ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations



CA Senate Passes Senate Bill 145

The California Senate passed Senate Bill (SB) 145 by a vote of 25 to 3 on May 28. Ten of the Senators present at the time of the vote chose not to vote on this bill. Due to the Senate’s passage of this bill, SB 145 will move to the Assembly for a series of votes. If the Assembly passes the bill, the Governor will be provided an opportunity to sign it.

“Thank you to everyone who made phone calls and sent letters to the Senators who represent you in support of SB 145,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Your efforts made a difference!”

If SB 145 becomes law, gays and lesbians convicted of performing some sexual acts with an individual who is within 10 years of their age will no longer be required to register as a sex offender. This is already how heterosexual individuals are treated under the law.

We will let you know when to take action on the next step in supporting this bill. Make sure you are signed up for our Action Alerts (see the right side of all our pages).



We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wouldn’t this be something if it was achieved at each stop then for the pro-gay Gov to be signed!!!?
A Landmark bill decision, WOW.
Wait an see what happens next. Thank You Janice for this timely and important process and it’s status.
I am sure they’re some RV’s here that be be directly affected and possibly benefit from th he change that can occur. Including me & my Husband.

The passage of SB 145 by the CA Senate is simply another step in the right direction. Thank you Janice and ACSOL for all of your hard work and diligence in seeking justice for registrants and their families.

I encourage all people – whether your effected by it or not – to call your Assemblyperson and encourage them to support this important legislation.

After that’s passed, maybe they will also redo their scoring system. If I understand correctly, men with a male victim get more points than if the victim was a female. That also sounds like homosexual actions are being singled out for extra punishment.

Yes, because we’re THAT popular! Tell me this isn’t convenient bigotry… Just to illustrate the level of prejudice, compare the attitudes towards female teachers who boinked young males with their male adult counterparts and then also those same male teachers + young males with male teachers prosecuted for sex with young females. It’s obvious. This is the only expression of homophobia still considered socially acceptable.

I have no doubt that most women charged with a sex crime gets preferred treatment. I know a young looking 35 year old woman that was charged with many felonies for a violent statutory rape on a 16 year old girl with drugs involved that was facing over 20 years in prison. She found the girl online and groomed her. She was able to plea to a misdemeanor with 3 months house arrest, no offender treatment and just 3 years informal probation. She must register, but is not listed on the public web site. She also has no restrictions (like no internet or no testosterone injections the health department pays for) and never had a search of her electronics or home. The court system is not concerned about most women that commit sex offenses unless the media gets involved. This case was from Mendocino County.

@Graphlr, …that’s what the str8 right wing Christian Judge told me@sentencing…period, thous shall punish the Homosexual for violating acts

So this bill would make it okay for an adult of 20 years old to engage in sexual activities with my 10 year old daughter? Please explain properly before I exit thile state of California.

Thank you

@whatever. Thank you for putting into words what my head was trying to wrap itself around.
Because, I for one, am not in a gratuitous mindset for this here bill. It is NOT OKAY for a 20 year old to have any type of intercourse with a person 10 years its junior. If we are understanding this bill correctly, then EW! That’s a pedophile and that just can’t be tolerated!!
Please someone, tell me that that is not what this bill accomplishes!

@Roseville, this article should clarify the purpose of this bill:

That is a link to the bill. It allows exactly what you fear it does.

For the rest of you, instead of reading a headline about the good a bill is supposed to do you should actually read the bill and find out what it really does.

Who said anything about “okay for an adult of 20 years old to engage in sexual activities with my 10 year old daughter?” This is about making the law equal for gay people, in this case, gay youth. If you have a problem with that then don’t let the door hit you on your way out of California. Consider Alabama as a place friendlier to your convictions.

Laws do not Discriminate based on sexual orientation. This piece of legislation does not mention sexual orientation at all. Age of consent in CA is 18. Do not act as if this is some type of equality issue to shut people up. This is about adults now being able to sleep with minors. It’s disturbing you’re celebrating so openly. Does a 15 year old now have the okay to sleep with a 5 year old?

Thank you, Janice, for your leadership


Thank you standing up for the rights of so many. You are my Families and many others HERO!!!

Thank you Janice and team for your leadership in getting this bill passed. Although this bill doesn’t affect me, I contacted my senator via online and asked that that he vote yes as you recommended. I just checked the voting roster and the senator voted yes. So I’m glad it passed the senate because it isn’t about being gay or straight. Rather, it’s about equal treatment under the law regardless of one’s sexual orientation.

JANICE, WHEN was SB145 amended for t
removal of protection of residency restrictions BACK ON after ALL your hard work adn City Suits??
Did THEY (law Enfr) ADD amend On Senator Wiener’s Bill? When and Where did it occur and who by?

SB 145 was amended on May 21, long after we spoke in support of it on April 9. With the amendment, the bill grew from 2 pages to 13 pages. There is one small phrase in two small subsections of the 13-page bill that has created the current crisis regarding residency restrictions.

You have got to be kidding me. NO!!!! ban this out law this… Having sex with babies is not ok… So if one is 20yrs and the other is 10yrs that would be all good?!?!?! You have got to be kidding me… This is only here to protect child molesters plain and simple and thats what they all are CHILD MOLESTERS

@ Hazen: Had you bothered to actually read the Bill, you would know that that is not what it says. Ignorant comments are unwelcome.

(😏 It appears that the information available to the public on was last updated July 11th of 2019. Yes, that’s correct – 2019 – more than a year ago! Pathetic. 😣)

Wow! A bill passed under our noses while we are told to stay home because of a dangerous virus. This bill will make this state unsafe for children, rapists will get a slap on the hand while their life’s are ruined. By garnishing the Gay votes you threw the children under the bus. It’s wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. This state had gone third world by failing to protect the innocent children who live here.

That’s not what this bill does. The judges already had this ability for heterosexual crimes of this nature but not in same-sex crimes. Now the law covers both sides equally.

Also, how is the state and fed protecting children when they’re forcing children to register as sex offenders for the crime of taking a nude selfie? If you’re kid does this, there’s a good chance they’ll be registering with the rest of us and treated just as gracefully by the public and law.

I’m pretty sure that the penalty is still confinement either in jail or prison + probation consistent with the same criminal punishments for that type of offense so they do in fact have recourse. The bill doesn’t take away any of that. It doesn’t even likely take away the registration requirement in most cases except that a judge now has some discretion to remove such registration requirement.
Such a decision is likely to be done with a balancing test whereby the danger of the person posed to the public is less than the benefit to not having that person on a registry. That is not always an easy hurdle to overcome by an offender.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x