ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

Conference Call Audio for July 2018 Monthly Meeting uploaded

Please join me and ACSOL President Chance Oberstein, a criminal defense attorney, for our “monthly” meeting to be held telephonically.

The conference call will be on Saturday, July 14 at 10 am Pacific Time (1:00 Eastern) and will last from 2 to 3 hours.

Topics of conversation will include information about the domestic and overseas travel, the Tiered Registry, residency restrictions and other current topics as well as pending legal action throughout the nation.

Please Show up, Stand up, and Speak up!

Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055
Conference Code: 983459

Listen to or download the call

Join the discussion

  1. David

    Thanks very much for posting the call. I missed it “live”.

  2. matthew

    They are starting to make changes to SB 421:

    Here are some changes: (2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years. A person is a tier two offender if the person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) that is also described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, or that is a felony offense described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 243.4, Section 285, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 286, subdivision (c) of Section 288, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 288a, subdivision (b), (d), or (e) of Section 289, a felony violation of Section 311.1, a felony violation of Section 311.11, Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense that was brought and tried separately, or subdivision (c) of Section 653f.

    source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421

    They are plenty of changes everyone should look at. It could change again but lets all stay in the loop!

    • Joe

      SB 421 is the bill that died last September and somehow was resuscitated as SB 384 via the Gut & Amend process, which was approved by the legislature and signed into law in October 2017, with an effective date of 2021. It has not been modified since then. All the nonsense (some non-contact offenses -> Tier 3) that was packed into it last minute is still there – which is what ACSOL will attempt to work on before then.

      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384

      Please don’t be confused and don’t confuse others.

      • Karl Hanson's Magic Crystal Ball (insert 50¢)

        All the nonsense (some non-contact offenses -> Tier 3) that was packed into it last minute is still there – which is what ACSOL will attempt to work on before then.

        —–

        “SARATSO tool” / Static-99R nonsense = able to publish non-contact offenses to Tier 3. Static-99R also able to publish *any* offense to Tier 3.

        • Joe

          Oh give it a rest…. if you are the one or one of the few guys who gets screwed by a bad law that provides relief to thousands who have been screwed for decades by previous laws that were equally bad, I am good with that.

          Thousands have been put on the web site retroactively. Thousands have been punished retroactively. People alive today have been on this list since the 1950s and are on the internet.

          What is your alternative solution? I think I asked you this previously but cannot find it. As you write this on this organization’s forum – what would you have them do (providing they have any real input at all)? Not support this bill at all? Not let off a 90 year old man who has been on this list for over 60 years, just because you think misery loves company? No thank you.

        • Karl Hanson's Magic Crystal Ball (insert 50¢)

          @Joe,

          Firstly, I support a tiered registry bill — as it is indeed an incremental step. But I do not support the use of junk “science.”

          Though I could be mistaken, the implication of your post is that you are undisturbed with shaky science infecting laws. Science that has failed to meet Daubert and Frye standards. Science that cites only the original author, Karl Hanson, because he has refused to let independent experts analyze said science. A “test” that lumps all types of offenders and crimes together, vaguely claiming to predict “risk of recidivism,” without specifying exactly what crime will be committed in the future. And if I happen to be “one or one of the few guys who gets screwed by a bad law,” you are “good with that.”

          Ok. Let your comment sink in for a second.

          Alternative solution? How about not use Minority Report science in law. Simple as that. As for all the retroactive punishment (because *registration is punishment*): It’s absolutely unfair and a result of using a magazine “statistic” from a source with a conflict of interest. The Psychology Today article cited a man who ran a treatment business who exaggerated an unfounded 80 percent statistic.

          Let’s not make a similar mistake in citing sources with conflicts of interests and trusting “experts” who are buying into the Static-99R Kool Aid. Not only does the Static-99R not make logically sense, but said experts have probably not delved into how the *static* “risk factors” were originally derived.

        • Joe

          @Karl (I wont type out the rest of this nonsense),

          “Firstly, I support a tiered registry bill — as it is indeed an incremental step. But I do not support the use of junk “science.””

          There is not a single tiered registry construct that does not have a lifetime tier. Whether it is risk based or offense based. SB 384 has always had a lifetime tier.

          In other words, you are fine with some people being stuck on it for life. As long as it isn’t you. I call BS. And am letting that sink in.

          Since your last response to me you have made at least one other if not more rant(s) about this. Has it ever occurred to you that this is the wrong place? I trust you have engaged the legislators about this issue – with phone calls, letters and visits. I guess I must have missed you when you spoke up about this issue, as a member of the public, during the hearings in Sacramento. Oh wait….

          Exactly what is the point of your comments? That quantifying social science is inaccurate? We get it. Suggest something better. Something that allows the legislators to vote for relief for some if not most without committing political suicide. Anything!

          I am guessing that you want all to go down with the ship if you cannot get off. I call BS.

        • Karl Hanson's Magic Crystal Ball (insert 50¢)

          “In other words, you are fine with some people being stuck on it for life. As long as it isn’t you. I call BS. And am letting that sink in.”

          Nope. Never said that. A “lifetime” tier is wrong for anyone. I suspect you are projecting your feelings to me. Of course, you are the one who stated that you would be ok if I am “one or one of the few guys who gets screwed by a bad law,” and that you are “good with that.”

        • Shane

          I wouldn’t take any attacks made against you personally. Anyone who speaks up against the Static 99R scam is good in my book.

          Regarding the hilarious username, I think “doctor” Hanson is getting paid a lot more than 50 cents to make “predictions,” author “studies,” and show us his mastery in self promotion. If Karl Hanson has showed us anything, it’s the fact that he is a master at self promotion. Who else can get away with conflicts of interests that many people have yet to question, coauthoring papers that support your own scheme, and have others cite your paper without questioning said conflicts of interests and “secret” data? Karl Hanson’s unchecked antics are complete lunacy. The fact that a not-to-be-named character had the audacity to call the Static 99R “quantifying social science,” as if the Static 99R was ACTUAL science, shows how blind some people are.

          I agree that there might be government grants behind the sudden masses of “experts” getting behind the absurd notion that 10 Static 99R questions predict the future. If true, it’s a shame that so many otherwise smart people can sellout to “static” pseudo science. To sum up my post, anytime a so-called expert begins to proselytize for Karl Hanson or the Static 99R, I — unfortunately — cannot help but lose complete respect for that person.

          Shane

      • matthew

        No, I was simply stating they had an attempt to make changes that were not introduced in the bill that was approved. I know exactly what each bill is but if you had any form of thinking outside the box, you can use that as a guide to see how things may fall. If they suggested tier 2 with this bill, they will probably do the same with any changes. It helps to not have black and white thinking and see the gray effect and start using some analytics to somewhat see where they are going with the changes.

        Please don’t try to be a dumb sheep just waiting but rather see the mindset they had.

  3. PK

    I know this question is off-topic.

    I wanted to know if NARSOL recorded the phone conference that they had last Thursday July 19th?

    I checked their Website and could not find any previous meetings that were recorded.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.