ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: April 20 – Phone meeting, May 18 – Sacramento, July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Apr 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

ACSOLCalifornia

ACSOL Leads Lobby Day 2019 in State Capitol

ACSOL led about 40 registrants, family members and supporters in Lobby Day 2019 in the CA State Capitol.  The participants were organized into 6 teams led by Team Leaders experienced in lobbying the state legislature.  Lobby Day 2019 included twenty-eight scheduled meetings in the offices of newly elected and Public Safety Committee members in both the Assembly and the Senate as well as at least a dozen unscheduled meetings in the offices of elected officials who represent districts in which the participants reside.

“The two primary purposes of Lobby Day 2019 were to educate the newly elected officials about the facts regarding the state’s registry as well as to request support for modifications to the Tiered Registry Law,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

The requested modifications included moving downward from Tier 3 those convicted of possessing, distributing and producing illegal images.  This request is consistent with federal guidelines which recommend that those convicted of possessing illegal images be placed in Tier 1 while those convicted of the remaining offenses be placed in Tier 2.

In addition, the group requested that judges be provided discretion to consider removing individuals from Tier 3 of the registry after 30 years provided that they have not committed a subsequent sex offense.  This request is consistent with existing law in 15 states.

Finally, the group requested support for repeal of an existing law that prohibits registrants from viewing their profiles on the Megan’s Law website.  Violations of this law could lead to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to six months in jail.

“In order to prepare their petitions to request removal from the registry in 2021 and beyond, registrants need to have access to information on their profiles,” stated Bellucci.

ACSOL expects to return to the State Capitol in March to further promote its requests.

Clean Up Bill – Point Paper – Rev.Clean Up Bill – Point Paper – Rev. 3 3

Join the discussion

  1. USA

    Great job! How are offenses seen if the charge is reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17B? What if a felony is expunged? What if an offense is reduced to a misdemeanor and later expunged? It would be interesting to see if parameters where instituted with SB 384 as well. If you do this, this and this, it’s granted? When I applied for a COR, the judge stated he couldn’t find one reason to deny my motion, but it wasn’t enough? Motion denied.

    • steve

      Dude hire a lawyer. You bring YOUR situation up here every time. Go figure it out.

      • Matthew

        How about you allow people to post whatever they want. Why don’t you seek a lawyer for your 99 question?

  2. Jack Thompson

    Why the thing about the repeal of looking up other offender’s information? I sincerely think that part is going to scare the lawmakers even more than they already are of us.

    • Will Allen

      Think so? Are the criminal legislators truly that stupid? Only a moron would believe that anyone who is “up to something” would care about any law that said they could not view the Registries. Really, are the criminal legislators that stupid?

      And does anyone actually pay attention or care about that law? What is the point of it anyway? I don’t think there are any legitimate reasons to have it. “People” who support that law are scumbags and stupid.

      Personally, I don’t live in CA but I have it easy in that I have a wife and 50 other people who would look at any Registry that I asked and give me the information. Is that illegal as well?! The CA criminal legislators are truly dumbf*cks. I hate smug, lying, old dumbf*cks. They make me puke actually.

      I took the Registry in my state and used it to automatically print out over 500 mailing labels and sent letters to each of the people. Even if my state had a law like CA’s, I still would have done that. If anyone cared, I simply would’ve said that I had someone else print the labels. I really, really wish these criminal regimes would put the e-mail addresses of Registrants online so I could easily contact every single one. As it is, I have had to mail the Registrants that live near me to get their phone numbers and other information. It is easy enough to stay in contact with the Registrants near me but I would like to be able to more easily contact everyone.

    • RegistrantNotAnOffender

      Does anyone really not look at their profile?

    • David

      @ Jack Thompson: I believe you misunderstood the purpose. The purpose is so that EACH individual registrant can see & review HIS/HER OWN information and verify that it is accurate. That way, if he/she wants to request removal from the Registry, he/she will have the accurate information about what his/her website profile looks like and also be able to request any corrections to inaccurate information.

  3. jesse

    Tier 3 is all messed up… beyond the CP issues addressed above. Unless I am misreading it. Can someone check?

    288.3 and 288.4 (contacting a minor and meeting a minor for sex) is Tier 3. Meaning talking to a 17 year old about meeting behind the bleachers and going there for that is Tier 3, while 288(a) – having actual sex with a 10 year old (any age before 2010) is Tier 2.

    288(c) (L&L with a 14/15 year old while 10 yrs older, wobbler) is Tier 3, while 288(a) (L&L with under 14, any age, felony) is Tier 2.

    Of course, that nonsense about using a STATIC test that explicitly is good for 10 years to determine lifetime.

    IMO, lobbying to request support for repeal of an existing law that prohibits registrants from viewing their profiles on the Megan’s Law website is a waste of time. It belongs in a lawsuit, as there is absolutely no reason to deny a registrant and their family the benefits of the public safety aspect the Megan’s Law web site provides (har har).

    But thanks to all 40! people who cared enough to show up.

    • Mr. D

      @jessee – You might want to revisit 288c as it is not Tier 3. It is a wobbler and my attorney has stated it is Tier one.

      • jesse

        That is what I thought, and that is what makes sense. However, revisiting PC 290, as modified by SB 384 – from the official CA Legislature site http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=290.&lawCode=PEN:

        (3) A tier three offender is subject to registration for life. A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies:

        (ix) Subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 288.

        Here is Section 288 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=288&lawCode=PEN

        288.
        (a) Except as provided in subdivision (i), a person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

        (b) (1) A person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 10 years.

        (2) A person who is a caretaker and commits an act described in subdivision (a) upon a dependent person by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, with the intent described in subdivision (a), is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 10 years.

        ***************(c) (1) A person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.************

        (2) A person who is a caretaker and commits an act described in subdivision (a) upon a dependent person, with the intent described in subdivision (a), is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.

        288(a) is the most common offense by someone of any age, a straight felony, involving a victim under 14 and Tier 2. According to this, 288(c) is the same offense by someone 10 years older, involving a victim 14/15, a wobbler and Tier 3.

        So a 25 year old (or 50 year old) who commits such an act on a 5 year old is Tier 2, while a 25 year old (or 50 year old) who commits the same act on / with a 15 year old is Tier 3?

        Is this a mistake? Am I mistaken?

        • JAB

          Jesse: Let me educate you a little more on 288 (a). This is not a intercourse charge, like you referenced with a 10 year old. And I am not sure why you are comparing codes as to why one should be a 2 and one a 3. For example, an 18 year old whom is dating a 14 year old is guilty of 288 (a) and you will never convince me that this code would be a tier 3. It should not be, just like I agree the CP’s should absolutely should not be a tier 3. I think we need to avoid comparing other people’s violations and acting like one is way worse than the other and this code should be a 3 and not mine. 288 is a huge code that affects over 80 percent of the registry. It can run as simple dating type relationship, to something more extreme with a huge gap in age. But many of these offense’s have occurred with boyfriend/girlfriend type relationships or one time stupid mistakes over 30 to 40 years ago. B section of the 288 is a violent offense. It’t not the same type of crime. So obviously, it would be tier 3. Section C relates to the 10 age gap difference. Which is also another reason why they label it ( Not sure all c’s are a tier 3) Now meeting someone behind the bleachers and nothing happens, I agree, that is no way a tier 3 and I am not sure that is a tier 3. I will research that. This is why we were all in Sacramento Tuesday bringing attention to these gaps in tiers and hoping we can get a bill going in support of changes. It’s a long process and thank you so much to the donors and Janice and especially K whom set up all these meetings. You guys are the best!!!

        • Mot

          I am guilty of an attempted 288(a) as the result of a police sting. The person on the other end of our communication was a 40 year old cop. There was no restitution to pay since there was no physical victim. The PD used this back in 2001 as the charge; they went to far as to introduce another “under 14 year old” to double the charge. Anyway I did 22 months in prison and have been our since 2003. I am hoping that this is a Tier 1 so that I can shed all of this.

        • jesse

          @JAB – there is no doubt I am far from an expert on this subject, but may I respectfully suggest you educate yourself, instead of chastising me here?

          An 18 year old who is dating a 14 year old can never be guilty of PC 288(a) since that deals with a person under the age of 14 years, in other words, 13 and younger. So, fail right off the bat.

          PC 288(a) is incredibly vague and covers a whole host of conduct. Touching a 13 year old on the thigh, as well as having sexual intercourse with an 11 year old. Until the introduction of PC 288.7 (in 2006 or 2010, can’t remember), which addresses actual penetration of a person 10 or under (not under 10 – my bad), it also covered sexual intercourse with a 5 year old. Be that an 18 year old or 26 year old or 62 year old offender.

          The same conduct is covered by 288(c) – only qualified by the ages of the actors. 14/15 years and at least 10 years older.

          Because this Tiered Registry is entirely offense based (outside the ridiculous notion that a test designed to project risk for 10 years max is used for lifetime consequences), comparing offenses – on a general, legislative level – is all we got.

          So why is a 26 year old touching a 15 year old on the thigh Tier 3, but a 26 year old touching a 13 year old on the thigh or a 26 year old having sexual intercourse with an 11 year old or a 26 year old having sexual intercourse with a 7 year old more than 10/15 years ago Tier 2?

          And 288.4 – Arranging a meeting with a minor with intent to engage in any kind of sexual conduct (i.e. Oral Cop, PC 288a(b)(1)) – meeting a 17 year old behind the bleachers – is Tier 3. While the actual sex crime, i.e. Oral Cop with a 17 year old – the horror, I know – PC 288a(b)(1) is Tier 1. Going to meet a 12 year old with intent to have sex is Tier 3, actually having sex with a 12 year old is Tier 2.

          Would appreciate an education on that….

  4. Roger

    Thanks to all you warriors who showed up, stood up, and spoke up! It makes a difference because by educating an sharing our stories it changes hearts of many legislators and staff.

    I hope we get fast results by having a legislator author a bill with our recommended changes, but at the least ACSOL “planted seeds” in the minds of legislators.

  5. LS

    A million thanks to Janice et.al and all that showed up, to speak on behalf of everyone involved! Without you, all of us would be in much more dire situations!

  6. Matthew

    What is funny is that they state they deny access to megans law so that way we dont meet up and go on a binge of sex crimes…. yet we all meet up for therapy at one point and information is easy to access through 3rd party websites such as home facts.

    • Will Allen

      I mean, it’s just idiotic. And the criminal legislators just being stupid dumbf*cks. They are such a disgusting bunch of un-American harassers.

      Anyone with a brain realizes that anyone who wants to meet up with other people who are Registered is simply going to do it. There are a billion ways to do it legally and anyone with bad intentions isn’t going to care anyway.

      If these criminal regimes weren’t such first class a-holes, perhaps people could treat them decently and respectfully. But nope.

      • Matthew

        Plus, let’s take another route on this… Let’s say we have kids and the registry was for public safety. How do I protect my children from these horrible monsters on the registry? Do I not have that same ability to protect my kids?
        I hope you guys see where I am going with it.

        • Will Allen

          Of course. I would expect that most people who are Registered have children. The criminal regime of CA is saying that children of Registered people do not matter (and they certainly should be sued for that). I would hope that much is clear even without this “can’t look at Registry” idiocy. We know that Registries have no legitimate public safety or law enforcement purpose. They exist under the lies of “public safety” and “protecting children”. And really all they do is put Registered people, their spouses, and their children in danger.

          To the criminal regime of CA, those children are part of the Registered underclass families and THEY DO NOT COUNT. They do not matter and it is of no concern to them if those children are dead or not. Should be clear to everyone.

          Obviously, the Registries are war. Give them what they asked for.

        • Matthew

          You knew exactly where I was going with that!

    • David

      We also meet together to pursue changes to legislation, learn about various laws, and plan events and protests.

  7. Eric

    Thank Janice and co. I’m sure this made a huge impression. Educating people is the key. Most people convicted of a sex crime are decent people who will never offend again. Quite the opposite of the hysteria promoted for decades.

  8. steve

    It doesn’t seem like anyone is addressing this issue of no static 99 score and having to wait TWO additional years for relief. This no score situation probably applies to anyone on the list 15 years or longer who didn’t go to prison.

    • RegistrantNotAnOffender

      And how did you contribute? See that’s thr problem, people want Janice to just complain about their unique situation.

      • steve @USA @registrantnoitanoffenser

        I believe I Just wrote to Interpol on behalf of many of us…

      • steve @ registrantnotoffender/USA

        There are MANY MANY people in the category of no static score.

        • Relief

          @Steve- According to Janet Neeley of CASOMB, about a year ago, 35,000 California registrants had Static scores. So, ~65,000 did not.

          Plus, I have posted several times that “Relief is 2023 not 2021” because of the DOJ ‘undetermined Tier’ category. I suspect, with a good lawyer, a ‘petitioner’ in 2021/22 could hire an accredited Psych/STATIC 99 specialist and submit the score along with a psych eval with the file. Maybe.

  9. Patsy Hug

    Thank you Janice and all 40 of the people who went. I hope someone listens.

    • David

      @ Patsy: Mostly, we who lobbied lmet with their office staffperson in charge of Public Safety, etc. Yes, some of them listened carefully, took many notes, and asked many detailed question. Others, not so much. In any case, all had the courtesy to hear us out regarding our concerns.

  10. Obviously Not Obvious

    Static 99R and risk assessments are some of the most stupid aspects about the sex offender registration schemes.

    Unfortunately, Scam 99 is hear to stay.

  11. Mike G

    Wait! I’m hearing things I haven’t heard before!

    Is someone saying that those without a Static 99 score can’t apply to get off the registry in 2021?

    That makes no sense! If you are a Tier 2 then you have to have been on the registry for 20 years in order to apply to get off, right?

    I don’t think anyone who has been on the registry for 20 years HAS a Static 99 score, so anyone on Tier 2 can’t apply until 2023??

    That is just crazy! Why didn’t we add that idiocy to the green sheet items we discussed with the congressional staff members??

  12. AERO1

    It’s cool to see that Janice is letting them know that they ain’t doing us any favors with there new tier law it’s been well way overdue so much resepct to her for that one!!

  13. ThePatsy Hug

    The laws and changes are so vast and broad. Federal versus State law, punishment, and registry. Feds have no registry, so Fed Felons must abide by the State laws they live in. So changes must occur at the State level for Fed Registrants only as far as the registry. I pray for tier one. The other steps from felony to misdeameanor, would be up to a Federal Judge. My son’s PO does not even pay any attention to the fight that is being faught by all of you, us in our way regarding the three tier registry. He has nothing to say and no opinion other than “we have to agree and have not been given any any information.” The Fed group my son attends still says and believes that all PCs are already tier one…and nothing printed off this page has convinced them otherwise. They have no idea of the steps they will need to take. My son does, because I come to this site. I don’t know how the information is ever going to get to all the people, registrants involved. I don’t know how all the many situations will be challenged and placed in a proper place on the registry. I still wonder if the fight should be to abolish the registry, which to me, was unconstitutional in the first place. Thank you Janice and all who continue the fight and understand the complexities, even if we individuals out here are all confused.

    • AJ

      “Feds have no registry, so Fed Felons must abide by the State laws they live in.”
      —–
      This raises an interesting question as to an Equal Protection claim to be made here. Two Fed RCs, alike in all ways (offense, sentence, etc.) except State of residence are treated dissimilarly. I suppose the Feds could argue that the RCs chose where to live…but wouldn’t that then amount to punishment for opting against exercising one’s Freedom of Travel right? Yet another tough challenge to mount and win (aren’t they all, when to do with RC laws?), but certainly a curious situation. The Feds are abdicating sovereignty to the States when it comes to actual registration. I think at some point, the Feds relying on the State registries for the function of federal laws (I’m specifically and particularly looking at you, IML) will be a problem for other team.

      • TS

        @AJ

        What you refer to here is exactly how the DOD operates WRT the military members who are convicted under Article 120 of the UCMJ. They pawn the registry punishment off on the states to admin their registry upon the convicted military member. Since there are 50 states and a number of commonwealths/territories with diff registry systems where a convicted military member could live in, I believe there are probably some lawsuit candidates.

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 *

.