ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at


ACSOLAction ItemsGeneral News

ACSOL Lobby Day 2/11 — please keep calling and writing

Thanks to those who showed up on the 2/11 ACSOL Lobby Day, which focused on needed changes to the Tiered Registry Law that will take effect in 2021.  Changes included new tier assignments for those convicted of felony offenses involving illegal images and sexual battery as well as creation of an off-ramp for those assigned to the highest tier.

We ask that you make phone calls or send letters supporting these changes to the office where we will meet,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “The messages to be delivered can be found on the point paper developed for this day.”

Points to put in your letters:

Tiered Registry Law – Point Paper – 2020 v2   [UPDATED 2/6/20]

Legislators we will visit that you can write to:

Lobby Day 2020 – Legislators to call and write [UPDATED area codes 1/30/20]

Please join us in calling and writing! We are all in this together, no matter what our specific situation is.







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

Yes! Let’s get this done!

Sometime, would ACSOL consider pushing for changing 290.5 so that a COR and 1203.4 would if not get one off, but would reduce tier. Or better yet, 1203.4 would just take you off.

“For those who cannot join us on Lobby Day, we ask that they make phone calls or send letters to the office where we will meet,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The messages to be delivered can be found on the point paper developed for this day.”

What do you need write ? and how to write it ?


Is it possible to also address the matter about persons with a California conviction who no longer live in California? As the law is written, the only way we would be able to petition for removal from the registry would be for us to move back to California and re-register in California.
Can there be a clause written for those who no longer live in CA to be able to petition in the county of conviction? (not just in the county of current registration)?
Please, I’m sure this affects quite a few people.

I’ve been getting letters from a “Christian Law Firm” in Sacramento saying he can get me off the Registry if we petition the superior court judge directly. Is this true?
I am currently on the Registry for 20 years due to my 288(a) charge. Is there any hope for me?

@Harry: Simple solution: ask them if they will refund your money if they don’t. Complex solution: read up on the laws yourself. We here are not lawyers but we have been around a while and can provide guidance. Try to at least read some of the multitude of articles and responses.

@G4Change – Per your comment, ” As the law is written, the only way we would be able to petition for removal from the registry would be for us to move back to California and re-register in California,” I have read the bill top to bottom and I see no reference to this particular group of registrants. The COR process will be repealed July 1, 2021. That included a 5 year in-state residence requirement, but that will be no more when the petitioning process begins under the new law. There is nothing in this law that addresses those of us in this situation. So, we will need to see how the California DOJ decides to handle it. One thing is for sure: For those of us on Tier 1 or Tier 2 who have lived good clean lives for at least 20 years (the threshold for petitioning under Tier 2), if I am denied the opportunity to petition just because I don’t live in California, I will immediately file a lawsuit. I had no choice but not move, and I’m sure there were others in the same situation.


Thank you for replying to this.

“…if I am denied the opportunity to petition just because I don’t live in California, I will immediately file a lawsuit.”

Well, it looks like a lawsuit will be needed if they don’t add an amendment to the code.
Here is what I’m finding that is causing my concern: “…may file a petition in the
superior court in the county in which he or she is registered…”

To me, this requires a petitioner to be living in California and to be currently registered in a county in California. I can’t find anything elsewhere that will allow someone to petition anywhere but in the county where they are currently registered.

See below:

SEC. 12. Section 290.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

290.5. (a) (1) A person who is required to register pursuant to Section
290 and who is a tier one or tier two offender may file a petition in the
superior court in the county in which he or she is registered for termination
from the sex offender registry at the expiration of his or her mandated
minimum registration period, or if the person is required to register pursuant
to Section 290.008, he or she may file the petition in juvenile court on or
after his or her birthday following the expiration of the mandated minimum
registration period. The petition shall contain proof of the person’s current
registration as a sex offender.

It would also be great if, at some point, the issue of having to petition to be removed from the registry will be addressed. If the time determined by the Tiers has been reached, and there are no new offenses, the removal should not be up for debate. It needs to be automatic, end of story. No judge should have the power to deny a petition for any reason, or because he/she does not like the registrant’s history. I think this is an important topic. It’s just like serving a sentence. You get released when your time is up, unless you violated any rules while incarcerated. We don’t want to be at the mercy of a judge who might have a bad day that day, or has other personal reasons to deny your request. Thoughts?

We fought 6 1/2 years to get a Tiered Registry and while it is less than perfect in many ways, it is a very large step in the right direction. Given that the state required lifetime registration for virtually everyone for more than 70 years, it is unreasonable to expect that the legislature will agree at this time to do away with the petitioning process. I do think it will be a reasonable step to take in the future.

I agree with you fully. Unfortunately, it will probably take a other 70 years for then to do something else, or at the very least those currently on it will be too old to benefit or will have died.

Or gives us something to live for.

While it is unlikely to get it right now, dont you think we can planting the seeds for these bigger asks like automatically being removed, and even ending the registry all together?

@ Janice…for those of us willing to write a letter, what would you recommend stating in it? Should we just say we support the modifications to the tiered registry presented by ACSOL?

…and thank you for all you do. This is a huge step.

I will be there. This is the chance we all have to make a difference (whether you show up, or write letters) in our lives. I believe the tide is changing. It took 70 years to get to this point, and we need to take advantage and get our message out. The more they hear it, the more likely they are to do something. Really, we have only been getting our message out for about 10 years, and only with significant numbers for the past 5 years. Last year we had a Senate staffer ask for our help in passing a bill. That is significant. We are a recognized force in the state house. It is through Janice’s and EVERYONE’s help that this occurred. We may not get it done this session, but the more they hear from us in a positive manner, the better our chances are that it will get changed. And it also creates an environment where making more stupid laws that impact our lives is not tolerated. Don’t forget this organization’s motto: Show Up, Stand Up, and Speak Out!

Thank you Mark!

I’m right behind you there!

Janice, will you also lobby to restore the 647.6 loss of internet exclusion that’s currently mandated in the Tiered Registry?

Things need to change for the better

John, I agree, but things have changed. 11 years ago when I got out, there were presence, residency, and Halloween restrictions. They’re gone. It took all of us to do it (ok, largely Janice doing the legal work). But because people went to City Council Meetings, Spoke out, and Stood up, these things are gone. We spoke up, and now many will have a way off the registry. Sure, its not perfect, far from it in my mind, but its a change. None of the restrictions that were in place 11 years ago went away over night. It took numerous court challenges (law suits), hundreds of thousands in dollars, and roughly 8 years. Too slow? Yep, it is and I am not a very patient person when it comes to stupidity. I have learned that nothing happens rapidly when it comes to an oppressed group seeking equality. But, the more people speak out, and the more people doing it, the better our chances for change get.

I felt the same way. I was actually hiding at my parent’s place until it was time for me to go on my own
now I found a job and a place to live and both of them are right next door to school. Which would have been almost an no no 10 years ago.

Can anyone offer recidivism rate data for Registrants charged with CP and the source/s it came from?

I’m currently drafting a letter to Sacramento to urge lawmakers to revise their decision of placing Tier 1 CP Registrants to Tier 3 back to Tier 1. After that I will post my letter here for anyone to copy or use as a template to write his/her own letter.

I would like to bolster my argument with some data to back up my claim that Registrants with CP charges should not be placed on Tier 3 because of among other truths have really low recidivism rates and not worth wasting public resources policing them like that and keeping them on the Registry forever.

@Bill and others – There is a government study about CP offenders that contains reasonable information in it. The link to that study is As expected, the rate of re-offense is very low and the chance of a person convicted of a CP offense committing a contact offense is even lower.

The only acceptable change is a complete repeal of the registry.

I was at ACSOL Lobby Day last year (2019), and it was quite an eye-opening, informative, and educational experience. I highly recommend that anyone who can possibly attend, do so!

Unfortunately (or fortunately for me, I guess), we should be vacationing in Porto, Portugal that day.

Of course, if the world goes totally “Coronavirus crazy” before then, and our trip gets cancelled, you will see me in Sacramento.

This will be my letter to Sacramento in regards to Registrants with CP offenses.
You can copy and use it for your own. Or you could use it as a template for your own letter. Modify it however you want. Make it your own voice.

Here it is:

To Members of the Assembly and Senate,

As we all know our Democratic Process in the American Justice System is a work in progress, a living, breathing apparatus that is made by people in the pursuit of a just and fair society. Policies are shaped by the times we live in to better service our future.

In theory.

In practice however the application of lawmaking is occasionally muddled in media sensationalism and sometimes the loudest of the few will dictate the fates of the many. And as history has bore out that loud does not necessarily mean clarity or rational.

It is only by looking backwards do we see the irrational short-sightedness these policies are and the consequences that ripple outward throughout the years. And no matter how much these policies are worked on there is still room for correction.

The one that I speak in particular is our Registry’s Tier system. Yes, the very California Sex Offender Registry our government calls which I find offensive like an African American finds the N-word offensive.

Sex Offender is describing the Registrant( a preferred nomenclature) in the present tense of the individual’s nature and not a past offense that the Registrant has already paid back to society and is living lawfully now.

The Tiered Registry Law currently assigns all individuals convicted of a felony Child Pornography (CP) offense to Tier 3. It is way beyond the federal guidelines for a non-violent and non-contact offense. By allowing this to go through you condemn them to the harshest registration requirements and brand them as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. This is unreasonable because there is no empirical data to justify this placement.

In fact, a 2011 study from Briggs and colleagues indicate that CP offenders are not interested or likely to commit contact offenses against children. Also in another 2011 study by Seto and colleagues find in a 3 year period that 4.6% of CP offenders committed a new sex offense, with 2% commiting a contact sexual offense and 3.4% committed a new CP offense.

This information can be found:

I strongly urge you to correct this unnecessary placement of Registrants with CP possession and distribution by returning them to Tier 1. And I also strongly urge you to move Registrants with CP production back to Tier 2.

Let’s not fill Tier 3 unnecessarily with CP Registrants because it is
disproportionate to the severity of the charges and a waste of tax dollars to register them for life.

Be on the right side of history!

@ Bill, great letter, and backed up with facts, fantastic.

@Janice why isn’t 288.2 in the talking points? It’s a non contact, no violent offense. Is it possible to reword it to generalize for all non-contact, non-violent offenses, and list the offenses under it?

Exactly, internet sting cases should be a tier 1 if it’s the only offense committed. Non contact, non violent and literally no minor involved. They should all be 664 attempt charges and be assigned tier 1.

I agree. I think the sting operation arrests should be Tier 1. No victim, no contact, no violence. They are often tier 1 in other states.

@ Concerned Mom…Janice has already addressed this question numerous times. The registry is a work in progress. The good thing about it is that it leaves room for modification. ACSOL can’t possibly address all the issues at once, and it would be unwise to present CASOMB and the assembly with all the needed changes at once. ACSOL has a great team and a definite direction, but we must be patient. The important thing is that there is a great showing each time they present a change to the board. Janice is changing the political face of the entire state with resounding victories. We will get there.

Does anyone know anything about how the new Tiered Registry will work for those who were convicted in California and eventually reloctated to another state? Will we need to move back and established residence for 5 years before we can petition, similar to how the COR now works?? Wondering how that would happen. That would not be an easy proposition for those who have planted their roots, and lived law abiding lives, in other locations. Many of us had absolutely no choice but to move.
Does the new law address specifically address this?

“Does anyone know anything about how the new Tiered Registry will work for those who were convicted in California and eventually reloctated to another state? Will we need to move back and established residence for 5 years before we can petition, similar to how the COR now works??”
Forcing someone to move back and/or maintain residency for a certain amount of time to receive benefits the same as someone who never left the State is almost assuredly unconstitutional. See: Saenz v. Roe (

That didn’t seem to effect the COR requirements which required the applicant to have resided in CA for X period of time to be eligible. If they decided to force that on the Tired Registry (which I don’t believe they are), I don’t see how it would be any different?

“That didn’t seem to effect the COR requirements which required the applicant to have resided in CA for X period of time to be eligible.”
Are you saying it was challenged it in court and lost? I don’t see how it could survive scrutiny under Saenz, so I’d love to see any suit where the COR requirements were upheld. I’m not saying I’m right, I just don’t see how it’s upheld as constitutional.

How awesome, what a nice problem to have, too many concerned people 🙂

I signed up for lobby day by by respondingn to the email notification and now I don’t know where we are meeting, because the location is no longer on this web site. My wife and I are in sacramento tonight Monday Feb 10 and don’t know where we are going to meet tomorrow.

I wish you all going to Sacramento best of luck! Thank you guys for standing up for all of us!

I know I can’t be there with you guys but the 140 letters I sent out to Sacramento will be! You can do it!

I agree, definitely cheering for you all. Did my phone calls already and my family will be calling later as well. Thank you again!

Tiered Registry Law – Point Paper – 2020 v2
Those make sense but of course I prefer total removal of the Registry.

@ Bill, Manny, et al: Thank you for all the letters and phone calls!! Keep it up!! “Lobby Day” was busy and successful in our attempts to make inroads regarding the Tiered Registry.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x