ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 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 all4consolaws dot org


Action ItemsCalifornia

Action Alert: CA Legislation Would Significantly Increase Duration of Protective Orders [UPDATED 5/26]


The California Senate Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday, May 27 at 9:00 AM during which Senate Bill 853 (SB 853) will be considered.  If the bill is passed, the duration of Protective Orders issued in cases involving sex offenses and other crimes would be significantly increased from a maximum of 10 years to life, depending upon the conviction for which a person is required to register.

This bill was introduced by Senator Hurtado, a Democrat whose district includes Fresno, in January 2020.  The principal coauthor of the bill is Senator Rubio, a Democrat whose district includes West Covina.  The bill also has three Senate coauthors and two Assembly coauthors.

“We must stop this bill,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “If the bill is passed, individuals who have protective orders issued against them could be extended for life.”

In order to stop the bill, registrants, family members and supporters are asked to send a letter of opposition to the Senate Public Safety Committee using one of the following methods:

Mailing to:

Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Room 2031
Sacramento, CA 95814

Hand delivery to the Committee’s Office Room 2031 of the State Capitol

Letters must be received by the Committee no later than May 26.

The Committee hearing can be viewed online or listened to by calling 877-336-4441 and using access code 6775069.  The Committee requests that callers mute their phones in order to avoid background noise.

Sample letter in PDF (updated 5/21/20 to remove the lifetime GPS monitoring comment):

SB 853 – Opposition – 20 May 2020_000419

Also, please call all the Senate Public Safety Committee members and state your opposition to Senate Bill 853 (the first number is the local office, which seems to get through easier than the second number of the state capitol):

Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair) (510) 286-1333, (916) 651-4009
Senator John M. W. Moorlach (Vice Chair) 714.662.6050, (916) 651-4037
Senator Steven Bradford (310) 412-6120, (916) 651-4035
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (805) 965-0862, (916) 651-4019
Senator Holly J. Mitchell (213) 745-6656, (916) 651-4030
Senator Mike Morrell 909.919.7731, (916) 651-4023
Senator Scott D. Wiener (415) 557-1300, (916) 651-4011 has links to the Senators’ websites.

The Committee hearing is available these ways:

  • View online: GO to no earlier than a few minutes before the session at 9:00 AM and click on the link you will see under Today’s Events
  • Listen to the teleconference to by calling [this is updated 5/26] 844-291-6364 and using access code 6226558.  The Committee requests that callers mute their phones in order to avoid background noise.
  • TV: If you are in Sacramento, watch it on Sacramento channels,


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

Interesting. So while the bill allows judges to retain the discretion whether to issue a protective order or not, it seems to leave the issue of monitoring when placed on the order up to the counties. The problem with this bill is how frequently and without forethought judges issue protective orders. I wouldn’t complain frankly if it gave judges the discretion of monitoring when they’re placed on a protective order though.

So what if the the protection order expired 8 years ago im nt understanding this SB 853 .I served my time about to get off of parole and fyi they maybe cutting people early due to budget cuts

Here’s another little tidbit… the bill also says “The duration of electronic monitoring shall not exceed one year from the date the order is issued”…..

So the tiered registry strikes again. Is this retroactive? What a waste of money.

This was predictable because whenever you divide a community it is easy to conquer them. The tiered registry is a disaster! To the few of you who have benefited from a tiered registry will you be there in Sacramento to stop this bill?

Hello? hello?

Anybody there?


No Its not Retroactive, and cant be unless specifically writing as Retroactive.

Has anyone looked at the possible costs? The state just announced a huge budget shortfall. State employees are giving up 10% of their salaries. Is this really the best use of our limited resources?

The cost could be the saving grace. An attempt at electronic monitoring was tried about 10 years ago in California, but as soon as the cost was made public it died immediately.

So, I’m a little confused, what is the bottom of line of this bill?
If you are a registrant and have a protective order issued against you… Or if you’re required to register for life under the new tiered system…. are everybody who is required to register for life, as they now are in California…or just what is the implication?

Its a if you have it against you which is given to you during conviction. Its a restraining order with monitoring. And its not automatic. Its up to the judge. They’re not going to go through 100,000 cases retroactively. But this still needs to be stopped.

Keep in mind it’s proposed state legislation and only can be applied in county and state courts, not federal courts. If the offense is out of state or federal this particular proposal can’t interact with those unless a county or state court in California was part of the conviction process. Does not make it any less bad.

If they are making a protective order on someone 5/10/or 20 years later aren’t they determining you are dangerous without due process??

It would seem so. All the more reason for us to fight this thing with calls and letters today! And a donation to ACSOL would sure help us increase the number of things we can fight.

It got placed into a health care act when will this madness stop it’s so upsetting I just want to live free as the Constitution promises me but that don’t seem to matter anymore God I hope this don’t pass

This is what i was talking about a long time ago !
Civil Commitment and Medical Laws and other Gov. Putting things here and there in the Law jeopardizing LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS !

I just hope one of these idiots defends this bill by saying those who have been place in tier 3 lifetime are dangerous or the worst of the worst. Proves it’s punishment without due process.

How on earth does one sentence change invalidate the rest of the law? That’s the only way what Janice is saying about the GPS is true, and it doesn’t make any sense. Can somebody explain this to me?

This also looks like it would ruin any attempts at family reunification. I am very fortunate in my situation because I was able to reunify after going through Group, Individual and Family therapy for over 4 years.
This bill seems to pretend that families involving sexual abuse would never want to reunify.

Can someone from Janice’s camp PLEASE answer MichaelS questions above (I have the same questions). The way her letter is written has scared the heck out of us. Please clarify. Is this going to be all Tier 3’s?

The letter you’re showing us here isn’t updated at all it’s exactly the same as the last one. The part about wearing GPS units for life needs to be taken out ASAP.

Because I rushed writing the initial letter of opposition, I made a mistake. That is, I did not read the sentence in the bill that limits the requirement to wear a GPS device to only one year. I thank those who have informed me of my mistake which was subsequently corrected in both the article and the letter which are now linked above. Please accept my apology for any harm that I may have caused.

No problem, thanks for fighting for us. You have had a busy year, and it is only May.

Thank you, Janice. We appreciate everything you do for us and our families! But can you check the sample letter again? It still reads as if the GPS monitoring is up to life.

I’ve been out of con-rep for 16 years. (I was on con-rep for 12 years.) I have never had to wear a GPS monitor. Are you telling me that I might have to wear a monitor, if this bill passes? I think that having to register once a year is an invasion of my civil rights, and now THIS? My conviction was in 1973, on an adult woman, and I was sent to A.S.H., and have been in the Mental Health System since then, till 2004. I have been employed for most of this time, 1996-2020, ongoing, have been crime free, and yet these people , in power, still want to make things rougher! The Judge that gave me time served in 2004, did so because SHE determined that I was NOT Dangerous. SO what’s up with these law makers anyway?

@Tom I don’t know about Cali, but here in Wisconsin, they have something similar that’s retroactive. If a registrant had been convicted of more than 1 count on the same criminal complaint, they get classified as a repeat offender subject to lifetime registration and gps. Ever since this guideline went into effect over 2 years ago, individuals who had shorter registry times were retroctively pushed up to lifetime and put on ankle bracelet long after being off paper. WI courts failed to resolve the policy, so a federal class action suit against the DOC (they run the sex offender registry in Wisconsin) has been hanging in the wind for over a year now. What really suprises me is that ACSOL hasn’t posted anything on the Wisconsin expansion of gps for people who got convicted on more than 1 count in the same case! So you have some people who pled down to one count of cp and they don’t have to wear an ankle bracelet,but other cp offenders who only pled down to 2 counts (for reasons of a piss poor lawyer or hardcoreprosecutor) now have to wear a gps for life and pay up to $200 a month for the service. At least the California proposal is legislative, most likely won’t pass & if it does, it will likely get shot down by a state or federal court. But in Wisconsin, the state’s DOC has sole power over the registry, even on registrants no longer under supervision. The ultra conservative state court will never go against the DOC and the new “criminal justice reform” minded Democratic governor won’t touch anything sex offense related. He’ll go after the DOC (like trying to stop revocations on technicalviolations) but still the governor’s office stays clear of reforming sex offense laws.

i feel sorry for anyone who is classified as tier-3 sex offender it looks as if the state is gearing up for their third wave of assault/ Witch Hunt on registrants that started back in 2006
In my opinion GPS tracking on all California sexoffenders always was their main goal and now with the help of advanced technology the DOJ can track any and everyone in the name of Public Safety and Homeland Security but
When you have a hundred thousand sexoffenders that’s a lot of GPS tracking devices but it’s starting to make sense why California SB384 was put in place to divide and concur

This is what i was talking about a long time ago !
Civil Commitment and Medical Laws and other Gov. Putting things here and there in the Law jeopardizing LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS AND FREEDOM !

call the Senate Public Safety Committee members!!
it would only take less than a minute to call each one of them. they may ask, where you are calling from (city and zip code) and one asked, initial of your last name.

Thank you ACSOL. I’ll be calling today.

This must be defeated!

I made the calls today and sent the letter.

I encourage everyone to do so whenever ACSOL asks. It really does make a difference.

And I know for many (myself included), making these calls can raise anxiety levels a lot. Try to push past that as these calls are very simple and quick. They never ask you why you’re making this choice, so there’s no “debate”. Each call takes maybe 30 seconds.

It’s basically this each time:

Hello. My name is X. I’m calling in support/opposition of Y.

They may ask you your full name.
They will ask you for your city.
They may ask you your zip code.

That’s it. They don’t want the full address or any other info.

Le’ts bury this thing!

Sorry, but can someone explain to me what a protective order is and who it would apply to?

Making the calls was pretty fast, and so was writing the letter!

Even though this bill doesn’t affect me, I want to help others in the same way that they would support me on my issues.

If we only call and write and show up for our own issues, then divided we fall.

But if we all pull together for all registrant issues, we will succeed!

We are all in this together!

I have found that the first number listed by each senator (the local number) allows messages more often than the capitol number, so I recommend trying those first.

State budgets and county budgets are all going to be in the Red when this lockdown is over . They can only get so much by taxing us more . The Feds are not coming to our rescue. Police budgets will require cut backs and one item I hope they cut is this Registration BS . There is probably nothing we can do about it but lets keep our ears open to any sound about 290 stuff

Made my calls today. Had to leave a voicemail message on a couple. But couldn’t get through to the Chair on the numbers provided. Wrote my letter as well with some of my personal thoughts:

First off, I am for the protection of alleged victims and potential witnesses from the risk of any injury, coercion, and/or harassment that can be committed by a defendant. I also believe that justice affords rights to the defendant as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. Senate Bill 853 (“Bill”) in its current and poorly drafted form I believe violates defendant’s constitutional rights to due process in that it would require the accused “who has been convicted for a felony sex offense that requires registration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the Sex Offender Registration Act,…for up to the duration of the period of registration as determined by the court,” i.e., for 20 years or a lifetime depending on the assigned tier level, which is based purely on the defendant’s prior conviction and not on a case-by-case basis as determined by the merits of the case. If I’m correct, the Bill contemplates pendency of criminal matter (“a court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter”). Therefore, to have a protective order lasting 20 years or a lifetime long after the criminal matter is resolved and the defendant is no longer in any custody, i.e., incarceration, parole, or probation, it would mean that defendant would still be in custody after s/he has served his/her time under this proposed law. There already are legal mechanisms in place for people to seek a protective order, e.g., a TRO, if they feel threatened by someone for any reason. To boot, the Bill would invite abuse for discretion by the courts. We all know the justice system works only if those charged with upholding it, e.g., state judges, prosecutors, etc., act with justice and fairness in accordance with the law. However, we also know that not all judges, prosecutors, etc. act in such a manner. This Bill is ripe for abuse.

In addition, I fully agree with the contents of the enclosed letter by Attorney Janice M. Belluci, dated 5/20/2020, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Any bill that adds to or increases punitive action is a bad bill and a potential litmus test for additional future legislation. We cannot ever allow bills like this to pass. Even if you personally are not affected by this one (and thus don’t feel the need to speak up), the next one spawned by or based on this action very likely will have an impact on you. “Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Did everyone notice the new phone number posted at the bottom of this article so you can listen to the hearing tomorrow?

Our’s must be a consistent and dogged and ESCALATING response to every such attempt to further encroach upon our liberties. There has to be an understanding on the part of our adversaries that their machinations will not only be met with outrage but that, ultimately, there will be a political cost to continue pandering to the hysterics.

Phones called and emails written.

I called but did not have much luck getting through to senators – mostly had to leave voicemails. The office is Senator Moorlach told me to call my own senator if I wished to oppose the bill (though my own CA Senator is not on the Public Safety Committee.)

I called and opposed. Looks like the bill didn’t pass today and can’t be reconsidered again this year. Thanks to those who called, wrote, and/or participated in today’s hearing.

during the next bill, towards the end, they said they are able to reconsider and misspoke. Chair said they are able to reconsider if they choose to and they said they did. They then granted Hurtado a future consideration this year.

The victimites are relentless in pursuit of the bill that extends range of their future reach. If you have to go so far as to file for protective court order then you better be ready to split town altogether. If you have reason to expect attack on self or properly to that extent you are in the wrong area! If he’s coming to bash your head in, or she is getting ready to pop a cap, or carve her name in your leather seats you might want to have an exit plan.
Who but a victimite
shyster would consider a bill that would extend the life of a court’s paper affect so often proved fectless!

Sorry, but IMO that’s like paying for that extended Wal-Mart warranty on that 30$ coffee pot tagged “Made in China.”

congratulations Janice. great job — and not an easy one

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x