


      Without ACSOL, we would be a fragmented, chaotic movement.

      MY NOTE TO THE REST OF YOU: do you want to listen to doomsayers and crybabies like Anonymous Nobody and be filled with despair?

      Or do you want to ignore idiots like him and take part in what ACSOL will be working hard on during the next 3 years?

      Janice stated some of her strategy. It fills me with hope, even as a level 3.

      I hope you want to feel hope too. Join us to work to tear down the bad amendments, challenge the registry itself, and continue to squash residency and presence restrictions.

      Together we can do the impossible!

      • The Good Wife

        Hopefully most of everyone have already realized by now that the Static-99R (aka “SARATSO tool”) is one of those ‘bad amendments’ that either needs to be removed completely — or significant adjustments are made so as the so-called tool takes a person’s **current risk** into account. As the bill is written now, the Static locks a person’s so-called “risk” level at the time of his release, even if the Static score is over five years old. The Static-99R does not look at current risk — which is so blatantly wrong that it is almost comical had so many not been jeopardized by this Static-99R scam of science.

      • Lake County

        Well said Roger. I think this version of the tiered registry sucks too as it places me on tier III. However it’s a start. None of us supported this last minute version, but we have a few years to advocate for some changes. This is my birthday week, so off to renew my registration I go.

        • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

          Esteemed Lake County

          It would be a great opportunity for you to NetWork with your fellow Registered Citizens during your Forced & Coerced Labor for the Wicked Servants.

          I know of several Slaves to the Federal & State governments who personally print materials with NARSOL & ACSOL information among other Org’s publications to handout or simply leave about in the waiting area for fellow Slaves to come upon at a later time.

          In addition placement in any near by coffee shops can be effective or Posting on Power Poles, Light Post, will be seen by fellow Slaves as they meander about before they receive their Annual, Quarterly, or Monthly Punishment, InTerrogation¹, & Catholic (from Ancient Greek: καθολικός katholikos “universal”)² Inquisition by Gestapo Agents & SS Officers of our Common Era³.

          May The Most High Creator & Possessor of Heaven & Earth who alone formed the Light & created the Darkness give you courage to serve True Justice.

          I speak a True song

          As Yehovah Lives, so should we

          – – Interrogation (also called questioning) is interviewing as commonly employed by law enforcement officers, military personnel, and intelligence agencies with the goal of eliciting useful information. Interrogation may involve a diverse array of techniques, ranging from developing a rapport with the subject to outright torture.

          – – The Inquisition was a group of institutions within the government system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups investigated later included the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, replacing the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.[1] The term Medieval Inquisition covers these courts up to mid-15th century.

          – – Common Era or Current Era (CE)[1] is a year-numbering system (calendar era) for the Julian and Gregorian calendars that refers to the years since the start of the present era, that is, the years beginning with AD 1.

        • kind of living

          @ Lake County ,,, ,, well we know now for a fact that the registry is screwed up , it places you at lev 3 , have a happy birthday , just so you know I have never supported the tier registry or any other registry at all , most likely because I did hard time 30 years ago , and so I must be scum , and I am a crybaby because Roger says anyone that that’s not overwhelmed with the happiness about the way thing are going and having a different view point your just being a crybaby , just as you do , so you guys should be best buds , on the other hand what about many others that us that may have a different POINT ? people seem to be real Hard Core with their little internet hammer , we will see how that comes out disrespecting those of us and our family’s and our money go’s away , just because some peoples thinking differ , doomsayers ? crybabies ? I differ ! many of us took pleas over 30 years ago , so how do all these new laws apply to us , and why , or am I even aloud to ask that? and why dose the time we did in prison not count ? or our county time for that matter , you know when the courts agreed to the plea that said nothing about the registry as it is now , 9 year prison team and prole , said nothing about if they want to create tier system on down the road , and why is it that the years in prison don’t count for anything ? I guess we are suppose to just look at the pie in in the sky , for fear that we will be further labeled as crybabies or what ever one can dream up , how come the constitution stands on this site for people that talk crap about those are not cheerleaders ?, and the constitution is no where to be seen when one of us take offence to what and how the cheerleaders talk about us and how many of us feel , and many never even say , I wonder why that is ? It cant be because we have to be too careful how we say it right? heck no , Right !

      • kind of living

        this sucks ole Roger con come on here slinging names around , and you cant counter him and be posted , nope I have to post like I am at church , I was doing hard time 30+ years ago , we are not being crybabies just because we have a point of view that may not be the same , call me a crybaby to my face

      • Hopeful

        @roger… I agree with u and like ur attitude. I have felony 311.11a (with prison) and got screwed with the new amendments. I’m not, however, going to let it keep me down like a lot of the depressing doom and gloom types here. Many people do want to whine and wallow, which is a complete waste of time. So let’s be part of the solution not part of the problem. Thanks roger

        • kind of living

          @Hopeful ,,, ,, ,, doom and gloom? Whine and wallow ! this crap has been happening for years and its not getting better , you did time? really ? lol , where ? and how many years ? did you get stabbed ? i did ! and how many fights have did you had right out side your door because of some list and you had to protect your family and car ? its not about being depressing , or any of that horse shit your talking , we are talking about whats going on and it how it affects us , THATS RIGHT US! not everyone is 311 anything , there are many different , that don’t mean i don’t love Janice for what she dose , but again this is not all about that , its about being able to address our issues , that may be a lot different than yours , i am not going to sit here and act like everything is ok, (when its clearly not) have you ever lived under a tier system before ? i have and i am saying it will get worse , so really i don’t care if you like me or not or what i say , i have a family that know for a fact i will stand up for them and myself , if you don’t have my back then i have already spent more words on you than your worth to me , if you don’t like it act like it ,that’s what my dad always said , and baby birds that don’t make noise don’t get fed , and here is a little something else if your a lev3 and did real time and your not outranged after all these years you don’t have freedom coming , try being stand up rather than the run of the mill ass kisser

        • Hopeful

          That’s pretty dramatic… I don’t need to compare my prison garbage with urs. Reality is I don’t care because for now I have my family back and when parole is over in 3weeks I can take my kids to the beach, park, movies, church, whatever. That’s all thanks to Janice and the “things that r not getting better.” So I donate, write letters to politicians to help improve our situation. What I don’t do is rant and rave and bully people because of my own mistakes. Ur case is between u and god. I don’t know or care anything about it. Good luck to u

        • kind of living

          Hopeful ,,,,, ,, ,, Rant? Bully ? you here and see what ever you want , I am not responsible for what you understand , my life and my family’s life is every bit as important as yours , and we see things different , yet stuck jumped everytime we speak because we don’t buy any of this crap , why is it that things move so slow for so called Justus , but when LE wants something all of a sudden the Gov is stamping shit that wrecks the lives of many , and we are forced clap our hands here on this site , its all the same use lvl3’s to point at . and then we have a lvl 3 that says he would be a lvl 3 no matter what law was past , so he says support a law that give lvl3 NO play at all , what ? What ? I lived under a tier system when I moved out of CA and knew the tier system was a bad bad bad thing , as all of you are about to find out , all I have been hearing about for over 30 years is the stupid 70 year old registry , well if you think that was bad wait tell you see the tier system in say 5 years , go to the state of MO , TEX , FL , CA going to on line was bad enough , if this tier system help anyone I am glad for those people , in the mean time its business as always for the lvl 3 and soon to be worse , ANYONE ? like how its going to get worse ?

    • Harry

      You are partly correct, there was a way out off the registry, after 10 years as this was stated in my probation papers and it could of been around the early 90’s when all RC’s became lifetime registrants. However, we are all NOW lifetime registrants, in CA and Janice and her team ARE pushing against that on YOURs and the rest of us behalf. Today is the day we can have a effect, yesterday is gone and we can not drive by looking in the rear view mirror. As Janice said, “there cracks in the dam”.

      • kind of living

        @ Harry ,,, ,, ,, why because you say ? , its funny that all we heard here in CA “the reason we cant fight the federal part of the registry was because CA had one since the 40’s ” CA registry was and is just as unconstitutional as the Feds ml and all the other happy horse crap that has came along , at the very least one of the things that should be addressed in CA is the fact that many of us took pleas well before the new laws came into effect under the old law , and if the that deal is not up held by the state and protected , the state should have to pay those that did time in prison and good time , since we did our time and it counts for nothing , people that just got paper were able to register so it counts , how dose this help people that are lvl3 that have been trapped in this system for life on what ever law floats by , so what wrong with looking at what was ? these were the laws I took a plea with , so some of us have a right to point out that info to cops only was better , and the court should back that . no body walks forward all the time , some times its better to turn around and go the other way , walking forward into the tier system was like seeing a cliff and not turning long before we got to it , and then just shot right by the whole matters part of the fight too getting a few off because they are low risk ? I just don’t get it ,low risk ? really ? and our prison time don’t count , clean time prison time ,plea deal , we more than paid for the crime , we are still paying , us so called lifers and our family’s should have the same rights as everyone one else ,not just on this registry but all people , please know what I am trying to say in the best way I know how , Janice is great and I fully respect what she is doing , but what the H is the ACLU really doing , this is their job as well , all the are doing is rubbing elbows with LE that claims this registry is a tool , lol , so was prison for punishment , and that’s what all registry’s are tools to punish , prole for life , don’t seem to help anyone , really the only ones it seems is the people that want to kill us , or screw ours cars up , or scare our familys , we are always waiting for the next shoe to drop ,and sometimes that’s the worst punishment of all

    • New Person

      Anonymous Nobody,

      Thanks for the 1203.4 history. With the Colorado case ruling of retributive intent, the fact that 1203.4 used to give a person relief from registration is important b/c you also denoted that the registry was deemed punitive by the legislation.

      Note, even though there are tiers, everyone is subjected to lifetime term of in-person visits with compliance checks. There is no difference with a registrant whose case is dismissed with someone who hasn’t had their case dismissed. The same penalties and disabilities (which have been proven to be unconstitutional with presence and residency restrictions… but also reporting when you want to travel out of state, disclosing whenever you get a job in-person, limited to jobs, limited to housing, limited to housing help with respect to HUD) still apply to those registrants with dismissed cases.

      Again, the Ca. Const. Art. 1, Sec 1 states that California citizens have an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. The 1203.4 is supposed to restore you to what you were before you were convicted, which includes not registering. So the State has taken that immunity away as stated within 1203.4, which is unconstitutional to a California Citizen on two fronts – 1. the state is denying the ability to pursue and obtain privacy and 2. the state violated equal immunity as stated in the Ca Const Art. 1. Sec 7b.

      This is what I mean about using our own State Constitution. That’s how all of the other states are defeating parts of the registry… using their State Constitution.

      One of these days if I ever am able to acquire a job, then I’d like to do what Mike R did and challenge the CA registry, piecemeal via those who have been earned 1203.4. Recall, Smith v Doe 2003 stated specifically that only “convictions” are to be on the registry. So if the State of California cites Smith v Doe, then they cannot avoid the fact Chief Justice Roberts stated only “convictions” are to be on the registry.

      1203.4 grants relief from all penalties and disabilities (does not state punitive nor civil, thus implies all) stemming from the conviction. The state cannot remove any part of this immunity from registrants as it violates Ca. Const. Art. 1, Sec 7b, equal immunity protections!

  46. Aero1

    Too funny

  47. Big Rig

    Wow! Talk about being self absorbed! Anonymous, your self righteous. You don’t speak for me or us! Your obviously a repeat offender. Your a very disturbing person. Why don’t you go to law school, start a non profit, work for peanuts and help those who don’t appreciate you! OMG
    Get out of here!

  48. SBC

    Amazing all bickering and competing as to who’s charge is worst than others. I don’t believe where all innocent. Does any one think any differently? At current I
    am today’s tier 3. My case was a 288(a), probation and probation handled the reduction and expunging automatically back in 1994. Back in 2006 I went to the PD’s office and used their Paralegal to have what had already taken place in1994. I didn’t even know all that was done but was good as many misleading entries needed to be corrected in the record. Instead of quoting the PC looking for legal advice to find your way out. Use the PD’s paralegal staff to do the paperwork for you to see what you can get if you can’t afford a lawyer. At current the stage is set for me to be removed in 3 years, at current. I feel that I will not have any problems with my petition but will deal with it then. I can see light at the end of the tunnel which is getting brighter each day. I know it’s a disappointment for the current non disclosed people. I was non disclosed at one time but that was taken away and it freaked out.

  49. BigRig

    Anonymous, you’re in another world! That world doesn’t exist. For now on, remain anonymous. Your comments are poorly thought out!

  50. Daniel

    Here are my two biggest complaints with regard to the Static 99R:

    1) Why is it only the Static 99R score at time of release that is controlling to whether someone be placed in Tier III? At least with the previous versions of the tiered bill, the wording was concerned with “current” Static score, which at least permitted for some possible adjustment. To fix a ridgid “static” score at time of release, and rely on it for more than a year or two, is outlandishly ridiculous given the power of the Static 99R to raise people from Tier I [or II] to III.

    2) Another good point is IF the Static 99R was really infalluable as it’s being claimed, why are people who score negative and low figures even required to register in the first place??

    It all doesn’t add up. Something tells me that the Static 99R is really junk. At least from the reading I’ve done, it sure seems like the state, casomb, and saratso are grossly misusing the Static 99R.

    • concerned registrant

      The Static-99R is not infallible. The Static-99 gave John Gardner a “2” score, which is “low” risk, after his first offense:

      Even with the Static-99R — which is the so called “revised” version — Gardner STILL would have been scored a ‘2’ based on his first offense. All the ‘revised’ version did is adjust score for a person’s age at release; but the ‘revised’ version does not correct for CURRENT age. So the Static-99R is not a dynamic test.

      What’s interesting about the article that I post above is that Scott Kernan, when he was a lower-level government administrator, even many years back, advocated very hard for these “risk” based tools like the Static-99R. Now that Scott Kernan is the CDCR Director, it would look very badly on him if he were to be proven wrong with regard to the Static-99 tests’ credibility. The same can be said as to the CASOMB and mysterious SARATSO members. Members in CASOMB and the SARATSO committee have placed their credibility behind their Static-99/Static-99R/SARATSO tool for so long that their only choice is to double-down for fear that they are proven wrong. What is important to CASOMB and SARATSO is that there is an illusion to an infallible “risk assessment tool,” even if the ‘tool’ is a quasi-scam.

      IMO, most of them (at least secretly or behind the scenes) know that there is no way 10 questions can definitively predict “risk,” based on a sample that lumps all types of offenses and offenders together. There might be some accuracy for mild prediction within a five year window of release from incarceration. But I definitely agree with you: To use this Static-99R junk science to determine lifetime, Tier 3, ‘risk’ is totally uncalled for.

      • steve

        That’s not completely true. The new version does adjust age but it also gives leeway for the scorer to deduct 1/2 a point for every 5 years you’ve been offense free. We all would be wise to find a scorer who understands that provision especially if you’ve never had a static99.

        • concerned registrant


          Please cite the page number in the Coding Rules that states that the reduction after five-years offense free is only “1/2 a point.” It may have been you; but it was mentioned not more than two weeks ago and I am curious as to where that is found. Here is a copy to the newest Coding Rules. Please cite the page so that we can all see:

          On page 13, there is reference that “[I]n general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014).” If this is the quote that you refer to, my interpretation is that the reduction would be much more than merely 1/2 point (as 1/2 point increments do not seem to fit into the Static’s scoring scheme).

          The way I interpret it: If someone scores a 4, he will score a 2 after five-years offense-free in the community. If someone scores a 6, he will score a 3 after five-years offense-free in the community. And so on. (Not sure about what happens if your score falls into an odd number though.)

          So in most cases, it would seem that Tier 3 — based on the Static-99R — would not be warranted if one is offense-free in the community for at least five-years. Because even an “8” score — which is quite high — would fall to “4” after five-years offense-free. And obviously, “6” is the threshold for Tier 3 classification under the tiered law. So according to the Coding Rules, at least theoretically, it would not be merited to keep even an “8” in Tier 3 if the Static is the only reason that he is classified so.

          Which brings me to the next point. I have a feeling that most who are affected by the Static-99R “6 or higher” provision will fall at (not coincidentally) 6, maybe 7. Why is someone who scores a “6” going to be treated with the same Tier 3 penalty as someone who scores an “8,” or even “12?” It seems disproportionate to have someone who scores at a 6 or 7 treated as the same Tier 3 as someone who scores “12.”

    • R.C.

      @Dan & concerned registrant – In 2015, I discharged from parole and sharper future. They began a process to split groups into “low” STATIC and “high” STATIC scorers. Those w/ high scores were forced into more treatment. What was strange is that from our group, the 2 “high” scorers were both violation free, got 3 yr parole compared to our 5, both employed, and always attended. The rest of us were low risk, but 3 in my group had at least 1 violation and not all of the low risks were as involved in group session as even the “high” riskers. What I’m trying to get at is the STATIC appeared very random, almost like a lottery. Like it didn’t even make sense. What I’m also saying is that the STATIC might be all about being able to rationalize more treatment, so more cdcr contracts to private corporations like sharper future. In my last containment in 2015, about 1/2 of the parolees were “high” risk. So if 1/2 were high risk, more treatment = $$$. You do the math. To them, they could care less if the STATIC is legit.

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 *