ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online - All Call Posts
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT
Jan 11 (audio added), Jan 25 - Parole / Probation

Monthly Meetings Q1 2017

Jan 28 in Sacramento, Feb 11 in San Diego, Mar 11 in Los Angeles [details]

Lobbying in Sacramento

January 30/31 in Sacramento [details]

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Hand-to-Hand Combat in California Cities

Today we are conducting hand-to-hand combat with cities throughout the state of California in order to challenge their residency restrictions. There are more than 100 cities that have such restrictions and thusfar we have filed nine lawsuits.

The series of lawsuits began last year when we challenged residency restriction in the City of Grover Beach that prohibited registered citizens from moving into most of that small city. It also prohibited registered citizens already living in that city from moving into a new home within the same city…..including Frank Lindsay who was viciously attacked in his home by a stranger who vowed to kill him solely because Frank is on the registry.

We chose the City of Grover Beach as the first challenge because we testified there when the City considered whether to expand its residency restrictions from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet. Despite our testimony as well as verification of the facts we presented by the city’s Chief of Police, the City Council agreed to the expansion.

It took a federal lawsuit to get the attention of the City of Grover Beach. Once that lawsuit was filed, however, the City Council corrected its mistake in 30 days by repealing not just the expansion it had approved, but all of the residency restrictions in that city.

Not all of the cities we have sued have been as smart as Grover Beach. In fact, the dumbest city we have sued so far is the City of Murrieta. Not only did the City of Murrieta fail to repeal its residency restrictions, it filed an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case just a few months later.

In addition, the City of Murrieta is the only city known to have enforced its residency restrictions following a California Supreme Court case that declared similar restrictions to be unconstitutional in some circumstances. The City, in fact, enforced its restrictions only 10 days ago after a registrant moved in with his sister, a move approved by the CA Department of Corrections under an interstate compact.

In its decision to enforce its residency restrictions, the City of Murrieta did not take into account that the registrant has a low risk of re-offense (Static-99 score of 0), is destitute and has significant health conditions that require in-home care. The City of Murrieta did not take into account that the registrant’s sister is the only person willing and able to care for him and that if he is not allowed to live with her, he will be homeless and possibly die on the streets of Murrieta.

What will it take for the cities of California to abide by the Constitution? Will it take 100 lawsuits? Will it take registrants dying on their streets?

Please stay tuned for the answer as we continue to file lawsuits as well as an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that prevents the City of Murrieta from evicting a registered citizen from his sister’s home.

Read all Janice’s Journals

Join the discussion

  1. jd

    Janice, again, thank you for your constant effort to restore the civil rights of registered citizens and their families. Besides Murrieta, what other cities are you currently suing?

    • Janice Bellucci

      The 9 cities that have been sued are Grover Beach, Cypress, Arcadia, Murrieta, Long Beach, Gardena, Bell Gardens, Norwalk, and Apple Valley. Two of the cities have repealed (Grover Beach, Arcadia), one has significantly revised its restrictions (Bell Gardens), one has agreed in writing not to enforce (Cypress) and the remainder are pending.

      • Hopeful4all

        Thank you Janice!!!

      • David H

        Yes thank you Janice; I am a resident of Long Beach and am unaware of any residency restrictions. In fact, I just registered this month and was not advised of any, and merely initialed the standard form. I also was not notified of any travel notifications I must provide as a result of the IML/AWA. isn’t this just plain ole negligence on behalf of the city/state?

        Could you please identify the restriction(s) in Long Beach you are referring to.

        Kindest…

        • David H

          Just as a side thought–I would think it in our best interest to begin suing for the simple things, such as negligence to inform or notify of laws and restrictions or regulations, etc. it may be enough pay some bills to do so, assuming attorney fees and legal expenses are recoverable. If they or someone like myself would be willing to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit, putting up the filing fee costs, etc. as a beneficiaries cost adjusted risk. In my opinion we need to make the government perform all the necessary functions to keep registrants notified of laws concerning themselves, as to not notify us of such punishing laws and their criminal consequences surely is a duty of governments and negligent should they not–certain members of government could also be found personally negligent, etc. With this approach we are demanding this world they claim that exists and that all these laws are administrative in nature–we;;if I can go to prison over if I’m not in compliance with these laws, then I want a perfectly administrated system that works for the public safety of the community. It should become very obvious to them the true cost of what they’ve created and perhaps it’s time to bankrupt some cities or council members and mayors.

          • Janice Bellucci

            As a general rule government organizations cannot be sued for mere negligence although they can be sued for gross negligence.

            • David H

              Yes that’s what I meant (I guess depends on the definition of gross negligence); I meant bankrupt or make a significant financial impact on cities, State government, county, etc for their negligence–it’s all around–no other class of citizen administratively gets treated in such a manner–i don’t know half of what I’m criminally liable for–it’s government and those who personally are involved responsibility to insure I and the public know what I may or may not do. The burden is on them to inform–they have a registration (administrative) process in place where this could be easily managed–there’s no excuse that I dont know what can send me to prison

          • Anonymous Nobody

            Good thoughts David. But as far as not being notified, and thus not having any knowledge about it, that can be a defense if you were to be prosecuted — so in the end, it might be better not to be notified than to be notified. (And you have no legal requirement to sign anything when you go in to register to indicate you have been notified. They will try to make you do so, but you can refuse to — they will have to find another way to prove you were notified, such as bring in more officers as witnesses to it — more burden on them.)

            There are always details about such defenses, and since I’m not a lawyer, l’m not going to say you can use it for all things related to registration, I’ll leave that to the lawyers to say. However, I have read multiple appellate cases where it was ruled that defendants cannot be prosecuted for registration violations unless it can be shown they had knowledge of the requirement — this is why you get any notification about it, so they can prosecute you.

            I note, knowledge is not simply being notified, if there is any other way you came to know, you still knew (such as from this Website), and if that can be shown, you still could be prosecuted.

            Still, your ideas about so burying the locals in costly and constant litigation that they finally scream uncle simply because of the burden is a legitimate, indirect way to fight registration. Of course, you have to consider what other things you are not doing because you are doing that.

      • jd

        I thought the battle with Long Beach was over. Didn’t the city finally agree to amend its residency restrictions this past June?

        http://all4consolaws.org/2016/06/long-beach-residential-restrictions-for-sex-offenders-to-be-amended-after-state-rules-buffers-unconstitutional/

        This especially concerns my husband and me, as he is nearing the end of his probation and we’re considering moving back into our condo (which we own), located between a daycare center and a park.

  2. Robert Curtis

    Has anyone sought to get Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez to contact the city of Murrieta requesting them to repeal their ordinance? That city is in her district I believe. Probably don’t want the request to be hung over the water cooler as a laughing point in the office… I guess the only other recourse is law suite… then NEXT…

  3. Nicholas Maietta

    Wow, they just won’t learn. Janice, i’d be afraid to go hand-to-hand combat with you. 🙂

    GO GET ‘EM.

  4. CA

    I know this is off subject Janice but as for some clarity, SB 448 is just for those registered citizens, convicted after January 1st 2017 correct???
    BECAUSE WHAT CONFUSES ME IS THAT IT STATES =This bill would make a person who fails to provide his or her Internet identifiers, as required by the bill, regardless of the offense upon which the duty to register is based, guilty of a misdemeanor punishable in a county jail not exceeding 6 months.=What does regardless off the offense of which the duty to register is based mean?

    • David H

      CA–if i may–“regardless” simply means if you are convicted of a registering offense no matter (regardless)of what that offense is it (the statute) is applicable

      • CA

        whoa- wait a minute this law is supposed to ONLY apply to those convictions involving the internet!
        and convicted after 2017 right??????

        • Janice Bellucci

          You are confused, CA. My column addresses residency restrictions which went into effect with the passage of Jessica’s Law. You are talking about AB 2569 which has not yet been passed or signed by the Governor. If AB 2569 is passed and signed, it will apply only to those convicted on or after January 1, 2017.

  5. CA

    Also Janice, and i really appreciate your patience, as for clarity again on AB 2569, Is it retroactive?
    and what if your conviction was from 18 yrs ago?
    And you were granted exclusion in 2008?
    BTW, the conviction was not incest related!

    • Anonymous Nobody

      What she just said is that it is not retroactive, she said it applies (as it currently stands) only to those convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2017 — that means not retroactive. Unless you shod have a new conviction, it does not affect you directly.

  6. jason

    These cities are breaking the law. They should be held accountable for knowingly breaking the law….criminals

  7. CA

    I honestly believe I am not alone, with my concerns regarding these two unconstitutional bills, AB 2569 & SB 448

    that is why i am asking these questions, thank you for all you have accomplished!!!!

  8. Unforgiven citizen

    Murrieta is in Melissa Melendez district do we see a connection i think she has issues from her past she needs to come to terms with…

    • Timmr

      I think it is the demographic, not just the person. Not to say it can’t happen, but I can’t imagine a middle class suburban, Trump supporting Republican gaining office in Grover Beach.

    • Robert Curtis

      Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez does have issues from her past and not just for herself. We all have our own ways of dealing with hurt…some withdraw and some strike out in various ways. We are not so disconnected from each other. Hate sadly is also a binding force.

  9. Rambo

    Static 99? I’d like to go hand-to-hand combat with that actuarial “instrument” created and used by a bunch of scam artists.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Liars figure, and figures lie.

      • Jon

        “99” in Static-99R stands for 99% artificial flavor.

        It is hate, imported from Canada. The people who wrote it are from Canada.

  10. David Lambert

    Our favorite California State Senator, Sharon Runner, passed away July 14th. Her replacement ought be better, since it would be hard to be worse.

    • David H

      She sure did do the devil’s work during her tenure on this earth–can’t say she’ll be missed by me

  11. Punished for Life

    Seems somewhat ironic to me, with all of the Murietta talk, that I just visited Murietta, CA.
    While there, along with family, went to some baseball games at “Parks” in neighboring towns.

    This is all entirely a crock of BS.

    The laws that are being passed just make me sick to my stomach.

    I went in, spent time with family and got the hell out of California within 5 days.

    I think it’s still 5 days? Can’t keep up with the changing laws.

  12. Roger

    Janice, thanks for your tireless efforts. Without you and other dedicated CA RSOL supporters, many of us would be in the same hellish situation as the Murrieta registrant. I will support CA RSOL in any way I can, including the Oakland protest.

  13. Erwin

    You think Bell Gardens would have more pressing needs to worry about such as mayors getting assassinated by their wife

  14. Joe Unger

    I commend Janice’s efforts and wish her and her team well. It seems the only way to attack these laws is that they violate so many of the tenets of our US constitution. RSO from Houston TX

  15. ConcernedMistake

    What about the 12 new requirements that just got forced into effect? I went down in California and just got confronted with 12 new requirements. I have copy. Of all 12

    • steve

      How could anyone possibly know what you are talking about if you don’t post these requirements

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Wow, I just went into register a few days ago, and NO changes to the forms.

    • Lake County

      Relax everyone, there are no new requirements. Perhaps this person is on probation/parole and they are only requirements for him.

  16. RH

    Concerned Mistake,
    Please tell us what the 12 new requirements are in California. I’d like to follow them since “ignorance” of the law is not a valid reason for not following it.

  17. Mike r

    concerned what are these 12 new requirements. please elaborate on this subject.

  18. Mike r

    I had 22 requirements on my forms in my last registration in November

    • CA

      My fellow registered citizens, how I keep up with the current laws regarding PC 290 every year, is by going to the ca assembly website and seeing if any new laws have been added! whats convenient, is that under every statute it has the year of implementation. Its at the bottom of the web page under “ca laws” just FYI.

      If anybody has any feedback, i would appreciate that- thank you :]

    • Rob

      I’m very lucky. On my form I’m not asked for anything other then address and work, I only put my address down. The officer who does my registration does not ask me or writes down my work, internet I’d’s, college I attend, vehicles or anything, he just asks me how is everything, finger prints me, takes my picture and says see you next year. It’s only a 5 min ordeal once a year.

  19. G4Change

    Sue Murietta for $1 Billion dollars for violation of this man’s Constitutional and Human rights. Enough is enough!!!!

  20. Mike r

    wow two days later still no elaboration about these supposed knew requirements in ca thats nice throw a bombshell out there then leave people hanging for days…not cool man…

  21. Janice Bellucci

    The judge in the Murrieta case issued a TRO today that prohibits the city from enforcing residency restrictions against a registered citizen. In her decision, the judge relied heavily upon last year’s CA Supreme Court decision, In re Taylor, as well as a recent CA Sex Offender Management Board report. The judge stated in her ruling that “the CSOMB Report suggests that allowing Plaintiff to reside with his sister in Murrieta may promote the public’s interest in public safety, as it would provide stability to Plaintiff’s life….” More information about this decision will be added “soon” to the website.

    • James

      Yahoooo….!

      I am so proud of you!

      (not that this should mean anything to you…but I am just bursting with pride for you and I have tears in my eyes…)

      You are going to have so much good karma going for you the gates of heaven will welcome you with similar joy…which is not to say you’re going to heaven soon, rather you will be welcomed.

      That paragraph above is fairly awkwardly phrased…let me just try again:

      Congratulations, you do good in this world!

      Best Wishes, James

      PS I am just too excited by this to write well…this is a big win.

      • Janice Bellucci

        Due to technical difficulties, the story regarding Murrieta has not yet been added to the website. Here is what we wrote earlier today that will be posted as soon as possible along with the judge’s 10-page decision:

        Federal judge Virginia Phillips issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) today that prohibits the City of Murrieta from enforcing its residency restrictions against a registrant who moved to his sister’s home earlier this month. The TRO will remain in effect until August 15 when a hearing will be held to determine whether the judge will grant additional injunctive relief.

        “This is a great victory for registrants,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci. “For the first time, a federal judge has stopped the enforcement of a city’s residency restrictions in the state of California.”

        According to the decision, the city’s application of its restrictions to the plaintiff violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it was the result of blanket enforcement and did not consider the actual risk posed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a Static-99 score of zero and is physically disabled. He moved to Murrieta under an interstate compact, approved by the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in order to obtain medical care and financial support.

        In its decision, the court considered as evidence a recent report issued by the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) which concluded that “residence restrictions are likely to have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of sexual re-offense.” The report also found that residence restrictions lead to homelessness and are associated with an unstable lifestyle that includes housing instability unemployment.

        In its decision, the court noted that the CASOMB report “suggests that allowing Plaintiff to reside with his sister in Murrieta may promote the public’s interest in child safety, as it would provide stability to Plaintiffs’ life and decrease the likelihood he would re-offend. The court also noted that “allowing Plaintiff to remain in his sister’s house may actually further Defendant’s (Murrieta’s) legitimate interest in protecting children.”

    • Punished for Life

      Janice,
      It’s so nice to hear good news every now and then. With all of the negative news, it’s very refreshing to hear something positive.

      Frank

    • Roger

      Awesome, Janice! You rock! Thanks for fighting for us!

  22. Renny

    Murrieta…….

    A Mormon infested cesspool of incestual deviants. I speculate that not ONE of the City Council members of Murrieta would pass the polygraph examination given to sex offenders.

    Murrieta……. well known by the rest of Riverside County as the city where a black man is truly a nigger, a Hispanic man is truly a spic and the Jews are nothing but oven fodder.

    Murrieta……. Where you slow down to 69 on the 15 simply out of fear that the CHP might turn you over to the city cops.

    Let’s make them pay…

  23. Tara Swift

    My husband was coerced by his public defender, to plead guilty to 1st degree Child Molestation back in 1991 Washington State. We live in Fresno, Ca, where he is on PRCS. His probation officer applies the 2000 ft residency restriction “one size fits all,” and as a result, we are homeless. We need help and have nowhere to turn.

  24. Tara Swift

    My husband was coerced by his public defender, to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit –1st degree Child Molestation back in 1991 Washington State. We live in Fresno, Ca, where he is on PRCS. His probation officer applies the 2000 ft residency restriction “one size fits all,” and as a result, we are homeless. We need help and have nowhere to turn. Fresno is not following Re: Taylor! The Officers at the 290 Registration office have told us they do not enforce the residency restriction and that the PRCS officer who handles all 290s is “hanging her hat on it.”

  25. Tara Swift

    Thank you Janice, for your dedication and hard work. Fresno County needs to be on the list of unconstitutional municipalities.

  26. Mike r

    lake county good to see you are still active on this site and in our fight for our rights.

  27. Anonymous Nobody

    On a related matter concerning residency near parks, and also related to previous forum threads about Los Angeles in particular, I want to inform CA RSOL that Los Angeles is moving more strongly than was already condemned by Janice and others here to have “parks” all over everywhere — the consequence of which in the finality would be to bar registrants from living in Los Angeles.

    The city is now moving strongly under Mayor Eric Garcetti (who I call a fake, especially a fake liberal — well, pretty much everything about him, if you look into it, is fake), to put in “parklets,” which are being done as parks and under the city Recreation and Parks Department, everywhere.

    While the impetus for this appears to be to attack use of cars in particular, but also to roust and/or jail the homeless (the city bars “camping” in city parks, and uses that law to roust and jail the homeless), it clearly will have dramatic impact on registrants, and just as clearly, that surely is why at least some city officials like it — think of the previous thread here about the councilman representing the San Pedro neighborhood urging a parklet be put in at a certain location there because he wanted to run out registrants living on that block. All that is different with this major citywide push now as compared to the San Pedro news is that they aren’t saying that, they are keeping quiet about that.

    There is now a major, formal city plan to put these in all over. They will put them in on any small piece of dirt they find, and already are, and all of a sudden something 5-feet x 5-feet is a “park.” They also are already starting to eliminate parking on streets and use that space to put in a tiny parklet, a park — the first permanent one (previous ones were demonstration) just went in in the Highland Park neighborhood, and more are on the way sooner than later. (Insane that someone should be stupid enough to want to sit there out at the traffic lanes, rather than on the sidewalk with a safe buffer. So no one will, but it will be there and bar registrants for several blocks around.)

    Even a ballot measure this November to raise the sales tax in Los Angeles County for “transportation” will include substantial money in it for these parklets along and in the streets.

    I don’t know what to do about it, but we all at least need to know of it. This is likely to catch on all over the state.

    There is NO legitimacy in barring registrants from living near a park (or anything else that anyone else can live near). And all that restriction is doing is to provide the tool to bar registration from living (or being homeless) anywhere.

  28. D

    Is there a copy of the agreement Cypress made in writing available for download? My wife and I are looking to move there and I would like to have that letter “in my back pocket.”

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderation decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *