ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

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

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 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

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What do we write when we sent them a email ?

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.

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).

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

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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.

” 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.… Read more »

@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… Read more »

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… Read more »

@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.

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

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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.

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… Read more »

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.

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: I hate to state the obvious, but… Read more »

I’m going to do my best to be there.

Thanks Janice for everything you do!

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?

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.

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.

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

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

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x