ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org

 

CaliforniaGood News!

CA: Registrant Gains Access to Section 8 Housing

A registrant in California has gained access to Section 8 housing.  This is a significant change because in the past all California registrants were denied access to Section 8 housing because they were required by state law to register for life.

“This is a significant milestone,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “With the help of ACSOL, a registrant was able to persuade the federal government that he is no longer a lifetime registrant.”

The registrant, who wishes to remain anonymous, applied to live with his fiance in Section 8 housing in the year 2020.  His application was denied, however, because he was required to register for life.  ACSOL prepared a letter to the provider of Section 8 housing explaining the new Tiered Registry Law that became effective in January 2021, including the fact that the registrant has been assigned to Tier 2 which requires 20 years of registration, not lifetime registration.  The registrant also gave the provider a document regarding the Tiered Registry Law that was issued by the CA Department of Justice earlier this year.

In 2021, the registrant and his fiance married and he subsequently reapplied for Section 8 housing.  The application was approved a few months later and now the registrant and his wife are living together in a home provided by Section 8 housing.

“It appears that the federal government has reached the understanding that some California registrants are now eligible for Section 8 housing,” stated Bellucci.  “It also appears that eligibility is limited to individuals assigned to Tier 1 and Tier 2.  Unfortunately, individuals assigned to Tier 3 are still required to register for life.”

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

They are starting to get scared of our numbers if we could just get a little more organized we can end this and all other injustices but the fight starts here.

Wow

California cowards the only real men I met in california was when I was in the Corp.

Well, that’s pleasant.😡
– David, SoCal registrant

When you were in the “Corp” did you meet any men?

They are starting to fear our numbers I wet on Megan’s law website yesterday to see how many sex offenders live in my neighborhood and it wouldn’t let me the map is blank no red or blue dots you can only look people up by name the DOJ never announced any changes to Megan’s law website maybe the website is under construction or something but if not that’s a major game changer.
Sex offenders qualifying for section 8 that’s another major game changer I wonder if Janice Bellucci can help people qualify for federal home loans

Good luck 😬👌

The web site never did show where sex offenders live and it never will. Maybe you are just confused?

I think so too 🤣

It’s time to start a movement to have Janice Bellucci nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m serious.
Many progressive nations and the U.N. have already spoken out about how the United States treats registrants is a blatant violation of human rights. Is there a more important human right than the right to have a safe and clean place to live??? Given all of ACSOL’s successes and attempts (with Janice at the helm) to restore registrants’ human rights, I believe it’s time for this nomination!
From what I have read, not just anyone can nominate a person. However, maybe somebody knows someone who can nominate a person. Let’s make this happen!

Tom Kelley:

Registrants and their family and friends have been getting organized. The chore is to get everybody into the fight. Most registrants choose to sit on the sidelines and leave the fight to others.
Getting soldiers into the fight will be helpful because most won’t back down in the face of adversity.

I’ll bet many don’t realize that a war is being fought and that is why we need an outreach program. If I can get a letter every other day from local attorneys soliciting my business for registry relief, I should be getting one from ACSOL, too.

Give me your address.
We can be penpals. 🥳🤗

(Oh, and while you’re at it, please provide a generous donation to ACSOL to cover stationary and stamps! Many thanks, penpal!)

I can’t help wondering why the length of their registration obligation (as opposed to specific crime) was a factor in whether or not they were approved.

Because it’s a lazy shortcut. The registry has become way too large to do any sort of individual assessment like that.

Thank you for helping him and his fiance Janice. Progress is progress no matter how small or where it occurs. I wasn’t even aware that section 8 had restrictions like that.

Unfortunately there’s a Veterans version of the housing voucher has the same restriction – there are committee for Veterans Affairs that works on homelessness and this was one of the topics not too long ago

As I wrote the other day at the reminder of @AJ of this same topic, the registry is punishment when it comes to housing and lifers.

It’s not merely the triggering requirement of needing to register for a lifetime that is the issue (and the point, IMO, the legal community would hinge on in court when attacked to save their precious registry), but the fact a person who is required and actually registers for a lifetime ends up being banned from housing in a punishing move without any reasoning why anything less is acceptable, that I am aware of at least. Justification needs to be understood of what their thinking is when splitting along years for banishment, i.e. offense based because anything deemed lifetime is allegedly heinous enough.

Is the lifetime requirement the gate they will say is the driving factor and actually not the registry itself when deeming the registry not punishment? I don’t see how they cannot actually go together when considered as punishment since the requirement triggers the action leading to banishment which is classically used a punishment, e.g. See Napoleon and his second exile (banishment as punishment) to St Helena.

@Janice,et al – did they give you, when appealing, any reasoning why lifers are banned when others are not, e.g. optics, stats, etc?

@TS:
I don’t recall inspiring you on this topic, but I’ll take the kudos nonetheless! 😁

As @mike r mentioned, there is case law regarding denial of public benefits. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly for more info. I’m unsure if this precedent applies but it sure seems to align nicely. My fear is the courts will (again) rely on the BS statement from CT DPS that we had our Due Process at our criminal trial. Nothing like a wild-card to stop RCs from getting anything, ever.

@AJ

I have to wonder if holding #1 of the aforementioned case is the point where life PFRs are denied because the requirement to register disqualifies them from the statutory entitlement by law and any hearing would be short lived at that point. “1. Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and so procedural due process is applicable to their termination.[4]”

I would like to see a life PFR take it on with stats, assessment, etc showing they are not a threat or danger in an effort to force the board into the corner of the law and say “the law says this because it does without any sound reasoning why it says what it says and the board won’t deviate from it”.

At that point, I believe the argument then goes to the requirement to register which leads to a place on the registry which in turn punishes the life PFR because it disqualifies them the statutory entitlement. A circle argument is then made and no one is going to grant relief to the life PFR to commit political suicide.

@TS:
Yeah, I’m not sold that Goldberg is the proper vehicle to push this issue. The case was more about losing existing benefits, not first achieving them. If a RC were in Section 8 and then lost it due to the lifer rule, there would be a case. However as someone has already stated, DHS doesn’t boot people out if already in the housing (which tells me someone took note of this case!).

I wonder what would happen if a RC were to move from a lifer status in one State to a non-lifer in another State, got into Section 8 housing, then moved back to the original State. I don’t know if that’s even possible since anecdotally it seems the States all use the greater of their rules or the rules of the State where convicted, meaning a lifer no matter where one roams.

While Congress certainly controls the purse strings, it cannot do so with animus.

So when SORNA regs kick in and the guy goes to lifetime again, does he get to stay?

If he becomes federally tier 3, then it’s very unlikely he’ll get to keep Section 8. I believe they basically do an annual background check on all participants and boot people who don’t pass.

So the whole process was most likely a complete waste of time.

They do annual background checks, but according to this doc, he will not necessarily be terminated if reclassified as Tier 3:

“If a state changes its sex offender registration laws/regulations so that persons who were on the Sex Offender Registry for a certain number of years (less than life) may be reclassified to Lifetime status, should PHAs terminate participants based on their new status on the Lifetime Sex Offender Registry?

Current HUD regulations at 24 CFR§982.553(a)(2) and §960.204(a)(4) only require that persons subject to lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program be banned from admission, not be terminated. Residents who become sex offenders subject to lifetime registration after admission are already participants in the program” (https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/2012-28ATTACHMENT.PDF).

I would imagine that would be an ex post facto application of a reg which is similar to a residential distance restriction being put into place but ex post facto to kicking those out who should be grandfathered in. However, if it was applied as such, it would be grounds for showing why the registry is punishment again as I noted above, IMO.

Yeah, and what happens when according to the SORNA regs puts you in tier two but the state puts you in tier 3?

Good question. Who the hell knows? It’s all a shitshow.

So, I was under the understanding that when a state or fed gov program is denied to any individual that it would trigger a constitutional violation without an individual assessment. I understand gun laws and all that but that is a blanket ban and not a gov program either. Something needs to happen soon, I can tell you people that.

SORNA reg for tier 3,
“Abusive sexual contact under 18 U.S.C. § 2244 (described in the tier II offense definition) when committed against a minor under 13 years old.”

Well, 664/288 (a) is for anyone under 14 not under 13. So if my alleged victim was 13 what happens? What happens to all those convicted under 288 (a) that had alleged victims under 13? Are they tier 3 under SORNA when the state is granting them tier 2?

And what about the 288.2 that has no comparison in the SORNA regs?
Closest thing I see to it is “Production or distribution of child pornography.” Well I was not convicted of CP but instead was convicted for sending harmful material 288.2 based solely on the fact that I agreed to meet with a minor for sex they say, which by the way puts me in tier 3 under CA regs. Only thing close to it is, Coercion & enticement under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) which both are tier 2 offenses once again.

SORNA has a lot of conflicting tiering factors with those of states. The biggest one is SORNA treats every offense that on paper can result in a year or less behind bars to be a “misdemeanor” and thus Tier 1 (CA sort of does this in general by allowing majority of convictions resulting in probation to be “expunged” via 1203.4, whether felony or misdemeanor. And most probation convictions are generally granted to offenses that result in up to a year behind bars) . So a ton of CA’s Tier 3’s are Tier 1 under SORNA while others are kinda in reverse and are tiered higher under SORNA than CA; I don’t think SORNA actually tries to convert state offenses to Federal equivalent codes the way states do with incoming people.

So check what’s the maximum penalty is on paper for the codes you described, and anything that says “up to a year” should be tier 1.

Mike, look up “categorical approach.” United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez (9th Cir. 2014). If the state offense is overbroad or includes conduct beyond the federal statute, it is not comparable to the federal statue, period.

Thus, because 288a includes those older than 12, it is Tier II or possibly Tier I if the state was not required to prove an element of 4 years difference in age. (See, U.S. v. Escalante, 5th Cir. 2019)

This shows the absolute absurdity of the Section 8 ban on lifers. With the stroke of a pen, this RC went from incorrigible and terrible to welcomed into the program, even if grudgingly.

Yeah.It’s insane a few words makes this man eligible without any change in his behavior. Several if not many states have statutes that classify one convicted of a sex crime to be forever classified that way (regardless of ones tier level as NJ has).

This is excellent news! 🥳
Great job, Janice! (As always!) 🤗
👏👏👏

A small step for one registrant, a giant leap towards cementing the registry until the end of time.

yep and some of tier 3 is a SCAM… CP doesnt fit the bill and people arent equally situated !!

A lot of Tier 3 is a scam. You can even be put into Tier 3 if you score “high” enough on the Static 99 testing scam. Plus, the government isn’t even following the Coding Rules that clearly state that the Static 99 is only valid for “approximately two years.” To add salt to the wound, after 17 years it’s stated that even “high” scored people are no more likely to commit a sex crime when compared to a person who has never committed a sex crime.

So it can be argued that Tier 3, anyway you put it, is a scam.

don’t worry some official will hear about this and propose a bill that will reverse the tier one, tier two scenario……….

37
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.