ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


ACSOLMeetings / Events

ACSOL Leaders to Host Training on July 8 for CA Tiered Registry Petitions — to be rescheduled —

Latest update on 7/19/21: Rescheduled for 7/29/21


Updated with meeting details June 21, 2021

ACSOL leaders Chance Oberstein and Janice Bellucci will conduct a training session for California registrants, family members and supporters regarding the petitioning process under the Tiered Registry Law.  The session will be held on Thursday, July 8, starting at 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time. The session will be recorded and available later on the ACSOL website.

“We look forward to sharing information with registrants and others regarding the petitioning process available under the Tiered Registry Law,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.

The Judicial Council is expected to release to the public the final petition forms on July 1.  ACSOL will then make the forms available on its website as soon as possible.

“We encourage registrants and others to participate in the training session,” stated ACSOL Executive Director.  “Those who participate will learn whether they can complete the petition forms on their own or need to hire a legal representative.”

Individuals will be able to participate by phone and/or by computer.

Topic: Tiered Registry Petitions
Time: Jul 8, 2021 01:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

The meeting will be rescheduled.





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

Thank you, Janice and Chance. We greatly appreciate your help and everything else you do!

Too bad you cut it short. Maybe the coward trolls would have accidentally revealed themselves.

Last edited 4 months ago by Ditto

Not actually replying to SR, again but…

How to Keep Punks Out of Your Zoom Event

For example:

“Remove unwanted or disruptive participants: You can remove someone from your meeting by using the Security Icon or Participants menu. On the Participants menu, you can mouse over a participant’s name and several options will appear, including Remove. Click that to kick someone out of the meeting.”

My last comment on this, maybe.

Jan Kruska v. Petra Luna on ABC 20/20

Good Morning, Thank you Attorneys Janice and Chance. Your work and help to us is so greatly appreciated. I am truly grateful. My Birthday will be on 7/7/2021. For me, it will be over 11 years since I was first place on 290. Although I have not received my letter yet, I will pick it up when I go to my yearly registration this July. I do know that I was place on “TBD” category. Nevertheless, my question is. . . after we file or petition for removal and we qualify, how much of a problem will we have to endure from the prosecution when they go to argue against our removal. Will we have to “relive” those days of trial? – just wondering. I will be looking forward to your training session on 7/8/2021.

I’m wondering this myself. I’m in TBD as well and I’ve been on registry 14 years. It is to my understanding that there is nothing in the Tiered Registry Law that prohibits registrants from filing a petition if they are currently TBD status. I guess it’s a matter of what the judge or DA’s office does with those petitions. The judge could try to deny the petition based solely on the TBD status but they are not legally bound to do so unless that changes.

Daniel! What was the Outcome post Reg.??
Let Us All Know please,especially for Mike below

Thank you 😁👌

Very grateful and thank you very much for all the help!

I’ll say this. I filed a COR last year in LA and it was granted. I was almost shocked how easy it was. Please be reminded that there are several courts in LA and I’m not sure if the tier requests will be filed in the same court? I’m off the registry and it’s almost surreal

Are these petitions only for removal from the registry or are they also to challenge tier classification?

ab – Good question. We need to challenge our Tier classification, and so far no attorney knows how to do this yet. Very frustrating.

here may be or may not be a start line here.

The training on July 8 will be focused only upon the petition form. We can discuss challenges to tier classifications during monthly meeting on July 10. It would be helpful to know what offense(s) you were convicted of in order to prepare for that discussion.

If I was going to try something regarding my registration requirements I would most likely first go through federal court to reduce the remaining time of the fifteen year minimum to zero. Near the end of 2021 I will have 7 years left on the minimum timeframe.

My conviction was for federal possession of cp. I was less asking for myself at this time because I imagine California offense challenges would be how to lay the groundwork to bring up tier challenges for out of state and federal offenses the California Department of Justice considered.

Hi Janice!

I pled guilty to one count of PC 288(c)(1) in 2018. I served 18 mos in state prison and just completed 12 mos PRCS. This is my only criminal record. I was informed by the DOJ that I was assigned to Tier 3. Is there a way to challenge the tier assignments?

It seems strange that a non-serious, non-violent offense (which is also a wobbler) would be classified as a Tier 3 offense…

esoocs – I am not a lawyer, but I do a lot of research, and the Tiered Registry seems very confusing, and I believe the DOJ is assigning wrong Tiers. It says that a Tier 1 is someone whose offense is a misdemeanor or a felony that was not “violent” or “serious”. If you look at SB384, they put 288(c) and (b) into the Tier 3 list under 290 (C) (ix) Subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 288., yet only (a) or (b) are considered “violent”. As to the “serious” part, only lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age is considered “serious”. Since PC288(c)(1) is with a child 14 or 15, I don’t believe it is considered “serious”. So, how I read it, and put in simple terms: Look at SB384 text. Go to 290 (C)(ix) which says subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 288. Then got to “667.5” and see what is considered violent. It says section (a) or (b). No mention of (c). Then go to “1192.7” and look for the offenses that are considered “serious”. I don’t see 288(c) listed. They have some that are only descriptions and no Penal Code, but the only one I see listed is for an offense involving a child under 14. Isn’t PC288(c) for an offense if the child is 14 or 15? My head is spinning, but this is how I interpret it, and I would think the Tier can be challenged. Anyone else would like to chime in? Am I missing anything? esoocs, can you confirm what code they based the Tier 3 on? Should be on the letter. Is it PC290(C)(ix)?

You’re looking at this in an overly complicated way. Serious and Violent are buzzwords and don’t mean anything in the tired registry since the tired registry is 90% conviction code, 9% whether it was a felony or misdemeanor, and 1% your Static-99 score (6+ is auto Tier 3 regardless of the actual crime) .

Tier 1 is anything that’s not in Tier 2 or Tier 3. If Tier 3 shows a code but doesn’t specify Felony, that means the DOJ will only be looking at the code number and not whether the conviction was a Felony or Misdemeanor. That’s it.

Your beef is with the legislator, not DOJ. DOJ is following the tired law verbatim. They cannot assume what the legislature intended, only what they wrote. This is one of those things that Janice will likely have to battle out in court and have the courts force the legislature to amended the registry. Even then, it’ll only likely be an order to amend, not to what it should be, meaning the legislature could simply specify that your code is Tier 3 (or whatever) regardless of the level of the conviction and whatever else.

Read law as if you’re an alien who has no idea about human morals and ideals, and no bases to interpret a meaning based on that. If it says turn left twice and take 10 steps, you do that even if that takes you off the cliff. If it doesn’t says stop at the edge you keep walking until you hit those 10 steps. It’s dumb, but that’s law.

To someone who cares:There is already a challenge to the 288(c)
tier designation of 3.(SB384 effective January 1st, 2021) by Acsol.
The motion is under equal protection and has already been filed
on your behalf..If I remember correctly, the state(DOJ) responded
with a demurer equating to a motion to dismiss.So,bite your nails
and pray.Also,would be recommended to donate,now is the time.

Robert – I simply think they made a mistake with the Tier 3 for 288(c), confusing it with (a) and/ or (b). This should be an easy thing to challenge.

I don’t believe it was an error mixing it up with a 288 A, as an 18 year old with a 13 year who might be 3 days away from being 14 is not worse than a 58 year old with a 14 year old. You have to look at it on a case by case basis. But what I believe is that 288 c being a tier 3 the most ridiculous thing yet to come out of the tiered registry. I am confident Janice and team will get this fixed with the current lawsuit.

@Janice – Food for thought but if I’m not mistaken Tier assignments are now as of January 1st of this year are assigned by the judge in each individual case if charged/convicted as a 288c. I’d be shocked if there was not a lack of uniformity to how PC 288c is treated. This is probably especially true since it is a wobbler there will be inconsistencies across the state. I’m curious if it might be of assistance to the lawsuit to pull the first six or seven months of data for this year for any new 288c convictions and take a look and see how those have been assigned anything lower than tier 3. If there is indeed a number of new convictions assigned under either tier 1 or tier 2 I’d have to believe that would help our case even further. Just a thought anyways.

Yes it does seem to be very confusing and also looks like there are sections that contradict with each other.

Section 290 (B) states: This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to registration pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).

Paragraph (3) (C):
(C) The person was convicted of violating any of the following:
(ix) Subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 288

It seems like they are assigning Tier 3 based off of being convicted of 288(c) as listed per paragraph 3. The other contradiction is that if it was a misdemeanor they assign it to Tier 1 but paragraph 3 does not specify on whether a felony or misdemeanor will be a Tier 1 or 3 it just says that if you are convicted at all it will be a Tier 3.

Yep convicted of 288(c)1
served 1 year in jail not prison probation released 3 years early because I was granted 1203.4 (expungement)with a 17b (misdemeanor) and I’m assigned to tier 3.

Hi Janice. I please guilty in 2001 to 311.11(A), 311.2(D), and 282.2(B). I know they are all wobblers and the 311.11(A) was filed as a misdemeanor. I was classified a Tier 3. Never touched a minor. I find it incredibly unfair and outrageous that I am a Tier 3 for these charges and 20 years old. I really hope that things will change for my situation ASAP. I appreciate any suggestions or help you can offer. Thanks again! Jacob

Hi again. Sorry it was 288.2 (B) Sending Harmful Matter to a Minor

So I’m a 30 year misdemeanor I just went in for my annual and received my doj tier assignment of tier 1my birthday was a couple days ago. My 10 year requirement to register category ended 20 years ago technically. My understanding was that the july 1st date only applied to those whose requirements to were ending in that particular year and would force you to wait till the following birthday. My 10 year period ended 20 years ago. I guess I was hoping I could start the process this july but it sounds like I will still have to wait till next year?

In this first year of petitioning, the “birthday rule” applies to all persons eligible to petition for removal regardless of how many years they have been required to register. If your birthday is in the first six months of the year (January thru June), you must wait until next year (2022) to petition for removal.

Copy That, if people would only listen or read the site AND participate in training, if it applies to elgible RC.

In interested in having this information and petition forms available incidentally what exactly is required and what is tiered registration I’m not quite clear on this thanks 🙏

This tiered registry petition (SB 384) is for the state of California as it was implemented on July 1, 2021, but the tiered levels were assigned starting on Jan 1, 2021.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) pdf on SB 384:

Here’s a link for Public Defenders to assist with the petition:

I hope that helps!

Thanks New Person, I am sure it will if they missed the session Janice & Chance supplied on the 8th Training and ALL the other times on Conf. Calls and this helpful site. Thoughtful for those lost @ Sea (of paperwork addressment)

I’m told by an attorney that it’s possible to get m case back into court and she may get me off registration and was informed I fall under av10 year registration

Hire that ATTY Kenny

Too bad about the interruptions. Hopefully you can remove them from the meeting quickly next time.

ACSOL had its first experience today with multiple “Zoom bombers” who disrupted the training. We will learn from this experience and provide a new form of training on a future date to be determined. Thank you to those who signed in hoping to be educated about the petitioning process of the Tiered Registry Law.

Amazing how much chaos and worse others can do without having to suffer as we do, so long after having “paid our debt to society”. Thank you for doing all that you do.

Thank you for trying again. This training is very important. If you fill out the forms wrong, it looks like it can delay the process for months.

Several options to reduce the impact of hackers: Set to mute all participants upon entry, remove participants who are disruptive. Perhaps assign someone to police the participants so that the speakers are not disrupted.

Can someone explain who actually gets scored on the Static-99R? Do you get scored if you received probation with a short jail term, or is this strictly for those who went to prison and got released on either parole or PRCS? I get conflicting information. Plus, I have heard from numerous sources that CA is still offense based rather than risk based, and risk scores are not relevant in determining tier designation. So, why is risk considered for the Tiered Registry when the risk assessment is supposedly only to be used by probation pre-sentence and parole upon release.

Are you going to publish the video that was hacked? I think it would be helpful for all to see what we’re up against. The “Twitter Bombers” may claim to have been only joking, but that is not so clear and we should be able to decide for ouselves. It is possible the vigilantes feel they suffered a great defeat with the tiered registry, and this Twitter hack is merely a sign of what is next in the war. Please publish the video so we can all decide what to think.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x