An anonymous donor has offered to match up to $10,000 for donations made in support of two new lawsuits that will challenge significant mistakes made by the California Department of Corrections (CDC). The lawsuits will focus upon the agency’s failure to implement treatment regulations as well as the agency’s unlawful identification of women as high risk offenders.
“These two lawsuits are necessary in order to help restore the civil rights of individuals required to register,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “They are a new beginning as we start what is now a steeper climb toward the ultimate goal of eliminating the registry.”
In order to settle a lawsuit in which CDC admitted their treatment policies were inconsistent with state law, the agency issued new treatment regulations in October 2024. One of the requirements of the new regulations is the issuance of a document stating why an individual is required to continue treatment beyond one year. The regulations also require CDC to provide registrants with a copy of that document within 30 days of their containment meeting.
“Unfortunately, we have received a large number of complaints from registrants that CDC has failed to provide them with any explanation as to why they are required to continue treatment,” stated Bellucci. “This includes CDC’s failure to provide registrants with the required document within 30 days or at any time.”
Another lawsuit will be filed challenging CDC’s unlawful use of the FSORA as a tool to determine whether a female registrant is high risk. As a result, CDC is identifying many female registrants as high-risk offenders which triggers a state law that prohibits them from living within one-half mile of any school. This can result in homelessness.
“Research has clearly determined that female registrants, in general, have a very low rate of re-offense,” stated Bellucci. “The low number of female registrants who re-offend is the reason there is no valid tool to determine the re-offense rate for an individual female registrant.”
Please make a donation that will be matched using the “Donate” button on the ACSOL website or by sending a check or money order to ACSOL at 2110 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95816.
As a woman that has had to register since release from prison in 2004 and complete therapy twice because “the state has changed the protocols”, I can tell you that the state was not prepared to evaluate, incarcerate or treat women convicted of sex crimes. The Static 99 was not supposed to be used to evaluate women and yet, I have been evaluated using it more than once. It seems over the 23 years I have had to deal with this, procedures and protocols have been developed on the fly. I was on lifetime supervision from the state of Nevada while living in California, so you can imagine how that played out. Thankfully, I did my own legal work and was granted a release from that in 2018. It has been a long, exhausting haul.
Wow, that’s a generous offer for a worthy cause. Thanks anonymous!!
What Happened to the Tier Registry Fund to Lobby Changes PC 288(c) to Tier 2?
I personally contributed a considerable amount to this effort but have heard nothing. Crickets
see below:
ACSOL News Alert: $10,000 Challenge Grant Offered in Support of Improving Tiered Registry Law!
August 13, 2024
An anonymous donor has offered to match up to $10,000 in donations in order to improve the Tiered Registry Law. Improvements would include, but not be limited to, lowering the tier assignments of those convicted of PC 311.11 (felony possession of child pornography), PC 288.8(c) (lewd or lascivious conduct with 14 or 15 year old), PC 288.2 (felony providing harmful material to a minor), PC 288.3 (unlawful communications with a minor) and PC 288.4 (sting operations). Another improvement would be creation of an “offramp” for those assigned to the highest tier, Tier 3, which currently requires lifetime registration.
My Containment Meeting (CTM) was in January, 2025, I made it a point to be physically present for it, which was frowned upon. Despite CDCR implementing “new” or “revised” regulations to provide a copy of the CDCR 3043 within 30 days, I received no copy of the CTM until I repeatedly asked for and received it in mid May 2025. Even then I was provided only page 1 of the 2 page document. Page 2 is where their reasoning for continued treatment is written. After yet another week I received page 2 which simply said “completion of ty prog.” The Containment meetings are supposed to take place every 6 months and focus upon progress from one CTM to the next, but the information used in my CTM was December 2023 and with a different clinician. My current clinician said she was prohibited from updating anyone’s treatment file prior to this last round of CTM’s. The CTMs are scored using 3 assessment tools: Static Score, LS/CMI, and Stable 2007 (males only) the 3 scores on my January CTM were 5, 14, 8 respectively. My clinician checked her file and told me my Static Score in the system is 2, not the 5 they put on the 3043 form. I told her they changed it to 5 two years ago. She then asked if I understood what the word “static” means, it means it cannot be changed. I then asked her to do a current assessment of LS/CMI and Stable 2007. She did and the score for LS/CMI equaled 4 based on the current information that should have been used. The Stable 2007 scored 4 as well based on current information that should’ve been used. The CTM score in January 2025 of 27 should actually be 10 based on current information and proper Static Score. Naturally I filed a CDCR 602 grievance demanding to invalidate the January 2025 CTM altogether and a new CTM to take place with current information within 30 days. I also addressed the issue of their apparent illegal changing of my “Static” Score from 2 to 5. It is quite apparent that CDCR will revise regulations and implement new ones ON PAPER all the while maintaining the same unscrupulous practices. Their failure to perform Discharge Reviews pursuant to Pen Code 3001 et.seq. has led to my Habeas Corpus challenging their jurisdiction. -in May, 2025 the Superior Court determined that I have presented a Prima Facie case and appointed the Public Defender’s Office to represent me….. I’ve not heard from the PD’s office despite repeated attempts to contact them, so in June I filed a Marsden Motion. Wish me luck people!!