ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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.org

 

General News

CA: Public Defender Offices Available to Assist Registrants Petition for Removal

Twenty public defender offices have made resources available to help registrants petition for removal from the registry.  Below is a link to a list of those offices.  Missing from the list is Los Angeles County, however, both San Diego and San Francisco counties are included on the list.

Click here to see the list. This will also be available in the Resources menu

 

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
106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This CA petition removal process is a joke and a cover that makes it appear that CA is conducting risk assessment hearings when it is in fact NOT!!! CA needs to be sued to follow in line with the Alaska SC, Hawaii SC, and now the South Carolina SC which require actual risk assessments based on risk factors and not conviction codes. If ACSOL or someone else fails to file such a case soon I will be filing by August.

mike r:
What usually happens with these in pro per lawsuits is that some clown who thinks he’s a legal scholar sues the state and gets a bad decision that some attorney has to unravel in future litigation. Trust me, the states love these in pro per lawsuits that get bad law on the books.
Go ahead and file your lawsuit and screw all of the registrants in California.

Do you think a risk assessment would exclude the codes? Serious question. If so, what would the risk assessment include? The only one I know of is the Static-99 and how would that help?

California uses “SARATSO” scores which, if I understand it correctly, are built on top of a modified Static 99, possibly for the better but who knows? My question is, are SARATSOs being scored for each of us prior to receiving our Tier Level? I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my Tier is Level Two. Surprised because my friends were under fourteen and I had thought that that was a dividing line below which one was doomed to Tier Three. Since I have been on the Registry for nearly thirty years, is time spent on it “crime-free” being factored into ones score?

@Natorious DIK

congratulations on the good news in regards the tier assignment. Hopefully your date to request removal will come quickly.

As I understand it, if your crime was prior to 2006/2007 there were no risk assessments and there is no trigger requiring the state to do a new assessment. Also in the case of the static 99 it’s not applicable to do the assessment years after the fact, which was part of the justification to have the 2 year TBD limbo for people without an assessment score.

Once again, I hope you are able to submit your request ASAP!

Interested Party, thank you! Since the U.S. Gov’t has now made me poor due to IML (my job required extensive travel), I may well qualify for help from the San Francisco Public Defenders Office and I am about to file an application in the next day or so. I’m still very skeptical, though, based upon what Janice and others have said about the current Tier system. It was my understanding that there was no way to get off if your offense involved under-fourteens. I strongly suspect that’s true.

Notorious, best of luck to you.

It may be true that bad things happen to good people, but it is equally true that Good Things happen to good people…which is you.

You’ve been in line for a while, it is your turn at the chance window.

That is too metaphysical…there is just deserts; but that isn’t correct either…we are all pulling for you.

Was your tier assignment 3 or 2, (if you don’t mind me asking)

Regardless, get in there and win this sucker for yourself and all of us.

Best Wishes, James I

@Notirious D.I.K.

I understand not expecting anything positive to happen. That has been my perspective for the most part, however I decided to pursue any and all avenues to be removed from the obligation to register.

It took longer then I wanted, and cost more then I could afford, but with the help of family and friends and a lot of patience I finally received relief. At nearly ever turn every expert cautioned me that it was extremely unlikely and/or impossible to get relief.

All that to say, keep trying! It can be a disheartening process but if you get relief it will be worth the struggle!

@interested party. Thanks! Congratulations on your win. Can you confirm that you no longer have to register?

@Notorious D.I.K.

I can confirm, I no longer am required to register.

I have the judges order which states the DoJ must notify the court if they determine I still have to register. I also have a letter from the DoJ (dated about 2 months after the court) confirming I no longer have to register.

More then a few professionals were surprised that the DoJ signed off on it.

Notorious – SARATSO is comprised of (3) risk assessments. The static STATIC-99R, the STABLE 2007 (Dynamic) and the LS/CMI (Violent Risk) tool. All three should be considered when assessing risk, but it sounds like those who are assigned Tier 3 solely based on risk are getting scored only on the STATIC-99R when the dynamic factors, such as offense free time also need to be calculated. Per CASOMB, many were placed in Tier 3 based on risk at the time of release, but the offense free time was not considered. CASOMB said they were re-evaluating this oversight. As to your other question, I am curious, too if the DOJ really did a risk assessment on all 150,000 registrants prior to designating tiers. We were never given a Static 99-R pre-sentence, but the DOJ assigned us Tier 3 based on risk assessment.

Congratulations. Past 20 years your good to go under Tier 2.

Ditto – What do you mean by “would a risk assessment exclude the codes?

By code I mean conviction offense per the penal code. Would risk assessments ignore whatever the conviction was? If so, how would risk be assessed? I’m pretty ignorant of how that works and wonder if risk assessments could actually be more forgiving or less. I understand that many stuck at Tier 3 are looking around for potential relief, but I wouldn’t know where to start. Maybe risk assessments are the solution for them. I think many suddenly thrown into Tier 3 were hit by an arbitrary and capricious change in the law and maybe that could be another door to knock on.

Mike r – I am confused with all this risk assessment stuff, and my head is spinning. As to the Tier Designation, it looks like they ARE considering risk assessments when assigning tiers, yet when petitioning to be removed they DON’T? Does anyone know? Our Tier designation was not based on the offense penal code (which is a Tier 1), it was based on a risk score? Who did the score if not Probation? Has the DOJ started scoring people who have never been scored when the bill was introduced in 2017? It’s all so confusing.

CA tiered registry is fairly simple at the moment. Your placement is based on your conviction codes OR the Static-99 score, if the score is 6+. You will not be downgraded for having a low score.

Also, the age of your victim is currently irrelevant outside of it being a specific factor for your conviction code. If, youre charged with a code that’s ambiguous about the age, it doesnt matter if the victim was 90 or 9. You won’t be bumped up in tiers just because of the civtims age.

As far as the petion to get off, the DA has to show credible evidence of you being dangerous. Your original crime should not be part of that consideration, but rather your conduct since then. If you had a clean slate, theres no rational to say youre a danger. But if you had some criminal issues or whatever, that can be used against you. At least, that’s how it should work on paper and how ACSOL perseves it. I’m sure the first few years will have some poor rulings that’ll need to be ironed our. I’m also sure Janice is already considering an attack plan the first time someone is denied solely for their original crime.

@mike r
I totally agree if you need a second , I’ll jump on board . I have the feeling Janice will smack down a law suit regarding this subject. Heck , the code shouldn’t mean crap especially for RO’s that have been registering for two decades . Risk risk of reoccurring type crimes are more relevant than a stupid code ! Keep pressuring this issue on comments to every news story published.

Cancel – It should not be based on either in my opinion. Offense Free Time is proof enough someone is not going to commit another crime, and if they do, they can just be arrested again, just like they do with every other crime. Risk assessments are like Polygraphs. They are junk science. Nobody will ever be able to really know if someone will re-offend again. The risk assessment is done based on certain populations and crimes who re-offend, but they don’t assess those same populations and crimes who do NOT re-offend. Nobody should be added to any list after they served their time, and arguing which is better, risk or offense based should really not be an issue if we all can just be free after time served.

anyone no matter if two conv’s or a 2nd within 3 yrs, as long as it has been MORE than 35 or 40 YRS or MORE + SHOULD BE ON AUTO if they Never had any incidents since the above, they DID THEIR TIME! And a Pysych Eval. . GOOD LUCK ALL July 1 is coming soon mine is the 17th but don’t QUAL….TIER III

Unpopular opinion: risk assessments are one the worst, if not THE WORST, parts about registration.

These “risk” assessments, whether the Static/Saratso (or other), have nothing to do with severity of crime and have this weird way of upping risk of non-violent offenders, as well as younger offenders.

These so-called assessments merely scoop up everyone else whose crimes weren’t severe enough so that the “higher” risked folks are put into higher tiers, almost equal to SVP’s, and the registry is propped up and given the illusion of being necessary in the eyes of the public. The assessments are merely political and have nothing to do with efficacy, justice, or even public safety.

The danger of risk assessments are highly underrated and are probably the biggest threat to civil liberties in the future in my opinion.

Risk assessments are a sham. They are as big as a sham as the really shady studies that back them up. If you’re in doubt, look into these crystal ball pseudo sciences with an open mind yourself. Dig into the mud. Read and examine these so-called “studies,” look at the authors, and look at who the authors are citing. The ethics in the validating studies are null to ZERO. (Yeah… I’m referring to the shameless conflicts-of-interests.)

Personally, I don’t trust anything that pretends to predict the future. It’s a slippery slope from here…

Here we go the California SB384 is only 2weeks away people in California can actually petition the court’s to be relieved of their duty to register I never thought I live to see this day thank GOD I never gave up on myself and didn’t commit suicide under all the pressure Megan’s law has put on me and my family.
This is gonna change the lives of tier 1&2 sex offenders living in California especially for the guys who been registering for 25+ years I know their anxiously waiting to petition the courts so they can finally get on with their lives.

Good luck 🥶

@Mike R – ACSOL will not be filing the type of lawsuit you have described. We wish you great success in your lawsuit.

So, no one is ever going to try to get real risk assessments then? Okay, thanks.

Thanks for the reply and heads up though.

Will there be a place to contact for Los Angeles County in the future?

Risk Assessment means absolutely squat in my book.

When I was released on parole back in 2010 I had to be assessed by a doctor/psychiatrist on the outside to see if follow up s$x offender treatment was necessary. I had the full course while in prison just soon before that. It lasted over one year.

The psychiatrist/treatment provider in prison told me I would not need further treatment when I am released on parole.

The doctor/psychiatrist that did the assessment after I was released sat with me. Asked me a few questions, make a few notes on a piece of paper and then told me I would require further treatment. No explanation at all. So I wondered why there was such a difference in opinion from the two psychiatrists. The one in prison knew me for over a year and said I would not need further treatment. The one that just met me and interviewed me stated I needed further treatment. Made absolutely no sense to me. Treatment sessions would cost me $40 a week which I really count not afford.

So why did this psychiatrist that just met me and spoke with me for just a few minutes feel I needed further treatment? Come to find out this doctor/psychiatrist worked for the dam treatment provider I was to be “treated” by. Can we call this a conflict of interest? So of course this doctor will say I need further treatment – it means more money to the company he works for. The first group session the socalled therapist told me that I would be in group for as long as I was on parole – no chance to graduate etc. So this told me that this treatment provider was holding my freedom (if I did not attend group I would be violated) at ransom to the tune of $40 per week for the next 4 years. I think that is called a guaranteed income for that company.

So assessments in my book are garbage!!

How is anyone going to get a non-biased assessment?! It won’t happen so no one will end up coming off the list.

You said, “Made absolutely no sense to me.” Really? Because you explained it in your very next sentence starting, “Treatment sessions would cost me $40 a week …”.

I think just about anyone can benefit from good therapy. But “sex offender” “therapy” is idiocy. First off, it is beyond idiotic to think that people who commit a sex crime need “therapy” and people who commit other kinds of crimes don’t. That’s so stupid that just talking about it will make you dumber. Next, there is no way that any “therapy” is going to do anything good if it is based on the assumption that I am a liar and I might be imprisoned if I don’t do it “correctly”. The “therapy” that I was forced to pay for was not just completely worthless, it was a lot worse. I actively retaliated because of it. They certainly did not understand how to handle me correctly.

I was surprised and now pleased to see my county is one of those who offers help in the process. I don’t get to apply until November after 35 years on the registry. Can’t wait to start hearing the stories about applying for removal and what results!

Daam 35 years I need to make a podcast interviewing people who’ve been on the sex offender registery that long to see how they survived this nightmare.🤔

I have been on registry for 33 years. I received suspended sentence and 5 year probation, at end of probation I applied for and was granted relief thru 1203.4. The law regarding COR was changed 3 months prior to my qualifying waiting period before i could apply for a COR based on 288(a). No problems since conviction, always registered on time, not even a traffic ticket. I forgot to mention released on OR before my sentencing. Now Tulare County say they don’t have enough staff to start processing release applications for at least a couple of years. (even though they have had at least 3 years to prepare) What happened to the money they received from the state and feds for their sex offender control and cost. I ask for my tier assignment and was told they have no idea. I can file on July 1st because of my birthday but how?

37

I filed my COR in LA last year. Super easy. The deadline was July 1st! Granted/off registry. I only submitted 4-5 letters of support, wrote a letter to the court and put a nice packet together. The lawyer (law firm) has lawyers who have established relationships with the DA’s (multiple counties) and he provided me a 90% guarantee. I had a 17b/expungement and my request was granted! The COR with bold letters stated no longer required to register pursuant to 290! I received a letter from the DOJ 3 weeks thereafter/confirming this. The LA paralegals working for the county didn’t even know the SB384 was going into affect July 1st! In summary, if my COR had been granted after July 1st, I would still be on the registry and I would have to file via the tier law. Be prepared for court Delays and submit your documents stat. I believe LA with the new DA will be very fair, unless you have multiple background issues. I never submitted a psych evaluation, no saratso score (my counsel noted the DA could’ve requested this). I know they ran a background check. If you read the LA county procedure for COR, they might visit your location if you have multiple issues, but I’m not aware if they came to my home? None of my references where called? 243.4 a – 17b expunged summary probation/clean record. The LA county paralegals weren’t aware of the time lines or really aware of SB384. My counsel for a COR cost 1200

I was granted my CoR in October 2020 and also relieved of the duty to register. I still haven’t received my letter from the DOJ. I’ve sent two emails and called three times. Yesterday, I was told they would call me right back. Nothing.

What law firm did you use?

FreshStart Law Firm in OC

I received a letter from the DOJ about 2 weeks after receiving my COR. It states I’m no longer required to register. Thereafter, I received a letter from the Prisons & Parole Board, informing me this is also an automatic application for a Pardon.

Silly question probably, but where exactly does it say under PC1203.4 that it does not relieve you of the duty to register? I see that it says it does not permit you to own a firearm, run for public office or apply for a State License, but I don’t see the actual verbiage of the “does not relieve of duty to register”. Even if it says it, and I missed it, where does it say it can not be considered for Tier Assignment?

I dont recall which penal code it is, but its a separate amendment that states that. It’s not within 1203.4. It’s somewhere in the 290

It isn’t considered by the fact that the tired registry doesn’t mention it. It’s a positive factor when filing for de-registration, but not one specific to it. You having it or not having it, shouldn’t make much of a technical issue.

So, I see that PC290.007 says it does not relieve you of the duty to register, and with the Tiered Registry we all still have to register (10,20 or life), BUT with the Tiered Registry, or the previous lifetime Registry, PC1203.4 should certainly mean to regain the right to privacy. PC290.007 does not say “does not relieve from public disclosure”. So, in that case PC1203.4 should trump 290 and be considered.

In some instances, getting the 1203.4 does allow one off of ML.

The problem is that the registry and 1023.4 is using “court dismissed information/accusation” and passing it off as a “live information/accusation”. How can information be dismissed and used as live information simultaneously?

The answer is it cannot. Why? Because a court dismissed information/accusation is a benefit to all those who qualify for 1203.4. Also, the fact that 1203.4 does disqualify specific sex crimes from the 1203.4 program implies that the court dismissed information/accusation benefit represents a general rule, not a specific/special rule. (That’s how Kelly v Municipal was able to override PC 290 with respect to another 1203.4 benefit of released from penalties and disabilities stemming from the offense to be relieved from the registry.)

Kelly v Municipal’s argument can be utilized once again, but this time with the backing of two items:

  1. the court “shall” dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant, as specified by 1203.4
  2. the right to pursue and obtain privacy, as specified in the CA constitution

By California Constitutional law, there must be a pathway to regain privacy. That pathway is distinctly specified in 1203.4. Thus, the registry forcing one to divulge private information when your case has been dismissed as well disseminate information not eligible for use is coercion under color of law as well as unconstitutional.

The registry is a statutory scheme based upon public information that can be undone when a state has a specific “right to privacy” law in its constitution and a program that dismisses the accusation/information against the defendant where the imperative word “shall” means only one thing that the state cannot override.

Clumping those who qualify for the 1203.4 with those not eligible as a blanket coverage for sex offenses should be quantified as cruel and unusual penalty, especially for those on the registry before the switch to tiered registry. Why? Because it renders 1203.4 useless for rehabilitative purposes as well as the discretion of the court to treat this case differently to place the defendant into the 1203.4 program.

It doesn’t say it doesn’t relieve you of the duty to register.

PC290.007 is the a new law that states 1203.4 doesn’t relieve you from registering. Why? Because CA courts cite that in-person registration was no longer considered punishment and reversed Kelly v Municipal of 1958 (iirc), which relieved the duty to register. (If the link doesn’t work, here the address: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/160/38.html )

But since the registry was deemed statutory in 2003, I don’t know if anyone has used the fact that California has “the right to pursue and obtain privacy” in its constitution. Why is that constitutional right important? Because 1203.4 states:

the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant 

Since the registry simply disseminates public information and the granting of the dismissal of the accusation/information via 1203.4, then the registry cannot be using dismissed information because the case no longer exists. Therein lies the rub of two conflicting laws: 1203.4 vs PC290.007, or any new law that continues to delay justice provided within 1203.4 and supported by the California Constitution.

I would emphasize “the court shall” as an imperative action that cannot be undone. Yet, PC 290.007 or the new tiered registry is undoing that action that cannot be undone. The registry is using dismissed information as information that was not dismissed.

Legislation addressing the tiered registry clearly states, in no uncertain terms, that the use of the SARATSO tools must be in accordance with the Coding Rules. For the Static-99R, the Coding Rules states, in no uncertain terms, that “[s]tatic risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years. For offenders released for longer than two years and who have remained sex offence free, consider their overall behaviour and factors external to Static-99R in your overall risk assessment.” Pg. 13.

Understand that the Static-99R is purportedly a snapshot from release; it is not a dynamic test that revaluates every moment, and certainly not every year, or even decade, that a person has been offense-free in the community.

Also keep in mind, at the end of the day, this stuff is Minority Report “science.” It’s a similar type of risk assessment to those used in California’s new no bail initiatives that a lot of scholars and civil rights advocates cry afoul to. Yet when similarly flawed assessments are used for “sex offenders,” said assessments get a free pass.

Anyway, I listened to the past ACSOL phone calls in which people cite the Static-99R only being valid for 10 years.

No.

If you read the Coding Rules, it clearly states that the Static-99R is only valid for “approximately two years.” It does not deserve 5x validation, especially in light I bet that the two year validation is already packed with conflicts-of-interests by its own “validators.”

The fact the legislature gave the Static-99R essentially a lifetime, or 20 year, validation — depending on what crime you committed — is just pure insane.

The justice system is just a huge joke. Faith in government is ZERO.

Let me ad: if you have a wobbler, get a 17b. A Judge won’t always grant one. They may only grant a pc 1203.4. If a 17b is granted, you can obtain a gun. I filed a 17b -granted and then a pc1203.4a. Then, I did a pc 851.8 (non factual/detained in LB). Thereafter, I later filed a COR and it was granted! The COR won’t relieve everyone. Plus, the deadline was July 1st! Thereafter, the tier law comes into affect and it won’t relieve anyone. I’m no longer required to register! If I was on the registry, I would move fast and try to obtain both a 17b and expungement. It will look better if you attempt to get off the registry at a later point. Best of luck

TMZ or USA – I know we have not always been on good terms (and no, I am not a troll), but I would like to know about your experience with the COR. Did you have to provide character letters, did they interview those who provided these letters, did you have to show up in person and say a few words, or did your attorney do this for you? Was it a stressful process or doable? Thanks in advance for any input.

I submitted a letter addressed to the court, I submitted reference letters to the court, I submitted references for them to call, a copy of my degrees and that’s it. I showed up to court and my case was delayed. I never walked into the court, saw the judge and I don’t think any of my references where contacted. The DA stated my presence wasn’t required. It was almost too easy? Freshstart law. Very honest, reasonable and they have great contacts and relationships with the DA. LA

It was stressful, because I wanted the process to be over! Would they contact my references? Was the DA playing games? My counsel evaluated the case and they (David) is very honest. I believe (clearly) ran a national background and that’s it. I wrote a great letter and provided about 5 reference letters. I’m still in shock it’s over. I obtained the COR in the mail a week later (it states in bold: no longer required to register pursuant to 290! I obtained a letter for the DOJ about 2-3 weeks after. I never (2 counties) was contacted by my registering office! Both clerks looked me up: congrats. Your registration is terminated! I feel relieved, I live in peace and I have a clean record! I’m now filing to re obtain a professional license.

Hello TMZ,

I may have missed something in your thread, my apologies in advance for a redundant question if it applies. I am under the assumption that anyone convicted of a SO who received a prison sentence, is not eligible for an expungement. I would be happy to pay $1200 but I am not sure it makes any difference.

KP – Let me jump in here. If you served a prison sentence, you would not be eligible for an expungement and need to apply for a COR (Certificate of Rehabilitation) instead. That is what TMZ did. A COR, not an expungement.

Allow me to also jump in. I, too, believe TMZ is formerly USA. From what I recall in his older posts, he had a 17b and expungement granted prior to his filing and earning the CoR.

I did the same. In 2014, I filed a motion to terminate probation early, requested a 17b reduction, and 1203.04 expungement. The judge granted all three. I applied for the CoR last year (2020) and that was also granted. Like TMZ, the process was simple. A statement to the court, character reference letters, and the appropriate forms filed with the county court. There were no background checks or follow-ups with the references. I did show up for court but my attorney did all the talking. I expected it to be hard fought arguments and debates, but the judge simply said he was going to grant the CoR.

Thanks for all the responses. One question was not exactly addressed, though, I think. I understand that those who did not go to prison have to get a 1203.4 first before applying for the COR. But, what about those who did go to prison? They can still file for a COR, right? BUT, they would not be able to get a 1203.4 since it is not available for those going to prison. That was my main question.

Those who went to prison are ineligible for a 1203.4. They can file for a CoR but the granting of the CoR may not relieve them of the duty to register. They would need a governor’s pardon. Once the CoR is granted, the application is automatically send to the governor for the consideration of a pardon (regardless if you were previously granted 1203.4. All CoRs granted are automatically considered for a pardon).

Where that differs for someone who served only county jail, they need the expungement and 17b before getting the CoR, which would relieve them of the duty to register.

Either way, it is a two step process for registry relief.
jail: 17b/1203.4 + CoR = relief of registry.
prison: CoR + governor’s pardon = relief of registry. It has been said that no registrant has ever been granted a pardon.

The above will be moot come July 1st since the CoR will no longer relieve the duty to register for anyone.

With registered persons being excluded from everything else, I’m surprised this headline didn’t read “PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICES AVAILABLE TO ASSIST REGISTRANTS PETITION FOR REMOVAL, EXCEPT FOR THOSE CONVICTED OF A SEX CRIME”.

Now, this is funny!

I have another question on expungement and/or COR. It says, if you went to prison, you can’t get an expungement and would need a COR. Yet, a felony that received probation needs to be expunged first. That seem illogical to me. So, the person receiving has to pay for the expungement and then again for the COR and the person going to prison would only have to pay for the COR? Is that another money making thing?

@someone who cares

Trying to apply logic to the criminal justice system is often counterproductive. That said here are a couple thoughts about both processes as someone who has gone through both and received both.

First for the 1203.4 which is not really an expungement but rather it goes back and dismisses your conviction. A person seeking the 1203.4 with a sex offense conviction is eligible for the 1203.4 prior to being eligible for the CoR. There are limited benefits for this if it does not also remove you from the online listing.

Getting the 1203.4 also starts to form a track record with courts that you are meeting the requirements to clear your record.

Finally on the 1203.4, if you qualify for it the court is required to grant it. There is no wiggle room, the DA is required to prove that you do not meet the requirements.

Some people have stated on here earlier that they applied for both and received both at the same court hearing.

The CoR is entirely up to the judge and the case you make and the case the DA makes if they decide to challenge your request for the CoR.

If you meet the requirements for the 1203.4 you can fill out the forms and submit the required documentation without legal representation, or use the public defenders office for an assist if you live in area where they have a track record of helping. Then, if for some reason things go wrong you can then get assistance from a lawyer for an appeal.

Hope this helps, but none of it changes the premise of your statement that it is illogical.

Essentially, they are two separate process that offer different kinds of relief for those with trouble on their criminal backgrounds.

Technically, it wasn’t designed to be a money making scheme. It was designed to make it more difficult for registrants to get off the registry. A registrant probation term could be a year to five years, which the possibility of early termination. Once you successfully complete probation, then you automatically received the 1203.4. A CoR petition requires registrants to a 10-year waiting period and a judge’s approval to be relieved of duty to register, provided you are eligible to de-register.

Originally, the CoR was a pathway of rehabilitation if one wasn’t eligible to earn the 1203.4. Usually those who served in prison were not eligible for the 1203.4.

It wasn’t until PC 290.007 that prevented those who earned the 1203.4 to be relieved of the duty to register. It was when the new PC 290 laws that pushed to have 1203.4 to be required in order to file for a CoR if you didn’t go to prison.

The difference between having a 1203.4 and not having one as a registrant is the possibility to not be seen on ML’s. Aside from that, there really isn’t much difference and renders all of the benefits of the 1203.4 program useless.

As far as I know, only registrants are singled out from benefitting from all of the 1203.4 immunities and are forced to jump a higher threshold of rehabilitation via the CoR. It is not equal to exclude one group from benefitting from immunities and force only that group to yet a higher standard of proof.

With your case set aside and your accusation/information dismissed, how is it possible for a statutory scheme be able to use your case and accusation as currently live case and information? To be on the registry, there has to be a trigger. 1203.4 intimates the court “shall” remove that trigger. Yet, you remain on the registry with the trigger removed. Your right to obtain privacy has been negated with 1203.4.

Yes, you pay more if you did not go to prison and are eligible for the 1203.4, but you also do spend a majority of that time not in prison. Yet, either way, it’s a blanket coverage that all registrants are highly volatile and needs a 10-year wait to be considered to be off the registry in front of a judge as opposed to proving one’s self through the probationary period.

1203.4 is a farce with respect to registrants as the quality of life improvements compared to all other former convicts who earn 1203.4 are unequal.

I’m almost 100 % positive you must get an expungement prior to a COR! I’m positive. Go onto fresh start law firm and submit an evaluation. I believe he no longer does the COR in OC. You can submit a free online evaluation. I’m positive your charge must be expunged prior

Hi TMZ, I filled out the evaluation form and he said they “choose not to worked with sex offenders.”

If it’s YOUR PDefender, it’s against CA Law. Sad

Sorry. He gives a 90 plus percent rate. I noted that on his site recently. I think in LA now. I was a pc 243.4a- 17b, expunged with summary probation. I guess I got lucky. Sorry. I only paid 1350. Very sorry.

hey, how do we contact your LACo Atty TMZ ? thx

TOO LATE FOR CALI, Better call Atty OBERSTEIN for THE CORRECT RESOLVE!
Don’t guess or others on here, he’s an actual qual’d Crim Atty (OC) California Pract. Please don’t ask from other States, he doesn’t know their laws and Off. Codes. Good Luck

Bottom line: certain offenders could get off the registry if they obtained a COR by June 30th! Otherwise, I would highly recommend obtaining both a 17b and expungement ASAP! You must obtain (it’s right on my document) a expungement prior to filing a COR. I’m signing off and moving forward. Wishing everyone the best

It is too late to get a COR. I contacted two attorneys, and they said there would not be enough time to file it with the court before July 1st.

Yep! Correct. The entire process took 9 months with delays. I had initially called the public defenders office and both LA public defenders weren’t aware of the law. Most people thought the tier law went into affect January 1st! I read the new tier law in detail and it actually addressed the June 30th date! I personally can’t believe I’m no longer on the registry. I was having nightmares (I’m not presently online) my neighbors would find out. Sending everyone the best. Signing off

I live in orange county. I was wondering if I should apply for the tier registry to be relived of my registration duties

Do you have any friends or family who reside in LA? I’ll explain. What’s your conviction? History?

no, my conviction was dismissed under 1203,4. 664/288(a)

FYI: I processed on my own a 17b, expungement and pc 851.8 on my own. I think I’m pretty knowledgeable. I processed a COR in OC, but the DA was nuts/liar. My plea took place in LA. I was just awarded a COR in LA and off the registry! I might know a few people who did this. If you read the registry law regarding residency, you must register at your residency and any other residency you stay at, no matter how many days or nights. Hint. If you stay (by law) at more then one residence, you must register there. I guess it’s up to you to determine which is your primary or secondary, You can go online to change your address/DMV. I (hint) imagine LA is much more friendly to registrants. I met (hint) a guy who never saw a judge or met the DA and was awarded a COR! Bold letters: I hereby order you no longer to register. Good night. I want share how I know this. Rent a room? Relative? Uncle?

Yes. But when you can do it depends on what your conviction codes were and how long it’s been since your conviction. If you don’t mind sharing that, people here can offer you some insight. But ultimately, it’ll be best to consult a lawyer who deals in these matters as their general practice.

ok I contacted the in San Bernardino They call me back 3 days later And Asked me if I was to intrested Heck yes I’m intrestedAsked A few questions Asked me Give them proof I was currently registered No problem and my tear letter Which turned out to be difficult I contacted the local LAW office where I have to register at And ask Tear letter And they gave me dirty looks and told me I could not have it until the 1st of July And I would have to make appointment to get it so, The next day I drove to San Bernardino About 2 hours away Records division They gave me my tear later without a problem Handed them my ID and that was it I obtained all the paperwork they needed so they seemed to be on the ball Wait and see what happens got my fingers crossed

is there any word when Los Angeles County would have a place to contact?

I would contact the LA public defenders office. They have 2 paralegals that can assist you with this. George Gascon is the current DA! He is very liberal. I walked a COR through LA – granted/ordered removed from the registry and I never attended a court hearing/saw the Judge or DA! If I was a registrant in LA, I wouldn’t wait another second. Unless you have multiple convictions/arrests/violations, you have a 90 plus % chance of success! My neighbor is the DA for the city of (the head). He stated that unless they find something crazy in the background check, your good! I’m now a 17b/expunged and COR. It’s almost surreal. Best wishes

Just spoke with the Alameda County Public Defenders office. The process there begins with:

clearmyrecord.org

And to reply to my own post… cleanmyrecord.org does not seem to cover the county of my conviction, Sacramento. Messages have been left for both clearmyrecord.org and Alameda County public defenders office Clean Slate team for next steps.

Status as I have it.

Last edited 3 months ago by bruce Ferrell

I have been advised by clear my record that Sacramento county is not accepting application via clear my record and they suggested a contact at the Public Defenders Office also:

American River College Expungement Clinic

– http://arc.losrios.edu/legalstudies

Volunteer Legal Services Program at 916-551-2155 – they have a record mitigation clinic which may be able to help

This is the list of counties that ARE cooperating with Clear My Record.
If you’re eligible and your county of conviction is one of these, get busy and contact clearmyrecord.org before someone manages to close the door:

Alameda County (near Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Pleasanton, or Livermore)

Contra Costa County (near Richmond, Concord, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Antioch, or Brentwood)

Fresno County (near Fresno, Clovis, Sanger, Kingsburg, Mendota, Fowler, Selma, Coalinga, Orange Cove, Reedley, Huron, Kerman)

Marin County (near San Rafael, Novato, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, and Larkspur)

San Diego County (near San Diego, Oceanside, Chula Vista, or El Cajon)

San Francisco

Santa Barbara County (near Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Goleta, Carpinteria, Solvang, and Lompoc)

Santa Clara County (near San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Morgan View, or Gilroy)

Santa Cruz County (near Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Capitola, Felton, Scotts Valley, Aptos, or Boulder Creek)

Solano County (near Vallejo, Fairfield, Vacaville, Benicia, Dixon, Rio Vista, or Suisun City)

Sonoma County (near Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Sonoma, Sebastopol, Bodega Bay, Healdsburg, or Cloverdale)

Stanislaus County (near Modesto, Turlock, and Ceres)

Ventura County (near Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Camarillo, Ojai, Moorpark, Fillmore, Santa Paula and Ventura)

Yolo County (near Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland)

THANKS Bruce! PDef. don’t always work, especially when they are overburdened.
Thx for CLear My Rec. info. for dif counties, thx again Bruce.

And the latest followup… clear my record/clean slate practice only handles low income/indigent persons, they do, however, make referrals to other local agencies/attorneys.

This is fine by me. I have some time.

Before the zoom meeting was bombed, I found out that I can’t really file before the beginning of August in any case.

This small delay saved me from an error that could have delayed me by years.

To get a live scan, you WILL need to show up with a form… At least the UPS store I went to required it. In the past they had them. Go figure.

Just signing up at clear my record will get you the information to get the form you’ll need.

For warned is for armed.

— Party on Wayne! Party on Garth!

Last edited 2 months ago by bruce Ferrell

Unfortunately, Sacramento County is not currently accepting applications through Clear My Record. To clear your record in Sac, you can contact the Sacramento Public Defender’s Office at (916) 874-5578 to see if they can help you.

Also try: American River College Expungement Clinic

 – http://arc.losrios.edu/legalstudies

Volunteer Legal Services Program at 916-551-2155 – they have a record mitigation clinic which may be able to help you.

The following list of counties are accepting applications via Clear My Record.

If you’re eligible for the process, get busy and contact Clear My Record before someone manages to close the door.

If you’re not registered in one of these counties, list in in a reply to this. Information is out best tool to assist one another through this process.

Alameda County (near Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Pleasanton, or Livermore)

Contra Costa County (near Richmond, Concord, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Antioch, or Brentwood)

Fresno County (near Fresno, Clovis, Sanger, Kingsburg, Mendota, Fowler, Selma, Coalinga, Orange Cove, Reedley, Huron, Kerman)

Marin County (near San Rafael, Novato, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, and Larkspur)

San Diego County (near San Diego, Oceanside, Chula Vista, or El Cajon)

San Francisco

Santa Barbara County (near Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Goleta, Carpinteria, Solvang, and Lompoc)

Santa Clara County (near San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Mountain View,

Sunnyvale, Morgan View, or Gilroy)

Santa Cruz County (near Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Capitola, Felton, Scotts Valley, Aptos, or Boulder Creek)

Solano County (near Vallejo, Fairfield, Vacaville, Benicia, Dixon, Rio Vista, or Suisun City)

Sonoma County (near Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Sonoma, Sebastopol, Bodega Bay, Healdsburg, or Cloverdale)

Stanislaus County (near Modesto, Turlock, and Ceres)

Ventura County (near Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Camarillo, Ojai, Moorpark, Fillmore, Santa Paula and Ventura)

Yolo County (near Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland)

Initially I was told that I had to apply in the county of my conviction… That is not accepting application via Clear My Record.

I got a response from the Alameda Public Defenders office and was advised this process happens in the county of registration. They had me sign up at Clear My Record under Alameda County.

That form is simple and I have been advised of the local agency my application has been assigned to. I am also advised that I will need my rap sheet and instructions for that were provided.

Next stop… LiveScan!

Wow! I’m a little surprised such discussions are taking place. This law was passed over 2 years ago? For myself, I ran/sprinted to LA when I saw how liberal the DA was. I 17b/expunged my records years ago. Plus, I even did a 858.1 years ago as well. We just saw a virus disrupt everything and while it has caused delays within the courts, this was the time to get things done with all this down time. I was granted a COR (removed from the registry) months ago and it was almost too simple. I’ve had LE, LA County paralegals (they provided me incorrect info/can’t be done) and even a DA and several lawyers tell me I missed the cutoff date of January 1st, when it was July 1st. I’m clear. Get moving guys. If it’s a wobbler, get a 17b or expungement. Don’t walk, run. Wishing everyone the best. I’m off/expunged and hope I can help one person. My COR cost $1350!

So how many of you were sweating the Tiers and where you might land like I was? Turns out, it was settled months ago. There was no need to guess and fret.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ado/Documents/290%20Sex%20Registration%20Removal%20Petition_Juvenile-Adult.pdf

Ditto – where did you get this form? Is that available online or was it given to you at the Police Station?

It is from the Santa Clara public defenders office. Each county will have individual contact info.

Last edited 3 months ago by Ditto

Great info! What do you do if your charges have been expunged, a judge has granted you a COR and your no longer on the registry? Please advise

I could not find the tread, however, I got tear letter, today, and it is #2 and my birthday is December 30 and I been on the registry for 32 years.

I’m surprised the Static 99 is even relevant because it’s probably one of the worst (if not THE WORST) thing about this new law. I remember reading a university paper that said the Static’s authors didn’t believe United States APA ethics codes applied to any of the Static 99 risk assessments because they, the authors, are Canadian. That was a danger flag right there and left a bad taste for me personally, at least in regard to the Static 99, since then.

I just don’t understand how a risk assessment is given tons of power with this new law. To my uneducated and layman mind, so much of the Static 99 doesn’t make sense and appears completely contrary to logic. Non violent? Add a point. Have a male victim (which essentially implies you’re being punished for being gay)? Add a point. And so on…

Just a gut feeling that the Static 99 is probably the worst thing about the Tiered Registry, in the same junk science category as the polygraphs, crystal balls, and tarot cards.

Someone prove me wrong.

Skyler – Over the past 3 months, I have done a ton of research on the Static-99R and its flaws pertaining to the new law.I am intimately familiar with what is wrong with it, and why it technically should not be used for tiering people. I’d be happy to share my findings. Not sure how I would be able to get in touch with you if you are interested in it.

The tiered law states that Static-99R risk assessments shall be conducted “as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.” Per page 13 of the Coding Rules, “Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.” Thus, the Static-99R is only valid for two years.

Of course, this is not going to stop Seung C. Lee, R. Karl Hanson’s student from Canada’s “Carleton University,” Karl Hanson himself, and/or any of the Static-99R Scam “developers” [Amy Phenix, Yolanda Fernandez, Andrew J. R. Harris, Maaike Helmus, and David Thornton] from continuing to write “validation” studies, unabashedly citing their own work, and/or any of their proxies’ work, despite the blatant conflicts-of-interests. These hucksters, and their proxies, will continue to double-down on their Frankenstein creation, hoping that the incompetents in government, as well as the average Joe, doesn’t deep-dive into the Static-99 tests’ methodology, and point out the endless flaws to all of their “risk assessments.”

When you look back into CASOMB and SARATSO’s history, and examine WHO on these board were pushing “risk assessments,” it becomes obvious the SARATSO/Static-99 schemes were all about finding a clever, “scientific,” way to keep registrants in “sex offender treatment” programs.

Now we are stuck with the consequences, due to the greed of a few. And unfortunately, our inept lawmakers have ran with the notion that “risk” will be accurately predicted, relying solely on conflict-of-interested validation studies.

Also, here is an interesting law review article, written in 2020, authored by a law student from the University of North Carolina Law School, titled Sexual Abuse and Statistic Misuse: An Analysis of the Static-99R:

As it stands, one of the primary pieces of evidence used in civil commitment hearings is the Static-99R, which has low predictive accuracy, is commonly misunderstood, and gauges only a likelihood of recidivism. To use such an instrument when the Act explicitly calls for a determination that an offender would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation, combined with the high burden of proof, is both unethical and unconstitutional. Viable alternatives exist to demonstrate sexual dangerousness, but because the Static-99R has not been convincingly challenged in court, it remains the most prevalent instrument in use.

If the Static-99R is being questioned for Sexually Violent Predators, then why is it, without question, being used to “tier” non-SVP’s?

Also, per the tiered registry law, it says that if the score on the SARATSO tool is 6+, the person will be assigned Tier 3. SARATSO is the “State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders”. In 2003 California adopted the Static 99R as the Static tool, and in 2013, California adopted the Stable 2007 as the Dynamic tool per the SARATSO committee. Who took it upon themselves to consider the Static-99R but not the Stable 2007 when it came to tiering? They both make up the SARATSO, not just the Static-99R. Furthermore, a score does not stand alone. It HAS to be given by trained and authorized personnel, AND this personnel has to be able to INTERPRET the score. If a person receives a score, but that person’s offense is not in any of the sub groups this idiotic risk tool was tested on, the score can not legally be used. There is so much more to this than 10 questions that will never change, but it seems like the DOJ is clueless about this as they don’t realize that the score can for the most part never change. So, the obvious thing is to consider the offense free time as the main risk assessment. The Static 99R is just one component of a risk score.

@someone who cares – Completely agree.

SARATSO also includes STABLE/ACUTE and the LS/CMI ‘dynamic’ assessment. So you can score low/very low risk on two of the risk assessments, but then score “well above average risk” on the Static-99R. According to the California Department of Justice, this ‘well above average risk’ designation, via Static-99R, is enough to put one into Tier 3 — which is absolutely absurd!

Why is the Static-99R given so much power?

Last edited 1 month ago by The Static-99R Is A Scam

It says, if their score is “well above average” according to the coding rules of that tool. Have you read the 2016 revised Static 99-R coding rules? It clearly states (by Hanson himself) that for anyone who has been offense free for 2 years, the score roughly halves. Yes, they can use the Static-99R, BUT they also have to abide by the coding “Rules” and need to interpret the score. Are they?

@someone who cares — Again, completely agree.

When the Tiered Law’s writers incorporated the Static-99R, either they did not fully comprehend the Coding Rules themselves — and/or they were hoping to “pull a fast one” on the legislators, judiciary, and the general public. A “risk-based” registry makes for a great, politically popular, buzzword. But the practice of forecasting an individual’s ‘risk’ runs afoul to the spirit of human freewill and into the realm of Minority Report “science.”

When the legislature incorporated the “Coding Rules,” the tiered bill was passed, then signed by the Governor, the Static-99R Coding Rules were incorporated as de facto legislation — and rule of law — that the California Department of Justice, CASOMB, and SARATSO are not adhering to.

In sum, the California Department of Justice, CASOMB, and SARATSO are not following the law, as incorporated in the Static-99R’s Coding Rules. The Coding Rules are law — and must be followed verbatimly… word for word.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, the issue you brought up in regards to the Static-99, which is sometimes called “validation” in the social sciences, is endemic to psychology as a whole—psychologists can apparently predict who will commit suicide no better than a coin flip:

@ Literally nobody – The “experts,” particularly in CASOMB and the California Department of Justice, could have limited the Static-99R to use for ‘triage’ of prison population (which was why the Static-99 was originally created), as well using the Static-99R as determining who “needs” more “treatment,” for the sake of appeasing the personal financial interests of certain corrupt CASOMB board members (some of whom has/had a financial stake in at least one sex offender treatment business).

Instead, the corrupt bureaucrats ran with the Static-99R, for the sake of making it seem more credible, with zero concern to the slippery slope, akin to the Minority Report, that relying on so-called “risk assessments” will lead to in the future.

These are the same bureaucrats that say “think of the children,” but are leaving an increasingly crap world, complete with 1984 vibes and crap foreign and social policies, for future generations to live in.

I obtained my COR prior to July 1st. I’m off and I never walked into court/saw the DA – other then walk by and I never saw the Judge! I obtained this in LA. Dept 100! If you write a letter taking accountability/if required/working hard/clear record/no further arrests/you might be able to get away with a few minor offenses, you should be good! LA is now very liberal. My neighbor walks his dog right (no joke) by my house every night. He is the DA for (supervisor/LA county city). His comment: he shook his head. Unless they find something serious, your good. OC is another story. I filed the same COR in OC! The DA /and investigator where liars, manipulated the truth, stared me down and did whatever they could to get my straightforward request denied. The Judge responded: I can’t see one reason to deny it; but it’s not enough? Well, I’m off?

If the judge tells me I no longer have to register, when can I stop?

You may stop registering as soon as the judge signs the court order.
The Court will send the order to the Department of Justice. It may take some time for the court order to make it to the Department of Justice and for the Department of Justice to update their records. In the meantime, we recommend you keep a copy of the court order with you in case law enforcement questions you about your registration status.
The Department of Justice estimates they will have their records updated between 30-90 days after they receive the court order. The Department of Justice will send you a letter when the record has been updated.

—————————————————————————————————————

This seems conflicting with what’s been told to us on this website and supposedly even what some judges have said to people to whom they’ve granted relief.

Janice or anyone else: do you concur with this, or should we register until we receive a letter in the mail from DOJ and/or local PD?

Your duty to register stops when DOJ takes you off of their list. Your local PD goes by the DOJ list, they’re just the middle man in this “statutory scheme”. DOJ still needs to confirm that a person qualifies for the immunity to registering.

If you received your de-registration paperwork from the judge, then go to your local PD to show them you earned it and ask if you can call them from time to time to make sure that DOJ has taken you off the registry. Sometimes, the DOJ takes a long while to send you the letter that you are no longer on the registry, so calling in might be faster. But make sure the Registration LEO clerk informs you that you are no longer on the registry and try to get a written statement or print out while you wait for your official letter from the DOJ. If the Registration LEO clerk is helpful, then officer will call up the DOJ to inquire where in the process they are at in mailing the letter to you. Maybe the officer could initiate the expedition of the process to happen faster with the officer calling the DOJ about your matter.

_________________________________________________

This is akin to getting a 17B. Although the judge may have granted you the 17B, the order must be sent to the DOJ to acknowledge the order and implement it. For registrants, confirming the DOJ has acknowledged your 17B reduction is the difference between being a tier 1 or tier 3 in California’s new tiered system.

IMO, until DOJ affirms the granting of the judge’s order, then the judge’s order hasn’t been fulfilled to its completion. I guess you can say it’s a two part process.

  1. The petition must be granted by the Judge.
  2. The granted petition must be sent to and acknowledged by the DOJ.

Recall that Janice told us to make sure the DOJ is notified that they receive the granting of your 17B. The best way to do this in a California system is to look online at your case file through their portal. It should state for your 17B petition that it was sent to the DOJ. Then that’s when you wait about a couple of weeks and call up the DOJ about your status or you can waste money doing a background check on yourself. Or maybe contact your local PD and see if you have been granted the reduction (that’s something new I didn’t think about).

Once the Judge signs the court order, it is the legal paperwork to which you can hold up as direction. That is how a court order works. Others may disagree with the court order or delay its implementation, but the court order is your shield from them and their potential actions.

Ever watch Parking Wars on TV? It’s a documentary of ticketing, booting, and towing cars based on parking violations.

  1. Don’t park according to the city’s rules… get a ticket.
  1. Get so many tickets… get booted (lock placed around one of your cars’ tires.)
  1. After a time period, usually by darkness… your car get towed and impounded.

So you pay the fines once it’s booted but before PPA gets the info and they still tow you, what then?. Well, you get towed still because even though you paid they don’t know it/acknowledge it. We all know 1/0’s travel almost instantaneously. But then you pay more because… how the hell is the internet so slow!!!. Get with it 2021… a bit takes… before I can even type the number.

The second a judge signs an order should be the instant it’s executed in 2021. It’s not though because humans have to interact with those bits and bytes.

If you get caught between the bits/bytes and human slowness, you may suffer.

Wrong! I obtained a COR before the July 1st deadline! I was on pins and needles. The so called 2 amazing LA County Paralegals didn’t even know the law! I had hired a private attorney who has contacts (lawyers) In several different courts and he didn’t know! Depending upon your case/conviction, a Judge in my case granted the COR! Thereafter, a COR is printed out and in bold letters at the bottom, descendent is no longer required to register pursuant to 290.05! I have it/copies at home: So, I got an original and this is also documented on the minute order! A copy is sent to the DOJ and (in my case) in 2-3 weeks I received a copy from the DOJ/sex offender registration unit stating I’m no longer required to register, but if (I have to look at the wording) I get convicted of another offense I could be required to register again! No joke. I was informed the DOJ then sends a copy to the registering LE! It takes (online) 30-60 days for the DOJ to update their system: I was never contacted by either (I was registering at 2 locations) police department. I called both and they where wondering if I had petitioned via the néw law? Both admin people pulled me (congrats) up via their system and stated, registration terminated! No police officer has contacted me! Lol. I obtained a née visa a few months later/travelled abroad and unlike being detained/stopped while re-entering the US, I walked in. I obviously have copies of my documents and I’m now re-applying for a professional license. I’ve not been visited for a compliance check and if I was (I would have) somehow mistakenly placed on the Megan’s law in January by mistake, I will sue!

106
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.