ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: August 15, September 12 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

ACSOLCalifornia

Los Angeles Superior Court Denies TRO Application

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has denied a TRO application filed by the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) that, if granted, would have required the CA Department of Corrections (CDCR) to release from prison individuals convicted of a sex offense based upon the same eligibility factors as those convicted of a different type of offense. The basis of the TRO application was the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

“We are deeply troubled by the court’s decision because it fails to recognize that individuals convicted of a sex offense are similarly situated to individual who have not been convicted of a sex offense,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “After all, all inmates are equally likely to be infected by COVID-19, to transmit COVID-19, and to die from COVID-19.”

According to the decision, individuals convicted of a sex offense, including those currently in custody for a different type of offense, are not similarly situated with other prisoners because their “criminal histories are different and impose different requirements upon them.” The decision notes that although ACSOL proved that CDCR’s policy to exclude all individuals convicted of a sex offense would result in “some harm” to registrants, the court noted that CDCR is “actively working on an ongoing basis to reduced inmate populations to help mitigate and manage the spread of COVID-19 among inmates and staff.”

“Due to this adverse decision and the continuing risk of harm to registrants who remain in custody, ACSOL leaders will meet next week to discuss a safe way to protest this decision,” stated Bellucci. “Our voices must be heard in order to protect members of our community that are being punished based upon a myth that registrants have a high risk of re-offense.”

TRO – Points & Authorities – June 2020

Order – TRO denied – July 2020

Join the discussion

  1. Pete

    Demonstrations away !
    BULLIES DO NOT CARE, STOP OR LISTEN !
    Anytime the Courts are permitted to excuse biased behaviors and there actions hurt a specified group!
    WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEMONSTRATE IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED !
    The Lies, the Injustices and Abuses must Cease !
    Every person must try to attend and continue CLEAR AND BOLD MESSAGES OF ALL THE PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE
    TRANSGRESSIONS THIS GOV HAS ALLOWED AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AGAINST RCs and there friends, families, loved ones !
    My Love and Grattitude to “ALL” who take a stand for the Oppressed !

  2. David V C

    It’s probably more of an ‘electoral’ fear now more than anything.
    Those judges know that the risk of re-offending is very, very low, but do to the fact the public may become outraged at them releasing sex related offenders, they bypass logic and justice for the people’s vote-plain and simple.

    • Larisa V Bray

      It what my son’s bail judge and preliminary hearing did. My son in jail since December 11 2019, now awaiting a trial in November . as soon as I dead in LAT about this huge public outrage about one elderly offender letting out of prison due to CV-19 , I just knew my son will not letting out and his trial will be set. We are emigrants from ukraine, and I will never forgive myself I brought my son in his country, worse that GULAG

  3. cliff maas

    We must keep fighting and at some point the power that be will realize that discrimination is not right….
    Many in our country have been fighting discrimination for centuries….. but progress will happen with persistence.

  4. Saddles

    And its all for public safety. Are a lot or many of these internet operations for public servants getting over on otherd with a standard of adultrated, cheapen type of arrogance. In this internet ordeal that isn’t what bearing the sword is all about. Guess even in a sex ordeal the Ten Commandments mean nothing to government in many of these ordeals.

    Sure I’ve gotten off key a bit on here but what is the two edged sword all about and yes the bible is a book not only for understanding divine justice but all types of true justice. Their are many in the Old Testament that went astray and many kinds and rulers passing out bad judgements. Talk about the killings.

    This convid-19 is nothing compaired to what happened in the Old Testament. Yes their was sex and adultery in the bible also but their was also repentance and forgiveness and thats something this United State Government overlooks and ignores. Even many of our leaders don’t even under Jesus and the God of Justice but would rather be their own ungodly justice and bring shame to a nation. And Jesus said, if your going to betray me do it quickly. Talk about a behavior pattern or is Government the Judus of American Justice today.

    Christianity is what this country was founded on and now look at the situation with this convid-19 ordeal, the black lives matter, the indians getting upset about using the setting in the black hills for one of Trumps agenda’s of a fireworks event. Some may even call Trump out of hand or is respect today a bit unreproachable or who is irreproachable. Well the detective that marched me to the courtroom when ask said he was a Christian. So can people be a Christian in name or in vain in this type of justice. Where is truth today or who sees a signal light in a fog today.

  5. New Person

    ***
    “criminal histories are different and impose different requirements upon them.”
    ***

    Ahhh… Isn’t this a great place to interject why the criminal histories are different? I say this because it all comes back to the usage of false high recidivism rates utilized in the 2003 Smith v Doe decision because that’s when 290 started to change in 2005 (PC 290.5) which eventually lead to 2007’s PC 290.007.

    If all these “criminal histories” are being bandied about as to why registrants are treated separately and it’s because of the false high recidivism rates, then that’s when you can introduce Dr Ira and Tara Ellman’s “Frightening and High” research work that debunks the false recidivism rate as well as CASOMB’s under 1% recidivism rates once it removed failure to register from its recordings.

    We have to challenge that myth of “criminal histories that imposes different requirements” like you did with presence and residency restrictions! We have to get “Frightening and High” research paper and CASOMB’s under 1% recidivism rates onto the books to refute false information such as Japanese Internment camps or Jim Crow laws of Separate, but Equal. We know it’s not equal here at all and want to comprehend why. It all leads back to the 2003 decision and it’s use of false recidivism rate!

  6. G4Change

    This ruling is misguided and sickening! Thank you, Janice and all, for trying.

  7. Janice Bellucci

    @New Person – I agree with you! The fact is a full 3 pages out of a total of 14 pages were devoted to debunking the myth that registrants have a high re-offense rate. We even included data, including a chart, from a report issued by CDCR that states that the re-offense rate while on parole is less than 1 percent. Some day the judges, legislators, public will actually read what we write and respond accordingly. Until then, we will keep filing lawsuits in order to “educate” them.

    • Anonymous

      Janice, that was a factual, rational and direct bullseye hit on the target!! A perfect hit!!, but the target hasn’t even flinched yet. But it will trust me. It will fall like a boxer in the ring who 1second prior, was dominating. The next second, he was unconscious on the floor. You will experience that Complete and utter victory one day.

    • Brandon

      Interesting it was denied because registrants criminal history are different. When everyone that has a criminal history is different regardless of it involves a sex crime. Not everyone that commits a sex offense should be painted with the broad brush of bull feathers. I say keep “educating” the incompetent judges till they fear Janice Means Business Bellucci!!

    • TS

      @Janice

      Would it be possible perhaps to upload to this overall thread those 3 pages (as a separate doc) used to debunk the current line of thinking as a reference please? Thank you.

      • Janice Bellucci

        @TS – I have requested that the webmaster add a link to the entire memorandum of points and authorities in support of the TRO application be added above. The legal argument regarding rates of re-offense start on page 7 and end on page 10.

  8. Laura

    Why of course drug addicts, robbers, car jackers, gang drive by shooters make society feel very safe to be released from prison rather than someone viewing illegal images, sexting or any other 290 registrants Judge: Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff should be ashamed of himself.

  9. Joe

    Unless I misread the CDCR directive……

    From the order: “The inmate reduction is based on criminal histories.”

    No it is not. Absolutely not. Criminal history is only relevant for 290 registrants. Nothing is stopping the release of an inmate with a qualifying current offense with a criminal history of murder or a repeated and habitual criminal history. There is, however, a stated exclusion of someone with a single misdemeanor conviction going back to 1947 and nothing since.

    From the order: “Those being released through the CSP (Non-Registrants) are not similarly situated with those not being released (Registrants as well as violent and certain other offenders). Their criminal histories are different and impose different requirements upon them.”

    Those not released are inmates with a CURRENT violent offense and those with a HISTORICAL 290 offense.

    This is a circular argument. The only reason that their criminal histories are different is the registration requirement imposed. On them and them alone. Which applies to someone with a misdemeanor conviction from 1962 but not to someone with a murder conviction from 20 years ago or a rap sheet as long as my arm.

    This is a game of Whack-a-Mole that cannot be won. In the past I supported CARSOL / ACSOL’s war of attrition, thinking it would lead to the much-mentioned “tipping point”. Let’s not kid ourselves. There will be no “tipping point” as long as registration exists.

    ACSOL should change its approach into putting all its resources towards overturning Smith v Doe (like, dare I say it, @Mike R does). It should have done so ~10 years ago, but that is water under the bridge. Every journey starts with a single step. Time to change course and come up with a plan and funding. Of course it won’t be easy but it is the only way. Almost 10 years have proven that.

    • @F0Q_CDCR

      Someone in prison took it upon themselves to file an appeal concerning CDCR’s not allowing instructors in, and therefore, being denied additional credit earning opportunities. In his request for relief, he asked that ALL incarcerated persons receive a 1-time grant of 6 months in milestone and RAC credits over and above what’s traditionally authorized. Today, Secretary Diaz signed a memorandum authorizing 12 weeks for everyone EXCEPT those who’d received a 115 after March. This is a HUGE victory because, for the 1st time in CDCR, they applied something equally across the board, regardless of the nature of the committing offense. A copy of the memo can be found below.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Wcau4HpkL9JdSuoFGkWa0c0HCOakjlz/view?usp=drivesdk

      • @F0Q_CDCR

        Ok, one more try. I copy and pasted it but somehow it posted the same darn link. I blame technology.

        Diaz’s memo:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/12-QrW6XtIYs2Fb4xxCgxuo91utzsuIOu/view?usp=drivesdk

        What do you know? It worked. Enjoy!

      • @F0Q_CDCR

        #CDCR does it again! I wrote previously about a memo authored and signed by @CAcorrections (CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz). It purported to give ALL incarcerated persons 12 weeks credit for what they’ve had to endure as a result of the #COVID19 programming changes. Everyone, that is, except people on Death Row, serving LWOP or who received a Rules Violation Report between March and July. Unfortunately, this was yet another deception performed by a corrupt administration. If you were convicted of a violent or sexual offense and the 12 weeks brought you within 60 days or less of being released, then you were only afforded enough time off to put you at the 60 day mark, not from the time the memo was signed, but the time they finally got around to providing notification. While this might at first seem reasonable, to give 60 days notification to victims of crime, keep in mind that crime victim’s have always had access to the latest dates. We’re talking about a difference of less than 3 months, not 3 years, and the Internet and phones allow instantaneous notification. Given the reason for the release, imminent danger of death, this seems unreasonable.
        Also denied were those individuals who’d already earned the maximum amount of time off through milestone and RAC credits. Essentially, the only people who received credits were those who had a year or more to serve and had both remained free of a Rules Violation Report and failed to participate in rehabilitation.
        To the best of my knowledge, CDCR has thus far refused to process any of these appeals, let alone as an emergency, given the fact that many are now being held past what should be their new date.

        @F0Q_CDCR

    • Dustin

      Not sure I agree with your statement:

      “ACSOL should change its approach into putting all its resources towards overturning Smith v Doe (like, dare I say it, @Mike R does).”

      Smith v. Doe held that the registry is not punitive, and in great detail stated the characteristics of the registry that made it so. Specifically, that registrants could live, work, and travel where they wished and updates were accomplished by mail. Virtually every legislative body in the US has since legislated it into extinction.

      What needs to happen is for the USSC to acknowledge that its “frightening and high” claim was simply incorrect as part and parcel to addressing the (un)constitutionality of the registry.

  10. Saddles

    @ Joe. Now that makes me laugh. A wack-a-mole theory or judgement. Might as well go with a play-doh theory of law or an assume the position mask type theory. Wonder what one would say or deem right in this push-pull defense.Talk about Deja vu. Embarrassing and indefensible.Talk about being strong in numbers.

    So how do police or even governments protest and serve in prison in this bias way. Do they put every sex offender in protective custody and group them into one race and one bunch. Have them all wear face masks of a color purple in prison cells. Sanitize once a day, spray cells for urine conposites. Sounds like an unhealthy condition to compound a condition. Talk about Morgan Freeman and black history month. One wonders who is free. One wonders is police are not driving ms. daisy today.

    Guess once a sex offender no man is an island and one’s whole abuse is out in public and violated even during something like this type of crisis. I’m sure American Government would appear to have a back up plan full of sour grapes or should government say we’re only human ( good song by Billy Joe l) one of my favorites from years ago.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=your+only+human+joel+you+tube&docid=608043364651565557&mid=E54B8B7C338F926ABD56E54B8B7C338F926ABD56&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

  11. Tim in WI

    There goes that phrase again: ” similarly situated. ”
    Which Article does it belong to or come from?

    Restraining state actors is very difficult chore. At least an opportunity to be heard is in the record. Keep defending humanity itself and you will go far. Remember Janice, Galileo would have been burned at the stake for expressing his plain observations in some circles of course authority and canonized intellect. We see science denial everywhere in history.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Similarly situated is a necessary factor in an equal protection case.

      • Joe

        The ONLY reason that they are not “similarly situated” is the requirement to register under PC 290. It is not the criminal history, and not even the underlying criminal conviction.

        Say 3 people commit the exact same crime, qualifying for early release (nonviolent, non-serious, non-domestic violence offenses), and are sentenced on the exact same day to the exact same term of incarceration.

        Person A has a lengthy criminal record, including drunk driving, robbery, assault, drug charges, murder, etc. Person A has spent more time of his life incarcerated than not. Person A IS eligible for early release.

        Person B has a single misdemeanor conviction from 50 years ago, which requires Person B to register under PC 290. Person B IS NOT eligible for early release.

        Person C has a lengthy criminal history, including a conviction for a 290 offense which required registration. Person C was relieved of his registration requirement by being granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Person C IS eligible for early release.

        So clearly it is not the criminal history that makes these inmates not similarly situated. Criminal history is not considered at all for non-registrants. For registrants it is not even that mythical “frightening and high reoffense rate”. The only distinguishing factor is the fact that Person B is required to register pursuant to PC 290.

        In other words, it is the government’s position that these individuals are not similarly situated for no other reason than the same government’s completely arbitrary imposition of additional requirements. That no other convict is subject to, and that have no rational foundation. That is bizarre.

        Time to get rid of registration, period. I thought that was the goal of this organization. At the risk of sounding ungrateful (I am not), exactly how is that going?

        • @F0Q_CDCR

          I realize you mean well, just as I realize your term is technically accurate. I also realize that its difficult to use another term or phrase, but I’m asking you as a supporter to not use the term “inmate,” “convict,” “prisoner” or “sex offender” when referring to us. We’re people, with thought and emotions. These terms dehumanize us, making it easier for people to make decisions that harm us. It also puts us in a box, implying that our past is who we are, who we will always be, and thus simply isn’t the case.

  12. Brandon

    Public safety should be for the morons that leave dirty diapers or condoms in shopping carts. Not someone that poses no risk to the public!!

  13. AERO1

    I also feel there is no tipping point. Sexofenders will forever be outed and shamed by society this is a never-ending fight that we can’t win as long as the government can scare people into supporting the registry sexofenders will always be under attack.
    I believe we need to change are approach fighting in court is our #1 priority but if we don’t educate the people/society and get them to feel our pain then yes we are playing a game of whack-a-mole

  14. Saddles

    From Tim’ in WI’s comment to Janice’s “similarly situated” definition to the understanding, to a who begot who. Sounds like a form of canonized intellgent of a monkey trial to some. One wonder who does their homework on here. Seems Tim in WI has the answer to this whole thing, its all about computers in some data theory or one’s own . So he wins the prize. Janice has more of a rational hunanitarian understanding and yes thats a motherly understanding. One wonders where is lady liberty today. One even wonders about sexual defrauding status today in this contempt of conscious.

    Who’s rubbing one’s nose in a pile of S#IT or who’s wanting to grab someone by the PU@@Y in this equal factor. In this TRO application out in Los Angeles one wonders whos’ playing Mr. Scratch in this equal protection or does a person’s life mean anything today. Sure with this computer inducement today who is talking to who via this form of comunication, or what judge is really bias or one sided in a court of law. Maybe one should get a Benedict Arnold in ths jury trail of justice or are judges today like a manner of nobody tells me what to do.

    Isn’t being one sided a bit biased or does the offender have any grounds to stand on. Is this a money game or factor or a fine inducement of another kind. Actually you people make me sick at times. Its as if my pops better than your pop or my answer’s better than your answer so who win’s for the best answer. Where is God in any of this ordeal of man’s justice? Oh we left that God back in another county or when in Rome do as the Romans do. Well remember Rome burned. Is this sex offender a catastrophe of man made skull doggery

    Are we all not offenders in many ways. From Janice to Chance, to those on here even myself and yes even authorities. Do we all offend bi-curiously or do we all put on air’s like some officials to impress to gain status or are we all weak in many area’s of life. One wonders were Willians Jenning Bryant is today or who is the Walter Butler in black today in this Red, White, and Blue saga of American Justice.

    Nothing wrong with Janice’s team or the ACLU and others fighting to end much of this registry offender ordeal but each individual has the right to liberty and and true Justice in America or did we all sell ourselves to the devil or some computer facebook crap. Where is one’s independance and faith today in this wack- a -mold sex romp. Were is the bias in this house divide.

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 *

.