ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

Action ItemsCaliforniaMeetings / Events

Action Alert: CA Dept. of State Hospitals Schedules Hearing on Sept. 20

The California Department of State Hospital (DSH) will conduct a public hearing on September 20 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to regulations that limit patients” possession of, or access to, electronic property. The hearing will begin at 2 p.m. at

1600 9th Street
Room 100
Sacramento

ACSOL will be attending the meeting. We look forward to you joining us to stand for and write for those incarcerated in Dept of State Hospitals like Coalinga. If we only stand up for issues that directly affect us, unity is lost. We should ask ourselves: who will stand up when there are narrow issues affecting each of us?

Prior to the hearing, DSH will accept written comments until September 17 at 5 p.m. Written comments can be sent by email to DSH.Regulations@dsh.ca.gov or by U.S. mail to California Department of State Hospitals, Regulations Unit, Electronic Property, 1600 9th Street, Room 410, Sacramento, CA 95814.

“We must speak out in opposition to these amendments,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Similar to existing regulations, the amended regulations will harm patients by limiting their access to legal documents and treatment records.”

According to the proposed amendments, patients will continue to be denied the use of desktop computers, laptop computers, voice or visual recording devices, USB devices, some gaming devices and recordable disks such as CD’s, DVD’s, Blu-Ray and CD-ROM. Patients will be allowed to possess or have personal access to one television or computer monitor, one CD player and one radio or music player. In addition, patients will be allowed to possess up to 30 commercially manufactured CD’s, DVD’s and Blu-Rays as well as tablets or other devices purchased “through authorized vendors of the Department of State Hospitals and CDCR that do not contain personally accessible data storage.”

 

Sample letter:

Letter to DSH about limiting devices – 5 Sep 2018

 

A link to the proposed amendments follows below:

Dept of State Hospitals Electronic Device Regulations – Aug 2018_000020

Join the discussion

  1. cool CA RC

    What do we write when we sent them a email ?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Because we only learned of the hearing today (Aug. 23), we don’t yet have a sample letter. We expect to post such a letter no later than Monday, Aug. 27.

  2. Scam-99R

    Should ask them why these “experts” hid Dr. Padilla’s study that showed the Static-99 exaggerating SVP “statistics” at 500% to 600%. I would have loved to see the conclusion to the study (had it made it to the end).

    • totally against public registry

      We need a very politically and financially powerful entity to bring down the system. Besides big corporations, who else can do this?

      • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

        We keep growing in number but there is the classic “waiting for others to go first” problem, similar to the boy who told the emperor he had no clothes (itself a “sex crime” today) in which no one wants to be the first to speak up. Fortunately, we are now seeing people “speaking up.” Who knows, maybe the Koch brothers will pour some resources into this effort in a few years once it becomes politically acceptable as they have been doing recently with criminal justice reform, in general. We do need to step up to the plate ourselves, though. Heaven helps those who help themselves.

        • AnotherAnon

          I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this. How to recruit more membership? Part of the problem is, I think, we don’t know who we are talking to. Since anyone can post here, that anyone could be a vigilante troll. I’m not saying that is happening, but am saying it could make some skeptical of full participation. I suspect the in-person monthly meetings do not have this problem, but they are obviously more difficult to get to. So how do we verify who we are talking to as genuine? One way would be through the donation process. I donate monthly and use my card with my name on it. There is a section that requests using the email address. I declined as a matter of principle and because I was unsure how it would be used, but that could be used to verify who is who and I would change that email declining decision if possible. Plus, it would be incentive to donate. Another 2 cents.

        • Tim Moore

          That’s why I am using my real name, although sometimes it is a little uncomfortable for me. I figure if I share my true name, it will present trust and authenticity.

        • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

          ” So how do we verify who we are talking to as genuine? ” Well, I don’t know that we need to. At least, not within the context of a forum where people make statements which, themselves, can be judged on their merits. However, you do say “full participation” i.e. going beyond merely engaging with people within the context of this forum. True enough, that can present challenges. I think the only thing we can do, either as individuals here or ACSOL, as an organization, is to rely upon the passage of time in evaluating the legitimacy of individuals, i.e. getting to know their thoughts, and the quality of their thoughts, over time. That is the challenge of any organization but especially one likely to be infiltrated by its enemies which we are, indeed. Know a person by their words and their deeds. Very few people can disguise themselves so fully that they are not detectable over time and so, trust builds. Some people are extremely good at sussing out the bad actors. Put those people in charge of vetting members. Eventually, people do need to take risks in order to effectively manage risks. This must always start as rationally defining the level of risk of any given anticipated action and not just reflexively assigning imagined, worst-case, risks to everything that could make us effective as individuals.

        • AnotherAnon

          @Tim Moore, I believe that is your real name, but why should I?

          @David Kennerly’s Government-Driven Life, you make some good and valid points. Perhaps I need to focus more. Say in the comments in a news article there is discussion of the registry. One of the best means of dissemination of this site would be to promote it in the comments with a link to here. To make it more credible, it would include Janice Bellucci’s name is some context. That way anyone hearing of this site for the first time could easily Google her name (the most quoted I think) and confirm that she is the real deal and not some sting operation. Once here, your vetting system could take over. I suppose this could lead to more donations, which, let’s face it, are the backbone of operations and potential success.

        • Tim Moore

          Well, I met David K at an IML protest and through correspondence, and he is the real deal. I met with several organizers in this movement. They’re the real deal. I have not met anyone yet that is trying to willfully sabotage the organization, or harm me. Sometimes they don’t like my opinions, but so what? Sometimes I don’t agree with them, but so what? We are diverse. None has all the answers, we must love all for trying, and boy are they trying. It’s a David vs. Goliath war. I am what I am as Popeye says, no matter what I call myself. I have met some of the best, intelligent, caring people in the world through ACSOL. You have to make an effort and meet people face to face, ask help, give help. It is slow as David says, but sure. F the internet. It’s only a way to introduce oneself and then divide yourself from people if you rely on it too much.

      • TS

        @totally against public registry

        Jeffrey Epstein with his rich & powerful friends perhaps? Those who know of this name will know of the alleged exploits and those he was convicted of.

        • totally against public registry

          @TS
          I will have to look into that. Don’t know who that is. Thanks. Maybe we can reach out

    • Rod

      Static99 & the “R” version are the most pathetic junk I’ve ever heard of. The static crap they are selling is based on the premise that 10 questions will predict people’s future. Do they take us for absolute idiots and morons? Look at what’s happening with bail “reform.” At first the ACLU and others were for it. Now that all the civil rights activists understand that the “risk assessments” are flawed, the same exact people that were for it are now against it.

      Same thing happening with the Static99/R as it’s applied to registrants. People don’t understand the static’s flaws and limitations because the special interests and some “experts” have overwhelmed common sense and reason when it comes to the 99R and the “saratso” scheme that it hides behind.

      I fear we’re being scammed once again!!

      • Joe

        Yawn. Do you ever get tired of this?

        “Static99 & the “R” version are the most pathetic junk I’ve ever heard of. The static crap they are selling is based on the premise that 10 questions will predict people’s future.”

        NO, NO, NO. The Static-99 DOES NOT and NEVER has claimed to predict people’s future past 10 years. Long-term risk is inherently dynamic and for that reason the Static-99 is called…. wait for it – STATIC! It states in its preamble that it is designed to predict risk of re-offense ONLY to 10 years out. Stop making stuff up. Up until 10 years all the numbers are there. With more statistical details than I ever knew or remember from Statistics class.

        Is the Static-99 perfect? Very probably not. But that is all a legislator has to cover their a$$. Remember, the registry is sold as the main thing that stands between little Suzie growing up in happy bliss and ending like Megan Kanka. Come up with a better instrument. But there needs to be something – to allow career politicians to do anything without committing career suicide.

        “Do they take us for absolute idiots and morons?”

        I take you for a person who would have gotten off the registry before the Static-99 provision, and one who would gladly have done so – leaving a great many on the registry (as there was always a life tier in the tier registry bill). So I take you as someone who gives a rats a$$ about anyone but themselves. Not very flattering…

        “some “experts””

        Is this in reference to Karl Hansen’s lack of license to practice medically in the State of California? Do you really need to be a licensed therapist to crunch numbers and calculate standard deviations and such statistical values? Is the guy who comes up with my auto insurance / premium risk a professional race car driver or licensed psychiatrist? I thought not.

        Again – it is the LEGISLATURE that is misusing this actuarial instrument – either with ignorance or malice. It is the LEGISLATURE that your comments should be directed to. Not us. Your continued ranting and barking up the wrong tree here invariably leads me to the conclusion that you are an absolute moron or idiot. How could it not?

        “some serious points that have been brought up before”

        Yes, by you. This is just rich…. make a bunch of repeated claims (with different names, no less) and then refer back to your own points as serious and valid. Repeating something does make it true… Fake News perfected.

        “A lot of things clearly don’t make sense here, unfortunately.”

        First and foremost – you and your “arguments” on this forum. Here is where you want to go:

        http://www.legislature.ca.gov/your_legislator.html

        • empathy, not insults

          Why is this not the right forum for this? This organization does lobby the legislature after all. I am a new commentator to this thread by the way.

      • Joe = Gaslighting?

        Rod,

        Thank you for your input. Do not be discouraged by Joe’s comment – as he is largely incorrect. My belief is that Joe’s comments and accusations are aimed to chill any dissent to exposing the Static-99R for the true scam that it is.

        1. Firstly, Joe incorrectly implies that the Static-99R is valid for up to 10 years. This is incorrect. In the most recent Static-99R Coding Rules, Static-99 “developers” specifically state that the Static-99R is valid for only two years. Here is the exact text: “Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.” The two-year limitation is found on page 13:

        http://static99.org/pdfdocs/Coding_manual_2016_InPRESS.pdf

        2. Secondly, Joe – as well as other adherents to the Static-99R – compares Static-99R (and other “risk assessment” figures) to auto insurance actuarials. While this might be a good comparison at first glance, the risk factors to auto insurance *are* indeed dynamic. Auto insurance risk factors are based on *current* data. Examples: Your *current* age? How much you *currently* use your car? Your *current* location? Are you *currently* married? How many years have you been driving?

        Generally, the only auto insurance factors that remain “static,” per se, in automobile risk assessments are your driving record and gender.

        Contrastingly, the Static-99 Scams assume risk factors from your *past*. Things that do not change. The focus on factors that do *not* change is probably designed to keep Static-99R “statistics” exaggerated. And most importantly, why do people make the comparison between registration – which addresses violations to U.S. Constitutional rights – to the “right” (or lack thereof) to drive. It’s as if the Static-99R “experts” and “doctors” have tricked us into thinking that sex offender registration and driving are two of the same so that they can sell their Static-99 scams.

        3. With regard to “Doctor” Karl Hanson not being a licensed psychologist (or not even a licensed therapist): This issue was discussed a few weeks ago. As I remember, the real concern was that perhaps these “sex offender” statistics were outsourced to Canada for the specific intent of circumventing the APA Code of Ethics requiring complete disclosure and transparency of the Static-99 “tools.” By using Karl Hanson – who is unlicensed in the United States (and it is unclear if Hanson is even licensed in Canada) – Hanson, as well as presumably anyone who contracts him, are not bound by the APA Code of Ethics. Thus, the Static-99R remains a “trade secret.”

        4. If the goals of ACSOL are to 1. Educate, 2. Litigate, and 3. Legislate, then I do not see why Joe should bully anyone into thinking and/or believing that “your continued ranting and barking up the wrong tree” is inappropriate in these forums. Again, I’d disagree with Joe. Instead, we could choose to take the high road and — as a leading example — push for full and unbridled TRUTH.

        5. Also, it is a bit laughable that Joe assumes that everyone who disagrees with the Static-99R is the *same* person. The only gaslighting and Fake News is the one peddled by people like Joe.

        All experts pushing for the Static-99R meet the criteria for Fake News. Using the criteria in the following article, I will apply the criteria for Fake News to how the Static-99R is being deceptively sold to the public:

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/socially-relevant/201711/how-spot-fake-news

        1. IS THE STATIC-99R TOO RIDICULOUS TO BE TRUE?

        – Can 10 questions, “validated” through conflict of interest, and hidden under a “trade secret,” truly “predict” a person’s life?

        2. IS THE STATIC-99R BEING POLITICALLY FRAMED?

        – Legislators are incrementally moving toward “risk-based” registries – which sound great in theory. In this sense, it would probably “take you less than 2 seconds to vehemently agree or disagree with an article or headline,” leading to polarization. Seeing as many experts, as well as registrants, also *disagree* with the Static-99R, then it seems that risk addresses have led to polarization.

        3. FACTS GO VIRAL LESS OFTEN THAN FALSEHOODS.

        – Karl Hanson, as well as Static-99R proponents such as “Joe,” consistently sell the Static Scam as the only alternative to an offense-based registry (as if the solution was only black and white). For example, Joe states that “there needs to be something – to allow career politicians to do anything without committing career suicide.” Why is the only alternative a bogus and misleading risk assessment?

        4. VERIFY THE SOURCE AND CONTEXT.

        – The Static-99R is “validated” through conflict of interest. All underlying validations are conducted by Static-99R “developers” who took part in writing the Static’s Coding Rules [Amy Phenix, Yolanda Fernandez, Andrew J. R. Harris, Maaike Helmus, R. Karl Hanson, & David Thornton]. All “studies” and papers that have proselytized the Static-99R have included *at least* one of the above authors to rely on as a primary source to the Static-99R. It gets even worse with SARATSO’s validation, as the 10 year “pre-validation” includes Karl Hanson’s Carleton University Student: Seung C. Lee. Other “validating” authors include Nyssa Fullmer, Janet Neeley, and Kerry Ramos of the California Department of Justice:

        http://saratso.org/pdf/Lee_Hanson_Fullmer_Neeley_Ramos_2018_The_Predictive_Validity_of_S_.pdf

        Any attempt to examine the true, raw, unedited Static-99R data is blocked by Karl Hanson and his goons. In this case, the Static-99R failed to meet a Daubert challenge.

        http://karenfranklin.com/files/Perren-Ruling-Static99-RRASOR.pdf

        In other instances, Karl Hanson’s schemes have also failed to meet Frye challenges.

        Tellingly, why has Carleton University – a Canadian university – been given a near-monopoly to the Static-99’s raw, unbridled, data? California is home to great universities such as Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, UCLA, etc. Why limit full, unadulterated transparency to *only* Carleton University? Is this fishy to anyone else?

        So it seems that those selling the Static Scams are really the ones pushing Fake News. Conclusion: Static-99R = FAKE NEWS!

    • Rod

      Just to add another thing: If the Static99/R exaggerated 5x to 6x as you say for the civilly committed, then how bad is the Static99/R exaggerating for less serious offenders?? These are some serious points that have been brought up before—especially considering the blatant conflicts of interests involving Karl Hanson, as well as the static data being hidden against what’s required under Daubert and Frye standards.

      A lot of things clearly don’t make sense here, unfortunately.

      • Joe = Gaslighting?

        Rod,

        I am not merely stating an unfounded claim. According to two researchers in an article published in the American Criminal Law Review, “California Department of Mental Health [suppressed] a serious and well-designed study that showed just 6.5% of untreated sexually violent predators were arrested for a new sex crime within 4.8 years of release from a locked mental facility.”

        For SVP’s, Dr. Padilla’s study showed that recidivism was about 6.5% for UNTREATED people within 4.8 years. Karl Hanson’s Static-99 Scam, however, “predicted” recidivism at 37% to 38%. Check out page 727:

        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202538

        I hate to state the obvious, but SVP’s recidivating at 6.5% is a *hell lot* lower than the 37% to 38% that Karl Hanson — in his Static-99 Scam — was “predicting” within the same time period. :-/

        Had the study, unaffected — and not authored/co-authored — by any of the Static-99 “developers,” been finalized, it would probably have undermined the credibility to the Static-99 tests. Because, as you say — and logically speaking — if the Static-99 exaggerated even SVP recidivism at 500% to 600%… then how much more is recidivism exaggerated for non-SVP’s?

        https://thecrimereport.org/2018/08/03/did-california-authorities-suppress-research-on-sexually-violent-predators/

        And keep in mind, the Static-99 exaggeration is for UNTREATED offenders. Assuming that SO “treatment” works, then the Static-99 exaggeration is even greater than 500% to 600% for treated offenders. However, I know that there are also some studies that show sex offender treatment — programs with polygraph, no-privilege-waivers, shaming, and penile plethysmograph — having a detrimental effect on people. But I believe these studies, too, have been suppressed and kept down in past.

        Inconvenient truths.

  3. totally against public registry

    I’m going to do my best to be there.

    Thanks Janice for everything you do!

  4. Tim Moore

    I am going to ask a very basic question, because I know this is the main question on the mind of whoever I am writing to and want to answer it like I am trying to convince a bureaucrat who has already made up his mind:
    “Why shouldn’t these inmates be denied these devices? ”
    To ask it another way:
    “Why should these inmates be allowed to have these devises?
    What’s in it for the department?

    • Janice Bellucci

      What’s in it for the department? That is an absurd question. The fact is that patients currently have access to fewer electronics than prisoners. Not only is that a violation of “the law”, it defies common sense. Almost all of the patients at Coalinga will spend the rest of their lives there. Their lack of access to electronics further isolates them from society and is harmful.

      • Tim Moore

        Yes, what is the department getting out of this? Which laws are they breaking? What studies indicate this is counter productive?
        I may not be doing this devil’s advocate thing right, but I am looking for help with facts.

      • Tim Moore

        Thanks Janice, this sample letter is a great resource. I can get my thoughts together and write my letter now.

  5. Laura

    Will this tyranny ever cease in the land of the free.

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 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 *