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).
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!
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:
http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf
“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.”
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.
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!
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?
Thanks
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.
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
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: http://karenfranklin.com/files/Perren-Ruling-Static99-RRASOR.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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?”
http://restoringintegritytovirginiaregistry.blogspot.com/2013/10/overestimating-sex-offender-static-99r.html
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.
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.