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


ALERT! AB 884 will be heard April 9!! Show up, and keep calling and writing. Here is how…

AB 884 will be heard April 9!!

Click here to find out how to show up! We need at least 100 people for maximum impact!

Please continue calling and writing. Please do so if you haven’t already.

Here is the committee’s report:

AB 884 – Assy Pub Safe – Analysis – April 2019_00001

Comments regarding the proposed bill start at the bottom of page 4 and a list of supporters and opponents is on page 10 (final page). Please note that there are only 3 supporters, 2 of which are law enforcement organizations. Also please note that there are 12 opposing organizations, including ACSOL and the CA Sex Offender Management Board, as well as 78 private individuals. The strongest arguments against the bill as reported in the analysis are attributed to the CA Public Defenders Association including the comment that the bill “is a m



Click here to find out how to show up!



See this letter for talking points:

AB 884 – Letter to Asy Pub Saf – March 2019_00001

Assembly Public Safety Committee Members – District – Phone

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (Chair) Dem – 59 (916) 319-2059
Tom Lackey (Vice Chair) Rep – 36 (916) 319-2036
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan Dem – 16 (916) 319-2016
Tyler Diep Rep – 72 (916) 319-2072
Sydney Kamlager-Dove Dem – 54 (916) 319-2054
Bill Quirk Dem – 20 (916) 319-2020
Miguel Santiago Dem – 53 (916) 319-2053
Buffy Wicks Dem – 15 (916) 319-2015



Letters should be addressed to Committee Chairman Reginald Jones-Sawyer and sent by FAX to (916) 319-3745. There are many online fax services such as free

The mailing address for the Assembly Public Safety Committee is:

1020 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Mail soon to get there in time!

Click here to download a sample letter:

AB 884 – Letter to Asy Pub Saf – March 2019_00001

Below is the plain text of the body of the letter. Please just use it for your ideas. If you copy and paste a lot of it into your letter, they won’t treat your letter as important as one you word yourself:

AB 884 – Letter to Asy Pub Saf – March 2019_00001 – Plain text body of letter [Word]


This is more important than almost any other bill we have fought!

In related news, the CA Sex Offender Management Board agreed today to formally oppose AB 884. The Board will send a letter to the Committee this week and a board representative may testify during the futurehearing.

“If AB 884 becomes law, 50 percent of those who would benefit from the Tiered Registry Law would be harmed,” stated CASOMB member Janet Neeley. “The board made a stand during negotiations of the Tiered Registry Bill and threatened to withdraw its support at that time if the bill included assignment of those convicted of PC 288(a) to Tier 3.”

“Passage of AB 884 would undo everything we worked for in supporting a tiered registry,” stated CASOMB Vice Chair Brenda Crowding.

“We don’t want to abandon the tiered registry,” stated CASOMB member Judge Brett Morgan. “Sending a letter to the legislature about AB 884 would educate legislators about the potential significant impact of that bill.”

Due to the one week delay, there is additional time to send letters to and call the offices of the eight Committee members. There is also additional time to make plans to participate in the future hearing.

“If Assembly Bill 884 becomes law, it will gut the Tiered Registry Law,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Specifically, the bill would move more than 40,000 people from Tier 2 that requires 20 years of registration to Tier 3 that requires lifetime registration.”

The Tiered Registry Law was passed by the legislature and signed into law in October 2017 and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2021. Under the Tiered Registry Law, individuals required to register would be assigned to one of three tiers based upon the offense for which they were convicted. Tier assignment would determine when an individual is eligible to petition for removal from the registry. Specifically, individuals assigned to Tier 1 could be eligible to petition for removal after 10 years while individuals assigned to Tier 2 could be eligible to petition for removal after 20 years. Individuals assigned to Tier 3 would not be eligible to petition for removal because they would be required to register for a lifetime.

The bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (Republican, Murrieta) on February 20.

This bill would assign to Tier 3 individuals convicted of violating PC 288(a), lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14.

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

I will be there.

One argument that I have not seen yet, that might give some cover for the legislators is that Tier 2 is not an automatic exclusion. Thus, a Tier 2 registrant, whose actions were outrageous enough to the DA, could have their deregistration contested. In other words, through case-by-case analysis, a Tier 2 registrant could have their registration extended; a Tier 3 registrant, however, could not have their registration lowered.

I oppose AB 884. Not all convicted of 288a are preditors or pedophiles.
I’ve personally have seen this with a relative. Turned out this person was molested as s child. Eve court appointed psychiatrist said in writing that this particular young person should not have to register and it would do more harm then good! Tier 2.
So your Bill is wrong.

“Not all convicted of 288a are preditors or pedophiles.”

That’s not even so much the point as it’s the fact that not all predators and pedophiles (who are, in fact, predators and pedophiles) are dangerous. And, then, to take it even further, those who are dangerous aren’t all AS dangerous as some of the very worst.

There are different levels of child-sex risk by nature. If it were up to me, some 288 convicts would even be a tier 1; or not register at all, even.

And none of that is the point even. The fact is that Registries aren’t needed or useful for anyone, “predator” or not. The Registries do nothing to usefully protect people. And it is trivial to negate the Registries if a person wants to. Even beyond that, it is very dangerous to list a person on the Registries because, in many, many cases, it makes the person really want to harm other people. I would expect that it is even more dangerous to list true, real predators on any Registry. That seems just incredibly stupid and short-sighted to me. We’ve certainly… Read more »

Haha No, Will, I think both you and I are validly on point.

What use the registry is (perhaps in certain rare cases, like what indeed had happened to Megan Kanka), 288’s fall on the wide spectrum every bit as much as any other type of sex offender; or any other criminal.

(That’s to say if some 288’s must even be considered criminals in a more just society; since at least a few researches have found that some teenagers, by biological reality, can and do consent. But, I’ll save this particular academic discussion for later time.)

AC (April 5, 2019): Yep, I think you are right. But Registries weren’t needed even in Megan’s case. It would not nearly have been enough to have shown her a picture of the Registered guy (Jesse Timmendequas) and say “don’t go by him”. Doing that would not have changed her overall risk level in any significant way. The only way that she actually could have been protected is if she had been told that she could not trust anyone in general and that she should never go to a home or anywhere alone with anyone without her parents knowing about… Read more »

@ J L: What are you talking about? AB884 is certainly NOT “our Bill”. We oppose AB884 and we are working hard to make sure it is defeated!
Please call or write to the Assembly members on the California Assembly Public Safety Committee. Tell THEM that AB884 is a bad Bill and join us to make sure the Bill is defeated.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x