ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (5/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


CA: Legislature Considering Changes to Tiered Registry Law

The California legislature is considering changes to the Tiered Registry Law that, if passed, would delay when eligible individuals could petition for removal from the registry.  That is, individuals would be required to wait until “on or after their next birthday after July 1, 2021, following the expiration of the person’s mandated minimum registration period.”

For example, if an eligible individual’s birthday is July 4, 2021, and he is on Tier 2, he can petition for removal on July 1, 2021.  However, if an eligible individual’s birthday is June 30, he must wait to petition for removal until July 1, 2022.

The changes are included in Assembly Bill 88, Section 11, which has been passed by the full Assembly and now awaits a final vote in the Assembly.  The bill is supported by both Republicans and Democrats.  The bill also requires registering law enforcement agencies to notify the Department of Justice when it receives a petition.

“The stated reason for the delay in eligible individuals to submit their petitions is based upon an anticipated administrative burden,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “In the absence of this change, courts and district courts expect to receive thousands of petitions in July 2021.”

The last day on which the Assembly can vote on this bill is August 31.

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Does ALL4C agree with this?

When the bill was passed why didn’t they make it automatic for people under certain conditions? Something smells in Sacramento and it isn’t fish!! What happens in a year and a half, will the state change the goalposts again? California and Florida must be twins.

Boo! The headline had me excited that this would be a positive change. Though I’m not surprised for the reason of this change. I was wondering how they’d handle suddenly tens of thousands of people being eligible. Is this something ACSOL wants to stop?

Yeah, I thought the same for a second. Minor change to delay things.

Oh yes, I am deeply concerned about overwhelming our poor long-suffering judiciary (the same judiciary that fails to regard us as human!) *Handwringing*
And, of course, it’s only out of my concern for them that I offer this suggestion: Make release from the Registry AUTOMATIC when one has served the term required for his/her Tier level!!! When they complete their “secondary sentence”, they should be released!! Period!!
This BS about begging to be released from the Registry makes my blood boil! 😠
And am I doubly pissed because MY birthday is at the end of June?? Yes, I am!! 😠

ACSOL does not support the waiting period included in this bill. However, we have not yet been able to identify a constitutional issue related to the waiting period. Open to suggestions from others.

Here is an idea…. instead of playing whack-a-mole about an extra few months for some of the people in the lucky group that have a chance to get off, how about identifying (a) constitutional issue(s) related to registration, period. Surely you, or others, can come up with a few.

Will it be easy? No. Will it be fast? Hell no. But every journey, however long, begins with a first step.

Just a suggestion. You did ask. Thanks for all you do.

Is there an equal protection claim? Some people will be subjected to longer registration than others of the same tier?

How about challenging on the grounds that it is FUCKING IDIOTIC!

“Justice delayed is justice denied.”

I know that the accused has the right for a speedy trial. And since this is essentially a second trial based upon the same conviction, then the accused should demand for the same speedy trial.

This is a trial to get off the registry as we still stand accused of being a live threat every single day we are on the registry. I have been denied job opportunities directly and indirectly because I’m on the registry. Every US military base will outright deny you access to the base unless you are sponsored and petitioned to get on the base, even then you can still be denied access to the base, where there are third party companies on the base. I’m scared to apply to a job to my skill set, limiting opportunities to underemployment.

Now, my birthdate is after July 1, 20202, and I can’t be that candidate case, but I am giving an example of excess burdens when justice is delayed.

We didn’t create this law, the state did. The state officially made the tiered registry law on Jan 1, 2020 and officially to petition on July 1, 2020. If we all who qualified to petition under the original law and refuse the “continuance” such that we get a speedy trial, then the state should be at fault for denying a speedy trial.

The state has appropriated a lot of money to regulate and supervise all registrants. Fine, then they can also appropriate monies specifically for de-registration. This delay of justice for another year is unconstitutional and punishment as the state prolongs that a registrant is a live threat to society as we are considered a threat to public safety. This affects job opportunities, travel unmolested (freely) domestically or internationally, the ability to freely go to your child’s school, and the stigmatism of being on the registry as per PICs and PTSD.

Our “duty” to the state doesn’t end until we are de-registered. We are still under trial as long as we’re part of the registry program. Some of us have a 10-year wait, others have a 20-year wait, and still others will remain on trial for the rest of their lives.

The registry robs us of our privacy. The CA Constitution lists the right to pursue and obtain privacy is an inalienable right. Thus, removing privacy is punishment under the CA constitution as it’s a lost civil right. The fact that some registrant can never regain privacy is unconstitutional, but I digress.

The state set a court date for us registrants to de-register, which is July 1, 2020. I’m not going to approve a continuance as I’m still the defendant in this extended court trial from my original conviction.

Move the start date from July 1, 2021 to January 1, 2021. Makes it fair for all. Gives them 5 months to fine tune that Tier Law. Just saying…

@ Janice: Hmmm.🤔 A thousand politicians on the next rocket to Mars? 👍
(Sorry, but you did say ACSOL was open to suggestions! 🤭 ‘Hope I brought a smile to all! 😁🤗)


I don’t think Mars would want our useless politicians. Maybe Uranus or Pluto is more suited for them.

I think its not worth a fight to be honest. Its progress and nothing is going to be perfect.

How about the fact that the entire tiered registry is not constitutional to begin with? The fact that they were supposed to mail out letters, but now the letters are supposedly to be picked up from the registering agency. Could that be fair notice? The fact that people are assigned 10 year, 20 year, and lifetime tiers not on the risk assessment. But when the risk assessment is used, it’s only used as a one way ratchet to lifetime registration. Could that be Equal Protection? The fact that people will end up published on the Megan’s Law website who were not on it previously, without regard to how long a person has been without issue post incarceration. Could that be Cruel and Unusual Punishment given the amount of registrants being murdered for just being on the website? Remember, this whole decade, two decade, lifetime registration scam is ON TOP of whatever incarceration, probation, and parole you had to serve. Oh yeah, like many of you… don’t get me started on the SCAM 99!!

Here we go! Is it me, or if they are granted this “delay”, will this only be the first of many such delays that they will come up with going forward????

Discussing changes to tyranny with proposals for changes in tieranny?
Same same.

Maybe it will be made even more “punitive“ just before it goes into effect.

Since they want to make changes how about make changes to the SARATSO STATIC99 that they’re using? How many people will be excluded from being able to petition or end up on the Megan’s Law site because of that so called scientific test?????

so the saga continues SMH

Looks like we woke the sleeping giant they’re scrambling at this point they don’t know what to do.
This is the perfect time and opportunity to prove that the registry is just punishment thanks to covid-19 they don’t have a leg to stand on.
The more we organized at this point the more we weaken the registry.
Let’s be realistic there’s no way California could’ve process that many cases next year but don’t let this stop you from petitioning the court on July 1st 2021 continue to apply pressure on the court system make them address you as an person as an individual as
an humanbeinan and when July 1st 2022 comes we’ll be waiting and we’ll hit them hard again..

For example, if an eligible individual’s birthday is July 4, 2021, and he is on Tier 2, he can petition for removal on July 1, 2021. However, if an eligible individual’s birthday is June 30, he must wait to petition for removal until July 1, 2022.

I was a bit confused on this, but I think I understand it now.

== Starting date for de-registrations: July 1, 2021.

If your birthday is after July 1, 2021, then you can apply. But if your birthday is before July 1, 2021, then you have to wait a whole year to apply because your birthday is before the implementation date.

Is that correct?

Now, here’s what I don’t like about it: The law passes on Jan 1, 2020. That means you cannot use the CoR any longer to get off the registry and you have to wait until July 1, 2020 to apply. Then you have to wait an additional 3 months.

The state is essentially preventing people from earning their liberty at an appropriate time. If the law starts on Jan 1, 2020, then everyone should be able to apply on July 1, 2020. It isn’t the registrant’s fault that the state cannot handle the influx of registrants wanting to de-register as the state had no problem putting so many on the registry without better way to de-register. The 1203.4 was removed, thus pushing from your probationary period to a minimum of 10 years. Now, the state wants to increase the punishment term an extra year because they can’t handle the influx? Seems like any registrant born between Jan 1 to Jan 30 should sue the state for the delay as it’s inequality of deregistering.

Maybe a better way would be an automatic petition to deregister for the first year without the necessity of a trial to determine one’s worthiness. Time alone should do it. Remember, 1203.4 used to de-register registrants, who one successfully completed probation.

I’d sue the state for delaying justice. It’s bad enough the state delayed the application for 6 months plus 3 months of waiting for a decision, which is a total of 9 months of delayed justice. That’s a loss of potential jobs and the ability to travel freely.

It’s shame that the registry allows for a second bite of extending the registration period, which now can identified as punishment because it goes beyond the stated tier. That’s double jeopardy because the state is revisiting the original case to tack on more time of custodial supervision.

@ New Person: Keep in mind that the State does not consider the Registry to be punishment, so it’s not increasing anyone’s “sentence”. The State says Registries are only “administrative”, “civil”, etc.
(Of course, if you violate any of the Registry’s many requirements, you will be arrested and charged with a felony. So how is that “administrative & civil”? IDK. Don’t ask. *SMH*)

DeRegistration should be AUTOMATIC!! 😠


It’s increasing the level of supervision compared to the initial (or in this case proposed) time limit. This is an increase in penalty and a second bite at the original conviction.

Other states have proved by doing this it’s punishment and unconstitutional.

@ New Person: You’re preaching to the choir, brother! (Or sister.).
You don’t have to convince me it’s punishment – I completely agree! It certainly is punishment and it certainly is NOT freedom!

Um…..when did the Tiered bill pass??? 2017 right? So….4 years isn’t enough time for drag ass courts to be prepared for what’s to come? Been on this demented ride for 20yrs…..I’d like the fuck off please. We should be formulating a plan to sue every State that upholds a Registry.

The ever shifting goalpost shifts again. Surprise.

So they are adding an extra year on the registry to anyone who would have been eligible to petition for removal as of July 1, 2021. Because of the influx of petitions. I’m not sure who is dumber, me for falling for the possibility of deregistering, or the legislatures for not being able to think this through initially. Why would my birthdate have any bearing upon my length of time on the registry? The foot on my neck just got heavier.

Funny, when I have to renew my driver’s license or my credit card is due to expire, they don’t just extend my license or credit card because they might be swamped. They make it happen, so the courts will just have to find a way to deal with this. Shouldn’t be our problem that they are too incompetent. They had enough warning and could have prepared all paperwork in advance to remove automatically, which needs to happen anyways! Why are they wasting theirs and our time with silly petitions that will do absolutely nothing. At the time of the waste of time petition, they already know how long you have been crime free, they already know about your past, so what do they seek to accomplish? They want to see what kind of suit or dress you are wearing when you show up, they want to know what all places you volunteered and how many times you go to church? None of that matters or makes you a better or worse person than anyone else in this “free” world and can easily be made up, so why bother???

Don’t register. Well I mean think about it anyway, but people are eventually going to have to pick a side. Roll with the constantly shifting circumstances or make a stand. If the supporters of the registry value it then let them send a cop after everyone on the list. Just don’t answer the door.

It’s the hard way to do things but screw their way.

Maybe I’m too cynical, but it strikes me as a means to maintain the status quo. I fond it very hard to believe that the California legislature is losing sleep over how to shrink their registry down. Pretty fair amount of SORNA dollars lost if that happens.

@Dustin – California does not receive SORNA funding because California is not a SORNA-compliant state. The fact is there are only 17 of 50 states that are SORNA-compliant.

can we have a conference call on sorna and non sorna states to maybe educate more people on how that works

1st topic … in how you don’t have to register in. Your state and they won’t allow you too but the federal government mandates you too keep it updated when you travel in interstate commerce. Like why can’t you just register online

Aww California’s court system would be overwhelmed with petitions because of the legislators. Here’s an idea: be careful of who you sleep with and you wouldn’t have a mess on your hands along with a dirty bed!!

Here’s an idea
Have automatic removal
Get rid of the useless registry
Get out of people’s lives including their bedroom
Stop passing useless laws
Give us liberty and freedom stop being tyrants

I sometimes wonder if there shouldn’t be a requirement for some kind of intelligence testing to run for public office.

Why do I feel like I’m watching a repeat episode of Looney Tunes? Legislators are concerned courts will have an administrative burden with numerous petitions. Um legislators registration is always an administrative burden for registrants and their families even without COVID. California legislators need a copy of the constitution and the definition of insanity!! Let’s be real California doesn’t want to lose their funding if the registry shrinks. Stop putting lipstick on a pig and calling it reform.

I can’t see this one being voted down. Like all other bills related to registrants, this one will pass as well. For those of us with birthdays pre July, it’s just another letdown. (Mine’s in June) I don’t know how they can keep getting away with this stuff. As a registrant who’s been on the hitlist for 23 years already, I was looking forward to finally being free next year. I should’ve known better…

New Person, you hit it on the nail! The courts have had years to plan for this! If your birthday is before July 1st, you must wait one additional year to file! I filed (I don’t want exact dates posted) a COR some months back and it will take 5 months to get a court date? I go to court weeks before Jan 1st!

It’s political. The district a55hats want more time for law enforcement to try to run “anonymous” tips against registrants during sting operations like Operation Broken Heart so they can rack up “reoffenders” before June primaries.

If they want to help why not let those of us who can get off the Registry apply during the month of their birth that would not benefit those in December but at least there is more fairness then those in the first 6 months having to wait 18 months

This is terrible! They state had years to plan this. This basically require many to wait 1-1.5 more years!

My birthday is in March….I’m still going to apply in July. I’m not waiting.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the “administrative burden” is not even close to the burden registered citizens bear each and every single day they’re on the government’s list.

2 points for California.

1. Covid restrictions like mask wearing, social distancing, and restaurant/bar closing will remain permanent and never end.

2. The registry will always remain permanent and never end.

Sorry, but that’s our new normal.

Wasn’t removal automatic at first? How long after that was it changed to filing a petition? One solution now would be a compromise. Level ones should be automatic and maybe delay the rest as proposed since if the courts say they won’t be able to handle the influx, the legislature won’t force it on the courts like that. There is bipartisan agreement on that. Making the level ones automatic could be enough for the delay to be unnecessary.


Before the new changes to PC 290, (PC 290.007 and PC 290.5), which occurred after the 2003 Smith v Doe SCOTUS case, de-registering was automatic if you qualified and earned the 1203.4 (case dismissal). The term length varied on your probationary time period. Usually, it’s three years and sometimes you can reduce it, depending on who’s your DA.

After the new changes (which I think is unconstitutional as PC 290 cannot supersede by run in conjunction with 1203.4 as per Kelly v Municipal 1958), registrants lost two of the three benefits of 1203.4: 1) relieved of all penalties and disabilities and 2) privacy rights such that your information is dismissed. To de-register, you had to wait a minimum of 10-years to file a petition for a CoR, provided your conviction was eligible to de-register. Essentially, it’s another trial for the same crime to determine if you remain a threat to society longer or not. The state raised the bar considerably against registrants all because the SCOTUS used incorrect and false data that they have yet to acknowledge their mistake.

So, yes, the state of CA once allowed a registrant to de-register automatically. So there is that precedent that Janice can use.

A compromise could be level 1’s are automatic as a ‘check the box’ type paperwork that requires no lawyers. That should alleviate the time impact knowing it’s a rubber stamping that should only take 5 minutes max of the court’s time as there is no need for any deliberating between lawyers. Level 2’s would need the petition, but I’d prefer automatic for them as well.

Or do a group automatic granting of de-registration like they do for citizenship, which is akin to regaining your citizenry again, still practicing social distancing.

@New Person,

Thanks for the details. Didn’t the tiered registry start as automatic and then it was amended and amended and amended until we got this version? I thought it was automatic until the DOJ complained about potentially being swamped (like the courts now) and then the legislature removed automatic removal and included the petitions and hearings. No?

Ohhhh… my bad, @ditto,

I misunderstood the question. You meant the initial proposal for the tiered registry. It was always being changed back and forth, but I don’t recall it ever being automatic from the state’s POV. I know ACSOL was pushing for automatic, but the current standard to de-register was a court case for the CoR.

@New Person,

No problems, but I think I found where I got that as it pertained to SB421, the old version.

“The bill will also retroactively remove individuals from the registry if they were convicted of tier one or two crimes at least 30 years ago.”

The whole messy evolution changed over and over again. The bill revisions keep dragging it out longer and longer with more and more hurtles. It is what it is and thanks again to all who got us this far.

Thanks for info and the effort.

Are you f*cking kidding me? So i would be forced to wait yet another year? ANOTHER YEAR! I can’t just move on with my life.

I am not going to be playing nice anymore. I am considering all out war against our politicians promoting this crap. Time to go after the very people pushing this bs. I have ways to legally destroy their lives and believe me, they don’t want what I am about to do to them.

There was never any reason to be nice to Registry Supporters/Terrorists. They deserve all the consequences that can be delivered. I fully intend to increase my level of retaliation every single month that I’m alive. They can keep their Registry Hit List. It’s going to continue to do nothing useful but it will have drastic consequences.

They built the system without a care for individual cases so when did they earn the right to a fair game? But because they can do it all from their comfy offices and skirt by term after term (a by-product of the 10 and 20 year wait times) they feel they can keep the log rolling as long as they damn well please. And when a registrant moves that’s one less that can fight their case and prove the state is wrong.

This law was passed in Jan. of 2017. That means most registrants would have filed and possibly be off by now. Many would be well into their time period of being denied and having to re apply for relief. But instead, we are now looking at giving the state a total of 5 and half more years to implement this registry. Something bigger is going on here. I don’t trust them. Janice, what can we do now? Is it worth throwing in the next levels faces, that they have had 4 and half years already to implement this administrative work? Better yet, IMO, the list should be taken down until they can get their job done, cause legally, the date to petition was Jan. 1 2017, and in reality they are violating registrants rights by not being able to petition due to their lack of organization and structure. Isn’t this a violation posting registrants faces on the internet, when they are eligible to be off possibly but are stuck due to CA bs as usual?

Are they expecting a post office Christmas mailing rush like wave? Get’em in and process as they come in in the order received as originally planned. Govt makes excuses for stupid things in their thinking.

Unless the top article has a typo, I’m confused.

“on or after their next birthday after July 1, 2021, following the expiration of the person’s mandated minimum registration period.”

I read that as if your first birthday after July 1, 2021 is July 4, then you can apply on July 4. If your birthday is August 7 then you can apply on August 7. If your next birthday after July 1, 2021 is May 15, 2022 then you can apply on May 15, 2022. So on average, we will be delayed 6 months with some more and some less.

Am I interpreting this wrong?

You’re right, I noticed my mistake after I commented. I am upset, I was hoping I only had to register one more time next June. That being said, others are still going to be on a registry that I believe to be unconstitutional. I feel for them. Eliminating the registry in it’s entirety is where the focus should be.

No question that the registries as constituted are unconstitutional. I guess even the “strict constitutionalist” supreme court justices are hypocrites when it comes to anything involving sex and minors.

@Mike G,

*** From the article ***
For example, if an eligible individual’s birthday is July 4, 2021, and he is on Tier 2, he can petition for removal on July 1, 2021. However, if an eligible individual’s birthday is June 30, he must wait to petition for removal until July 1, 2022.
*** From the article ***

If your birthday is on or after July 1, 2021, then you can apply. But if your birthday is before July 1, 2021, then you have to wait a whole year to apply because your birthday is before the implementation date.

Birthday before July 1, 2021 = Able to apply July 1, 2022
*** Starting date for de-registrations: July 1, 2021.
Birthday on July 1 and onward = Able to apply July 1, 2021

I hope that helps as I presented in paragraph form and diagram form. Please look at the date of the year to fully understand when to petition. If your birthday was on Jun 30, 2021, then you have to wait a whole year to petition in July 1, 2022.

so I called today to make an appointment for registration update, my birthday is July 31 *thankfully* so was wondering how it would work this year with covid *going forward* I would have to see if I have been tiered by DOJ & they are allowing themselves up to 2 years to tier people, once you have been tiered you will file paperwork with the district attorneys office & that’s when you will find out if you are required to register or not, & you can request your paper work on July 1st 2021, & they have up to 2 years to tier people & you can’t start the process until they tier you, so this year i made an appointment, I basically just walk in, they see my face, no pic, no finger prints, no initials, police mentioned ill be there less than 1 minute, I just call the # when I’m outside the station, I pretty much recorded our conversation & also recotder call *video* as well *just in case* but I also requested paper work stating I did my yearly registration, this hopefully is my last year but with that up to 2 years *just more fine print* WE are not looking forward to *GOOD LUCK TO ALL*

I though we were supposed to get our tier designations on January 1, 2021. Did that change, or do I remember wrong?

What agency do you register with? I like the in and out in 1 minute!

mike g, I just listened to my conversation i had with police, the person mentioned it takes effect January 2021 *but* like police mentioned, still need to wait until July 1st, there’s needed steps to follow and taken, to all of us *we are close*

@J – There are parts of the Tiered Registry Law that become effective on Jan. 1, 2021, however the ability to submit a petition for removal part of that law does not become effective until July 1, 2021.

@Mike G – The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) stated in a document dated January 1, 2020, that tier assignment letters will be available after January 1, 2021, from the office where you register. The letters will not be mailed to you. You must pick them up. My best guess is that the letters will be in a database accessible by local law enforcement. The tier assignment letters are being prepared by CA DOJ and each letter is to state one of the following: you are assigned to Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 or your tier is yet to be determined. If the letter states your tier is yet to be determined, CA DOJ has stated in the same document that they may take up to 24 months (after Jan. 2021) for them to decide the tier to which you will be assigned.

OMG, if these dumbasses (who are more than happy to place you on the Registry) can’t figure out what Tier you should be on, they get an extra 2 years to try to figure it out!… Meanwhile, you continue having to register!!
Good Lord, I hate these MF’ers!!! 😠

It’s a stupid technicality since one of the reasons you might be placed into tier 3, regardless of your offense, is your score on Static-99 (6+). Since they didn’t start using that until about 15 years ago, there are a ton of people who don’t have one. So they’re going to play stupid and pretend that they have to be careful to not accidentally de-register with a 30+ year old conviction. Everyone that supports registration under the veil of safety, are vile, evil people, who are more looking out for themselves (their jobs and future prospects) than actual public service, justice, and facts. Maybe Covid-19 is America’s penance for all the evil its done through history and continues to do. Especially so since the reason why we’re the only nation on the planet who can’t get a handle on it is explicitly because we value profits over life.

Is there any planned effort to defeat this misbegotten Bill? Will a letter writing or phone calls help? I am willing to pull out all stops to see this get bottled up in some committee and languishing there until it justly dies.

I suppose that ACSOL may need to seem neutral on this, (not harm the courts)…but we do not need to.

Also, is the Static 99 assessment still on for individuals with very old convictions? Is the 2 year wait still being required for people that have no Static 99 assessment? These individuals should be first in line due to the fact that their convictions are so very old…and in society since then without out problems.

(ie my conviction is 35 years ago now…multiple decades old…and some static 99 evaluation is…going to do what? I’ve run my numbers and I should be fine with multiple long term marriages…but what about people that score poorly with old convictions? Also, with multiple divorces they could say that I remain a poor risk because of these….all of this is Stupid….the Static 99 should be excised as boog-a-loo science, voodoo magic that…has no basis in anything)

Rant off, good luck to everyone.

Best Wishes, James I

@James I

Curious, where did you get that everyone must have a Static-99, even very old convictions? My understanding was the Static-99 times out once it is stale and should not be applied or considered. Is this something new in a revision of the bill?

Hi Ditto, thanks for challenging me on this. I think people have tried to set me right before…since this is a legitimate bitch of mine and sticks in my mind. So I have looked again, (a task that is none that easy), still,

Under 290, for Tier III persons there is this:

(i) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.06 , is well above average risk at the time of release on the index sex offense into the community, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.

Then, on the all important PC 290.5 that applies to all of us I believe, there is this:

(3) If the district attorney requests a hearing, he or she shall be entitled to present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.  In determining whether to order continued registration, the court shall consider:  the nature and facts of the registerable offense; the age and number of victims; whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registerable offense; the time period during which the person has not reoffended; successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.  
I am busy at work, kind of doing this over my shoulder and it is not my intention to panic anyone. The two year wait I can’t find, (though they damn sure are trying to add a year on me with this Bill), so it may have been removed.

But the Static 99 is still there, (if my presumption that SARATSO is the same as Static 99), though maybe only used upon the DA’s request on any petition for removal.

At least that’s how I read it.

Best Wishes and Sorry for the Error…(the sort of error as it is).

James I

James I, thanks for the detailed reply. I suspect the key may be here:

“including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.”

The “if available” qualifies the requirement and it seems to me it unequivocally states those assessments are not mandatory.  Note the plural in instruments. The “and” groups them all together under the qualification of “if available.” The Static-99 or the SARATSO go stale after being so many years free of offending and are not to be applied beyond that (five years?), at least that was true at one time. There is no telling how these hearings will work, when there is one for any specific individual. My guess is that the government will try to cut any corners it can get away with, which could mean some appeals until it is interpreted by the courts.

Compliant states are: Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Delaware, Wyoming, South Dakota, Maryland, Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Nevada, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Colorado, Virginia and Missouri. Source is Smart website

I had my conviction *took a deal* back in 97, I never even heard of that static-99 up until hhhhmmmmmm,,, about 2 years back, & even back than there was no tiered system, & for me there was no management board to determine my risk level, I was & never ever been classified in any single way. so if the D.A wanted to view my static *good luck*

The same.. no Static 99 or classification or threat level.. just a blank section. guess the 90s never had classification levels

Wait. Aren’t some registrants that are currently unpublished on the public registry supposed to become public on Jan 1, 2022? If so, what about the people born between Jan 1-June 30? Will they now have their identities published for six months, give or take, while waiting for their petition?

That seems unfair and could probably be challenged since some people would be unfairly burdened by this change.

I’m in this boat. Never been published and birthday is in June. I should be tier 1 and qualify for immediate removal, but this new change will ensure that I won’t have the opportunity to be released from registering until after I’m published. Seems really unfair. My misdemenor conviction was 23 years ago and I have no other crimes before or after and having not been published all this time has not hurt anybody. But, somehow, I’m now so dangerous that I must be published?! I really don6t understand how this is fair or allowed.

Misdemeanor convictions are tier 1 and not subject to public notification or Megan’s fLaw.
Have you filed your 1203.4?

Unless you have a 647.6. They forced this one to be public regardless of tier. Though I think it won’t include your full address

Yes, I have an expungement. However, as I understand it, the exclusions are going away with the tiered registry.

From how I understand it, the exclusions that are going away are the ones currently permitted through the application. The application allows a specific kind of offenses to be excluded. But exclusions that are based on you no longer being convicted (1203.4) wouldn’t be affected.

Yep, misdemeanor 647.6 and was excluded from day 1 of Megan’s law via the application. I have my expungement, but I dont think that would help in my case? I just dont understand how you can never be exposed yet never reoffend, yet be a threat…and after 23 years to boot. I had hoped that this group would’ve fought against that, but it doesnt seem to be the case. It seems unfair that other tier 1 misdemeanors aren’t exposed but some are.


Here’s the link to a pdf FAQ for the tiered registry (SB 384):

Here’s their abbreviated version response to ML exclusions:

*** Start of Quote ***
Pursuant to Penal Code section 290.46(d) as amended under SB 384, only registrants who meet the following requirements will be eligible to apply for exclusion.
…. “(i) An offense for which the registrant successfully completed probation, provided that the registrant submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1, or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the registrant was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the registrant by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.

…. (ii) An offense for which the registrant is on probation at the time of his or her application, provided that the registrant submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1, or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the registrant was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the registrant by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.

…. If, subsequent to his or her application, the registrant commits a violation of probation resulting in his or her incarceration in county jail or state prison, his or her exclusion, or application for exclusion from the Internet Web site shall be terminated.”
*** End of Quote ***

That’s the quick answer. Be on probation and/or earn the 1203.4 (expungement) is the ticket off Megan’s List. Of course, there are exclusions. What are those exclusions in detail?

Here’s the link to the actual bill of SB 384:

Pertaining to Megan’s List exclusions, scroll down to section 290.46. From there, look for section e). This is the complete version of it.

…. (1) If a person has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in this subdivision, and he or she has been convicted of no other offense listed in subdivision (b), (c), or (d) other than those listed in this subdivision, that person may file an application with the Department of Justice, on a form approved by the department, for exclusion from the Internet Web site. If the department determines that the person meets the requirements of this subdivision, the department shall grant the exclusion and no information concerning the person shall be made available via the Internet Web site described in this section. He or she bears the burden of proving the facts that make him or her eligible for exclusion from the Internet Web site. However, a person who has filed for or been granted an exclusion from the Internet Web site is not relieved of his or her duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 nor from any otherwise applicable provision of law.

…. (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses:
……. (A) A felony violation of subdivision (a) of Section 243.4.
……. (B) Section 647.6, if the offense is a misdemeanor.
……. (C) A felony violation of Section 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, or Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, or 311.11 if the person submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report filed in court that clearly states that all victims involved in the commission of the offense were at least 16 years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense.
………… (i) An offense for which the offender successfully completed probation, provided that the offender submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1, or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the offender was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.
………… (ii) An offense for which the offender is on probation at the time of his or her application, provided that the offender submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1, or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the offender was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.
………… (iii) If, subsequent to his or her application, the offender commits a violation of probation resulting in his or her incarceration in county jail or state prison, his or her exclusion, or application for exclusion, from the Internet Web site shall be terminated.
………… (iv) For the purposes of this subparagraph, “successfully completed probation” means that during the period of probation the offender neither received additional county jail or state prison time for a violation of probation nor was convicted of another offense resulting in a sentence to county jail or state prison.

… (3) If the department determines that a person who was granted an exclusion under a former version of this subdivision would not qualify for an exclusion under the current version of this subdivision, the department shall rescind the exclusion, make a reasonable effort to provide notification to the person that the exclusion has been rescinded, and, no sooner than 30 days after notification is attempted, make information about the offender available to the public on the Internet Web site as provided in this section.

… (4) Effective January 1, 2012, no person shall be excluded pursuant to this subdivision unless the offender has submitted to the department documentation sufficient for the department to determine that he or she has a SARATSO risk level of low or moderate-low.

Please do note that the internet publication changes to Megan’s List does not begin until Jan 1, 2022, which is a year from the start of the new tiered registry program.

I hope that helps you. Feel free to make those websites your favorites to make it easier for you to reference for yourself or others to share.

Will 288(a)(b)1 still be excluded?

It’s really quite confusing and many of the codes correspond to 288, or 288A/B. but I never see anything on 288(a)(b)1, so I never know if my specific case is included or not. [For the record, 288(a)(b)1 is oral w/age 17.]

My conviction was a felony, but I was sentenced to jail and probation, and later had the conviction reduced. Unfortunately, while the reduction to a misdemeanor is recorded on the country court website, it is not updated with the state or feds.

In any case, my registration has never been public. I am not sure if it will become public or not.

Can anyone shed light on this? And what do we do if we fall in that unlucky category of people who won’t have a chance to escape before publishing begins?

What happens if the courts get so backed up that even if we apply ASAP, so much time passes we get published?

This is pretty stressful for my and my family, we just moved into a new area too, new start in a new place. And now this?

By the way, I never had to “apply” for an exclusion. As I understand my charge was such that I was not subject to being listed to begin with. However, I am not sure if that is being revoked and I am now subject to publication or not. I don’t know if that tidbit matters or not.

Again, any clarity is appreciated!


I think your “county” jail time was part of your probation, otherwise your charge would be a straight misdemeanor.

Because you got probation, your charge automatically removes you from the online listing for the duration of probation. And because you successfully completed probation (sec 1203.4), you were permanently removed from the online listing from that offense.

*** direct quote from the pdf ***
Pursuant to Penal Code section 290.46(d) as amended under SB 384, only registrants who meet the following requirements will be eligible to apply for exclusion.

…. “(i) An offense for which the registrant successfully completed probation, provided that the registrant submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1,…
*** end of quote ***

It appears you do qualify. If you want a more concrete source, go to the bill link I gave above. Then scroll down to 290.46 (c). It doesn’t list 288a(b)(1) to be published.

I would probably suggest you consult a lawyer or ask your local PD when you pick up your tier assignment on Jan 1, 2020 to confirm. Also, you probably want to ask the local PD or lawyer how to request to not be on the online public list or is it automatic b/c I don’t know how that works yet.

I’m not a lawyer, but from everything I’ve read, it appears you qualify. Again, I’m not a lawyer.

Is there any movement, in regards to this bill, about 311’s being in tier 3? What can we do to get forward momentum on a change for this?

@NotEasilyOffended – ACSOL will continue its lobbying efforts in early 2021 to reduce the tier level for everyone convicted of an offense involving unlawful images (also known as child pornography). In order to increase our chance of success, we are currently forming a coalition that can support us in those efforts. It is important that registrants, family members and supporters join us, too, in early 2021. There will be plenty to do including letter writing, emails, phone calls and possibly in-person meetings. We must wait until after the November election to see who gets elected as well as who takes leadership positions in key committees such as Public Safety and Appropriations.

What about all those entrap in online police stings (288.4(b)

I applied for internet exclusion waaaaayyyyy back 2014, my local police *supposibly* sent out that form, being a registrant im not even sure with concrete proof it was sent out *but* local police mentioned it could take up to 2 years for removal, even back in 97 i received that form for removal, but I never sent it out, I eventually hired an attorney gave him $5,000 cash, i never offended, finished college, high school completion, have a military contracted job for over 15 years, never got in any single trouble again, my situation looked very promising according to attorney *but* attorney found it very challenging looking more in details about, even requesting more info from colleagues *still a great challenge* a very uphill 1 gear battle* the attorney i hired was the one that bailed me out, if wondering my bail was simply $1,000, even after about 8 months the attorney eventually refunded all my $$$$ back, im not exactly sure why? I’m not complaining, his time was being exhausted. I was even doing some related tips, did my little homework, following up in different laws that were being proposed, but in the long run the attorney had a *great conscious* from what I saw & experienced, yes he’s an attorney but wasn’t in it all simply for the $$$$ *thank you* I don’t ask my local police about an update about internet exclusion because 2021 will be 23 years of registration, my birthday happens to be July 31st which is perfect timing *good luck to all*

Does anyone know if the DOJ gets a record of Expungements or Certs of Rehab from the Courts? If so will those be used to set Tier ? If not how would someone get that information into the hands of DOJ as they sentence people to Tiers?

MOT ~ Great question. I am curious about the answer.


To the first question, yes the court is supposed to forward on its ruling on your 1203.4 and COR to the DOJ. It should also be listed in your court papers about who they sent copies of the ruling.

To your other questions … that remains unknown as it is not spelled out in the law itself. I think the most challenging situations is the 1203.4, as that is mandatory ruling in most cases required by law and not the court actually evaluating and ruling on a person.

The question on the COR, I would think/hope is clearer as that is a court already ruling that a person is fully rehabilitated – it would make sense that it would carry some weight.

However, for your question specifically about the tier levels … I doubt either one will impact the the tier level determination as neither is listed in the law as a factor for consideration by the DOJ …. I suspect one might be able to challenge a tier designation using one or both as part of the argument.

At least that’s my opinion feel free to dismiss

According to CA DOJ, you will be able to pick up your tier assignment letters starting in January 2021. If you disagree with your tier assignment, you will be able to challenge it. When you challenge it, you can and should provide documents to prove your position.

Janice, should we take your comment to mean that 1203.4 does in fact positively affect a persons placement on the tiers? Otherwise we’re not sure on what grounds we can otherwise disagree with our tier placement.

Is there a format or form to use? Does a copy of my COR go to the DOJ or do I need to get in front of a Judge ? Can I do it in January 2021 or do I have to wait until July 2021

I imagine you had a charge where an expungement and COR didn’t remove you from the registry? I firmly believe a 17b has the most impact on the tier. There are several convictions impacted by a plea being reduced to a misdemeanor! If your granted a 17B, it’s a misdemeanor. There is a difference between getting a felony reduced pursuant to 17b and later expunged. Own a gun etc. If just expunged, I recommend contacting an attorney to clarify. Nobody on this site is qualified to answer your question accurately. Contact your local public defenders office

J, I recall when the internet website just started. I was on it, but since my charge had been reduced to a misdemeanor, I was automatically excluded! I called the DOJ and faxed my 17B and was removed that day. I suggest filling out the form and emailing or faxing them the document. Good luck

🤔 I remember buying my first computer around 1987. I paid extra for a 40 MB hard drive. 5″ floppy disks and no internet yet. 🙂
Ah, the good ol’ days. 🤣🤗

How does one petition? is there a link to a gov site for the petition? something streamlined for this? or is the petitioning obscured and need a lawyer?

If you’re referring to the general process to get off via the new tiered registry, it’ll most likely be similar to petitioning for your 1203.4 and 17B. They’ll have forms that you’ll fill out and then go in front of a judge to get approval. Though the actual process won’t be clear until likely next July.

hello SR, was it set in concrete that when one is eligible and fits all the requirements for de-registration that he/she has to go in front of a judge? I ask because I haven’t heard that particular language? AND new person, when it comes to courts/the law, one is ALWAYS GUILTY before proven innocent,

That’s a very good question about petitioning. Is there a form already produced? I’d like to know what the requirements are for de-registering so that there isn’t any vagueness for the DA to continue an individual to register. I know the tier threshold on the website online, but what exactly allows a DA to negate one from de-registering?

Innocent until proven guilty, right? How do you prove innocence when you’re always presumed guilty? Actually, how do you prove innocence when you’re identified as a monster?

At my felony reduction hearing, I was dressed down by the Judge, but was awarded the reduction because of two things: 1) Probation recommended it to me (which was 3 years probation and several years on top of that to earn the recommendation) and 2) 17B wouldn’t affect my status on the registry. What’s odd is the court levied probation upon me, not prison – implying the conviction was not horrific in the eyes of the court.

To me, the registry is a loss of liberty. When the registry directly or collaterally prevents job opportunities, then it’s a loss of liberty. How does the registry help re-integrate or rehabilitate one back into society when the government is the one preventing it from happening?

The presumption of innocence was killed when Mike Ramos came up with his Marsys Law final solution. Once a predator district attorney figures out a weakness they can exploit in the system (sex offenders) they can manipulate it to their gain and keep the corruption going through their endless connections, covering up the cases of those falsely accused by blaming it on “bad judges” or “bad lawyers”.

Nope, it’s the laws themselves that are bad. Written from an anti-offender (or prosecutorial) perspective.

Petition forms are not yet available. Expect them in late 2021. They cannot be filed until July 1, 2021, and only if you are eligible.

There is typo in my earlier message. We expect final petition forms to be available in late 2020 (this year). Petitions can be filed on July 1, 2021 (next year) if you are eligible. A major milestone will be availability of tier assignment letters after January 1, 2021, because then you will know the tier to which you have been assigned by the CA Dept. of Justice. You must pick up your tier assignment letter at the office where you register. They will NOT be mailed to you.

so let us all get this correct, come January of next year we/us all can go to our local police station and pick that tiered assignment? so what if they say. oh yeah?? will we need to request that tiered assignment/placement?

What about all the people who’ve been convicted of failure to register if I understand correctly it’s 1 year for misdemeanor (FTR) and 3 years for felony (FTR) what if you have multiple convictions of (FTR) do they all add up to run concurrent.
Plus there adding another year just goes to show they don’t intend on letting 70% of people off the registry.
The other mind-boggling part of this whole thing is what about people who find themselves placed in a tier to be determined once your place in this category it literally places you in limbo and puts you on time out for 2 years.
So even if you’ve been on the registry for 20/30 years you could be placed on time with no explanation or reason why and you cant address the court or the DOJ until 2 years has passed.


Here’s an article written about the tiered registry with direct quotes from Janice. It’s a very good read and Janice denotes problems with the petitioning process as opposed from the automatic process, which this article queries.


The way the congress people talk about having control over our freedom still sure feels like we’re still under custody and this feels like a hearing to be on parole. It’s essentially a second bite at the apple if the DA and Judge reject the petition because they’re judging this based upon the original conviction. They’re extending the length of supervision just because as Janice points the pattern in Orange County in the article.

That was a pretty good article. The one thing I disagree with is how the article minimizes California’s tiered law’s risk assessment, the Static-99R, to merely exacerbating the “discrimination against minority groups.” It is certainly true that the Static-99R exacerbates discrimination against gays and racial minorities; but it is also used incorrectly, considering that the Static-99R has a validity of only “about two years” after the scoring is tabulated; that the validating studies are rife with Karl Hanson, CASOMB, and Carleton University conflicts-of-interests; and that the Static-99R’s sample is a “trade secret” (among some of the many, many flaws) [i.e. What are they hiding?].

The Static-99R is truly Minority Report, come to real life, and will infect the tiered law for decades to come.

@Janice, how does this tiered registry work as far as petitioning? I have a 288(A) charge, so does it go by 20 years of registration, from conviction or release from prison? I am asking because I was given probabtion, subsequently I violated that due to not really understanding all the rules and served 4 of 7 year sentence. So my conviction is 1999 but my release from prison and finishing probation is three different dates, which one are they going to use?

In order to determine how long you have been on the Registry for the purpose of the Tiered Registry Law, you begin the day after you leave custody (jail or prison) even if it was less 24 hours. Time can be deducted , however, if you went back into custody for any reason. For example, if you are required to register for 20 years and it has been 25 years since you were released from custody for the original offense but you spent 10 years in custody later you will have only 15 years on the registry and will have to wait 5 more years to petition.

@janice- doesn’t that requirement for an additional 5 years if only 15 of the last 25 was actually spent on the registry actually signal that the state recognizes that the registry is in fact punishment, as it is treated exactly like a debt?

*JANICE BELLUCCI* was wondering, i had my car, the cops pulled me over because they said my license plate light was out/not working *THEY LIED* cop was taking things very personal *barely got the car* did a check on the car, wasnt registered yet,, I did register the car the next day with my local pd,
talked/explained & registered my car, no big deal with police BUT got a court date, long story short, the case was *AQUITED* *DISMISSED* court called local police * everything checked out was good to walk with no additional charges or problems *QUESTION* is that a situation that effects my eligibility to de-register come July 1st? original release date was 97, besides this car situation 97 was my only problem with the law *I hope I can get a response*
thank u

@J – No, these “events” should not be used against you when you petition for removal from the Tiered Registry Law.


If no one can start applying until July 1, 2021 and the state now wants to prevent those who qualify to petition on July 1, 2021 to be postponed to July 1, 2022 because their birthday/re-registration dates are before July 1, 2021, then why extend the CoR application until Nov 1, 2021?

We know the application process starts July 1, 2021 and it may take up to three months to get an answer. The state shuts down CoR option for registrants to de-register for a minimum of 6 months to a max of 9 months, starting Jan 1, 2021. Why not extend the CoR process until July 1, 2021 to de-register since it’s essentially the same outcome – to de-register.

Another question to Janice and company, is the tiered petition going to carry the same benefits as a CoR? The CoR is a court order declaring a person convicted of a crime is now rehabilitated. It also opens up more job possibilities with licenses and security clearances. Does this tiered registry only de-registers you after a minimum of 10 years of waiting? That’s what one has to do for the CoR.

Are we getting shafted again to where we have to petition to de-register as well as to have the courts declare we’re now rehabilitated? That’s twice the legal fees. That means we’re again getting segregated to do more than what other convicts have to go through, right?

Regaining liberty and life just feels like quicksand. I want to move forward, but the state just wants to keep pulling me down.

The next step should be lowering Tier III from life. Its incredibly stupid to base lifetime registration on the age of the victim alone. It seem idiotic to say a persons “dangerous” when they’ve been out for decades, married, and raised a number of children. How can it be justified to say they’re dangerous and need to stay on for life? Even saying they must do 30 years is way too long. If anything, no longer than tier II if they keep out of trouble, but if they continue to get into trouble, they stay on (i.e. life).

New, great points! My court date for a COR is in December! It took 5.5 months to get a court date! The COR sends a strong message to licensing boards that an individual is rehabilitated. Furthermore, not all registered individuals will be relieved of registration.

I got my COR last December for a 664/288(a) but still have to register Not sure if you used the Public Defenders office but if you did you might have another snag if the DA at the last minute wants a psychological report of therapy and evaluation also the sitting judge might cause a change if you are one you own be careful let me know if you have any questions I have been there GOOD LUCK just a quick reality check for you

*JANET BELLUCCI* thank u sooooooooo much for your time and for you very prompt answer, do you or anyone has any idea after one petitions July 1st what is the grace period for being officially de-registered? * i qualify for tier 2 * i ask because my birthday is july 31st, is it automatic? would i still need to register on my birthday after I petition? yes its 31 day so I’m kind of interested and *EXCITED ONCE* for my actual birthday.

thank you once again
good luck to all

@J – For future reference, my name is JANICE, not Janet. Given the facts you have provided, you will be required to register on your birthday in 2021 because it will take more than 30 days for local law enforcement and the DA to review your petition. In addition, a judge will make the final decision. My best guess is that it will take at least 90 days after submitting a petition before a petition is granted. No one will be automatically removed from the registry. The petition starts, but does not end, the process.

Ms. Bellucci,

I have until April of 2025 under the 10 yr plan, although with a misdemeanor C.P. Hanging around my neck, it could be forever. So I figure I have 5 yrs to hope and work at changing the law. Either way, in 2025, I am wheels up and out of the U.S. it would just make it easier if my record was a distant memory.
So get off your chair and get to work! ( 🙏🏼 ) .

Thanks MOT! It’s been 24 years. PC 243.4 with summary privation. LA is pretty fair. 17B and expunged. No issues prior or after. The deadline is 12/31!

*JANICE* I’m soooooooooo sorry *MY APOLOGIES* I was literally going back & fourth editing, 7x to be exact even after editing things were changing back and my eyes were proof reading, my apologies once again and thank you for you and your team for your ongoing commitment.


@Janice Bellucci
Starting July 1st 2021 will you and your staff at ACSOL be helping registrant’s petition to be removed from the sexofender registry.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x