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


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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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… Read more »

Does anyone really not look at their profile?

No, absolutely none of us. 🙂 Why, that would be wrong.

I don’t get it. Do their profiles state that they are stupid?

@ 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.

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.… Read more »

@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.

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 (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 288 288. (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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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.

@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… Read more »

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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… Read more »

You knew exactly where I was going with that!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

@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.

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

@ 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.

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.

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… Read more »

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!!

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… Read more »

“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… Read more »


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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x