You are invited to join ACSOL Executive Director and civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci and an ACSOL board member for our next meeting. The meeting will be held on Saturday June 15 online on Zoom beginning at 10 a.m. Pacific time, 1:00 PM Eastern, and will last at least two hours.
You can use the Zoom app or you can call in using a Zoom phone number.
There is no registration needed for this meeting. No government officials are allowed to attend the meetings.
This meeting will be recorded. Within a couple of days you can click here to listen (this link is also posted at the top of our pages.)
Discussion topics will include:
- Domestic and overseas travel
- Halloween sign challenges – Missouri, Arkansas, Texas
- SORNA
- When does treatment and counseling end for registrants on parole?
- Reassignment of attempted offenses from Tier 3 to Tier 1
- The California Tiered Registry (now effective)
- Challenges to California Tiered Registry Law
- Other current topics and pending legal action throughout the nation.
Please Show Up, Stand Up and Speak Up!
To join our Zoom meeting with your Zoom app, click on this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83273166148
Or you can call in to one of the phone numbers below, then specify:
Meeting ID: 832 7316 6148
Following is a list of phone numbers you can call for the meeting:
+1 669 900 6833 (San Jose)
+1 669 444 9171
+1 719 359 4580
+1 253 205 0468
+1 253 215 8782 (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 (Houston)
+1 929 205 6099 (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 (Washington DC)
+1 305 224 1968
+1 309 205 3325
+1 312 626 6799 (Chicago)
+1 360 209 5623
+1 386 347 5053
+1 507 473 4847
+1 564 217 2000
+1 646 931 3860
+1 689 278 1000
Or find your local number from around the world: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcQ8fXsCtM
Dear Janice, I will not be able to make the meeting, but wanted to implore you, or anyone who has the ear of a CA legislator or judge, to look into moving CA PC 288.2 violations back to Tier 1 as soon as possible. I am so glad it is on the agenda at least.
I plead guilty to a single felony 288.2 charge in 1997, which was reduced to a misdemeanor halfway through my 4 year felony probation as part of the plea agreement. My victim was 16. Probation did not recommend incarceration because I was “not a danger” to the general population. They did not deem my victim hurt by my actions, physically or emotionally. My forensic psychologist opined that I was not a pedophile, (quite rightly!) I went on to register as a “no-post” for 25 relatively happy, successful years, with no re-offenses of any sort.
No one in my neighborhood seems to have stumbled across my mug shot and address on the internet as of yet, but every day that I remain in Tier 3 it becomes more likely that someone will indeed find out. I have dreaded coming home to vandalism and threats for 2.5 years and counting.
I live in a very densely-populated lower-class condo complex, home to many young couples and single moms with very young children running about everywhere. I doubt that my neighbors could even understand the charge (What exactly is “harmful material”?) or properly assess the relative lack of severity of my particular offence when compared to other Tier 3 crimes and many in Tier 2. I also share a garage with a fellow owner, who would find it very hard to sell his investment property or rent out his unit if I were a person known to be listed as Tier 3 on the registry. I have already resigned from my family business to protect their reputation and I felt I should tell my roommate (whose rental income I desperately-need), and he promptly moved out. My money is running out.
So please, Janis, kindly pass my personal situation along to someone in the CA legislature who might be able to the inspire rest of his or her colleagues to act sooner than later. Or pass my story along to an empathetic judge. I would like all of the lawmakers to better appreciate how personally devastating their 2019 “yes” vote was, (with the worse to come if I am outed), when they re-classified my 288.2 “no-post” as a Tier 3 offense, (pejoratively the “white van” tier) a quarter of a Century after the fact!
Who would argue that their decision was anything less than punitive, cruel and unusual in the most literal sense?