ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: August 17 – San Diego, September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

Action Items

[UPDATED 7/5/19] EMERGENCY Action Alert: ACSOL reverses position on SB 145! Please make calls now!

SUCCESS! Your calls worked! We support SB 145 again because residency restrictions are removed!

Read about our new strategy

 

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    Sounds like the board slipped in a little retaliatory clause, “If you pass this bill we hate, they you will pay.” This has to stop somewhere. The abuse, the blatant discrimination, the constitutional violations, it just has to stop somewhere.

  2. D

    I don’t understand how the new changes (6b and 6c) are really any different from what has already been there with regard to residency restrictions. The only thing added is “or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290”, but the part about those that are required to register not living with 2000 feet of school or park is not new, but it was not enforceable.

    How does adding the quoted words above change that being enforceable?

    Also, I can’t even seem to find “paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290”. I see paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) which talks about tier 2 registrants, but c has no subparagraphs.

  3. Let CA Be Free

    Is Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez (Appropriations Committee Chair) behind this horribly destructive amendment?

    • Eric

      She is definitely the Ron Book of San Diego. She should be investigated for some personal agenda she has at attacking registrants. She continually violates the courts rulings. Several courts, including the Superior Court, has ruled that her residency restrictions are unconstitutional, but she has such a personal vendetta against registrants that she refuses to follow the rule of law. I don’t know why I was incarcerated for breaking the law, but she is allowed to continue to do so without consequence.

  4. JC

    Is this Sen. Weiner’s doing? Why would he make these changes?
    So this basically means that ALL registrants in California would be prohibited from living 2000 feet within schools and parks?
    Wasn’t this already defeated before?

    • David

      @JC: I cannot imagine that Denator Wiener would do this willingly. Somehow, someone forced this amendment language into his Bill. Who knows what was promised (or threatened) behind closed doors, but now we have no other choice but to fight – with full force – opposed to Bill SB-145! Take action today!! Have friends and family call! We must defeat this bill!

      • Matthew

        You cant imagine a politician doing this? LOL

        • David

          @Matthew: I can understand your jaded skepticism, but why would a politician who has built his career on being a friend to (his own) LGBTQIA community willingly double-cross so many of its members with these amendments?? In fact, it would seem to me that he would more likely just withdraw the Bill from further consideration rather than allow it to move forward as a much worse Bill with his name forever attached to it. That is why I suggest something unusual must be behind these amendments.
          (Maybe Kamala is promising him the U.S. AG position if she wins! 🙃)

  5. Rich

    I’m surprised we didn’t catch this sooner. Wasn’t this provision already declared unconstitutional several years ago? At the very least these provisions are carte blanche for any community in the state wishing to rid themselves of registered citizens, forcing many to go homeless. Again.

  6. mike r

    Yeah what the hell man. This is just the same old crap that the courts and even the AG in my case say they will not enforce,
    SEC. 6. Section 3003.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
    3003.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is released on parole after having served a term of imprisonment in state prison for any offense for which registration is required pursuant to Section 290, or for a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290, that person may not, during the period of parole, reside in any single family single-family dwelling with any other person also person required to register pursuant to Section 290, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. For purposes of this section, “single family “single-family dwelling” shall not include a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons.
    (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 290, or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290, to reside within 2000 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

    Now the following I thought got shot down somewhere sometime but is still something to consider.

    (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290. 290 or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290.

    To be honest, some people are about to go postal I can tell you that. The limit to government is approaching fast I can tell you that. CA is trying its BS gun crap again and it ain’t going to go down well. Not to mention how someone like me is feeling about all this. Making people pretty unstable for sure.

  7. G4Change

    We need to find out whomever had this destructive amendment placed into this bill and see about having him/her removed from office. This is unacceptable!!!

  8. L

    The amended bill passed by the Senate does NOT CHANGE anything dealing with residency restrictions. The amended language only uniformly added the reference to the new section, 290(c)(2), throughout the codes. The only reference to residency restrictions is within Section 3003.5 of the Penal Code, which only deals with persons on parole. The residency restrictions on parolees written into those sections, amended or not, have already been struck down by the California Supreme Court in 2015. Therefore, the section in 3003.5 is not enforceable anyway and any amending to it does not overrule the Court. While eliminating 3003.5(b) and (c) would make it look nicer, it isn’t required. It appears SB 145, as it stands currently, is still a good bill and would not place any new residency restrictions on anyone. It still allows the court to determine parole conditions for persons required to register and persons not required to register by the court for sexual offenses, i.e. guilty of offenses listed in 290(c)(1) and (2). Please tell me why SB 145 should now be opposed?

    • Q

      @PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTION ADHERENCE.
      You think because a similar law was rejected by a court in 2015 and there by the new unenforceable?I

      Yee presume too much!

      • WC_TN

        Once the court rules against any level of government on this issue, you can always bet your last dollar that they will try to find another way to skin the same cat. Never let your guard down.

    • Neil

      This analysis is not correct. First, the supreme court’s ruling in Taylor did not render PC 3003.5(b) or (c) unenforceable. It merely ruled that residency restrictions cannot be applied *as a blanket restriction* (e.g., automatically, upon all parolees) without considering the individual circumstances of each parolee. Therefore, technically, the state (under subdivision (b)) and local governments (under subdivision (c)) can still impose residency restrictions in some form, although most have chosen not to. Second, you are correct that the *existing* language of PC 3003.5(b) and (c) has been judicially construed to authorize residency restrictions against parolees only. However, SB 145 adds *new language* to subdivisions (b) and (c), which is not limited to parolees, and that could be construed by the state and by local governments as an invitation to enact residency restrictions against anyone ever convicted of a felony registrable offense. Your analysis assumes that the court would consider this new language to accomplish nothing more than restating the statute’s current language, which is not how statutory interpretation works. Also, note that SB 145’s amendments to PC 3003(b) and (c) is not even limited to those currently required to register, but includes anyone convicted of a felony registrable offense – even people who have been relieved of the duty to register. Look at it this way: One reason why local governments have repealed their residency restrictions, and have been reluctant to enact new ones, is precisely because their authority is currently limited to parolees, which is a small fraction of registrant population. But SB 145 would invite local governments to enact new residency restrictions against all registrants, and former registrants. Please trust ACSOL on this one and reconsider your support for SB 145.

      • SR

        PC 3003.5 is regarding people on parole. I don’t see where these new amendments change that to cover a wider range of people. I also don’t see how any of the changes actually change the original court ruling. Is our system really so narrow that a brand new ruling would have to be issues because a comma was added to “2,000”?

        • L

          Again, as I state above, I agree. None of this changes the Taylor decision on blanket residency restrictions as unconstitutional or section 3003.5 dealing with parolees.

        • James

          Re: SB 145: Unfortunately, I won’t be able to make the trip but I set up a phone tree of assembly members and called them all to oppose the bill. Thanks for the heads up on messenger!!

  9. LS

    I will make ALL calls first thing in the morning!
    Thank you Janice!!!

  10. Lake County

    I’m confused. I read all 3 versions that is posted for this bill and each one has the 2000 ft residency requirement. Was this just missed when we supported this bill originally? Someone from ACSOL please explain. I will make my calls again after there is a better explanation as to what happened. Also, would this 2000ft rule be retro-active to those no longer on Parole/Probation?

    • steve

      So what does it say? Who does it apply to?

    • Thoughtasweak

      This was a recent change in the language of the bill. This wasn’t overlooked. As soon as we knew about the change, we issued a change in position on the bill.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The original bill that we supported at the April 9 hearing of the Senate Public Safety Committee was only two pages long and did not mention residency restrictions.

    • David

      @ Lake County: No, Lake County, you did NOT miss/overlook it in the original Bill. It was NOT in the original Bill. These changes are recent.

      As for the back-and-forth of who these changes might affect, I am not a lawyer, but I am going to listen to Janice. After all, she is the one who has fought and won (or has forced the cities’ settlements of) these many residency lawsuits. Janice knows these laws and she knows what’s at stake.

  11. Dustin

    I might be wrong, but I think the CA Supreme Court in 2015 said that counties and cities couldn’t make their local restrictions stricter than the state’s. If the state adopts the 2000 ft. rule, theoretically the CASC wouldn’t have a problem with it, though they’d be pretty hard pressed to explain how the state’s 2000 ft. restriction is somehow more constitutional and less crippling than a city’s or county’s.

    • James A

      That decision applied to presence restrictions – which the Court said the State did not empower the locals to do.

  12. Agamemnon

    After over 4 yrs of parole (and no violations), I was looking forward to finally being able to move to more affordable housing next year as I can barely make ends mete due to the residency restrictions imposed on me.

    Please everyone, do what you can to stop the amendments added to this bill.

  13. Eric

    I made all the calls, four mail boxes were full so I couldn’t leave a message. I’m guessing that is a good thing. I got through to Scott Weiner’s office.

  14. Abc

    Made calls and left messages. Some voice boxes were full so I hope that’s from people leaving VMs over this.

  15. Matt

    I will do what is asked of me here. That said: How many times do we need to get curb-stomped by the professional liars to learn that this is not the way to make change? This is the exact same last-minute bait and switch strategy that they used with the Tiered Registry Scam. Make it sound palatable for us, right up to the last minute…….And then, PRESTO!

  16. COOL CA RC

    Can we Fax if voice mail don’t work?

  17. David

    🌟🌟🌟 You can also send them a message by clicking on “Contact the Assemblyman/Assembly member.” When the autobot asks for your address, use the Assemblymember’s own local office address (i.e., Suite 200, 55 East Main Street, Bogoville, CA 90000). This is a way around their limit to receive messages only from their own constituents. AND it’s perfectly justified because, when they serve on these Committees, they represent all Californians, not just their one District!
    🌟🌟 Please be sure your message to him/her includes your name and address so they will know you are a real voter/constituent/Californian and will not disregard your message.

  18. Kim

    ‘Just finished making all requested calls and was pleased to reach a real person at the end of each line. I am more than happy to be able to stand up, speak up and support the effort – whether able to show up in person or not.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you, Kim, and others for calling the offices of the members of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee as well as the author of the bill, Sen. Scott Wiener! Perhaps because of these calls, ACSOL has been invited to meet with staff in the senator’s office to discuss SB 145. We will do our best to explain how the language in Section 6 could result in homelessness for more tens of thousands CA families.

  19. David

    🙄 How did the amendment’s author forget to include nurseries/daycare facilities, libraries, museums, arcades, malls, fast food restaurants and movie theaters. Can’t forget those! [Sarcasm intended!]
    Fire that careless staffer! 😖

    • Mike G

      @David

      The author also forgot “anywhere a school bus stops” and “anywhere a minor resides”.

      That ought to get the number of affected RCs up over 99% easy…

  20. David

    🙄 So I couldn’t live near a park….. but I could spend 12 hours a day there walking my dog, eating my lunch, and reading a book??
    Hooray for pandering lawmakers and their brain-dead voters!!! 😖

    • Will Allen

      It is different, right? If you live by a park, you could sit in your home and video children all day long. Possibly find out if one is there every day and when and how they leave. Set a trap. Etc., etc. etc.

      But we all know none of that matters AT ALL. Not in any way. Not even a moron could believe that it could.

      It is a simple fact that even if YOU didn’t live there, 100 much more dangerous people could. Simple fact. Reality. So people are simply going to have to supervise their children and be parents. And have additional safeguards in place. Nanny Big Government is not going to magically make anything safer for the idiots or their “idiots in training” children and they are just actually going to have to be responsible.

      On the flip side of that, F all people who even dream they could possibly ever tell me where I could or could not live. I pray that anyone who dreams that is caught up in the next mass shooting tomorrow and dies. F them every day. Those people are not my fellow citizens. They are not Americans. They are not people for whom I need have any concern. Not them, not their families.

      And of course, all people with brains need to continue to note that these people who supposedly support this stupidity have somehow failed to even get their Gun Offender and Drunk Driver Registries created, let alone tell those people where they can live. So again, F them every day.

      Give me liberty or give me your death.

    • AJ

      @David:
      I believe it’s the same logic Miami-Dade uses, where RCs can stay in their homes all day as “normal” people, but must sleep in their cars, or tents, or outside every night in a homeless encampment.

  21. James

    Made calls to Ass PSC members and Sen. Weiner’s office to oppose. I’m a little confused though. Is the hearing on 7/9 before the Ass. PSC or the Appropriations Committee?

    • Will Allen

      “Ass”

      That’s perfect. Let’s be accurate. Since we are all about labeling in Amerika, let’s get on it and be consistent.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @ James – The hearing on July 9 will be conducted by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee in Room 126 of the State Capitol starting at 9 a.m.

  22. PR

    I too just made phone calls to all Public Safety Committee members and to Scott Wiener’s office.

  23. Bo

    Lol. They took out all the cis gendered pronouns. Interesting.

  24. JuniorSD

    This is the paragraph the amendments refer to:

    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006.

    The amendments basically say that people convicted of felonies of these sections, while not being required to register, can be subjected to residency restrictions. So basically the people the bill was intended to help could also potentially harm them.

    I don’t however see how this changes anything related to all other registrants and residency restrictions per Section 3003.5

  25. Jack

    Tell him, that with the Taylor ruling in place Janice, that even if this bill hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional it is highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. He’ll be in court so fast he won’t even know what hit him! This HOLOCAUST cannot be tolerated!

    • Will Allen

      Do you think criminal politicians care if something is constitutional or not? Legal or not? Will wind up in court or not? I don’t see that.

      Politicians need to have direct, dire consequences for their crimes. If it were up to me, they’d be gravely, mortally punished for even saying “$EX offender”. They wouldn’t even be allowed to say it without suffering.

  26. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    I made my calls.

    Thank you ACSOL + Janice, etc.

  27. David

    🌟Assembly PUBLIC SAFETY Committee 🌟
    https://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/hearings

    Click on “Daily Hearings” and you will see that SB 145 is the 4th item on next Tuesday, July 9th’s Hearing Agenda of the Assembly Public Safety Committee which will meet in Room 126.

    It is critical that we have as many people AS POSSIBLE attend and speak at this Hearing!

    • Janice Bellucci

      @ David – The order of bills on the committee’s agenda is not the same order in which the bills will be considered. Instead, the order of bills considered will depend upon when the author of the bill shows up in the hearing room.

  28. F

    Just made all the calls to the Public Safety Committee members and Senator Wiener’s offices. All were answered live and were very polite. A few offices wanted my zip code, other’s my full name, and one wanted my full name & phone #, all of which I provided.

    I hope they listen.

    I’m also going to try to get time off on Tuesday to show up.

  29. David

    ✈️✈️ I’ll be flying in for Tuesday’s Hearing.✈️✈️
    (This Bill must be stopped. There will be almost nowhere in my City where I can live – even if I could afford to move – which I can’t.)

  30. Mark Judkins

    To all who think this irrelevant because of the Taylor case and it does not apply them. It does. SB145 modifies existing law. When the legislature modifies a law, lawyers can relitigate it. That means that cities and counties that we sued and changed their laws could reinstate them in hope that the new law will be more favorable. We might have to refight those cases and in the meantime me and you might have to give up our current home. I dont know about you, but I dont want to move or be homeless. Sure we would probanly prevail but it might take five years or more to win.
    If you like where you live, if you don’t want to be homeless, you need to go to Sacramento. If you can’t afford to do that, you need to call the Assembly Public Safety Committee, and call Wiener’s office and let them know that Section 6 needs to be removed and that you don’t support the bill in its present format.

  31. Eric

    Flipping laws back and forth and making them retroactive is just inhumane. Many of us have rebuilt our lives with stable housing and employment. It took some of us many years to get on our feet again, and for whimsical laws that have no relevance to those of us who have followed the laws for years and decades is just abuse.

  32. Roger

    TOO BUSY TO MAKE CALLS by tomorrow, my fellow registrant?

    Too inconvenient to come July 9 even though you could if you tried hard?

    If so, ask yourself: Do I have the right to complain about being evicted and potentially homeless someday when my city brings back the residency restrictions that ACSOL fought so hard to dismantle?

    You know the answer.

    I recommend that you find motivating reasons to take action rather than reasons not to.

    Remember this formula: inaction by hiding head in sand = nightmare scenario

  33. SR

    Just made all the phone calls. Took less than 10 minutes to do all of them. No real conversation with the person. Some asked for my full name and zip. Others simply thanked me for calling (the gentleman for Senator Wiener said they’ve been receiving a lot of such calls and are working on it).

    I have to say that this was my first time making such calls and I had a lot of anxiety in doing so, especially given the subject matter. But it was all very simple and now I have a sense of relief in having contributed at least in small part in a fight to maintain my rights as well as others.

    If you’re feeling the same way as I am and have yet to make that calls, just do all you can to set aside that fear and anxiety in making your first call. It’ll be much simpler to make the rest once you take that first plunge.

  34. A

    I just called all member including Scott Wiener around 1:20pm Friday 07/15
    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
    Senator Scott Wiener: (916) 651-4011

    I used following statement and only Rebecca Bauer-Kahan’s assistance asked me who suggested me to make this phone call and I give him ACSOL web site info and he gave me thanks.
    it takes less than 10 minutes, DO IT everybody.
    all of them did not ask anymore info since I gave my name, city and zip code at first.

    “Hi. My name is First Last from City , Ca. ZIP I am calling to oppose Senate Bill 145 unless Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of this bill are removed. Thank you.”

Leave a Reply to Janice Bellucci Cancel 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 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.