ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Feb 8 – Los Angeles, Mar 7 – Berkeley details

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

ACSOLCalifornia

Sacramento Lobby Day (Feb 11) Details Revealed

ACSOL will conduct Lobby Day on Tuesday, February 11, in Sacramento. The day will begin with training at 9 a.m. at a “new” address, 500 Capitol Mall, and will end about 5 p.m. All participants are invited to attend a group dinner, funded by ACSOL, following at 5:30 p.m.

“The primary focus of this year’s Lobby Day will be proposed changes to the Tiered Registry Law,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “There is a lack of logic and reason to the assignment of individuals convicted of non-contact, non-violent offenses to Tier 3, the highest tier, which requires lifetime registration.”

Lobby Day will include meetings in the offices of all members of the Public Safety Committees in both the Assembly and the Senate as well as members elected to those bodies last year. Individuals who participate in Lobby Day will be assigned to a team led by an individual who has participated in past lobbying efforts. ACSOL will provide team members with a folder of information, including talking points.

“It is important for us to both thank state legislators for passage of a Tiered Registry Law as well as to identify necessary improvements to that law,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein. “We look forward to the participation of individuals required to register as well as their families and those who support them professionally.”

If you plan to participate in or have questions about the Lobby Day, please send an email to iwillshowup@all4consolaws.org

 

Join the discussion

  1. TP

    I am thankful for this work but I am troubled to read this as the appearance is that you will only be lobbying for the reduction of CP offenses to non tier 3. What about the rest of us with non-violent type offenses? What about also planting the seeds to start to attempt to remove the registry all together, while still advocating for small changes? Will the speaking points include education to the officials about all the detrimental effects of the registry on not only RSOs and their families, plus how ineffective it is as a whole?

    I guess I want to see more steps taken forward to get rid of the whole thing rather than just asking for CP offenses not to be lifetime registration.

    • Jm

      I am under the impression that misdemeanor CP offenses are Tier 1. Did that change?

      • NPS

        After January 1, 2014: All CP offenses are straight felonies. If anyone is convicted (311.11) before that date, get your 17b now, file the 1203.4

        If it’s been 7+ years, file the CoR before January 1, 2021.

        As to your question about misdemeanor CP being tier 1…all misdemeanors are Tier 1.

        • Jm

          My conviction is a misdemeanor 311.11a from November 2014. It was charged originally as a felony and reduced as part of a plea deal. Sounds like 10 years post conviction I can apply to be removed and nothing else sooner the way I understand it as 1203.4 isn’t an option after January 1st, 2014.

    • SR

      “Non-violent” in legal speak doesn’t mean the same as it does in the regular world. There are several offenses that are considered “violent” even if you’ve never actually had contact with the victim (I believe my offense of 311.4 is one such, even though I never actually touched my victim during my up-skirt offense, and even my Static-99 reflects it as such as I received a +1 point specifically because it was non-contact) . I’m also not sure why you think ACSOL is only focusing on CP? The quote above clearly states they’re going after all non-contact, non-violent offenses to be moved down. The original bill was going to place majority of first-time offenders into T1. T2 was going to be serious contact offenses and some repeat offenses. And T3 was supposed to only include the worst of the worst.

      • @SR

        PC 311.4 is not among the felonies listed in “violent felony” or “serious felony”.

        • SR

          That’s good to know. I’m always glad to be wrong about something like this. Maybe I’m thinking they had it marked at such in the Welfare part of the law in regards to whom they can exclude from financial aid? Or maybe in one of places in regards to civil lawsuits? I swear I’ve seen it marked as such somewhere.

          What about 647.6a misdemeanor?

    • Janice Bellucci

      @TP – It appears that there is confusion regarding the focus of Lobby Day. Please let me explain. As stated above, we fill focus on proposed changes to the Tiered Registry Law. Those changes will include, but not be limited to, those convicted of CP offenses. We took a similar position last year including creation of a possible “off-ramp” for anyone assigned to Tier 3. Because Lobby Day is more than a month away, we don’t have the point paper finalized. We invite anyone who is seeking a change to the Tiered Registry Law to share that change with us as a new comment to this article.

      • dh

        Shall we concentrate on CP folks and do 288’s at a later date? Majority ARE 288 a (b)1’s (older CPC)

        • Bill

          How does CA classify Federal Conspiracy CP charges like U.S.C. 2252A (a), (b)(1), (b)(2) which is a Class C Felony?

          Does CA law have an equivalent for this? Will that make it a Tier 1 or 3?

  2. Jm

    Where can we find more info on the proposed changes including what types of convictions would potentially now be tier 3?

    • Eric

      JM…if you are in San Diego this Saturday then come to the ACSOL meeting for all the latest updates.

  3. KM

    Lobby to put back the Megan’s Law exclusion for misdemeanor offenses!

  4. Harry

    I think I will be able to come down this time, It appears, I will have those days off from work.

  5. Armchair Activist

    Is there some better way to combat cp than more punishment? If so, we ought to frame our argument so. I think from their point of view, simply saying it’s not that bad of an offense is not going to make much of an impression.

Leave a 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 *

.