ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

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

Janice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: The Best Defense is a Good Offense

Have you noticed?  The winds are shifting for the registrant community.  One solid example of that is the recent federal court decision in Georgia that determined that the three registrant plaintiffs have paid their debt to society and are both rehabilitated and leading productive lives.

In that decision, the court went on to assist registrants by shifting the burden of proof to the government to show that the registrants pose a current danger to society.  And then the court found that the government failed to meet that burden.  In fact, the court noted that the government did not provide “any specific information or data indicating that the Plaintiffs pose (any type of) a risk”.

Without a doubt, this is great reasoning and language which supports our cause and should be used by attorneys in future lawsuits.  For this is the time to shift from defense to offense.

What do I mean by that?  I mean that it is time that we need to move the line of scrimmage toward our goal line.  Specifically, we need to challenge laws that are based upon emotion, not facts.

For example, the California state legislature recently passed a bill, signed by the Governor, that would allow individuals convicted of a felony to serve on a jury.  Just before the bill was passed, however, the legislature created an exception that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony sex offense from serving as a juror.

What were they thinking?  Or perhaps they were not thinking at all.  For this is absolutely no background information about this amendment in the bill’s legislative history.  Which means that the amendment was a political compromise and not based on fact.  Therefore, the new law is ripe for a legal challenge and that is what is about to happen in Los Angeles Superior Court….the same court where the County Registrar’s decision to exclude all registrants from serving as poll workers is already being challenged.

There are many more examples in many different states where attorneys are challenging the status quo.  For example, attorney Miriam Auckerman continues her battle to overturn registration laws in Michigan.  And attorney Paul Dubbeling continues to challenge GPS requirements in North Carolina.  Further, attorney Adele Nicholas continues to challenge residency restrictions in Illinois.  And finally, attorney Mark Yurachek is preparing a challenge to Georgia laws that limit where registrants can visit, work and live.

The breadth and depth of our attorney bench is growing and that is cause to celebrate!  For together, we can move the line of scrimmage away from the punishment of the past toward our goal line where the registry in every state is significantly reduced to only those who pose a current danger and no registry is available online.

 

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    I love coming on this board and reading something like this that just gives me so much hope to go forward with confidence. The one name in that article that s missing is Janice’s. Thank you for all you do.

  2. Harry

    I sure hope the mark can be taken off our passports and shut down Angel watch notices. I would like to visit my daughter in the Philippines, who is now a medical doctor there.

    • L

      If there is a way you can get Filipino citizenship and passport, they cannot deny you entry. If they do, and you are a citizen of the Philippines, you can demand entry. The laws that have been passed are for foreign sex offenders only. They will also only know if you are one if they receive a notice about you.

      • Harry

        I am a US citizen and my wife is a nationalize US citizen. We decided to raise the daughter in the Philippines as the education system there far out pace US. My wife and I was able to make, at least, annual visits there, together until 2011. I have not been there in 8 years and that was the last time I saw her, outside of video chats. My wife is there now. She loves her family and my involvement with her family, thus, with lack of my ability of not able to go with her is causing strain on our relationship.

  3. Bobby S.

    How do they figure that Mrs Aukerman, is changing registry laws in Michigan? That’s funny to me, because in the last 3 years since we won, absolutely nothing had changed so far. The Legislature has not done a damn thing to revise the registry like they were ordered to do, I am still waiting to be removed from the registry. They just keep kicking he can back in forth to one another. Superman rights a brief, the state just recently responded, and we have to wait again, for another response from the ACLU. Convicted in 1992 before a registry was even thought of in Michigan, we win, and 3 years later still waiting to be removed.changes being made in Michigan’s registry my ass.

  4. Looking for Answers

    God bless those attorneys and staff for being able to see that people are people and deserved to be treated as such, even when it means standing up to bullies like that Sheriff in GA.
    God Bless you Janice, and all of your staff and attorneys (Chance!) who take your time and effort and turn it into love for a community of people who so many have turned away from.

  5. Chris F

    I am still not sure why the better fight at this point is not to leave some rediculous laws in place and go after the lack of due process for putting someone on the list to begin with.

    After all, connecticut v Doe 2003 had its due process challenge lost by a unanimous vote only because the list had no inference of dangerousness and invoked no consequences on liberty other than making it easier to obtain already public information. Now, in 2019, it is clear and part of laws that being on that list gets your passport marked, makes federal housing assistance unavailable, keeps you out of shelters, and keeps your criminal history able to be used against you beyond the 7 years of any other crime in many states. There is nothing about that case that holds up now.

    In Smith V Doe 2003, the entire case hinged on registration not meeting the 7 Mendoza -Martinez factors of punishment. In 2019 it clearly meets that.

    The predisesor of those cases was McKune v Liles 2002, which was based on the complete lie from someone selling psych services to a prison that said 80 percent of sex offenders re-offend.

    Why is it not yet time to get these bad rulings overturned when they were not only bad and mis informed back then, but are totally not comparable to the current restrictions on liberty going on today?

    • AJ

      @Chris f:
      I’ve had similar thoughts the last few days.

      1) Smith ONLY said publication of (mostly) public information was okay. Nowhere did Smith say ANY sort of restrictions are okay. Indeed, supposedly registrants are free to live and work as other citizens. And yet for some reason courts continue to rely on Smith as reasoning for all sorts of harms and hindrances, whether residency, occupational, or presence restrictions. There’s no legal support for that in Smith.

      2) CT DPS only addressed the procedure used to place someone ON a registry. Nowhere did it address the underlying reasoning that led to that decision (i.e. substantive due process) nor did it address the inability to escape the registry (due process). Why isn’t Humphries v. LA County and its progeny used to help people at least start escaping this horrid system of abuse?

      3) “Frightening and high” gets bandied about as a rubber-stamp rationale for any and all laws. That phrase, mentioned only once in passing at the start of the McKune Opinion, was weaponized in Smith to the point somehow now it automatically gets associated with “upwards of 80%” recidivism. In short, in Smith SCOTUS changed the context, and thus meaning, of its own words in McKune. What does NOT get mentioned is that even that horrible source said *treated* RCs have a 15% recidivism and *untreated* are upwards of 80%. At the very minimum, it would seem prudent to clarify and correct this severe, chronic error. I’m guessing few judges even know the full truth, history, or background of these phrases–they just go along with what’s been said for over 15 years.

      4) Why isn’t Chastleton v. Sinclair, et al, and its doctrine of changed circumstances/conditions used (at all)? I understand it’s a little-used avenue, but it sure seems it could be a handy weapon. Chastleton and its progeny are alive and well. Why not argue that things have changed? Smith is no longer true because RCs are NOT “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens[.]” Recidivism is NOT “frightening and high” nor is it 15-80%. Given the known recidivism data, the “broad categories and the reporting requirement’s corresponding length are [NOT] reasonably related to the danger of recidivism[.]”
      Registry information is NOT “analogous to a visit to an official archive of criminal records,” instead being actively pushed via websites, flyers, and third-party operators. It’s also absolutely akin “to a scheme forcing an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality” through those exact same methods. The process no longer requires any “visit to an official archive.” Now the archive is broadcast and forced into mailboxes, front doors, and more. Pure and simple, the laws as they exist and expand have run roughshod over Smith, rendering it an ignored (unless convenient) relic. Smith isn’t just a floor, it also has some ceiling attributes to it.

      5) I feel the many and varied restrictions placed upon citizens cannot be upheld as collateral consequences of conviction, since they directly and specifically are tied to one’s registration requirement, NOT one’s conviction (laws often say “those required to register” not “those convicted of”). While one seemingly brings the other, that’s not always true and it doesn’t change the fact that restrictions are consequences of registration, not offending. IIRC, there are some States which still allow/require being placed on a registry even if never convicted (deferred adjudication, etc). That cannot be squared with Smith–nor, for that matter, CT DPS–since there is no consequence of conviction.

    • 20 years of parole

      what about the guys that were given 20 years of parole with no knowledge of it
      and having to where GPS monitors and can’t go anywhere after serving years in prison and come out and basically placed on house arrest.
      Don’t people where monitors instead of serving county time in jail and given restriction

  6. Dustin

    Agree with Chris F and add the following:

    1. Why wouldn’t the federal court in Georgia’s reasoning not apply to the registry en totem? Doesn’t it say the same thing as those stupid signs from the Sheriff’s office? Why is it necessary to have an individualized assessment in order to (forcibly) put a sign on someone’s yard at Halloween to trumpet the government’s claim that a resident at this place is dangerous, but not on the internet or a book/wall in the Sheriff’s office during the rest of the year? Wouldn’t being forced to update all info and photos 2, 3, 4, or 6 times a year also be considered compelled speech, knowing that it’ll end up on the Sheriff’s website for public consumption? If so, why not fight the registry as a whole on compelled speech grounds?

    2. With much love and all due respect to Janice and her colleagues, a reduced or tiered registry, publicly available or not, is still a registry. Seems to me that fighting for a reduced or tiered registry acknowledges that it is necessary and a vital ingredient to public safety, which it is clearly and demonstrably not, and accordingly dilutes any argument against the status quo.

    3. LE doesn’t need a specific registry for them only – they all have access to the National Crime Information Center and can pull the criminal record of any person at any time, and always do in the normal course of criminal investigation anyway. The registry has never played even the smallest role in any criminal investigation. The only reason LE wants one is to beg for more grant funds to (mis)allocate.

    4. I personally think ALL inmates who have been locked up for 15 years or more should be psych-evaluated, but such examinations should be more focused on one’s ability to adapt to a society that has changed dramatically in the time since they were imprisoned than their original offense(s). For example, a man that did 20 for dealing dope and was probably dealing dope while he was in prison is pretty certain to keep dealing dope if released. Contrast the average registrant, who was probably among the best behaved inmates and already statistically least likely to commit another crime (possibly a status offense, if anything).

    5. Why is civil commitment seemingly (strictly?) limited to those who have committed sex crimes? Is there no severe mental illness that would warrant incarceration beyond sentence among the other criminal classes or society as a whole? If I’m right that the entire civil commitment population have sex offenses in their criminal record, wouldn’t they be more accurately called “Sex Offender Prisons?”

  7. Eric

    Thank you for your work on our behalf

  8. Steve D

    Thanks for all your work. I feel a twinge of optimism reading your report, but the optimism is short lived. It seems like we are playing a losing game of wack-a-mole. States and localities are popping out new laws and regulations faster than they can ever be modified by court actions. And I can’t for the life of me understand how, even where registry laws are found to be unconstitutional, e.g., Michigan and Pennsylvania, they remain in force anyway. The noose continues to tighten around each of us despite the rodents you have hammered.

  9. Doug

    I have been wanting to go on the offensive for years . I just don,t like jail .
    Best let Janice and Chance do the ass kicking !

  10. steve

    I’m sorry I just don’t see any of those laws as offensive, merely fighting ridiculous laws because the list exists. Fighting the overall scheme would be going on the offensive. IMHO

  11. Anonymous

    Ladies and gentlemen, boys & girls of the registry scheme. The stars have yet to align. There are great, great people like Janice all over the country trying to nudge it all into place, and when that happens, even after some almosts and upsetting defeats, the registry will be abolished. It will. Peace and love to everybody.

  12. Tim in WI

    Confront thy adversary.

    The best offense in FTR IN EX POST cases is showing the jury as evidence the Notice of conviction from the original sex conviction. That form is the paper vehicle which makes commitments to DOC ( If doc administrate SOR in your state) “lawful” & ” inforcable. ” This fact is found in STATUTE. Life terms as strict liabilities owed to DOC (DPS) are normally expressed in terms of sentence structure whole determined by the judicial branch as a FUNCTION contained within the form.. Without that particular DOC\DPS form it is impossible for a jury to conclude a man’s inclusion was done ” lawfully. ” THERE IN to reason to doubt in concrete evidentiary form OR forums papyrus. My love to liberty and her two sisters.

    The non delegation doctrine prohibits Admin ( AG) from behaving in very specific terms in its lone interpretation of new sections regarding CONFLICTS OF LAW.

    *WIS DOC FORM 20
    **https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/archive/law

  13. The Vampire

    Think like this! The registration is the Berlin wall. It divide people for years before it got taken down. Well folks we are on one side of that wall. And Janice and her fighters. Have a huge job to take down that wall of lies hate and fear.And like the Berlin wall it is not a over night fix. Till the people on the other side of this wall (aka the hit list) can see the harm it is doing to the country. We will still have people.Who think this wall will keep the children safe! Just like that sheiff wanted to put up signs as a wall to divide the people with fear and hate! But he got his butts slapped by the federal judge! You watch! Now the shieff will say i was molested my butts hurt! You all take care Vampire is out sleep will haha

  14. ab

    Had Jury Duty last month. My jury panel ended up being excused before ever reaching the court room. This was at a superior court in southern California. I have a federal felony conviction for possession of cp. Even while on federal supervised release the superior court system sent me multiple jury notices over the five years and I had to keep writing that I had a federal felony conviction for which my rights in California were not yet restored.

    • steve

      I always marked I had a felony and I was never called. Now I recently got jury duty and they denied my request to be excused. So now I get to go and humiliate myself by telling them I’m an rc?

      • ab

        No, don’t tell them anything unless asked and even then only tell them the absolute minimum while still being truthful. What matters most is your ability to be impartial from the perspective of the court, if you can’t for whatever reason simplify it and make the simplest version your explanation.

  15. Joe123

    Thank you Janice for all your work! Great to hear about this update, especially this part:

    “For example, attorney Miriam Auckerman continues her battle to overturn registration laws in Michigan. And attorney Paul Dubbeling continues to challenge GPS requirements in North Carolina. Further, attorney Adele Nicholas continues to challenge residency restrictions in Illinois. And finally, attorney Mark Yurachek is preparing a challenge to Georgia laws that limit where registrants can visit, work and live. ”

    What SHOULD be a federal law is that the government (state or federal) must reimburse citizens for ALL legal fees involved in suing and successfully beating laws that were unjustly put into place.

    HOW on Earth is it OK that Groups of people have to scrape together $15,000-25,000 each time to challenge a law that some idiot Lawmaker just decided to make on a whim? It is absolute insanity and plain WRONG!

    How quickly would these imbecile Lawmakers change their tune if they were responsible for costing taxpayers substantial money?

    THIS would change the country overnight and is the RIGHT thing to do.

  16. New Person

    Janice wrote: “For example, the California state legislature recently passed a bill, signed by the Governor, that would allow individuals convicted of a felony to serve on a jury. Just before the bill was passed, however, the legislature created an exception that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony sex offense from serving as a juror.

    What were they thinking? Or perhaps they were not thinking at all. For this is absolutely no background information about this amendment in the bill’s legislative history. Which means that the amendment was a political compromise and not based on fact. Therefore, the new law is ripe for a legal challenge and that is what is about to happen in Los Angeles Superior Court….the same court where the County Registrar’s decision to exclude all registrants from serving as poll workers is already being challenged.”

    If this is solely for political reasoning, seeing that banning a subset of felonies from the privilege of serving the jury, then would that be violating the law as denoted by Section 7(b) of Article 1 of the California constitution: “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
    revoked.”

    The registry was upheld so that registrants can be made available to the law enforcement at whatever time. Not applying this privilege of serving on the jury system when all felon class is not shared upon the same terms on behalf of the registry goes beyond the statutory purpose.

    I want to bring up another “good offense” civil lawsuit that is based upon the same principles of “not based upon fact” and “class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”

    SB 530, chap 721 was passed in October of 2013. Existing law already provided that when an offender obtained an expungement via section 1203.4, they were “released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted” with some exceptions. The new statutes clarifies that the relief extends to the employment process as well. But that amendment to that law also excluded registrants from that now protected disability.

    Link to SB 530: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_530_bill_20131010_chaptered.htm

    This new amendment of SB 530 actually states it is a protected disability for employers, both public and private, to use information in the employment process who earned the 1203.4. Well, except that isn’t extended to registrants. So immunities are not given upon the same terms to the same class, a clear violation of the California Constitution.

    Not only is it unconstitutional, but it reveals that the registry is going well beyond it’s statutory purposes as now the registry supports a legal disability to not be extended to the registrant who belong to the 1203.4 class that received the SB 530 protections to the employment process. The intent of SB 530 was to improved the chances of 1203.4 recipients to gainful employment. What does improving gainful employment have to do with being “made available to law enforcement”? It doesn’t. Thus revealing the registry has gone beyond it’s statutory purpose as SB 530 proves it imposes a direct disability to registrants.

    If you wish to pursue this avenue, then I have a letter from an employer who used the registry to negate my employment. Being on the registry was the only reason why I was denied employment despite earning my 1203.4.

    Again, if you’re going to use registrants being denied to serve on the registry when a new law allowed it to all classes of felons save registrant, then why not use the same tact against SB 530? SB 530 denotes disability and a disability is a punitive act.

    • kind of living

      good stuff here , any of this going to court ? anyone even sniffing at it ? Lol , it sound’s solid

      • New Person

        I pray some lawyer sees the obviousness that SB 530 created a disability for all 1203.4 recipients with respect to the employment process, but excludes 1203.4 registrant recipients. Then that lawyer(s) can take up this suit. (It’s futile for a layman like me to go pro se. I read the law, but going to court, you need lawyers who know the system as well. There’s an old saying, “A good lawyer knows the law; A great lawyer knows the judge.”)

        In layman’s terms, SB 530 improves all 1203.4 recipient’s chances to gainful employment, but at the same time excludes 1203.4 registrant recipients from sharing that chance at gainful employment.

        That’s evidentiary proof the registry is going beyond it’s statutory aims as it’s created a second class of citizens. “Disability for me, but not for those on the registry!”

        This all goes back to CA Const, Article 1, Sec 7(b): “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.”

        Class = 1203.4 recipients
        Immunities altered = SB 530 extending disability protections to the employment process to those who earned PC 1203.4

        CA constitution, Art.1, Sec 7(b) is concise and precise. Thus, the altered immunity designates a disability to all 1203.4 recipients. It cannot exclude registrants. And since it is a new disability, then that disability is considered punishment. While most of 1203.4 recipients avoids this punishment, the 1203.4 registrant recipients are imposed this punishment.

        Essentially, 1203.4 registrants must sit at the back of the bus and with no chance of getting off the bus to gainful employment under SB 530. I was granted probation and earned PC 1203.4. Don’t I have a civil and equal right to gainful employment with the amendment extended for 1203.4 recipients under SB 530? Isn’t disability identified as punishment? Thus, I am being punished for being part of the registry.

        I found a way the statutory scheme is now punishment. And because it’s a disability, Kelly v Municipal (1958) gets resurrected. Kelly identified two things: 1) in-person reporting is a disability, thus, a way off the registry via 1203.4 and 2) PC 290 cannot supersede PC 1203.4, registrants are only convicts during their probationary period and once off, they are also off the registry. Now, we can swap “in-person reporting” to “protections of the employment process” and everything holds true. But we can show how the registry is also going beyond its purpose.

        Recall, presence and residency restrictions were once upheld to be constitutional (people v hammond). Also recall, we were banned from Halloween. Prop 57 was upheld to be equal to all non-violent convicts. Now, Janice wants to equal privileges extended to all felons to serve on the jury. Welp, I want equal immunities that were altered by SB 530 extended to all 1203.4 recipients.

    • Bay Area resident

      What was the job for?

      After obtaining an expungement, I’ve had a different experience.

      I know that jobs where you may need to go own schools, obtain a gun, or entering homes, or see patients are still restricted.

  17. Robert Curtis

    Always pay your taxes, do good deeds and be twice the citizen compared to others so if society looks at your life they only see compassion and honor looking back at them….but bare this in mind: the requirement to register is a declaration of war against you and your family. As in any other regards a contract signed under duress is not binding. We have to sign and be registered under the real threat of arrest and incarceration. That threat makes such a contract unlawful. So while in such a state of war placed against us we are expected to pay taxes. Should we fund our oppressors by paying taxes? Reason would say “NO” but I say YES pay the taxes BUT shine the light of truth on the flawed reasoning in doing so!

    • kind of living

      Right on Robert Curtis , great comment !

    • Will Allen

      Robert, I’ve seen your writings all over the place and appreciate and respect them. But I have to disagree with you somewhat here. I do agree that you should follow all laws and be a moral person. But I don’t agree that you have to be nice to everyone or care about them.

      I’ll try to keep it brief. The Registries are a declaration of war. So I cannot treat anyone who supports them as anything other than an enemy. I don’t have any obligation to be a good citizen in general. I am splitting America into 2 pieces. If you are on the moral side, I will do good deeds and be the best person and friend there is regarding you. Just ask my family and friends! If you are on the immoral side, you are a criminal and an enemy combatant. It’s that simple to me. If I’m considering whether or not I should do something beneficial, I first understand and make sure I can keep immorals from also benefiting from it. If I can’t, I’m not going to do it.

      I’m going to do business and everything that way. I’m splitting everybody into 2 groups. If you are a Registry Nazi/Terrorist, then I’m going to vet you out and I’m not going to do business with you. I’m not going to let you work for me or in my businesses. If I do, I’m going to overwork you and lower the quality of your life. I’m not going to let you live where I own. If I do, it’s really going to cost you. And I might throw you out one day just for fun, as I’m able. That is what the Registries are doing for us. And my goal is to make my financial impact as widespread as possible.

      Further, I wouldn’t worry about the taxes thing. I’ve always paid a lot more than my fair share but our glorious “leader” says that smart people don’t pay taxes. So that will be the goal. The people who ought to pay taxes are people who love big government and can’t grow it big enough. THOSE people should be paying much more than their fair share. Not me.

      Our country is in outrageous debt and the big government boot lickers just want to keep creating more and more and more laws and growing big government. I’m done with the control freak weaklings. The more powerless and weak they feel in their lives, the more they try to control others. They have a disease.

  18. New Person

    I saw the new article “Registrants Challenge Jury Pool Exclusion” and it’s based upon violating the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Can that same thought and reasoning be used for excluding registrants from improving chances of employment in SB 530? There is no rational basis for excluding registrants from improving chances of employment.

    The reasoning could apply similarly with, “[Improving chances of employment] facilitates changes in convicted felons’ self-concepts, promoting prosocial identity transformation, tempering the stigma of a felony conviction and prompting the discovery of self worth.”

    SB 530 improved the immunities for the 1203.4 class of citizens, but excluded the 1203.4 registrant class of citizens. Isn’t that a violation of equal rights as per Article 1, Sec 7(b) : A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

    If this avenue isn’t “good offense”, then could I get an answer why it isn’t similar to the Juror suit? Thanks for reading me, your time, and answer in advance.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @New Person – Are you certain the bill to which you refer is SB 530? That bill appears to refer to individuals who are employed in the construction industry.

      • New Person

        Here is the link from legalinfo.ca.gov: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_530_bill_20131010_chaptered.htm

        Here is an article from Employment Screening Services about what it means in laymen’s terms (and where I found the link of the passed bill): https://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2014/01/21/new-california-law-significantly-impacts-use-of-past-criminal-records-by-employers-during-employment-background-screening/

        Thank you for your time looking into this.

      • New Person

        More sources that the SB 530 bill pertains to 1203.4:

        Here is the Senate Bill Analysis link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_530_cfa_20130422_094757_sen_comm.html

        And here is an excerpt from that Analysis,
        “1. Need for This Bill

        According to the author:

        California’s existing expungement law, Penal Code
        1203.4, is ineffective. Even after receiving an
        expungement, rehabilitated former offenders suffer
        lifelong discrimination in employment, housing and
        travel. Not only is this unjust, it inevitably costs
        California millions of dollars in dealing with
        recidivism, unemployment, and under employment.

        The expungement process is generally recognized by
        people in the field as having limited benefit despite
        the legislative intent because other court records and
        background companies can discover these convictions or
        employers now know what the term “expunged pursuant to
        PC Section 1203.4” means.

        The Certificate of Rehabilitation process is limited
        because if requires a five year state residency even to
        those who were convicted outside of California and now
        have moved into the state. The law also provides no
        discretion for the court to grant a certificate before
        the five year waiting period in extraordinary
        circumstances.

        The protections in current law (Labor Code section
        432.7) prohibit employers from asking applicants for
        employment to disclose certain criminal background
        information. This provision however does not cover
        records expunged under PC 1203.4, thus limiting its
        effectiveness.

        SB 530 makes three corrections to existing law. First,
        it adds records expunged to the protections under Labor
        Code 432.7. Second, it eliminates the five year state

        (More)

        SB 530 (Wright)
        Page 10

        residency for those convicted outside of California but
        moved into the state for a Certificate of
        Rehabilitation (“COR”). Third, it allows the court to
        waive the 5 year time period to grant a COR in the
        “interests of justice”.

        What is very sad is that the end product of this bill excludes 1203.4 registrants from the extended protections from this bill as well as the ability to waive the 5 year time period to grant COR in the “interests of justice”. As a 1203.4 recipient, I am not extended this protection. Also, a person available for the COR, I am also not extended this waiver. What do these exceptions have to do with the statutory program? They don’t. They specifically exclude the registrant class from the ability to gainful employment as well as qualify for early waiver for COR. There exists no concern for the registrant class to improve their lives through labor and liberty.

        The state is giving immunities and privileges not to all citizens on the same terms.

  19. New Person

    SB 530 pertaining to 1203.4, which was passed in 2013. Here is the analysis link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_530_cfa_20130422_094757_sen_comm.html

    It addressed 3 items:
    1) It adds records expunged to the protections under Labor Code 432.7.
    2) It eliminates the five year state residency for those convicted outside of California, but moved into the state for a Certificate of Rehabilitation (“COR”).
    3) It allows the court to waive the 5 year time period to grant a COR in the “interests of justice”.

    Only point 2) applies to registrants. Points 1) and 3) excludes registrants.

    Here is an excerpt from the Analysis on point 1) :
    ***
    The author argues that while the a person is supposed to be relieved from the disabilities of their offense, the fact that people can get records on line and understand what a dismissal under Penal Code Section 1203.4 means, even an offense dismissed under Penal Code Section 1203.4 is interfering with the ability of many to fully rehabilitate by gaining employment.

    This bill would amend the Labor Code to provide that in addition to not being able to ask or use information on an applicant about arrests that did not result in conviction or participation in diversion that an employer cannot ask about or use information that a conviction was dismissed pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4 unless the conviction fall under one of the specified exceptions because the law otherwise requires the conviction to be considered.
    ***

    The author of this bill specifically states it extended disability to include the employment process into the Labor code. That means an employer cannot ask or use information that did not result in conviction or participation in diversion (1203.4). PC 290 is enacted once convicted, which is the dissemination of information. The exception seems very odd as the purpose of SB 530 was to, and I’ll use the author of the bill’s words in the analysis,
    ” California’s existing expungement law, Penal Code
    1203.4, is ineffective. Even after receiving an
    expungement, rehabilitated former offenders suffer
    lifelong discrimination in employment, housing and
    travel. Not only is this unjust, it inevitably costs
    California millions of dollars in dealing with
    recidivism, unemployment, and under employment. ”

    If you’re a 1203.4 registrant, then you’re excluded from these protections of unjustness. SB 530 identifies a new disability, but that disability isn’t extended to registrants who also earned the 1203.4. That violates equal protection as 1203.4 “shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.”

    SB 530, as provided with the links above, codified into law a new disability. Yet, that disability is not afforded to registrants who also qualify for 1203.4.

    ===
    Also, why are registrants not allowed to participate in the court to waive the 5 year time period to grant a COR in the “interests of justice”? That appears to be unjust and continues discriminate against registrants as second class citizens who are not given equal opportunities.

    .
    There, I provided two “best defense is a good offense” instances for a case all from the passing of SB 530, Wright. Criminal Offenders: Rehabilitation. If “Jury Duty” should be equal for all convicts, then the same concept should apply to the immunities and privileges to all 1203.4 recipients as provided with SB 530, Wright?

    As always, I thank you for all your efforts.

Leave a Reply to Bobby S. 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 *

.