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

 

ACSOL NewsCalifornia

Court Stops First Challenge to CA Tiered Registry Law

A judge in Sacramento Superior Court today stopped the first challenge to the Tiered Registry Law.  The action was taken during a virtual hearing held before Judge Shama Mesiwala.

The case in question involved a challenge to the assignment of individuals convicted of Penal Code Section 288(c)(1) to Tier 3, the highest tier.  The basis of the challenge was the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

“Today’s decision will be appealed,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “Until this decision can be overturned, individuals convicted of PC 288(c)(1) will continue to be assigned to Tier 3 and must register for life.”

According to the court’s decision, individual convicted of PC 288(c)(1) are not similarly situated to individuals convicted of PC 288(a) although both offenses involve identical conduct.  Under the current language of the Tiered Registry Law, individuals convicted of PC 288(a) that involves a victim under the age of 14 are assigned to Tier 2, however, individuals convicted of the same conduct with a victim who is 15 or 16 are assigned to the highest tier (tier 3).  Because these individuals are not similarly situated, the equal protection does not apply, according to that decision.

The court’s decision also focused upon the requirement of a 10-year age gap for those convicted of PC 288(c).  In its decision, the court ignored the fact that two additional offenses requiring the same 10-year age gap (PC 289(i) and PC 286(c)(1) are assigned to Tier 1 and Tier 2, respectively.

“It is possible that today’s decision is based in part upon the fact that this is the first challenge to the Tiered Registry Law,” stated Bellucci.  “If an appellate court agrees with this challenge, lower courts will follow that precedent.”

Law Office of Janice M. Bellucci

Tentative Ruling – Aug 2021

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
51 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you for the update Janice and I know you will continue to fight this.

First salvo, thank you Janice and Team!

“Hmmm, let’s see”, says the judge, “Not similarly situated?”
Judge sees 288(c)(1) is on Tier 3….and 288(a) is on Tier 2.
“There! It’s obvious! They’re not similarly situated – they’re on different Tiers! Case dismissed! Next.”
🙄 God help us! 🙄

Every now and then I must remind myself that “The law is an ass.”
And I remember the Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell were both prosecutors and I’m certain of the truth in that saying.🙄

ill add Kamala Harris.

True enough, C.

Please make the distinction between her gender and her role as prosecutor, it’s the latter I question. In case you haven’t heard former prosecutors make good political candidates for both sides and both have engaged these candidates regularly for 200 yrs. The parade of former prosecutors in the administrative branch via election has cost liberty the most. The less middle ground to breath equates directly more chaos.

I’m glad this will be appealed because it doesn’t make any sense why the courts did not see it as an equal protection unless they don’t read for nuance.

if a) is tier 2 involving 14 year olds or younger,
… then b) involving 15 and 16 year olds should also be tier 2.

Instead, b) involving 15 and 16 year olds are placed in a higher tier, tier 3. Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense.

go get ’em, Janice!

Whoever said legislatures ever made sense when it came to considerations like this when crafting legislation (or their minions actually doing it in the basement behind a locked steel door with only one light bulb, dripping water in the corner, and food scraps tossed in once a week)?

I’m just going to bring this up here because it seems appropriate:

Minors who are 15/16 (and under) can make informed decisions when it comes to intimate relations because they are able to make informed decisions on whether they are going to get a covid vaccine or not w/o parental consent says the informed medical and legal professional in the NE area of the country (at least according to Larissa Morgan of UPenn Carey School of Law, Jason Schwartz of Yale U, and Dominic Sist of UPenn Dept of Med Ethics and Health Policy in the JAMA Pediatrics journal (article posted Jul 12, 2021 on CNN.com))

@Janice – I believe this would be a good current relatable argument for this filing given the real world situation. Given no one knows the full ramifications of the vaccine, e.g. sterilization, etc, over the long term, minors who are complicit and actively participating in intimate relations without any coercion and know the ramifications of it should have their partners no higher than necessary in a tiered law structure. This is just my opinion.

Similarly, anyone who is allowed to drive a weapon of mass destruction (i.e. a car) on a public road is surely also competent enough to make decisions about their own bodies (vaccines or sex). If they aren’t, then I don’t want them driving on roads and endangering the lives of my family and friends. They permanently maim and kill people other than themselves.

I was 19 when I made a bad ‘informed’ decision and ended up on the registry. Minors 15 & 16 (and 17) year olds able to make informed decisions? Don’t think so. When you are 30-40 years old and decide to try and date a 15 year old, you know the penalty. You are old enough to know better. I met ladies who told me they were trying to hang with older crowds when they were young teens. That is scary. One solution would be to start checking ID’s on dates or quit trying to get with a high-schoolers and end up in 288(c).

I’d say those ages are smarter today than when you were 19 and the commensurate ages were around. They can make informed decisions and know it, but choosing to is something else.

No matter how smarter they are these days, they can still land you in jail and the registry. You have to be smarter than them to keep your freedom.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rob

It seems a real shame to me that the courts can’t bring in the idiot lawmakers who write these statutes. I think it would be great if they had to answer questions under oath in front of a judge about exactly what their intention was when they put one group on one tier in another group on another tier. I’d love to see them squirm as they try to make a reasonably sensible argument.

Well the Defendants in this case we’re really holding onto that 10 year age Gap. I thought it was really interesting to see how the courts in California viewed the new tear system and how they felt about 288(a) offenders.
I agree 288(a) crimes are way more severe than 288(c)(1) i guess the age difference between the victim and the offender plays a bigger part in in these decisions then I thought.

Good luck

Stop trying to throw (a) under the damned bus. “If (c) is under there well, let me tell you, (a) is way more severe and should be under there as well.” Glad you are not bringing this case to the courts. You just might convince them to make everything tier 3.

p.s. This is half way in jest. take it lightheartedly as that is how it is intended.

@Aero1, I usually agree with you but not this time. How is a 288 a, way more severe? Remember, there many many who were 18 and were in a Romeo and Juliet type relationship where the victim was 13 almost 14. Maybe even 2 days away from being 14. That is more severe than say a 50
Year old with a 14 year old? How so? The bottom line, we can’t judge others cases as we don’t know the facts, like age difference etc.But I do believe they should no way be a Tier 3 but a Tier 2.

Your right my bad 🤔

Trying to stay hopeful, but it is getting harder and harder to do so with all the continued push back by some courts on gains in other areas.

Really thinking the best way to attack this is to change legislation and public opinion versus cases law as precedent is killing us.

My reading is that ACSOL won the similarly situated and equal protection argument, but lost on the rational basis. To paraphrase, only a crumb need be rational. The court also left open the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Is there any research on 25-year-olds being more inclined towards recidivism? Put another way, since the overall recidivism stats for all offenses are so low, wouldn’t the 288(a) and 288 (c) offenders both be very low in recidivism? The government’s argument is that 288 (c)s would commit new offenses, but 288 (a)s would not, as much. Or something.

But even if more recidivism comes from 2(a)s, that wouldn’t necessarily cancel out the rational crumb. On the other hand, maybe the government is arguing that 288 (a) should be a tier 1.

Please be careful using the word “recidivism” which includes arrest/conviction/parole violation for any reason. The better word to use is “re-offense” which means a subsequent sex offense. Why? Because the recidivism rate for registrants is high (more than 75 percent) while the re-offense rate is very low (less than 1 percent while on parole). Society keeps passing new laws that harm registrants based upon the recidivism rate which includes parole violations (like drinking a beer at a family picnic) yet the stated purpose of the new laws is to prevent registrants from committing a new sex offense.

Point taken. Thanks. Would you agree you won the equal protection argument?

Not similarly situated .huh.
Looks like juveniles get the fair deal.
288(a) tier 2 and 288(c) tier 1.
Interesting…
https://sccgov.org

Last edited 1 month ago by webmaster

Nice find, Robert!

Maybe Janice can use this example to show how the Juvenile System has it correct with respect to tiers. Which shows the people in charge of the Juvi system actually read the penal codes.

Well,after reading the tentative ruling much seems still in the air.A vacuum,void of common
sense and integrity.One doesn’t need to introspect far to find the intent of the legislators
and tier assignments.It was established in SB421,and past all committees in the house on the hill.Well,of course,until Mrs.Fletcher drop it
in her waste basket.Her intransigent behavior haphazardly landed non-predatory and non-
contact offenses up on tier 3.Originally,311s
and 288(c)s were in the 2nd tier,that was the
legislator’s original(unbiased)intent.Until one
particular individual’s desk it crossed.Now we have this-SB384-rot with sentiments and
fallacious biases in the acted bill. Save the children and keep their offenders all in lifetime condemnation.Well,the children are safe and the defendant was charged with 288(a)or (c) and placed on probation.
Probation,that in its self is the pinnacle of fairness, denotes a rehabilitative
path.Unlike their aggravated counter parts PC 288(b)1 and 2,which are not given probation
and are sent to prison, and were assigned to tier 3 in SB421.While understanding this quality
and disparity with these offenses,the law makers assigned 288(c) to the 2nd tier in the original
bill-421.The current bill also reads,” a conviction of a felony that was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
shall be tier 2 or 1.” 288(c) by itself is not predatory or violent,neither is 311’s and were in tier 2 ,as felonies,in the original bill.
The original bill 421 already demonstrated rational bases of the law,not SB 384.SB384 was a compromise and put probation qualified persons to the highest tier.
Of course,any misdemeanor conviction in 290(c) is supposed to be in tier 1.Well,we will see.

What an arbitrary distinction. So molesting a 14 year old is somehow less severe than with a 15 or 16 year old? Absurd.

You say absurd. They say narrow tailored.

Again, this depends on the age of the victim and the offender. If your 18 and your girlfriend is 13, non sexual, how is that more severe than a 50 year old with a 14 year old? Common sense there. You can’t judge one offense versus the other. We can agree that this charge should be a tier 2 not a tier 3. Now that is absurd!

That’s a good point. But that same person can be 50 with a 13 year old and still be charged under 288(a) tier 2

Your point is well taken. That’s why the bill carved out exception for those between 18-21. However the way it is now someone who is 50 whom offended a 13 year old will still be put in tier 2.

Yes, possibly. But they could score high. My point is, neither one can be considered more severe. Each charge has a set of facts that might make one worse than the other, vice versus. In the end, both charges should be a Tier 2. And I am confident Janice will prevail!

Man, I am not even going to comment on this suit other than good luck. How about a suit demanding individual dynamic risk assessments before categorizing and projecting people into levels of dangerousness thru the tiered registry.

I am strongly leaning toward pushing for 290 termination for those registrants whom have COR on record but can’t get off the registry because of their underline penal code conviction. This has so many constitutional issues and should be dealt with forthwith !

Cancel Culture,
I am in that exact place, I have COR but it si still not enough to get off the registry. I would like to team up with others in this position to find a solution

The solution is to get rid of the Oppression Lists completely. They are not based on facts or reality and there is no way they can be justified. It certainly cannot be justified that there is no national, public, lifetime Gun Offender Registry.

Everyone should stop beating around the bush and trying to play the “get me off the registry” game. Until the Lists are destroyed there must be war and consequences.

I see you continue to make these comments about demanding a risk based system, that the actions being taken are unfair, etc. We can get into a pissing match comparing various offenses, but none of that is appropriate such as someone with a 288c1 can be looked at poorly due to the age difference (yet as determined by the legislation is a less severe offense with a less of a penalty and is a wobbler), a person with a 288a committed an offense on someone under 14, someone with a 288.2 specifically sought out a minor off the internet with sexual intent as the focus, someone with a 311 downloaded sexual images of minors…and so on. We can divide ourselves by looking down on a anouther subgroup of individuals within our group of 290s as a while. All of them are poor actions and decisions by all of us who are 290s. We have paid out debt to society and should not continue to be punished by the system and society for our transgressions.

No matter what system is implemented, a conviction based one or a risk based one there will always be people who are “screwed over.” Example a young guy male will automatically score a 4 or higher on the Static 99 even if he has the “least severe” penal code violation.

We have to educate the public and law makers, about the reoffense rate, facts of all our situations and circumstances, and so on. They have to understand that the media portrayal of all of us is wrong, and it is a direct result of this brain washing that people believe the registry must exist in order to keep themselves safe. They don’t know truth about 290s, nor do they know the real risks they have to deal with. They don’t know the while registry does more harm than good, and causes more of a societal drain than they believe.

This re-education and change of opinion can be done, as I do this on a small scale already with at least 2-3 new people every week that I interact with. Their opinions change at the end of our conversations! They understand that we have paid our debt to society after completing our court imposed sentences, that we deserve a right to privacy as a guaranteed in the US and CA constitution, and on a greater scale they understand that the barriers society puts in place for us (and other individuals with criminal backgrounds) in terms of employment, housing and so on is acutally putting a greater stain on them, tax dollars, etc.

So, Mike rather than trying to put together your own pro se lawsuit, which will likely cause more harm than good and rather than posting whining complaints demanding risk based assessment lawsuits, why not focus on everyone, the whole group, and not yourself as an individual. I mean aren’t we in this together?

TP and Mike R – In Mike’s defense, I think, many are missing the point of what Mike is trying to advocate. Whenever the term “risk based” is mentioned, everyone here refers to the Static-99R that consists of 10 questions that will never change since they are “static”. However, according to SARATSO (State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders), not only the “static”, but also the “dynamic” risk must be considered, which Mike is mentioning. The new SB384 has a mistake in their wording, calling the SARATSO the “Static…” when it should be “State…”. If “Dynamic” factors such as offense free time, family ties, jobs, etc are considered, then anybody, regardless of the offense code and/ or initial risk score should benefit. Karl Hanson himself wrote an Amici Curiae brief to support the importance of offense free time and how LE are not using the Static-99R as intended.

@TP

You make the argument here in your words that a risk based system is no worse than another because people will be screwed over regardless. With that, individual risk assessments are needed where a multitude of assessments are used to make an overall assessment, not just one system, e.g. Static-99. @miker points out the flaws of Static-99 in earlier posts but overall his argument is sound. You can educate someone all you want, but if the risk assessment of someone is not added to the argument, it is only a partial argument. People are mischaracterized continually because of a conviction without risk assessments. Therefore, bring all of the data to the table for discussions individually and collectively or don’t come to the table at all, all together as one.

My example was one of many I could of made and not wholly inclusive.

My main point loops back what I said in my original post. The only solution is to change law and perception to get rid of the registry and public registry (at least for those with non-mental health diagnosis of sexual deviant tendency).

Re: ” (at least for those with non-mental health diagnosis of sexual deviant tendency).” Yeah… no. That’s just really, completely, at odds with the science and with justice. Please give that more consideration.

Exactly. Its called a slippery slope for a reason. Once you carve out and exception to removal based on “Non-Mental Health Diagnosis of Sexual Deviant Tendency” then you open the door to EVERYTHING getting this designation, or more exceptions being added down the road. Its the path to destroy all our gains.

You mean add more exceptions to the exceptions that are already in place and approved by the courts when they clearly are not constitutional, e.g. ex post facto?

Yes, throw out the static 99. It is only good for the first few years if at all (there is data supporting the use in the first few years). Dynamic risk assessments are individualized dynamic ratings that include everything in your life, time offense free, accomplishments, family ties, statistical analysis, and any number of factors. These risk assessments they are touting are gas lighting and smoke cover and make people think, mostly the sheeple, that they are somehow basing their decisions on actual risk when they are in fact making decisions based solely on penal codes. Suits challenging this none risk based penal code system and have been successful. Individualized dynamic risk assessments would benefit everyone not just the few that the legislature decides to graciously relieve them of their continuous persecution by allowing them to access the courts that we can already access anyway without their permission to petition. Dynamic risk assessments Janice, it needs to happen and happen soon, they will be placing people into these tiers and not only tying it to relief possibilities but also and most importantly they are projecting levels of dangerousness to the public without any basis for doing so. This is a problem that cannot even pass rational basis review, unfortunately(and I am not claiming to be an attorney or to even claim I know what I am talking about) I see this equal protection suit as dead on arrival…

ACSOL,
It does seem possible the virginity of the question in complaint is the cause for rejection. Experience counts in that equation and often circuit courts employ lawyers (judges) who’ve a lesser grip on the key necessities. Not all lawyers are motivated equally to seriously challenge the null. Without the most obvious and discernable facts otherwise most cases are punted like this one. Equal protection is a tricky thing to prove because congressional intent (10 yr opposed life) in statute enjoys presumptive good in effect. But there is another issue here. It rests in the various purposes of the standardized waiver. Because registration, like immigration-crime deportation law, are still deemed civil and regulatory regimes the ability to contest minutiae must be properly sustained upon conviction. Most of the time ( 95%) it has been waived. I refer most to Kentucky v Padilla to highlight the point. In Padilla: a coke dealer suffers a felony hit by plea\conviction but in entering plea was not informed of the deportation( by the record) potential( very likely), so Padilla catches a break by the courts neglect to inform him ***and his representation***of civil small stuff violated equal protection. However this doesn’t close the issue completely, but it does force you to do so ( prove unequal treatment) by the statutes alone, or until you find a defendant and case without the state having a standardized waiver in the record.

Gov. Newsom and nacny Pelosi have two of the most influential families in San Francisco the two families are linked together through business and politics and some by blood and marriage.
Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom also go way back Kamala worked with Gavin’s ex wife at the District Attorney’s office for decades.
Kamala Harris’s little sister also has ties to the White House she was one of three senior policy advisers for Hillary Clinton, so i know the politicians in Washington hear us knocking they see us the just don’t wanna answer the door, trust me V.P Kamala Harris and the California DOJ knows who Janice Bellucci is.
The Defendants in this case were very cocky because they know they got the court’s and legesters on their side, can you imagine if the plaintiffs had over 104.000 people on their side, standing outside the Superior Court during this hearing the Defendants would’ve had to kissing the plaintiffs azz in the name of public safety.

Good luck

YOU ARE ON POINT! MASS PROTEST and lack there of is all sex offenders fault as a body! It is long overdue but I’m not putting that on advocates. Advocates have zero responsibility for that lack therof! IMO the lack of resistance to slavery to database property says a hellava lot, about the lot. However the same can be said for the people as a whole for being convinced by Madison Ave. to accept it. It will not be the first time America has accepted it as a way of life. Some fought to the death to defend the civil regulatory regime in the civil war. Only the vocabulary and definition of property has changed.

Our government has and is still number one in human trafficking, registrants are the new property and our master is law enforcement. We may not be bonded physically; yet if one doesn’t comply you can be looking at decades locked up on a technical violation. Sounds like a lashing to me without the actual beating.

Oh my gosh I’m a tier 3 in all this verbal abuse epic. Lets see.. theirs labeling, numbering, tier status, genius status, fool status, wise men and even idiots. So were does all this registry status come from.” If a man thinkest” I believe that is still in the bible as I’m sure its not in Websters dictionary.

 It is said Actions speak louder than words, yes there is good actions and bad actions. Even classifying someone as judge, jury, or prosecutor can be a human challenge. Sure war is Hell and for many this registry is a type of hell to some.. Many want to figure out all this registry by man’s understanding or some quantum theory or does anyone even take time to read warnings or instructions. Intimidation is a key factor. Sex is only a motivator.

Assigning Tiers? Well many court systems should just as well assign brain matter. Can we all say this is like a 21st century Catcher in the Rye game via a computer or some blunder of man’s device. Talk about a version of truth. Even this tier assignment reeks of a sham type justice.

Can anyone point me in the direction to find this courts decision online so I can print out the decision for my own personal file. My 288 (c) 1 was reduced to a misdemeanor and I’ve been registered for 20 years. I’d like to collect any and all info about this issue to keep up to date with hopes this Tier 3 288(c) 1 issue moving forward. I found the lawsuit Janice filed Feb 2021, I can’t seem to find the court’s decision. Thank you in advance who could steer me in the direction to find out more about this issue

There is no final decision in this case. In fact, there hasn’t even been a hearing yet on the merits of the case. Instead, the judge granted the government’s demurrer which is similar to a motion to dismiss the case. We must first appeal and win that appeal before there will be hearing on the merits. Please be patient.

Ok thank you

51
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.