ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 11, August 15 details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

Action ItemsCalifornia

Comments Sought for Draft California Tiered Registry Forms

[ACSOL]

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee of the the Judicial Council of California has prepared and released four draft forms to be used when the petitioning process of the Tiered Registry Law becomes effective in July 2021.  Comments regarding the draft forms is due to the Committee no later than June 9, 2020.

The four draft forms include: Petition to Terminate Sex Offender Registration (CR-415), Acknowledgment of Receipt by Law Enforcement/District Attorney (CR-416), Response by District Attorney to Petition (CR-417) and Order on Petition (CR-418).  In addition, the Council has prepared an information sheet with instructions regarding how to file a petition (CR-415INFO).  A link to all of the forms is provided below.

“It is encouraging that the Committee is seeking comments from the public regarding its draft forms,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

The draft petition form (CR-415) consists of three pages with a total of 10 questions.  Most of the questions in the draft petition form require the petitioner to check a box or to provide a short answer such as the name of the county in which the petitioner is currently registered.  The petition also requires petitioners to provide proof of current registration.

In addition to completing the petition form, registrants will be required to file the petition in the Superior Court where they reside as well as provide copies of the petition to law enforcement and the district attorney in the county where they reside and/or the county in which they were convicted if different.

Two of the three remaining forms are to be completed by law enforcement and/or the district attorney.  The fourth form is to be completed by the judge who reviews the petition.  Judges may grant a petition without a hearing if the district attorney does not object to it.

According to the draft forms, a district attorney may object to a petition for the following reasons: (1) community safety would be significantly enhanced by the petitioner’s continued registration, (2) petitioner has not met the minimum time period for registration and (3) petitioner has been assigned to Tier 3 and does not fall under the risk level exception.  The draft form also allows a district attorney to choose “other” as the reason to object to a petition.  If the district attorney objects to a petition, a hearing before a judge will be held.

Regardless of whether the district attorney objects to a petition, a Superior Court judge will make the final decision regarding whether a petition is granted.  If the petition is granted, a person is no longer required to register in the state of California.  According to the draft form, a judge may deny a petition for three reasons: petitioner has not met the minimum time period for registration, petitioner has been assigned to Tier 3 and does not fall under the risk level exception or community safety would be significantly enhanced by the petitioner’s continued registration.

“ACSOL will prepare and send comments regarding the draft forms to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee,” stated Bellucci.  “If an individual wants his or her comments to be considered as part of ACSOL’s comments, those comments should be sent to ACSOL no later than June 1.”  Comments regarding the draft forms may be provided to ACSOL by email at service@all4consolaws.org or by U.S. mail to 1215 K Street, 17th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Comments may also be sent directly to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee on the Judicial Council website at www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm or by mail to 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3688.  The Committee has requested that individuals comment on the proposed form using the comment form provided below.

Downloads:

Petition Forms – Comment Form – April 2020 [MS Word]

Petition Forms – Draft – April 2020 [PDF]

 

Join the discussion

  1. j

    no longer register in California, so what if a individual moves to *example* texas/chicago/ny/Philadelphia for 6 months or moves out of country? yes its a 2 part question, and would there be an additional box or option to *maybe* reduce from a felony to a misdemeanor or even lower so when & if back ground check is conducted that doesn’t show? and would there also be automatic exclusion from the web? and what would the grace period before all is done and completed after all is submitted?

  2. Jack7170

    Wow! I didn’t think they’d let tier 3 people petition at all this is is awesome.

    • John Androtti

      Tier 3 only when placed for risk score has always been allowed to petition. Janice: If we don’t agree with the form being sent to Law Enforcement where conviction occurred, is this the comment they are seeking? For example, I have lived in San Diego for 33 years, my case is in Sacramento in 1990. I understand the DA in Sac needs notification, but why LE in Sac? I thought it was only your registering LE where you live now? Why do they have to be notified? I am finding this aspect of the process suspicious. They should have no bearing on your petition process and I have never heard of this until now. LE is only involved to verify if you are eligible based on 10 or 20 years, so why again, is LE where you were convicted needed? Please help clarify this Janice. Thank you!

      • James I

        Hi John:

        “Tier 3 only when placed for risk score has always been allowed to petition.”

        What does this mean? Does this mean a person bumped from 2 to 3 because their conviction is so old they never had a Static 99 score?

        Also, while these procedures seem appropriate…what about the fact than many, many of us having a conviction of 288(a), {not 288a}, are seemingly going to be put in tier 3 regardless of how old the conviction is? It is to be noted that it was hoped that 288(a)’s would logically and correctly moved to Tier 2 in the actual Tier Legislation.

        Lastly, I do not see where a 1204.3 complete dismissal fits into this scheme…it doesn’t help, it is like it never happened? This seems a little strange except, I suppose you could attach it to your petition to be removed and would be seen as a positive mitigating factor.

        It might be helpful if a link could be provided to the Tiered Registry Bill so we could guesstimate where we might categorized in this process.

        BTW, of course, responses from anybody on these questions would be appreciated.

        Thanks and Good Luck to everyone.

        Best Wishes, James I

        PS It goes without saying that CP offenses belong in Tier 2 if possible, (this doesn’t concern me, but it seems wrong to have these individuals automatically in Tier 3)

        • JAB

          Hi James I,
          I am a little confused by your statement of:

          Also, while these procedures seem appropriate…what about the fact than many, many of us having a conviction of 288(a), {not 288a}, are seemingly going to be put in tier 3 regardless of how old the conviction is? It is to be noted that it was hoped that 288(a)’s would logically and correctly moved to Tier 2 in the actual Tier Legislation.
          288 (a) is a tier 2 not a tier 3, as long as you only have 1 count and no subsequent charges of 288 a. This has been attempted to be moved to a tier 3, but ACSOL and it’s amazing team stopped this.
          Not sure where you are getting this from. Hope this helps. JAB

        • James I

          Thanks, JAB, I knew that 288(a) was going to be a battle…I was unaware that this had been won, I must have missed it. Very, very good, *(if entirely true… I am obviously going to have to research this a bit more….and look for the actual text of the Tiered Legislation).

          *Well, I suppose you are correct (in the main, I think you could have more than one count if convicted at the same time and not a subsequent prosecution…but it is a byzantine mess of a law, that’s for sure).

          Here is a link As Amends the Law on Nov 27, 2017, (the latest I could find, and seems to be current, the bottom blue text)

          https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384

          Thanks for the correction

          Best Wishes, James I

      • Political Prisoner

        They want as many chances to deny your petition as possible, that is why they want the LE in your conviction location notified.

      • dph

        @JohnAndrotti of SD, I HAVE THE SAME ISSUE John, why is LE NOW added In from CASOMB? or DOJ?
        It was the Courts and then the LE and Courts and DA where you Reg. NOT LE from original, THEY ARE NOT GOING to go for it. Bad enough the DA/Courts but LE. they don’t want a black ball mark.
        WHO brought them back into the mix, HOPE JANICE ANSWERS YOUR QUEST John or atleast sees it.
        Thirty three in SoCal and 15 in NorCal (opposite) near SAC and why do they bring in the OLD LE besides the D.A. / Courts from originator. More to deny most petitions period. Even if good for decades.

  3. mike r

    Wait, what @Jack? Apparently tier 3 can petition. It would be futile since tier 3 are for life. Did I miss something?

    Anyone can file a petition at any time any ways. Without no arbitrary perimeters invoked by the legislature on the courts.
    “In addition to completing the petition form, registrants will be required to file the petition in the Superior Court where they reside as well as provide copies of the petition to law enforcement and the district attorney in the county where they reside and/or the county in which they were convicted if different.”

  4. New Person

    Quote from this post:
    ====
    According to the draft forms, a district attorney may object to a petition for the following reasons:
    (1) community safety would be significantly enhanced by the petitioner’s continued registration,
    (2) petitioner has not met the minimum time period for registration and
    (3) petitioner has been assigned to Tier 3 and does not fall under the risk level exception.
    ====

    I do not like reason (1). Reason (1) has already been deliberated upon at the sentencing and subsequent court appearances such as the awarding of 1203.4, reduction of charge, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Also, the deliberation continued on in the categorization of the tiers and who belongs to them.

    Reason (1) feels like double jeopardy. You are getting re-tried based upon your initial conviction to prolong being on the registry. This feels like a parole hearing than a regulatory scheme.

    Fear mongering is the best tool for the DA. The punishment continues because of the possibility of something horribly to occur, yet obscures the fact that your initial conviction and possible subsequent court appearances has categorized you into the tiered section the legislature already created (or still creating). Reason (1) essentially allows the DA to *not follow the law* set forth by the tiers such that the DA can continually move the goal post. Is this a parole hearing to be released or is this a statutory scheme burdened by supposedly free citizens?

    I want a job. I want a good paying job, but the registry prevents that as I’ve been thwarted from job offers due to the registry.

    I would like to travel freely, meaning no in-person registration or need to present yourself to the local PD to announce you’re a danger to society by still being on the registry. What isn’t punishable in California is punishable in other states! Re:Taylor exists only in California.

    This registry scheme puts a halt on life and the DAs don’t see us as humans who made a mistake and deserve another chance. The registry is just the extension of being under custody of the state. If you’re in jail, there are differences between certain tanks. Some tanks you are locked down for 20 hours a day with rules, restrictions, and other instructions by the Law Enforcement (LE) in charge. Other tanks you are out 12 hours a day with similar LE custodial supervision. On probation or parole, your jail environment has expanded, but you’re still under custodial supervision. Once you are no longer under custody (out of jail, parole, or probation), you are still under custody of the state with at least one in-person registration, several restrictions, several rules, and specified banishment (the US Military can banish you from their premises). Today’s registry is an extension of still being under custody. The compliance checks alone is akin to LE checking in on your cell in jail or at home for parole or probation. The constant fingerprinting and taking pictures is treating you like you’re getting booked every single year you do it which is identified by your birthday – which is a psychological infringement beyond your own court punishment.

    In Smith v Doe, 2003, the case focused on the Alaska registry system where one only had to mail in your information and nothing prevented travel or occupation, to which the SCOTUS said it wasn’t punishment. We’re well beyond that. Janice and team have proved presence and residency restrictions were unconstitutional, but the registry remained. And continues to balloon as your status is will be on your passports and, possibly, Real IDs. The demarcation are your scarlet letters.

    There should be no reason the DA gets a second bite at the apple with Reason (1). If a registrant qualifies to de-register, then the DA already had a part of that as the registrant is categorized into tier 1 or tier 2. Why does the DA get to re-visit the same case again and tack on more years? Isn’t that now considered punishment because the DA gets to elevate the suspension complete liberty?

    The California Constitution has an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Why does the DA have more power than the California Constitution to continue the suspension of obtaining privacy when it’s an inalienable right? With that said, there shouldn’t be any lifetime registration in California at all because it completely negates the inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy, which is written explicitly in the California Constitution.

    • Joe

      Argh! This is so lame. There is absolutely no evidence that registration (significantly!) enhances community safety. If it did, then all criminals would be required to register likewise. There is absolutely no reason not to. Unless our legislators are not interested in community safety.

    • Rob

      You would think this law, approved at a national level, which undoubtedly creates long/short term psychological damage, surely should have been reviewed and approved by some kind of high-up mental psychiatrist…doctor…whatever. Self-esteem, confidence, even motivation are just some of the traits that eventually fall victim to deep depression brought on by internet fame. Your profile on the Megans law website is only a small part of your punishment. The true punishment are the hardships of what being on the internet bring.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @New Person – Although we do not like or approve the fact that a District Attorney can request a hearing based upon the DA’s belief that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”, the Tiered Registry Law provides DA’s with that authority. If we don’t want DA’s to have this authority, then we must work to change the Tiered Registry Law. We will be doing so in the state Capitol in early 2021. We hope that you and many others will join us in this effort.

      • Harry

        Every DA will checked this box for everyone.

      • Andrew Baechtel

        Can anyone tell us how we can verify what Tier we fall into? I actually don’t know my Tier. I think it is three, but when I take the Static 99 myself it indicates zero risk or Tier one. I want to find out for sure before i consult with an attorney about filing. Thanks

    • dph

      @NewPerson, you are SO Correct NewPerson about this…
      I want a job. I want a good paying job, but the registry prevents that as I’ve been thwarted from job offers due to the registry.

      It is The Worst CONTINUAL Punishment for the Registrants. Not FAIR. It is a given. Degrees DON’T Matter.

      Thanks for bringing that up, today…the perspective employer LIES and does a name search with your address PRE Background to save money on Goog/Yawhoo and sees the highest hits and guess what else REG.
      FAIL! Forget the job
      forget forgoing the background POST Offer of Employ with forget the box, it’s already occured to save emp $

  5. mike r

    It sure seems as though you could simply file a very similar petition arguing you are no longer a danger and demanding the state prove otherwise. Sure we have Conn v Doe, but that was not on a substantive claim nor was it in a state court. I bet you get a panel of state appellant judges or the state SC and you could make a good argument you would see a favorable response. Then a judge is not bound by arbitrary perimeters as stated, and they are bound by the local appellant courts and the CA SC, which I cannot even find if the CA SC has ever ruled on these issues when it comes to these newer rules and restrictions. Either way I will be filing something this summer for sure.
    Every CA SC case I have seen has been not favorable to the state or to the registration schemes.

  6. Joe

    Will comments on this forum be considered input? If so, here goes….

    This tiered registry is a fustercluck of epic proportions. ACSOL was wrong to ever support a tiered registry, and certainly this one. Dead wrong. The only acceptable response to this bill is “No way. The only good registry is no registry’.

    The legislature is not the place to affect change. Progress happens in the courts. I correct myself. The only acceptable response to this bill is “No way. The only good registry is no registry. See you in court!”

    I quote from ACSOL’s beliefs in the footer on this very page: “The public sex offender registry and residency restriction laws do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families.”

    When did it become acceptable to leave thousands – many for completely arbitrary reasons – on a registry that “does not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families.”? Whatever happened to “justice for all”?

    • James A

      The courts have consistently ruled that the registries are constitutional. The tiered registry was the only option to allow some to get off registration. It matters not what any person feels is wrong – only what is feasible. New laws pass often that further restrict us. When we can leak out a little something – we should cherish that.

      • wonderin

        “The courts have consistently ruled that the registries are constitutional.”

        Because the registry is seen as a public health necessity.
        That concept is the fallacy of psycho babble, devoid of intelligent scientific evidence that sex offenders are geared to re offend if left unchecked.
        It is time to demand that the fallacy be proven or dismissed.

        • TS

          CA courts may have but other courts across the land are thinking and writing otherwise about registry being constitutional.

        • New Person

          Are the state lockdowns constitutional? Due to COVID-19, it’s a public health crisis. Yet, people are beginning to revolt against the lockdowns as new data shows it isn’t as wildly dangerous today as it was first presented. Some states look at the new data and others abide the “pandemic scare data”.

  7. Jack7170

    Maybe, but if you don’t ultimately want the registry gone….well that just means you support it.

  8. Harry

    Lawyers in the state are already advertising their services for removal. I got a advertisement in the mail, today, from one. They apparently he got my address from the Megan Law website.

    • Rob

      Got mine in the mail about two weeks ago from the good folks at the Law Offices of Bruce Bridgman. I usually would get a brochure from them once a year or so, but this time it was different. This time they included a printout of my profile on the internet which got me mad. I felt like it was a personal attack on my privacy. They went through all the trouble of looking my profile up, printing it out, and sending it to me as if to say what? Is it a marketing tactic that I see that paper and need their services out of fright? Thats going a little too far just to make money off my mishap. Borderline intimidating.

      • Milard

        Sounds like that law firm could be sued !
        But i dont know, sounds open to investigation though !
        Proffitering and abuse of private info ?
        Something in the Law books should connect with unsolicited and demeaning character attacks..
        🤔🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️

  9. Jimmy Lee

    While I don’t like things about the tiered registry system, I think the forms lay out the law’s requirements fairly well. I will look over the documents and send in my comments for consideration. At least this article helps clarify to me how I will approach applying to get off the registry after 27 years. Thanks for posting the article Janice!

  10. ReadyToFight

    I’ve asked like 3 or 4 times now…. I’d like to know if there’s going to be any fighting the extension triggered by a FTR???
    Mine was 14 yrs ago and it was a one off to make a long story short. I did 4 months in Jail and I took a FELONY charge for it, 3 years of Probation and a fine of I think it was $2k. Not to mention I lost my wife, my job, and the roof over my head in the process.
    I can’t be certain but, I’m pretty sure I paid for my misstep.
    I also truly believe those of us that have Registered for 20+ yrs are owed reparations for the PTSD the Registry has caused each and every one of us.

  11. MatthewLL

    So, for out of state offenders, one must be a resident to file for termination? How would someone who travels to CA occasionally petition if they are not registered?

  12. mike r

    Can someone cite CA SC cases that have upheld registries? I have been doing this for many years and I have yet to see a direct CA SC case upholding the current scheme.

    • New Person

      @mike r,

      In the following case link, it also cites Alvarez. I’ll give excerpts after the link.

      Link: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1664533.html

      Excerpt 1. Registration is upheld
      ===
      In Alva, the California Supreme Court unanimously concluded sex offender registration, “[b]eyond doubt,” was not punitive for purposes of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment:  “[T]he purpose and intent of registration are regulatory, as a means of assisting law enforcement in dealing with the serious problem of recidivist sex offenders.   Moreover, registration is not punitive in effect notwithstanding the legislative intent.   Registration has not historically been viewed as punishment, imposes no direct disability or restraint beyond the inconvenience of compliance, and has a legitimate nonpenal objective.   Though registration may have incidental deterrent or retributive effects, and applies to conduct which is already a crime, these features are not sufficient to outweigh the statute’s regulatory nature.”  (Alva, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 279, fn. omitted.)   In an earlier case, the California Supreme Court similarly concluded sex offender registration was not punitive for purposes of ex post facto analysis.  (People v. Castellanos (1999) 21 Cal.4th 785, 796 (Castellanos ) (lead opn. of George, C.J.);  id. at p. 800 (dis. & conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).)
      ===

      Excerpt 2. Kelly v Municipal is downgraded due to the passing of PC 290.5
      ===
      Appellant’s citation to Kelly v. Municipal Court (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 38 (Kelly ), does not persuade us otherwise.   In Kelly, the Court of Appeal held the sex offender registration requirement was “criminal in character” and constituted a penalty or disability released by section 1203.4.  (Kelly, at p. 44.)   However, as discussed above, characterizations of the registration requirement as punitive rather than regulatory have been squarely rejected by Alva and Castellanos.5  Moreover, when Kelly was decided, section 290.5 had not been enacted (see Stats.1961, ch. 1819, § 1, p. 3866), nor did any other statute expressly set forth a means by which the registration requirement could be released.  (Kelly, at p. 41 [registration is “a burden which the convicted person carries with him until his dying day”].)  Kelly thus reasoned:  “It is a fair inference that an offender found deserving of probation is not likely to be in need of further police surveillance if he responds to the confidence reposed in him as a probationer and faithfully fulfills the terms and conditions of his probation,” and therefore, in the case of such a probationer, “the need for further surveillance and registration terminates upon his release pursuant to the sanction of section 1203.4.”   (Id. at p. 45, fn. omitted.)   However, the subsequent enactment of section 290.5 evinces a legislative determination that the need for registration continues until the registrant obtains a certificate of rehabilitation or pardon.  Kelly is no longer good law.
      ===

      Excerpt 3. PC 290.5 makes it harder to gain relief from the registry for 1203.4 recipients
      ===
      As the California Supreme Court has noted, the provisions of section 290.5 and the related provisions governing certificates of rehabilitation and pardons “are consistent with the regulatory purpose to monitor convicted sex offenders, who are generally considered susceptible to recidivism, but to end such special monitoring of those who have demonstrated that their likelihood of reoffense is low.”  (Alva, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 265, fn. 4.) These statutes express a legislative determination that the “likelihood of reoffense is low” for convicted sex offenders only when the statutory provisions are satisfied.   Thus, it would be inappropriate to read section 1203.4a as providing an additional, far easier method of obtaining relief from sex offender registration.3
      ===

      Registration was accepted only for sex offenders, but stopped for gangsters. The only way off the registry in California came by way of 1203.4.

      1958, Kelly v Municipal stated in-person reporting was criminal in nature, which is punitive and allowed a registrant off the registry via 1203.4.

      1973, re Birch allowed for lifetime registration, but allowed off the registry via 1203.4.

      1983, Reed stated registration was punitive and allowed off the registry via 1203.4.

      2004, Alva made registration not punitive.
      === excerpt from link ===
      “Moreover, registration is not punitive in effect notwithstanding the legislative intent.   Registration has not historically been viewed as punishment, imposes no direct disability or restraint beyond the inconvenience of compliance, and has a legitimate nonpenal objective.   Though registration may have incidental deterrent or retributive effects, and applies to conduct which is already a crime, these features are not sufficient to outweigh the statute’s regulatory nature.”  
      ===

      2007 (I think this is the date it passed) PC 290.5 became law, negating 1203.4 completely from de-registering.


      CA courts have allowed registration, but drew a line early when it came to 1203.4 recipients in favor of de-registering.

      The only thing I can think of addressing the CA SC is Lifetime Registration without relief is unconstitutional in CA as it states it is an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Lifetime registration removes the option to pursue privacy, which means you are not able to obtain privacy. Your constitutional rights cannot be infringed by newer laws as written in the California Constitution.

      What I don’t comprehend is the passing of 290.5 and negating the benefits of 1203.4 due to fear mongering of “frightening and high” recidivism rates. Hammond makes emphasis that 1203.4 is a pathway made easier for registrants to get relief and 10-years needs to be the minimum (new) standard. Constitutionally, 290.5 cannot negate 1203.4 for several reasons, which was brought up in Kelly v Municipal. 290.5 singled out 1203.4 registrants from any relief which other convicts who earn 1203.4 do get relief.

      290.5 was a hit piece at 1203.4 recipients and didn’t look at Kelly v Municipal’s argument that 290 cannot supersede 1203.4, which the Judge agreed with. Also, 290.5 negates actual recidivism data. Here’s a link from W.A.R. and CASOMB’s 10-year study (1997-2007). The recidivism rate is 3.38%. But that included FTRs (Failure to register). In later reporting, it went to under 1% here on ACSOL. I can’t find links for under 1% online anymore. But if you google “CASOMB recidivism rates” and it shares 6.2% after five years. That means 94% don’t re-offend!

      290.5 moved the goal post from probationary period to 10-year CoR. That actually increased punishment!

      Anyhow, I hope that helps you out. I’ve given up trying to find ways to refute the system, but I feel beaten down

      https://womenagainstregistry.org/Resources/pdf/CASOMB_RECIDIVISM_STUDY_10_YEAR_w-Graph.pdf

      • mike r

        Thanks, but I am not going anything about punishment. Straight privacy, safety and arbitrary grounds as fundamental rights under the CA constitution. They are inalienable under CA Const. The only case that I can find against me is at this link. I am not even sure if that is a CA SC case or just appellant. Either way it certainly does not address safety as a fundamental right. CA Const. has both those explicitly stated in its constitution.
        https://ufile.io/8kgp1i4e

  13. Saddles

    I’m impressed Janice I have to applaude you and the team. While it just doesn’t make since to spend a lot of money or to take money or incarcerate in many ways of maybe someone just for talking dirty via the internet their is still the inducement one must lock at, The therapist reports labels character, etc. or labels someone crazy, than another diagnose”s one sane in this badgering to show pictures for some vain way one has to wonder who’s doing the temptation and who’s doing the vain glory. Even this teir status is a micky mouse of a Dante’s infernol or is everyone out in CA goning Japanese! A good study for all on here that may give understand today in this registry government/ political scheme. I hope someone still registered someone when they are borned or do we all take that as a natural.

    Constutional or Unconstutional who is going back to their roots. Yes the movie series was good but it have meaning or is white man still speaking with fork tongue. Remember ask not what the contury can do for you but what you can do for the country. One wonders if Einstein went crazy or did a group of his peers give him a teir level or a get out of town notice or hang em high. Actually much of this going against the grain of the good book and yes I do believe government is losing its salt in many ways or is this pandermic some carter has liver pill to take for a cure all.

    I symposize with your comments in California. Myself I’m against the registry methods and many ways. This home improvement of this teir thing sound’s good. I just wish many governments would come to reason as one. I guess it takes more than a Babe Ruth to make home runs in government today but Janice your on top. Janice I wish you could speak up at my pardon if it comes about but I believe I’m not left in outfield and have a pretty good handle on that one if a pardon comes about. One can look at this registry in many views but I can tell you its not a divine comedy or who’s playing the one tin soilder in this game.

  14. nah

    What are the chances of submitting the results of a DNA search of the CODIS at our own expense? How else to prove we aren’t suspected serial killers only deterred by the registry?

    https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

    • nah

      I should pose a serious argument here as I take this line of defense seriously. A lack of a DNA match after a government search of the CODIS database is the only evidence available proving we did not commit a violent crime that left DNA evidence. Think about it. This is especially true for those of us who registered before DNA was even a thing. The registry is premised mostly on those types of cases, ones where swabs were taken into evidence for blood type and then for DNA. These kinds of cases against children especially fueled the registry panic to the point we have to give a swab to the registration officers upon demand so they can run our DNA through CODIS, at the local state and federal level. That means that probably (just a guess) almost 99% of those runs through CODIS results in no match on registrant’s DNA. What better proof of us not being the dangerous premise upon which the registry is founded? We should be able to explicitly detail CODIS searches that passed our DNA with a no hit. How many times did that happen? Hundreds? Thousands? Maybe even millions over the years. There is nothing else to counter the argument that the registry is needed because all the registered have hidden serious crimes undetected (looking at you, recidivism rate.) If that were true, there would be daily CODIS hits of the registered. It follows that those who don’t get hit on a CODIS search are not the danger to the community that the registry presumes. We should be able to argue that with the government’s own records of CODIS searches. Why else would the government submit DNA to CODIS for a search and a match?

  15. Sam A.

    Why are people being put under Tier 3 based on the faulty Static 99R in the first place? What this essentially means is that a flawed number, instead of the underlying crime, is given the power to put someone in a Tier. I don’t even know where to begin in articulating why the use of the Scam 99R is wrong… on so many levels.

    This is ludicrousy.

  16. Eric Knight

    Would a letter from the California AG’s office (back then, Kamala Harris) that removes a registrant’s requirement to register be of any good use to the cause? An associate of mine was removed from the registry and has the signed letter from the department to prove it. All he asks is that it not be used to render the state to reinstate his registration.

    • Mot

      Is this going to be the format to use since I have a COR that was gotten in Dec 2019? Or if not what if anyone knows will be the process to get off the registry?
      Thanks I know 2021 is going to be interesting….when I registered this year the PD told me NEXT year I will be told my level…I did not mention the COR since I am not sure he knows what this is

  17. Willard

    Cite cases? Are you now attorneys? New Person just wrote a book! Get with it

  18. dram

    Looking for those similarly affected to attempt a class action injunction to bar address exposure and enhanced reporting requirements of the tiered registry for those convicted before ML went into effect.
    As in Jessica’s law ex post facto was successful in ACLU’s immediate injunction to bar it’s application for residency restrictions to those convicted prior to JL’s application.

    My own particulars are 32 year old single crime, will be moved to tier 3. 20 years in same county. No criminal activity previous to conviction and one following conviction for drug possession, no criminal activity for 25 years. Address exposure will ensue, my living arrangement will not stand address exposure. An immediate injunction will be necessary on ex post facto grounds. Any others wish to participate in this very narrow challenge?

    • dram

      Evolution of information

      Beginning on January 1, 2021, the CA DOJ will designate tiers for registrants.

      Beginning on July 1, 2021, registrants who meet the mandated minimum requirements may petition for termination of their sex offender registration requirement in the superior court or juvenile court in the county in which they reside.

      Beginning on January 1, 2022, registrants will be displayed on the Megan’s Law website pursuant to Penal Code section 290.46 as amended under SB 384.

      https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/csor/registrant-faqs.pdf

      No Injunction necessary as this gives time to act after designation.

  19. TCU

    Surprising? Are you guys lawyers? Your citing case law? Injunctions? For? It’s all talk. Volunteer?

  20. Saddles

    Since I have been involved with my ordeal in a probational way, and yes I’ve been on Janice’s forum in the past. Most of you have always somehow wanted to included your pride or this data base computer theory. Why? Should we all let a computer speak for our conscious our view points or our understandings or our wisdom.

    Did we all not get along just as good without a computer. If a computer know’s all the answers than Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf in this controversial issue.
    I’m not ivy league person and I doubt if anyone on here is but we all have feelings or does a computer know the data of that or the emotions. While Tim seems to bring up things of a database prospective we are all not machines. Someone brought up the idea are we are all not lawyers. While I’m sure many value view’s about the computer but where we all better off without computers or does the postman always ring twice in one’s call of duty.

    Sure nothing wrong with how you use but its how one can abuse. Governents abuse things everyday even one’s tongue or mouth can get out of line but I’m sure we all have principal, and we all have our ups and downs in daily life on many issues, and yes we all can voice out to the people. Sure when one is considering a vocation they must chose it wisely.

    Myself I should of went in to parole board pardons end of the criminal justice field as their are many that need pardons in this United States and that does show some type of compassion. Its either united we stand or divided we fall and it seems like the sex ordeal has many pitfalls to clean up for true justice values. Sure obeying masters is good but when a master overruns another whos’ principal are they using? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

  21. Mr. D

    @USA – What on earth is wrong with you? Do you enjoy attacking others who are trying to engage in meaningful dialogue? When you’re not attacking others your other favorite pastime appears to be touting your own expungement and that you are apparently above everyone else who visits this forum. Perhaps it might be a good time to seek your amusement elsewhere?

    • Josh

      @Mr. D…..I have no idea whether this will make it past the moderators but if you’re new to this forum then you just fell victim to the biggest troll we have…Ol USA likes to pop in from time to time and drop some good will and cheer on his fellow registrants. He likes the attention and always manages to get somebody to react. I’ve put at least 3 verbal ass whuppings on him and so have some of the other more valued contributors. We have minor disagreements all the time on this site but USA is the only one who has a superiority complex. WE’RE all in this SOR situation together for a myriad of different reasons and circumstances so I don’t quite understand where that comes from…..If he was as superior as he thinks and his “expunged summarily dismissed misdemeanor false accusation of sexual battery on a prostitute” makes him less of a ex sex offender then the rest of us, then why would you want to hang out on a forum like this. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now. I don’t care what ANYBODY did or didn’t do. If you did your time and payed your debt to society then I have your back. This life is hard enough to navigate without the added burdens and onerous requirements heaped on us as a result of SOR’s! I value this forum for the information, support, empathy, and outlet it provides. I’m sure there is a 50/50 chance this post will never see the light of day but if it does I would implore the moderators to please block @USA and his negativity or at least censor HIS “attacks” on fellow registrants disguised as “opinions”

    • Josh

      @Mr. D….people who have been to prison acquire degrees of all sorts…there are many people with convictions who can’t practice law but are para-legals….I don’t know what qualifications @AJ, @MikeR, & Tim in Wisconsin have to their names but I find them extremely informative and educational and at least two of the afore mentioned have represented themselves in court…I myself, have learned much from conversations with my attorney and by reading the court rulings. My point being, please don’t take any offense to naysayers and continue to discuss whatever you feel necessary without fear of judgement. There are people who have multiple degrees(5) who apparently don’t know much of ANYTHING….

      • Jax

        I’ve ran across many of these “jailhouse” lawyers when I was in prison. They think they know everything, but most know nothing. They hang out in the law library, read a few statues in the law books or see some case on the computer, then these guys believe they found the magic bullet to get them out of prison. Every so often, one may get lucky and win an appeal or a lawsuit against the DOC (that’s another thing, everybody’s trying to sue the DOC) but that rarely they’re successful. There’s a reason people go to college and law school for years. It takes more than someone with a 6th grade education reading some statue and believing it applies to their case. There’s a lot of nuances and interpretation involved that educated people who went to college understand, whereas uneducated people tend to think in black & white and I’ll be the first to admit I’m just a dumb country boy with only a high school education, but I never would trust a jailhouse lawyer. When I did my prison stint, I sought out inmates who actually went to college to take care of my affairs, like this cool young black guy who did my taxes and legal work. There’s too much anti-intellectualism in our country, but sometimes us folks without college degrees have to humble ourselves and leave it to the professionals.

  22. SteveO

    Question: I was convicted of 2 rapes 21 years ago, indecent exposure 14 years ago and a child porn charge like 6 years ago. Does anyone know what tier I’ll be on?

    • Josh

      @Jax…..I don’t disagree with much of what you said. I am humble enough to admit that I’m not a lawyer and would never attempt to represent myself…As a blue collar guy I’m self aware enough to know that there’s many things that I don’t know. I DO have nothing but respect for people who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and made something of themselves…As I mentioned in my last post, I have learned much that I didn’t know before I started observing this process in Michigan. Does that qualify me to represent myself? Absolutely not! There is a saying that we all know and it goes like this: “a person who represents themself in court has a fool for a client”…..That would certainly pertain to me thus I would never attempt something like that. In terms of this forum, I’ve learned so much and to think critically about the many nuances that pertain to this SOR issue….But, I won’t apologize for trying to learn & pursue knowledge….nor would I discount almost anybody’s opinion just because their “credentials” aren’t official. I fundamentally disagree with that one person who thinks this forum is for only a very small sliver of the registered citizen demographic.

    • Bill

      @SteveO

      Without knowing more than what you have mentioned, the CP charge alone if it’s a felony or a federal case would place you on Tier 3.

      And please ignore our village idiot here. He is prone to make unhelpful and derogatory comments.

  23. Lawyerone

    Jax, your absolutely correct! I lost my law license secondary to my plea and now practice as a paralegal. I highly recommend not taking any legal advice from this jail house repeat offenders. I’ve read some of their case law quotes and it’s both very disturbing and misleading. I highly advise those of you trying to mislead others to stop now, unless your a licensed attorney. I’ve been reading this blog for years and it’s very apparent you guys need support. I’ve read input from other readers and many of you will lash out at others like it’s something personal? Many of you write these page length comments? You clearly have a need to control and criticize those with alternative and many times correct comments. It’s time to realize (I worked over 20 plus years with numerous defendants) the world doesn’t revolve around you and you can’t control others! Change or believe me, you will return back to the slammer!

    • Josh

      @Lawyerone….should all of us repeat offenders just turn in our phones and laptops over to the forensics lab at the FBI? Should we all just admit that we have these insatiable urges to harm children and turn ourselves in to the authorities? Does this sound familiar to anybody else? Again, and I’ll type slowly so you can understand…there are so many different situations and scenarios that caused people to end up on a SOR. Some people were over charged, falsely accused, extenuating circumstances, took plea deals, or what have you…yes, I’m sure some horrible things were done by some people in the absolute worst moment of their lives but as usual it’s thinking like yours that does absolutely nothing to move the conversation forward….

      • The Advocate

        We need 1,000 letters sent today to oppose HB 5679!

        Oppose HB 5679 Now!

        There are 44,0000 living, breathing, humans in the state of Michigan being punished after they have already completed their time and effort — this is punishment, placed in a caste system banishment, poverty and fear. No other group of people lives under these conditions — persons who commit a DUI in the state of Michigan kills people and reoffends yet for this or any other offense there is no list. Where are the lists???

        We need to come together NOW and submit letters opposing HB 5679 every time there is a hearing in the Michigan House of Representatives Judiciary Committee!

        We are a class of 44,000 people and greater with our family and friends on our side. We could easily send in 100,000 testimonies if only to post:

        Oppose HB 5679 Now! A proposed law based on illogical notions and nonsense! Oppose HB 5679 Now!

        100,000 persons could easily vote anyone if these representatives out of office this year and work with those who stand for the truth! If they vote for this bill, we are paying them to harm us and the public!!!

        Get your testimonies in today, now!!!

        Pressure equates Power!! We have a large voice! Use it Now!

        Email letters to Msweet@house.mi.gov

        Stare you want your testimony entered officially today for today’s hearing. You can do this anonymously— tell them you need to be anonymous but your vote will be heard!

        100,000 testimonies today!

        Takes 10 minutes and can affect our lives forever!

        • dph

          @Advocate, FINALLY someone reminds us of the DUI that kills and goes out again and again repeat offender more than twice AND injures, physically and psychologically mames and permanent damage and removes limbs and hurts families when they go out again and drive while under the influence and maybe not just Alcohol. W H Y Aren’t T H E Y on a or the REGISTRY!!????!! Most on here do not perm kill murder premediated or not others in their PAST Crime. We used to
          have ARSONISTS (Repeat Offenders) on our List HERE IN
          CALI. I hope others go to your Michigan site and send and
          even anonymously their thoughts on testimony to your House Gov. there. GoodLuck on opposing HB 5679

      • Will Allen

        LOL, yes, this does sound very familiar to me and that’s exactly what I was thinking when I read it. Bunch of nonsense. The only way that *I* need to change is that the Registries must be destroyed. That is the only change required.

        For the geniuses who might agree with Lawyerone – don’t read into this that I’m saying that people do not often need good, qualified legal assistance.

        You know what I find really, really sad? It’s when people use multiple “accounts” or “screen names” to post comments to agree among them. I do find that sad. I use a lot of different accounts but never to agree with each other. No need for that. I understand people feel incapable, inferior, and have low self-esteem, but you just have to roll with what you have. Arguments are not life and death situations.

        • Russ

          @DPH You’ll hear folks all the time on this forum say why aren’t these murderers or robbers or repeat drunk drivers who kil people not on a registry. First, we shouldn’t have a registry for any offener who served their time. Second any offender other than an offender involved in a child sex crime will not have a deep effect on the public. A neighbor who killea someone in a dui accident will be far more accepted over a neighbor with a sex crime involving a child. It’s a taboo that has long provoked stigma and disgust in American society.I don’t like it but I’m trying to be real with the God honest truth. Plus states have already experiment on registering other classes of offenders, but its back fired in some cases. California gang reaey has become a badge of honor for gangbangers. For registries to , peonple have to resist emotional involment

        • Joe

          @Russ

          Yeah that would be me.

          I see no answer in your comment to my inquiry. I repeat my question…. if the registry exists in the name of public safety and public safety alone, why is there no EQUAL registry for all criminals? That gang registry would quickly cease being a badge of honor, I would bet the farm on that.

          “any offender other than an offender involved in a child sex crime will not have a deep effect on the public. A neighbor who killea someone in a dui accident will be far more accepted over a neighbor with a sex crime involving a child.” No doubt this is true. But how twisted is that? That killing a child on your third DUI is more acceptable and forgiveable than touching the same child’s buttocks or chest over clothing? I find that not acceptable.

          This country’s obsession with sex borders on the absurd.

          Let’s remember, this is a country is so concerned with the well-being of children that it is a registerable sex crime to have an off-color conversation with a 17 year old – calling them a child victim, yet a country that has causes the death of (tens / hundreds of) thousands of children all over the world, calling them collateral damage.

          How is it possible that I can record, distribute and watch the video of the murder (second degree) and aggravated battery with a firearm of a 17 year old (not really child) without any repercussions (google Laquan McDonald and Jason van Dyke) but recording perfectly legal and willing sexual conduct with the same 17 (or 16) year old is a registerable child sex crime (google Eric Rinehart)? How can the murder! and aggravated battery of that child get you 6.75 years in prison (out in less than one year) but recording legal sexual / provocative conduct with a willing participant gets you 15 years without parole?

          Okay, one is in state court (IL) and the other is Federal. Fine. To compare apples to apples, in Illinois the murder! of a 17 year old is worth 6.75 years in state prison, out in less than one. In the same state, IL, a teacher’s relationship with a willingly participating 17 year old student gets you 10 years in state prison, parole after 8.

          That is simply whack. That is straight out of the puritan dark ages. That is not an acceptable approach for the self-proclaimed leader of the free world in the 21st century. None of this has anything to do with an enlightened society.

          “we shouldn’t have a registry for any offener who served their time” I could not agree more. But we have one. So we either we get rid of the current one, or I demand there be the same for all criminals. In the name of public safety, strictly. Nothing else is acceptable.

  24. NJ

    I see on the form it says you may apply to be removed if you were convicted in a California State court. So all federal and out of state cases are not allowed to apply? The law does not say that. So where did that come from? They need to fix that on the form.

    • Russ

      @Joe You’re right on the money, and I feel your anger over the absurdity of these laws. I sat in prison for 3 years in anger as I watched inmates who commited far worst crimes than I come and go, like my first cellmate who got only 4 yrs for being high on K-2, then co sleeping with his 2 yr old and rolling over onto her and suffocating her to death. Daddy already had a long juvenile rap sheet including robbery, drug dealing and gangbanging, but since judges have always given him slaps on the wrist, he felt entitled to act wrecklessly in adulthood. So he goes in at 20 yrs old for killing his child, I go in at 50 yrs old (no criminal record-not even a speeding ticket) for looking at dirty pictures of minors on my computer. We both come out of prison at the same time. For some reason the American legal system likes to give 2nd chances to young thugs believing they can be rehabilitated. But old guys like me should know better than looking at nasty pictures of teens on my computer, so lets throw the book at him. But prison is not enough.Were not done with him. I was thrown on the registry, given lifetime gps, and forced to attend treatment and listen to these bitches, whoops I mean therapists tell me I’m minimizing my offense & not taking responsibility ONLY because I keep telling them I believe my punishment didn’t fit the crime. So believe me Joe, I feel your anger and pain, but they got us. They happen to have gotten us on the one thing that appeals to the emotion, hysteria and fears of the American people-we would have been better off robbing a bank. At least we would have something to show for it, instead of life time shaming.

      • Will Allen

        Don’t let the scumbags who think Registries are acceptable steal your joy or life. Beat their asses. Your life is none of their business and not theirs to control. People usually deserve the right to live a life they love.

        For me, the answer was to continue my lifelong habit of working very hard. I felt I had to be financially successful to be in control. More than two decades of Registering later, I was right. So instead of being depressed, work. On anything. Preferably something that earns.

        I’ve said it a million times. There are a lot of people who better be praying that I never become suicidal. If big government were not idiots, they would be trying hard to help me succeed and keeping the Registries out of my way. But they are idiots. Too many “people” getting off jacking off with their Registries toy. So there must be consequences.

  25. someone who cares

    Joe ~ You absolutely nailed it, and your reasoning is spot on. I couldn’t have summed it up better.

  26. USA

    Hilarious. DNA database? What’s your point? Then, we have people citing case law? Why? What good will this do? You write a 20 paragraph comment citing case law? Your not a lawyer? This isn’t a court room? I only hear you guys complain? Moan? Nobody takes accountability. I noted one guy was on the registry for 32 years? Why didn’t you get your charged reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged? You guys are living in a dream world. You can cite all the cases you want, but I think Jax stated it. Jax & Lawyerone hit it on the nail! Get a job, hire an attorney and do something

    • Bill

      @USA

      Martin Luther King had a dream when Civil Rights for all was not in the American vernacular back then. That’s how change is created…with an idea.

      And it begins in discourse such as here. Then it becomes action. Through action comes change.

      If you want to wait at the heels of your masters to tell you what to think about your self worth in society after you paid your debt go on ahead. The rest of us will continue pushing for change.

  27. USA

    Oh, I filed my own 17B, pc 1203.4 and a pc 851.8! Granted. I filed my own motions and argued my case. Granted! I filed my own COR in OC, not realizing things are different! I came close. I just filed a COR in LA County where I hope it will bring closure! It’s interesting how everyone has the need to post case law and pretend it wasn’t them! I was guilty as sin! Yet, I found 3 items during my case 20 something years ago which resulted in all charges being dismissed! I came close. I will finally complete this long process this year. As a wise one once stated, the race isn’t won by the swiftest or fastest, but the one who keeps running. Nobody is that bright on this site. How many have you done what I’ve done without counsel? I came so close with my COR! I’ll win in LA! Good luck

    • NPS

      I’ve done what you’ve done. I filed a 1203.3 (early termination of probation) 17b and 1203.4 on my own without the assistance of any attorney. Each motion was granted. I agree it can be done in pro per.

      However, the CoR is one thing that I feel requires an experienced attorney as it is a life or “living death” situation (I can’t remember who said this, but I am borrowing the phrase he coined as it makes a lot of sense). I have retained one. I will be filing in the Bay Area sometime this summer.

      Even though I have issues with your rhetoric, USA, I do wish you the best of luck.

  28. someone who cares

    USA ~ Do you know if you can file for a 17b again if it was denied at the time of the 1203.4, which was granted? Or is it a one time try that is final if the judge granted the 1203.4 but not the 17b?

    • New Person

      @someone who cares,

      Here’s my history to share.

      Read the court filing for that day of denial. There has to be a reason why the judge would deny you a charge reduction. My lawyer asked the judge how the judge was going to rule on the 17B and we rescinded attempting it that day (because of what probation wrote for recommendation… but I didn’t know that at that time), despite me passing everything else with flying colors to earn the 1203.4.

      For me, probation said I needed more time before they recommended me for the reduction. That’s what my next lawyer pointed out. It took five years of waiting when I applied for 17B. That five year span is a soft legal statute that CA law states you’ve completed the terms based upon “more time” needed to pass. My lawyer told me that and he was correct. Probation did their background check, came out clean, and recommended that I receive the reduction. It was their recommendation that got me the reduction as the judge this time around also didn’t want to give it. It’s difficult to oppose the arm of the law that says they recommend you for reduction.

      So read carefully. I missed that one sentence about needing more time on the probation recommendation, but my new lawyer didn’t. If what they denied you initially has come to pass, then why not try it again?

      You could get in contact with a lawyer to see if you are able to try to reduce your charge again, like @USA wrote. A public defender should be free to answer that question. For me, I’m grateful to have hired a lawyer because I would have been railroaded doing it pro per (we had to re-schedule and if it wasn’t for my lawyer’s knowledge as well as prowess, then I would have been sunk).

      As for 1203.4, I’ve come to learn that once you successfully completed probation, then you automatically earn 1203.4. You don’t need a lawyer for that because it’s in the statute that it’s automatic. 17B isn’t automatic (though it reads as though it should be).

      In my situation, I kinda failed my 17B initially, but not officially… at least I think it wasn’t official. Then I earned the 17B reduction. That might give you some hope. Good luck in finding more definitive answers.

  29. USA

    Wow! That’s a good question. I understand the question. Reducing your plea is advantageous (for all intense purposes means it’s a misdemeanor). I don’t know. I suggest contacting an attorney or public defenders office. I have no clue!! Your wanting a 17b would be advantageous

  30. mike r

    😮 big Yawn to USA. So, Pro Se doesn’t work unless it was USA filing. Of course his actions were just boilerplate standard actions. Old wise one you. Talk about people getting jobs and doing something, shit my life beats coming on here to bash every person that I disagree with. You have talked BS to EVERY person on here. The only reason I come on here any more is to hear any kind of news. USA has made the site useless and practically unbearable hearing his attacks over and over again.

  31. USA

    Jealousy can ruin some people. Being a hypocrite can ruin some people. Being manipulative or not sticking to the point can ruin some people. Having control issues can ruin some people. Citing case law and giving legal advice with a HS education can ruin others. New Person, I have no clue. It sounds like (from what I’ve read) you can’t, but I’m no attorney. The 17B restores your rights to own a gun etc, but I suggest you contact an attorney or your public defenders office. Good luck

    • New Person

      @USA,

      Getting a reduction means a lot with the new tiered registry, not just restoring gun rights. The reduction can help you not be publicized online. It can possible help you move to a lower tier.

      On a tangent, what exactly do you need as proof that you can practice or purchase guns?

  32. USA

    Well stated. New Person, don’t quote me, but I think those who register must (or are allowed) to file a COR until December? I believe the new tiered law affects our ability to file a COR. Check this out stat. I don’t own a firearm, but the 17b allows us to do so. I’ve thought about purchasing one with everything going on. I believe you simply find the gun you want to purchase and they will do a background check.

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 *

.