ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLAction ItemsGeneral News

ACSOL to Host Conference on June 15 and 16, 2018

ACSOL will host its second annual conference on June 15 and June 16, 2018, at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.  The conference will focus upon important issues such as the International Megan’s Law and the Tiered Registry as well as employment and housing.

“The second conference will build upon the success of the inaugural conference and address the issues of greatest importance to registrants and their loved ones,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

Confirmed speakers for the 2018 conference include law professors Ira Ellman and Catherine Carpenter, sociologist Emily Horowitz as well as attorneys Chance Oberstein and Janice Bellucci.  Additional speakers will be announced after their participation is confirmed.

The conference will begin on June 15 at 9 a.m. and end on June 16 at 5 p.m.  The conference will include an awards dinner on Friday, June 15, at Southwestern Law School.

More Details and Sign Up (both days or one day).

2017 Conference Videos


Join the discussion

  1. James

    This will be my first and I plan on attending. If it’s possible, I particular request on housing because I plan to buy a home/condo and I fear I won’t be able to get a loan or if I’m able to get a loan find a place without interference with HOAs due to being a RC. Thank you!

    • AlexO

      Denying your loan application based on your RC status is entirely illegal. HOA thing is a different beast. They can boot you for the most basic things. Try to get an an actual home that’s not a condo and not part of an HOA.

      Not sure on your financial status, but be sure to explore all your loan options. Two years ago, while on probation, I lost my apartment of over 20 years due to my RC status. I tried renting again but kept running into brick walls due to my RC status. Eventually I spoke with a broker on a recommendation of a family friend. I found out there were several types of loans for people who don’t have the traditional 20% down (and in California that’a a whole lot of people). With a combination of the Federal FHA and California’s CALHFA, I was able to purchase my home for 0.5% down. And this year I refinanced into a traditional loan and got ride of the PMI. There are lots of other programs as well for different situations (military, teacher, etc).

      Good luck!

      • James

        Really good info AlexO! Thanks. I might have to hit u up later.

      • dph

        CONGRADULATIONS AlexO!!! What an accomplishment, wow, been in our same apt home for over 11 yrs going on 12. and HOA is a diff story, you got that right. THIS CONFERENCE, YOU should be a secondary Guest Speaker on HOW YOU ACCOMPLISHED THIS RARE TASK of purchasing your home during these negative and overpriced times! What do you think Janice?? This coming June 18′ I am sure, will be just as good as The First Conf. Just not the overpriced Hotel, got it?!? CLosest was over 200 a night, they didn’t care wether we attended the ACSOL Conf. or not, according to the MOD working.
        Who can afford that?
        Glad to hear June 2018 is upcoming and hopefully years to follow too. We could ALL learn on how to
        purchase a home in Cali after being on the site for decades AND living in one spot for awhile. With a little down, what about our Vets? They can do good too. We all need assistance to some point , just like the bill passing and 2021 is coming up soon on your BDay for your Court Date to see what can be done 4U.

        • AlexO

          lol Thank you for the kind words but there wouldn’t be much for me to say other then what I already listed. I’m only passing along my personal experience and do not fully know all the ins and outs. I’m sure most brokers would be able to find these programs and help people along. That’s their job after all.

          The key though is to speak to an actual broker rather than a particular lender such as your local bank. A broker charges a fee to find you a loan (the fee’s can be rolled into your loan like mine were). They’ll search across many lenders to find someone who can work with these programs as well as within your financial means. Where as a bank is only interested in them being your lender, limiting you to whatever they offer, usually the traditional loan of 20% down.

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      I don’t think an HOA can boot a 290 registrant.

      At least not without consequence (i.e. damages “not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)[]”). See 290.4(d)(4)(A).

      For that, see California Penal Code Section 290.4(d)(2):

      “(2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
      (A) Health insurance.
      (B) Insurance.
      (C) Loans.
      (D) Credit.
      (E) Employment.
      (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
      (G) Housing or accommodations.
      (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.”

      Note that according to 290.4(d)(2)(G), registrants cannot be discriminated against when it comes to ‘housing or accommodations.’ So it would seem that an HOA attempting to discriminate against a registrant would be grounds for suit.

    • Harry

      I have applied for housing loans and never have had any problems, as RC. I do agree that you should stay away from HOA, not only because of RC status, but host of other un-American junk they all have, like flying the US flag and putting up Christmas decor.

  2. Suggestion

    Since the new tiered law incorporates the Static-99R (otherwise referred to as “SARATSO tool), it would be interesting to have opponents to the Static tests. More vocal opponents to the Static-99/R include famed psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances — who chaired the DSM-IV Task Force. (The DSM is also referred to as ‘The Bible of Psychiatry.)

    But since Dr. Frances is a professor at Duke University, it might be too far for him (as Duke is in North Carolina). However, co-authors of Frances, Drs. Shoba Sreenivasan and Linda Weinberger, are professors at USC’s Keck School of Medicine. Since USC is in Los Angeles, it might be easier to get Drs. Sreenivasan and/or Weinberger to present. Like Dr. Frances, Drs. Sreenivasan and Weinberger have also been opponents to the Static-99/R. It would be interesting to have those two professors speak of their opinion to whether it’s appropriate — or inappropriate — to have the Static-99R determine tier levels within the upcoming law. Especially since the Coding Rules itself says that the Static-99R is only good for two years, with “risk” estimates ‘halving’ after five-years offense-free.

    Anyway, here is the analysis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, by Drs. Frances, Sreenivasan, and Weinberger:

    “Although they purport to be empirically based, the current Static-99 and its newer iteration, the Static-99R, violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual. Two core elements must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome. Both of these elements are lacking in Static-99 and Static-99R research reviews. Thus, a call for caution must be sounded when using these tools to make weighty decisions involving an individual’s liberty and the protection of public safety.”

    • Janice Bellucci

      Good suggestion! We will be sure to include at least one speaker who can “educate” us about the many flaws of the Static-99R.

      • dph

        Like that one Janice, please add to the non keynote’s. Thanks, glad you saw this!

    • M.F.

      YES! Those two USC professors would be great. How about Karen Franklin too? If Allen Frances can come, that would be awesome. But like what you say, he is in NC and he would probably expect compensation? I would also say Brian Abbott, Ph.D; but it looks like from some of the stuff he’s read, he might be buying into Karl Hanson’s Static 99 Kool Aide spiked with turd. So maybe stick with the two USC professors and Karen Franklin Ph.D. Maybe the three can team up from the meeting/confrence and agree to write a new published piece of work that exposes the Static 99R for the b.s. that it is? Until then, I see a link showing some of us already seeming to have exposed some of the many flaws to the Static. All the real doctors should feel free to cite any of what is true about the Static Scam… here is the link (read the comments section):

      • Hmmm

        Ok, many of the comments in that link make strong and valid points. However, the 10 year shelf life for the Static-99R isn’t true anymore. Even worse, refer to pg. 13 of the newest Static-99R Coding Rules to see that it now has a shelf life of TWO years:

        “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.”

        Not just that, to repeat the above, note the following quote: “for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk of recidivism roughly halves.” So that means if you have a really high score, like 8 for example, you would fall to about a 4 after five years offense free. So how would they rationalize lifetime Tier 3 for a 6 or 7? Imagine, that’s just five years. What about 10 years offense free?

        It just doesn’t make sense that they can base lifetime, Tier 3, registration based on the Static 99R scam.

      • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

        Perhaps Dr. Richard Wollert of Portland, OR.

        • anon

          Interesting. Dr. Davenport was good enough to get the Fake Doctor Karl Hanson’s attention. Just did a Google search. The funny thing is that in 2008, Hanson “slammed” Davenport for Davenport having discredited the old Static 99 (not the ‘new’ Static 99R). In Hanson’s usual fashion, Hanson cites Hanson’s own “studies.” Someone answer me this — Why do all the “studies” that praise how good the Static 99R is co-authored by Hanson? Is that not conflict of interest? Then organizations like Casomb go on to “cite” these patently biased “studies.” Do people not question the obvious any more? Look at how Karl The Sham Hanson “cites” his own “studies:”

        • anon

          Correction: Dr. Wollert, not Dr. Davenport. Davenport is the guy who was subject to “detention.” Anyway, I don’t know if acsol will have to pay these experts to speak? But if Dr. Wollert has to fly down from Washington, you might get more bang for your buck by inviting Dr. Franklin and the two USC professors (Dr. Sreenivasan and Weinberger). Just a suggestion, but maybe the 3 docs can have a round table discussion in which we can all ask questions with Janice, Chance, etc. as moderators? Maybe Janice, Chance, etc. can come up with their own questions too. NOW THAT would be interesting!

        • David Kennerly, Exiled From FaceBook

          I have some misgivings about Karen Franklin. She does some fine blogging about some of the absurdities of the sex offender carceral state and the bad psych practice used in servicing it. She’s still a bit of a true believer in the whole forensic psychological sex offender construct. But, she’d probably be alright. Richard Wollert moved to Vancouver and is no longer in Oregon or Washington. He has made some dynamite declarations, over the years, to our favor. Also, he has gone after Karl Hanson’s Static Creatures with a vengeance and they clearly do not see eye-to-eye. He’s also a really nice guy and a straight shooter. I’ve talked to him a few times.

        • David Kennerly, Exile From Main Street

          Here’s a few quick grabs of his work:

          “Wollert, R. & Waggoner, J. (2013, March). Partially specified actuarial tables and the poor performance of Static-99R. Presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American PsychologyLaw
          Association (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association).”________”Wollert, R. (2012, October 25). Hebephilia: Weed diagnosis in the botanical garden of DSM?
          Participated in an expert witness capacity at a mock trial held at the 2012 Meeting of the
          American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Montreal, Canada. A description of the trial may
          be accessed at”_________”Wollert, R., Waggoner, J., & Smith, J. (2012). Federal child pornography offenders do not have
          florid offense histories and are unlikely to recidivate. In B. Schwartz (Ed.), The Sex Offender,
          Volume VII (pp. 2-1 to 2-21). Kingston, N.J., Civic Research Institute.” [ED: “I Am Curious Florid”]______________
          Wollert, R. (2012, February 15). The implications of recidivism research and clinical experience
          for assessing and treating federal child pornography offenders. Testimony presented to the
          United States Sentencing Commission: Washington, D.C. Summary available at


          Hell, his C.V. listing of papers and research is huge. Just go to:

        • David Kennerly, Exiled From FaceBook

          There’s also the down-in-the-trenches, ‘saw the inside of the (California Civil Commitment) sausage factory’ kind of therapist, Dr. Charlene Steyn. She’s not at all happy with the direction of civil commitment or the Registry.

        • Trader Joe's

          After reading what David provided, my vote is for Wollert, Sreenivasan, and Weinberger. If Dr. Wollert’s work was good enough to rile the phony “Dr.” Karl Hanson’s attention to defend the Static-99 scams, then Dr. Wollert must be doing something right. If Dr. Wollert attends, then maybe add the two USC Keck professors — Sreenivasan and Weinberger — to the list of experts.

          I read Wollert’s resume from David’s post above this. Unlike Hanson, at least Wollert is a licensed psychologist here in the United States. He is also a former Navy Lieutenant.

          Sreenivasan has a PhD from UCLA and completed a fellowship at USC; she is now a professor at USC Medical School. Screenivasan has also done many SVP reviews. Same with Weinberger; she is also a professor at USC Medical School:

          The only thing is that this might be potentially expensive — and I don’t know whether any of these experts would be willing to volunteer their time for a good cause to battle Karl Hanson’s form of creepy statistical phrenology fortune telling.

          The good thing with Sreenivasan is that she seems to have a connection to the famous Dr. Allen Frances. Like what’s said above, maybe they can all team up to write a new published work that criticizes the Static-99/R scam. Now that would certainly rile up “Dr.” Hanson and the corrupt bureaucrats at Casomb!!

        • Trader Joe's

          Personally, I don’t find Karl Hanson to be credible. When the test first came out, he implied in his Coding Rules that the Static-99/R was good for 10 years. In the new 2016 Coding Rules, Hanson then said the Static-99/R is good for 2 years. Which one is it Hanson, 2 years or 10 years?

          Meanwhile, the Static-99 tests have done damage to civil rights. And it may do a lot more in the future. So in essence, Hanson has done a lot of harm to people. What kind of “doctor” does that?

          I would not be surprised if Hanson comes out with a “new” and “improved” Coding Rules in a few years saying it’s good for life. That is the problem with the tiered registry bill relying on the Coding Rule’s verbiage. In essence, we’ve made Karl Hanson a legislator without even voting for him.

    • J.J.

      Wollert and the two USC professors — Indian lady and Weinberger!! I’d attend just to see real doctors — not that quack Karl Hanson — trash the Static 99 and 99R scam!!!!!

    • Peter

      The Static 99 is a way of keeping the registry alive. So long as they have the “high risk sex offender” (HRSO) label to fall on, the government — and other interested parties (i.e. Tom Tobin, Karl Hanson, etc.) — can appeal to people’s fears to keep their laws, policies, businesses, and “scientific” findings relevent. Because without the registry, what would become of Tobin, Hanson — and the politicians like Chris Smith? When the registry begins to fall apart, they want the “high” risk label to remain so that they have an excuse to keep playing their political dog whistle. The problem, of course, is that the entire “high” risk platform is based off the STATIC-99R scam! A risk assessment that is only valid for a few years after release from jail or prison!!

      • pretty much agree


        That was clear in the CASOMB video in which that crooked Tom Tobin character was insistent in swinging attention to the “high” risk sex offenders that you mention. But in that video, it’s strange because he did *not* mention the Static-99R (or even more vague terms as “static” or “SARATSO tool”). I suspect omission of the “static” was intentional — as he did not want people digging into the many flaws that lay beneath the veneer of the Static-99R.

        Looking at the link above, in which many of the ACSOL users have already pointed out just some of the many flaws to the Static-99R, this one stood out for having explained the true (and misleading) purpose to pushing for the Static-99R/SARATSO tool:

        “This makes sense if you look at it from their side. They already have serious offenders, long-term, due to the legal parameters of their case. A low Static-99 doesn’t affect how they are handled by the legal system. But a low level offender has a legal possibility of getting removed from bondage. Therefore, this report can put them in a ‘high risk’ category, thereby keeping them in the system and justifying all the laws already in place or proposed in the future. It’s a ‘trap door’ — and as shown over and over, they know they hold the better hand, either by manipulating statistics for public misdirection, or just collusion among the different departments to help funding and job security. They are well aware of the hypocrisy of every action they take, but it is time we all accept this one little fact, THEY DON’T CARE!” – O.A.L. [fixed some grammatical errors]

        In sum, the Static-99R — as it is applied in the new tiered law — is just a way to keep the non-contact offenders in the system. This is evidenced by the very fact that non-contact offenders get a one point penalty under the Static-99R. The contact and violent offenders are already (generally) put into higher tier levels. So it is in the best interests of the scam artists like Tom Tobin and Karl Hanson to claim that non-contact offenders are greater risk of recidivism so as to keep the registry from shrinking in size. But yes, both Tobin and Hanson’s relevancy rests NOT on a shrinking registry, but a growing registry. Without the registry, what would happen to Tobin’s business? Without the registry, what would happen to Karl Hanson’s Static tests?

        They would go kaput!

        • CR

          “This is evidenced by the very fact that non-contact offenders get a one point penalty under the Static-99R.”

          I would like to see sexual crime re-offense data on people convicted originally of a contact vs a non-contact offense. Just knowing human behavior, a little, as a human myself, it would not surprise me to find that both contact and non-contact offenders have a higher rate of re-offense for non-contact sexual offenses than for contact offenses. I suspect it may be easier to justify wrong behavior when you’ve convinced yourself that there is no victim simply because the victim is not physically present with you at the time.

          I could be way off. I’ve seen no data. I just think it is likely that re-offense rates are higher for non-contact than for contact offenses, and that we shouldn’t assume that the non-contact offender is less likely to offend again than the contact offender, and should therefore be considered at lower risk of re-offense.

        • good point... but...

          Good point. But then again, even IF non-contacts have a greater reoffense rate than violent/contact offender, the entire “high” risk label assumes that recidivism is synonymous to dangerousness. Remember, the Static-99R only claims to predict recidivism (not dangerousness) from release from jail or prison. Because the Static-99R lumps all types of offenses together in its sample, it doesn’t give an accurate picture of what it is predicting.

          Also, the Static-99R ignores individualized characteristics of an offender; it simplifies a person to only 10 questions. None of the 10 questions take current age, offense-free years in the community, or counseling into account. These three factors have been shown to be the biggest factors in determining whether someone will reoffend. But oddly, they are not measured by Karl Hanson.

        • CR

          Agreed about the Static99R being overly general, non-representative, and too limited to be very useful. And I agree that recidivism does not equal dangerousnes.

          I hope when you say “violent/contact offender” you are not conflating the two.

    • JoeM

      Many times, the problems with either of the Static 99 tests arise out of how the data is “interpreted” under state law. For example, I was convicted of 2 counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 15 year old (oral and intercourse) and five counts of posing illegal pictures. Using the methodology that was intended buy the creators of Static 99 like say Oregon, Colorado and Vermont do, that would be classified as a “cluster” offense and count as one or no more than two offenses. Under a number of state laws it would count as seven offenses. In at least one state, if it was counted as one offense, you would be off the registry after ten years. If counted as 2 or more, then you would be on for a LONG time. The other glaring problem is that if your victim was the same sex, you get an extra bad boy point for being queer, which apparently make you more dangerous somehow.

      • "Dangerous?" Not exactly.

        But remember: Both the Static-99 and Static-99R do not even claim to assess “dangerousness.” The Static-99R only claims to estimate static risk of recidivism from time of release from jail or prison. All crimes are assumed equal in severity in the world of the Static-99R test. And once again, the Static-99R only claims to estimate “risk” from release from jail or prison. The important point: The longer a person has been offense-free in the community, the more worthless the Static-99R becomes.

        The Static becomes more and more worthless that when a person has been offense-free five years in the community, “risk” is halved. Again, how can the California Department of Justice rationalize using the Static-99R to place people in the Tier 3, lifetime, category?

  3. mike r

    Pretty impressive that Carpenter, Horowitz and and Ellman is going to be there. I really wish I could attend this. Hopefully someone mentions to at least look and consider joining me on March 14th at thr Federal court in Sacramento at 10:00 am.

  4. Pamela

    Hi All –
    I am so looking forward to seeing everyone at the 2018 Conference! The theme of this years conference is “Together We Can!” and I am happy to report I’ve just received confirmation from a speaker I’m super excited about, more details to follow. Again this year we will be offering partial scholarships to people who agree to volunteer a little of their time during the conference. This is just an FYI as we are not set up to accept volunteers yet. More information on our scholarship program will be posted as we get closer to the conference.
    The 2018 conference committee is already working hard to bring you the information and contacts you want and need. We are taking into consideration the evaluation forms filled out by last years attendees. It would be excellent, and I would really appreciate it, if people who attended our 2017 conference could say a little something about their experience last year so those who are thinking about attending this year would have an idea of what to expect. Keep checking back on the ACSOL site for more information about the 2018 conference and please try to attend if at all possible, it is going to be GREAT!

    • Marty

      So looking forward to this coming year’s conference! The inaugural one provided me with tons of useful and needed info. Participating, getting to meet so many supportive new friends, and learning about methods to survive this world left me with a positive feeling that I haven’t experienced since before the days of my adjudication.

  5. E

    I am not from CA. Will this be a national conference, or better for California RCs? Thanks for clarifying.

    I’d love to see a role play or Q&A about LE interaction for off paper RCs. Esp if I’m in CA from out of state. (I travel a lot.) What would I say to LE if I got rear ended in my rental car? Was at the pier or watching sunset on the beach? Does LE need prob cause to ask about my status? Does being out of my state matter? Is my rental car being broken into and me having to file a report a reason they can ask me about my status, run me in NCiC, start digging? Should I answer what hotel I’m at or say nothing without a lawyer and assume I’ll get hauled to jail until I have representation? What if my wife and kids are with me? Would I EVER risk traveling with one of my kids without my spouse?


    • Pamela

      Hello E –
      The 2018 ACSOL Conference is national. Our speakers are coming from all over the country and we are working hard to include topics and subject matters for our workshops that will appeal to everyone. I appreciate your question, going forward I will be sure to call our conference The 2018 ACSOL National Conference. Really hope you can join us –

  6. Harry

    My wife always wanted to come visit LA, as she never been there, and this will before she goes to her daughters graduation from School Doctor of Medicine, in the Philippines. We will have to waited until after January 2018 to confirm. This would be very good reason to come.

  7. totally against public registry

    Looking forward to it! Last year’s conference was full of information, hope, and news we can all share with others who can’t make it to these important events.

    Janice, maybe adding $10 to each ticket to cover people who can’t otherwise have the opportunity to be there. That would be besides the donations/scholarships. I sure am willing to pay the extra to bring in others who can’t

  8. Peter

    CR, given that Karl Hanson and his Static 99 buddy, David Thornton, have maintained that their 99R is a “trade secret,” how do you expect anyone to be able to examine the nuances underlying why non-contacts are given the 1 point penalty? Here is a Court Order throwing out the Static-99R for even an SVP case because Karl Hanson’s Static 99 partner, David Thornton, ‘failed to provide the state or the respondent with the requested data.’ Something tells me that the Static-99R is just an elaborate scam. The CASOMB and SARATSO committee should be called out for the B.S. that they are trying to pull over everyone:

    • David Kennerly, "Wait, do you smell gas?"

      Good find! I wonder if Hanson or Thornton have been more forthcoming in any other court requests? If not, that speaks volumes.

    • CR

      Peter, just to clear up any possible misunderstanding… I have no love of the Static 99R, nor any confidence in its methods, questionable scientific basis, or utility for predicting recidivism or reoffense. In fact, I think as you do that it is an elaborate scam. Thank you for the court case you referenced. I love seeing a judge rule it inadmissible, on whatever basis.

      The main reason for my earlier comment was to question the rationale for the 1-point penalty, especially if it was based on hard data. It was not to question whether or not the Static 99R was a valid tool.

      Another reason was because I have read comments from people who thought that they shouldn’t be included on the registry, or for not as long, or they should be at a lower tier rating, simply because their crime didn’t involve contact. I think that way of thinking minimizes the impact to the victim(s), and is a dangerous way to think. It’s a way for some people to rationalize their offense as less deserving of punishment, or one that is “less dangerous”. I’m not saying you were doing this.

      I think the registry is evil, unconstitutional (despite what SCOTUS has said), and harmful, and that it should not exist at all. Equally evil are pseudo-scientific scam “tools” like the Static 99R. There are many people who are convicted of sex offenses and who wind up on the registry who never should have been prosecuted in the first place. The rest of us were deserving of prosecution and punishment; we must live with what we did, knowing that it was wrong, whether we are on a list or not. But once we have completed our punishment, we should be allowed to rejoin society the same as any other offender.

      • Peter

        Well, I am glad we can at least agree on one thing: that the Static-99R is a giant scam. Here is one for logic: the Static 99 tests only claim to estimate ‘risk’ of reoffense from release from jail or prison. But it doesn’t estimate risk after a person has been free one, two, three, etc., years. So logically, the longer someone has been without offense after they’ve been freed, the more useless the Static-99R is! Then to top it off, like what ‘good point… but…’ said, why did the fake doc Karl Hanson not attribute or discount points for years that a person has been crime free in the community? And why is current age also not factored in the 10 question system? It’s pretty clear from even Hanson’s work that the time a person has been well behaved after release best projects whether someone will reoffend. But is this not strange that Karl Hanson’s 10 question scheme doesn’t subtract points for offense free years in the community??

    • Static-99 Struck Down In NY


      I know that this is the older Static-99; but it, too, was struck down in New York state. If anything, the published decision further exhibits that Karl Hanson has the history of “significantly alter[ing]” the “norms” to his Static tests. In other words, the following decision may indicate that “Dr.” Karl Hanson is a master at dishonesty, statistical manipulation, and cleverly wording his “Coding Rules.” So based off of both Daubert and Frye standards, both the Static-99R and Static-99 have failed in at least Wisconsin and New York.

      (By the way, Karl Hanson is *not* licensed to practice Psychology in the United States.)

      “The STATIC-99 is not scientifically accepted, under Frye, as a tool to inform decision-makers as to the existence of a mental abnormality as defined under Mental Hygiene Law article 10, as it does not measure any of the elements of that definition. In addition, under New York State’s unique bifurcated civil management proceedings, testimony of {**2009 N.Y. Slip Op. at 26}recidivism is not relevant at the trial phase. Lastly, in view of the recent development of the new norms, and an entirely new and undeveloped methodology for applying those norms, it cannot be said that the new norms of the STATIC-99 (despite its past acceptance) are now sufficiently understood and accepted in the relevant scientific community under Frye, even for the purpose for which it was created—namely, to quantify risk. The motion in limine is granted, and the testimony concerning respondent’s STATIC-99 score is excluded from the trial testimony.”

    • Static-99R Discredited In VA

      Also, very quickly, Virginia’s legislature has already done an extensive audit/study on the Static-99R. Even in the context of SVP hearings, the Virginia legislature chose to discredit the Static-99R. According to Virginia’s audit:

      “While actuarial risk assessments have value, they can substantially over- or underestimate the potential that a given individual may reoffend if released, and are not intended to precisely predict an individual’s actual risk of future reoffense. Virginia is the only state that designates a specific actuarial risk assessment instrument and score in statute. This citation of a specific instrument and score in statute results in two substantial flaws. The first is that the threshold score of ‘5’ in statute limits the ability of qualified individuals to use their professional judgment to decide which offenders should be further evaluated, including some offenders who are likely sexually violent predators.” See iii.

      Here is a copy of the audit:

      • Peter

        Just read through that during my work break. It’s interesting; but it looks like that report discredits the original Static 99 specifically. Good find nonetheless. Also, (and it’s been said by others before) just how did the Static 99 and 99R go from being used as a ‘tool’ exclusively to judge SVPs to now even being used for registrants who have been well behaved, after release from jail or prison, for many years (with no regard to severity of underlying offense)? I’m not minimizing; but I’m merely pointing out the fact that the Static alone will be able to put the less severe offense on equal or even greater level to even the most violent crimes! Again, it just doesn’t make sense that the Static-99R evolved from SVP hearings to applying to ALL registrants. There are just many things that are logically wrong here. — Pete

        • It's Not "Evolution"


          You answered your own question above in mentioning Tom Tobin. Tobin is vice chair of CASOMB. At the same time, Tobin is also CEO of his sex offender treatment program: Sharper Future. Because the Static-99R can be used to rationalize more “treatment” for those who score high, it is not purely coincidental that Tobin would also heavily endorse the “risk” based, “scientific” methods that will eventually help ensure more contracts for his business.

          Normally, more treatment is not necessarily bad. However, when Tobin’s Static endorsements begin to infringe on civil rights, such as upping people to Tier 3 under the new tiered law, then I think that that should bring up red flags.

          Also, does anyone have information on who exactly is on the SARATSO committee?? The SARATSO website is mysteriously devoid of its committee membership information. (So much for government transparency.)

          To further expand on your comment, I will mention that a lot of career bureaucrats, particularly within CDCR, have bet their reputations doubling-down on the Static-99R. For example, Scott Kernan, who is now the CDCR Secretary, spent much of his career as CDCR undersecretary praising how well the Static-99 performed (even though it failed to flag John Gardner — who scored a 2 — as high risk). Here is a link:

          Also, it seems that the victim’s advocates might also be *against* the Static-99 tests. In support of my claim, I quote Ms. Salarno-Ashford from the above article:

          “But Nina Salarno-Ashford, a board member for Crime Victims United of California, called the tool unreliable because its approach fails to give weight to probation reports, psychological evaluations or victim statements. She also criticized its failure to account for times when sex crimes are pleaded down to lesser offenses. ‘It does not give you the picture of who the individual is that is coming out of prison,’ Salarno-Ashford said.”

  9. counting the days

    Not to sound like a smart ass, but what can I get out of this. I understand that ACSOL is not my personal lawyer, but I don’t see any relief from the laws that affect me. IML, travel, tier registry. None of these have been changed ( and only get worse!). And please don’t throw ” It’s greater than you” at me, because for me, it isn’t. So what could I get out of attending this event, other than anxiety, more depression, and a feeling that all is lost for myself.

    • Pamela

      Hi Counting The Days –
      My name is Pamela and I’m on ACSOL’s 2018 National Conference planning committee. The planning committee is a team of volunteers made up mostly of registrants and family members. For this years conference we are working on presentations, workshops and panels covering a variety of topics. This is not a complete list, just an example: “how to cope”, domestic and international travel (and ACSOL’s federal IML court challenge), family resources, registrant resources, California’s tiered registry (and what happens next) and an overview of recent court decisions from across the country and the implications of these decisions. We have invited some terrific featured speakers from across the country and based on last year’s evaluations we are also planning an extended seminar on advocacy.

      Will you be interested in every featured speaker? I think you will. Will you be interested in every workshop? I hope so but if not we will have lots of different workshops and panels to choose from and more than one workshop will be happening at the same time. My worry is not that you won’t have a great time and find the information presented pertinent, useful, on topic and interesting, but that you won’t have enough time to attend everything that interests you.

      Depression, anxiety, a feeling that all is lost…Counting The Days come to Los Angeles and stand next to me. I know a lot of good people who will stand proudly with us. Knowledge is powerful. Working as a team is powerful. Putting together a plan of action is powerful. Together we have already made a difference and we will continue to make a difference in the future. Together we really can.

      I hope you will join us in Los Angeles. Come and get some of your power back.

      • James

        @pamela thank you for all your hard work and passion in helping to put this annual conference together!

  10. Mr. Smith

    Richard Wollert is a good choice, maybe even the best choice. A few years ago my attorney did a consultation because of my “high” Static 99R score that the DA was using against me. This was back in 2010. It’s 2017, 7 years more wise, and I’m still wondering how accurate (or bogus) the Static is.

    In 7 years, no reoffense… but I’m engaged and have held a decent job for 5 years now. Of course I’m worried about what the tiered registry will bring though… as I’m not currently listed on Megan’s Law, but my score is “high” enough that I fear that in 2021 or 2022 I’ll suddenly appear. By then that will be 11 or 12 years with no subsequent conviction so it would make no sense to reason that I (or others in a similar position) *all of a sudden* deserve the increased punishment. If anything, I’d think that the longer we’ve been without subsequent reoffense, the less reason there is to keep us registered. But the Static, or the registry, doesn’t seem to factor any of this… even when it probably should.

    • welcome to the club

      By 2021/2022, my 99R score will be seven or eight years old (not as old as yours, but still well over the five years that the original score is supposed to be “halved” by). Very similar situation to you, as I am currently unlisted. No other criminal history other than the one conviction (which happened in my mid-twenties). So obviously, I completely empathize with your potential situation — as I face the same prospect. A prospect that I hope will not come to fruition. If I am not mistaken, I think Frank also had this happen to him when the Megan’s Law website came online? Again, like you, I hope not to have to experience this. I can only imagine what will happen to my living situation, job situation, etc.

      God-willing: Janice, ACSOL, ACLU — or someone else — will fight the prospect of any person who had been previously unpublished from being “outed” or “all of a sudden” (as you say) being published for the only reason of a high Static. Actually, NO ONE, regardless of Static score, should be suddenly “outed” if they’ve managed to live a peaceful life for many years after release. Like you say, why would publication be suddenly necessary after many years without it? Especially when such publication takes no account for offense-free years in the community? If registration WAS considered punishment, then sudden publication WOULD be Ex Post Facto punishment, in violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

      Also, here is what former Attorney General Eric Holder had to say about “risk-assessments” like the Static-99R:

      “In 2014, Eric Holder, then the U.S. attorney general, articulated the uncertainty swirling around these tools in a speech given to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ 57th Annual Meeting. ‘Although these [risk assessment] measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice,’ he said. ‘They may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.'”


    • anon

      +1 for Dr. Wollert. The Static 99R is indeed a huge scam!!!!

  11. Edie

    Looking forward to attending this again. Will especially be anxious to hear of any progress made on challenging the Static-99R. My son and many others have been completely victimized by this B.S. assessment. Hoping that the psych evaluations will result in a drop in scored assessments for him and many others, not to mention factoring in zero recidivism. Twice a week S.O. classes for a crime that not only did he not commit, but for which spent 8 1/2 years in an out of state prison, based on his Static score is borderline cruel and unusual punishment. Over and out.

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      That was what the Static-99 was originally designed to do; it was only designed to triage prison populations. Then over time, the Static tests evolved to be used in SVP hearings, then probation/parole “risk” — and, under the tiered law, it will now be used to lump all types of sex offenses together (with no regard to offense severity).

      In fact, one of the Static’s developers, David Thornton, outright admitted this:

      “It was very much about the triage of prison populations,” Thornton said. “It wasn’t really about the forensic assessment of individual offenders.”

      Link 1:

      Unfortunately, the above Buzzfeed article, critical of the Static-99, seems to not appear correctly. I jest in saying that perhaps the government “hacked” it because it exposes some of the many flaws to the Static… even when it is used in the more serious SVP setting. You could, however, print or print preview — and for me, the article prints just fine.

      I will also point out that the Static only claims to predict “risk” from time of release. So the longer a person has been offense-free in the community, the more invalid that the Static-99R predictions become. Thus, why it makes no sense that the Static-99R is being used to determine lifetime “risk.”

      Here is another article that cites Karen Franklin, who is critical of the Static:

      “‘Essentially it’s just a very simple, one-page checklist,’ says Karen Franklin, a forensic psychologist from California.

      “’It’s got ten items which can be answered based on information in the offender’s case file, like age, number of past violent convictions, whether any of the victims were male and so on.’

      “The name Static-99 refers to the fact that it considers things a person cannot change and it was introduced in 1999, but Delegate [politician] David Albo may have gotten a different idea when he heard about this tool – and backed legislation to open the Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehab.

      “Albo says, ‘People can predict, within 99.99 percent certainty, whether someone is going to recommit.’

      “In fact, Karen Franklin says the Static-99, which compares other people who’ve scored a certain way with whether they went on to commit new sex crimes, provides no certainty.

      “She elaborates, ‘Basically the Static-99 is a little bit more accurate than the flip of a coin.+ 5 – You know, bottom line, predicting any kind of future human behavior is going to be complex, because we’re not machines, and we can decide to change course, and these algorhythms are blind to that.’

      “She notes that African-Americans tend to score higher on the test – one possible reason why 55% of VCBR residents are black. It also overestimates risk for re-offense by gay men and older individuals.”

      Link 2:

  12. Also...

    Here is an interesting blog article:

    “Overestimating Sex Offender Risk: The Static-99R Has Produced an Epidemic of False Positives in Florida. How Many Other States are Using This Flawed Assessment Tool and are Indefinitely Committing Citizens Who Pose No Risk?”

    Again, the blog exclusively focuses on the Static-99R’s use in SVP hearings. It doesn’t mention how California intends more troubling — and widespread — use of the Static-99R in the tiered registry law.

  13. Rose

    I read somewhere that Connecticut (I think) very recently abolished its risk assessment committee and risk assessment tool that was very similar to the Static assessments and risk factors. Connecticut abandoned the risk assessment for a more straightforward registry, 10 years for almost every crime.

    I wish I can recall the source; but with the great amateur researching on this website, I’m sure someone here can find it.

    Another point is that I have to strongly agree that there are too many corrupt special interests that with fight tooth and nail to keep a Static risk assessment. One in particular is a man I think too many are familiar with, the CEO and co-chair of Sharper Future. Any “expert” opinion as to the Static’s appropriateness to tier should be aggressively countered with truth and the flaws to this now called “saratso tool” assesment.

    • Interesting...

      Here is what I found regarding Connecticut. I couldn’t find any other info on this…

      Document Title: Legislative Changes to Sex Offender Registration Laws, 2008-2017
      Date: October 4, 2017


      “Repeal of Risk Assessment Board. PA 13-299 (§ 95) repealed the Sex Offender Risk Assessment Board. The board was established in 2006 to develop a scale using various factors to determine a sex offender’s likelihood of reoffending, which was due October 1, 2007.”



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 *