ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Shame On the San Diego City Council

The San Diego City Council took the wrong action for the wrong reason last week when they failed to repeal the city’s residency restrictions which, if enforced, would prohibit registrants from living in virtually all of that city.

The wrong action was taken by five members of the City Council who voted against repeal of the city’s residency restrictions. The reason for their votes is beyond comprehension.

In many votes taken by elected officials, the elected officials will vote against an issue because it is unpopular and could adversely affect their re-election. We don’t condone that reason but it is at least a reason we understand.

What we cannot understand is why four City Council members who will not face re-election until November 2018, more than a year away, voted against repeal. What is even less understandable is why the remaining member of the Council voted against repeal when she will not face re-election until November 2020, more than three years away.

Our lack of understanding is even greater given that the San Diego City Attorney recommended and initiated repeal of the city’s residency restrictions. Further, the City Attorney stated publicly that the restrictions are probably not enforceable and may violate the Constitution. In addition, she may be responsible for the matter being placed on the Consent Calendar of the City Council meeting, which is reserved for noncontroversial votes.

Although most of the City Council members who voted against repeal did not disclose the reason for their vote, one member did so when she openly stated that she doesn’t like “them (registrants) living in our communities” and expressed concern that her daughter wouldn’t be able to safely walk the family dog if the restrictions were repealed. She also referred to unnamed studies that demonstrate that registrants cannot be rehabilitated.

Her last statement was repeated by one of the four City Council members who voted in favor of the repeal. How dare they repeat this lie! How dare they fail to educate themselves on this important topic! For if they had made even a small effort to educate themselves, they would have easily found both academic research and government studies that clearly demonstrate that most registrants are rehabilitated and do not re-offend.

The City Councilman who repeated this lie eventually spoke the truth when he predicted that the City of San Diego would be sued if they failed to repeal their residency restrictions. He also predicted that the lawsuit would be successful and cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. We certainly hope his predictions are true and note that this could be an expensive and worthwhile lesson for the City of San Diego and its residents. We also hope that, in addition to paying for their mistakes, the members of the City Council will take the time necessary to educate themselves and those they represent on this important matter.

— by Janice Bellucci

Read all Janice’s Journal

Related

Registrants Sue City of San Diego in Federal Court

San Diego Sex Offender Residency Law Faces Uphill Legal Battle

Join the discussion

  1. mike r

    Do they also have presence restrictions and what is the code of their ordinance and is there anyway to get a list of cities who still have these laws whether they enforce them or not..I need a list of cities and codes…

    • someone who cares

      Mike ~ I have a couple of “older” Ordinances, and I know some of them have been repealed maybe, but it is a start. I can e-mail them to you if you want to ask the moderator for my e-mail address. One is County Ordinances and one is City Ordinances. I also found Ordinance Number 9811 and it explains “loitering” in an area where children might be present. I know this one is from 2006, but one has to agree that incidental presence is an exception to this law as it is stated in this text. I copied and pasted it here.

      ORDINANCE NO. 9811

      AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 16, SEX OFFENDER LOITERING ORDINANCE, TO TITLE 3, DIVISION 2 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES

      The Board of Supervisor of the County of San Diego ordains as follows:

      Section 1. The Board of Supervisors finds and determines that there is a need to add an ordinance to the Code of Regulatory Ordinances that will prohibit those who are required to register as sex offenders from loitering in areas frequented by children.

      Section 2. The San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances is hereby amended to add to Title 3, Division 2, a new CHAPTER 16, as follows:

      CHAPTER 16 SEX OFFENDER LOITERING ORDINANCE

      SEC. 32.1601. DEFINITIONS.

      (a) “Sex Offender” means an individual who is currently required by law to register with a governmental entity as a sex offender.

      (b) For purposes of this Chapter, ‘loitering’ means remaining, lingering or wandering in a public or private place for the purpose of engaging in any lewd, lascivious or otherwise illegal conduct, including but not limited to committing offenses specified in Penal Code sections 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11or for the purpose or intent of engaging any person in any sexual act of any kind, or for the purpose or intent of soliciting any person to engage in any sexual act of any kind.

      (c) “Child” or “children” means any person who has not reached his or her eighteenth birthday.

      (d) “Child care and development agency” shall have the meaning set forth in California Education Code § 8208.

      (e) “County Park” shall mean have the meaning set forth in County Regulatory Ordinance 41.101(b).

      SEC. 32.1602. PROHIBITION AND ENFORCEMENT

      Any sex offender who loiters, as defined by section 32.1601, subdivision (b), of this Chapter, in a public or private place that is on or within 300 feet of a public or private school for children, a child care and development facility, a park, recreation facility, playground or arcade where children are present, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each offense is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 (one thousand dollars) or by confinement in the County Jail for a term not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and confinement. Each distinct and separate instance in which a sex offender loiters as prohibited by Section 32.1601, subdivision (b), shall constitute a separate offense.

      SEC. 32.1603. EXCEPTIONS

      (a) This Chapter shall not apply to restrict incidental proximity not amounting to loitering as defined by Section 32.1601, subdivision (b) of this Chapter.

      (b) This Chapter shall not restrict access to public parks for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, nor any other constitutional rights under either the United States Constitution or the California State Constitution, so long as such activity does not constitute loitering as defined in Section 32.1601.

      (c) This Chapter does not apply to restrict a sex offender’s place of residence when such residency is regulated by state law.

      Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 (thirty) days after its passage, and before the expiration of 15 (fifteen) days after its passage, a summary hereof shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board voting for and against it in the San Diego Commerce, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of San Diego.

      PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of December 2006

  2. Chris F

    Great job Janice and team!

    The only way to really turn the tide, is for this to hit cities, states, and the federal government in the pocket book.

    Not only that, but our issues won’t get the attention they deserve until the public’s money has to be used to benefit the life of a sex offender after winning a lawsuit. Once that happens, and only then, will legislature have the justification they need if they start creating public policy based on real statistics, what really works, and what is within the limits of the US Constitution. Without that justification and hit to the pocketbook, their opposition will continue to turn good legislation attempts into “pro-sex offender” propaganda.

    • Not Really

      The City Council had information all the way back in 2008. See the San Diego City Beat:

      Sex offenders!!!
      Do our laws really protect kids, or are they misdirected reactions based on myths, misperceptions and stereotypes?
      by Kelly Davis

      http://sdcitybeat.com/news-and-opinion/news/sex-offenders/

      Bonnie Dumanis, the San Diego DA, was once quoted as saying the stiffer laws were meant to get sex offenders out of town, and everyone knew that. That is a paraphrase and I’m searching for the source. Anyone else recall that quote?

      • Not Really

        Laws Restricting Lives of Sex Offenders Raise Constitutional Questions
        January 17, 2008 at 6:35 PM EDT

        BONNIE DUMANIS: Let’s see what happens so that we can see whether or not this is a problem. But I’m not ready to say the sky’s falling right now. We’ll take a look at it.

        “You know, it’s progress, not perfection. The real intent of Jessica’s Law is to put people that violate children and others in prison.”

        http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june08-sexoffenders_01-17/

      • Not Really

        The Real Point of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
        By Jamie Spencer on January 17, 2008

        It’s refreshing when an elected politician speaks the truth, especially when they don’t mean to.

        There was a segment on McNeil Lehrer this evening titled “Housing Sex Offenders,” which chronicled the very real problems with various versions of Jessica’s Law that have sprung up around the country.

        The name “Jessica’s Law” started in Florida, based on the name of a victim, but is now the de facto name given by the media to various and sundry laws dealing with sex offenders.

        The report focused on California sex offender residency restrictions. California’s fairly new law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of parks, playgrounds, schools, etc. Sounds like a great idea but problems in this regard have been well documented.

        PBS showed a map of Los Angeles with all the prohibited living places in red. At first, it’s easy to tell that literally almost every place in Los Angeles is covered; and then the announcer let’s us know that the places that are ‘OK’ are almost all business and commercial.

        The point of this is not to make folks’ hearts bleed for sex offenders. But let’s acknowledge what the real point of these laws is. Or better yet, let’s hear from San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who when asked by the reporter the perfunctory ‘where are they supposed to go?’ replied:

        “The real intent of Jessica’s Law is to put people that violate children and others in prison and keep them there.”

        Bravo! We’ve convicted and sentenced the offender, but he’s served his time and now we want to put him back before he reoffends. The constitution prohibits us from going back and adding time to his sentence, so…

        Let’s make it literally impossible for him to live anywhere legally. Then we charge him with that violation, and the problem is solved.

        http://blog.austindefense.com/tags/sex-offender/

  3. Nicholas Maietta

    The tide has turned and for our favor, not theirs. By the time these people are up for re-election, i’m hopeful that the general public will be even more aware, as they have been waking up to, the fact that sex offenders are often not the monsters they are made out to be. As a result, they may have just undermined their own efforts to bolster their stance at re-election time, as it will be on record that they went against the constitution, the law, and their own lawyers and in the process, losing a lawsuit. Bleeping idiots these people are. Guess Janice is stuck having to back in yet again and kick some more ass. Teach them a lesson they shall never forget. 🙂

  4. cool RC

    This reminds me of Carson all over again. I am willing to publicly add my name in this Lawsuit. I’ve visited San Diego often.

  5. Jack

    That woman is a lair, and she needs to go down. Sue the bigots in San Diego for every cent they’re worth.

  6. New Person

    Maybe it’s time to make a statement with a really high financial suit. The council people all have information readily available at their disposal, but yet continue to fear monger. Banishment is punishment, and that is unconstitutional. Just like in the Peckingham case, you can’t make any exception for unconstitutionality. And yet here we have it.

    Despite several wins based upon this set of circumstances, the council people continue to perpetuate that all registrants are the vilest monsters on earth that require no constitutionality provisions. Maybe it’s time to really make it count and send a message to all of California to stop with this demagoguery. Janice can speak softly, but this time she’s gonna be carrying a big stick!

  7. kind of living

    I too hope they loose big bucks , its time they learn that everything has a price , even grand standing can have a price , way to go Janice

  8. Joe123

    Based on this preposterous decision and ‘personal, misguided opinions’ from council members, The San Diego City Council is UNFIT to serve its citizens.

  9. invisable

    Now I maybe wrong, but I do not believe I am, but Ordinances are NOT LAWS, and they are certainly NOT binding public laws. ONLY State Legislatures are ALLOWED to pass laws. Municipalities and Cities and Towns are Corporate Entities. Therefore they can ONLY pass laws that apply to city officials.(ie) employee’s and employer’s. NOT the general Public. It’s in EVERY State Constitution. ONLY the State legislators are ALLOWED to pass LAWS. NOT. a city council. AGAIN Ordinances are NOT LAWS, and are NOT binding public laws, unless you choose to be bound by them. City Councils have NO POWER to PASS LAWS AGAINST THE PUBLIC THEY CAN ONLY PASS LAWS THAT EFFECT CITY EMPLOYEE’S AND EMPLOYER’S PERIOD.

    • AJ

      @invisable
      So I guess a leash ordinance for my dog puts me in no legal jeopardy, and the city has no right to impound my pet? When the police show up at night to tell me I’m violating a noise ordinance, I should just ignore them? And who do they think they are telling me there’s a no indoor smoking ordinance?

      Please cite any legal reference upon which you base your claim. From what I understand, state legislatures enact statutes, and municipalities enact ordinances. Both are laws. Here are some helpful links from Black’s Law Dictionary:
      Law: http://thelawdictionary.org/law/
      Ordinance: http://thelawdictionary.org/ordinance/
      Statute: http://thelawdictionary.org/statute-n/

      • kind of living

        @AJ speaking of dogs , lol , I took my dog to get his shots 59 BUCK’S ! 20 bucks for shots and 20 some bucks for the certificate ! , and 60 bucks for his tag ! doggy price club day sucks , regulating us to death , I could totally feel why my bog ole dog just sat and wined cause he was going to get one in the neck and one in this ass , and have to listen to me gripe all day , poor dog , but I have to say its not like we have money to just flush down the crapper to help them inforce regulations on many other that don’t have this kind of money , last time I seen a case of rabies was a skunk years ago , but you better get them shots or you could end up on yet another price club day as a doggy abuser !!! dog catchers sneaking around looking to enforce every new regulation , just like they do with RC’s by stacking stupid regulations making it harder and harder to stay under the radar , yet last time I went down to san Diego , 2 people were stabbed by the local punks down there on the beach , and some women was all freaking out because this guy had a video cam and she had the beach boy cops come down and look at his cam to see if he had any pictures of her kids , it was funny in a sick sort of way because the cops said all he had on there was footage of her freaking out lol ,

        • Harry

          And to add to your day, I am a cat servant (there no such thing a cat owner) Cyrene do not need a license and the only reason he has his shots because they were given to him when he was neutered by a free clinic. No Price Club for cats or cat servants.

    • lovewillprevail

      I hate to burst your bubble, but municipalities are generally given authority by the state legislature to adopt ordinances relating to the safety, health and welfare of the public and also are generally given the authority to enact monetary or criminal penalties if one does not follow an ordinance. An ordinance is a law, but at the city level instead of the state level. The state will set certain parameters and procedures for the municipality. All this can be different in the various states, but the gist is the same. For example, in Texas there is no statewide residency/proximity restriction. But many municipalities have adopted residency ordinances. If I choose not to comply with a residency ordinance, I legally can be arrested as long as the municipality followed the legal procedures to enact the ordinance and gave the required public notification of the law. So you better think twice about not following a municipal ordinance until you first research your state laws pertaining to municipalities enacting ordinances and ensure your municipality has not followed your state law when enacting an ordinance before choosing not to follow the ordinance so that you will have a legal basis for not following the ordinance. I will tell you that your comments are completely 100% wrong pertaining to the Texas constitution and municipalities in Texas.

      • invisable

        @lovewillprevail,

        Sorry this is so long, but since your from Texas here is something for you and any one else that is on here from Texas.

        The True Power of the People Over Unconstitutional Acts
        December 22, 2016 Tao of LawLeave a comment
        So, some municipality has ‘enacted’ an ordinance, and is using it to charge you with some sort of ‘crime’ defined therein. But, have you bothered to even ask yourself if they actually have any lawful authority to so such a thing?  If not, why not?  Do you simply assume that they automatically have this authority?  If so, then, obviously, you have never asked yourself just from where exactly they allegedly did or could get it, right?
        Well, I am here to tell you, and show you, that they don’t have it, and that they have never had it, despite all their protestations to the contrary.  I have several other articles written on this blog that goes into the details of exactly how and why that is, so I won’t belabor it further with another article that does the same thing. What I am going to do is show you just one of the ways that the People have reserved to themselves the lawful authority to force a municipality’s rogue ‘legislation genie’ back into its bottle and seal it up so it stops interfering in your life and messing with your property.
        Below you will find a People’s Petition of Grievances and Remonstrance that will be used against the CITY OF DALLAS for its unlawful creation of an unconstitutional ordinance, and the use of that ordinance against the People of Texas as if it has the force and effect of binding public law, which it absolutely and constitutionally does not. Making the CITY OF DALLAS’ effort to use and enforce the statute an unconstitutional act under color of law that subjects them to tort actions for their treason and violation of fundamental human and individual rights that we the People specifically reserved to ourselves as being inviolable by our government, at any level.
        The Title of the petition that should indicate that we need a change in direction of what and to whom we address such petitions. I am of the mind that, since the municipality really has no authority to what it did in the first place, which is to try and make any law binding upon the public, then we shouldn’t be petitioning them for anything. I am thinking of this in the same common sense manner that one wouldn’t try to petition the local thieves guild to do something about all the burglaries and robberies occurring in your neighborhood. We should be going directly to the state legislature and demanding that they protect our rights and property by putting laws into place forbidding this fraud and making municipalities and their employees directly liable for their actions under state law. But we have to REALLY go after the legislators to make it happen, because, right now, they are getting a cut of the stolen property to allow this to continue. THAT is what we need to expose and resolve so that this has a chance to actually work.
        The petition was not my idea, but I decided it had merit in what it sought to do and offered to assist in “fleshing it out” with more specific grievances and remonstrances so that signers of the petition, as well as the criminals hiding behind the municipal corporate veil, would have a clear understanding of the specific rights and issues involved here, and the People’s demands and requirements for making it right.
        Please, if you live in the Dallas, Texas area, or anywhere in Texas, like San Antonio for example, where similar ordinances have been enacted, then please look for places in your area to sign this petition and exercise your rightful power against unlawful and unconstitutional encroachment and infringement by these criminal municipal corporations who spit on our rights and constitution for their own private interests. Even better, use the attached MS Word document version to start one in your own neighborhood.
        Remember, we can all stand and fight together now, while we can and should, or we will all eventually and surely be tried and hanged alone.

        PUBLIC NOTICE AND PETITION FOR
        REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES TO
        THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
        AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OPERATING
        AS “CITY OF DALLAS”
        Notice, this petition is being instituted, signed, and presented by men and women of the Texas Republic, as sovereign People and free individuals domiciled within the geographical region of the Texas Republic commonly referred to as “Dallas,” as a public demand for redress of grievances relating to and challenging the unlawful and unconstitutional imposition of CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595.
        The free men and women who have signed this petition are of one mind in that, the CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 is violative of the most basic and fundamental of human rights and needs, is violative of state and federal constitutional provisions and prohibitions upon the limited powers and nature of government, and the knowing and willful violation of rights specifically reserved by the People to themselves to protect against such abuses of the People’s own delegated powers through governmental overreach and unlawful usurpations of powers and authority never delegated and constitutionally forbidden to any political subdivision of the state, or to the state government, by the People of the Texas Republic.
        The CITY OF DALLAS may already be liable through individual and class action torts for unlawfully acting under color of law and without lawful authority in knowing and willful violation of both the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (“US Constitution”) and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS (“Texas Constitution”).
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the free exercise and enjoyment of the People’s fundamental rights, such as the right to free association and to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of religion and to engage in the consensual practices and customs thereof, and the right to individual liberty in all of these and the pursuit of happiness associated therewith.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the free exercise and enjoyment of the People’s fundamental rights by unlawfully and unconstitutionally converting the free exercise and enjoyment of those rights into a crime with the threat of penalty and punishment via unconstitutional taxation or fines imposed for no other purpose that to punish the act of  caring for and feeding of their fellow man in the form of the poor and/or homeless People who are doing nothing more than trying to survive within the corporate municipal limits of the CITY OF DALLAS.
        CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 is a prima facie violation of the following protected individual rights and constitutional prohibitions:
        The unconstitutional exercise of prohibited legislative powers specifically delegated to the Legislature of the State of Texas under Article 3, Sec. 1, and the constitutionally mandated process for the creation of any and all binding public law within Secs. 29-39 of said Article, and, therefore, are specifically prohibited to be exercised by municipalities and counties, including, but not limited to, the unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of any and all legislative authority having the intent or false pretense of creating and enacting binding public law in any form for any purpose whatsoever.
        The unconstitutional exercise of constitutionally delegated powers and acts specifically prohibited to municipalities as set forth in Article 11, Sec. 5, of the Texas Constitution
        The unconstitutional violation of specific rights and protections reserved to the People of Texas under Article 1 of the Texas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, including, but not limited to, the right to challenge and hold void any and all governmental and non-governmental corporate violations of any provisions or prohibitions therein under Article 1, Sec. 29.
        The unconstitutional violation of specific rights and protections reserved to the People of Texas by which the state and its political subdivisions are constitutionally prohibited from exercising any power or authority violative of any clause or provision within the Texas Constitution, especially those within the Bill of Rights.
        The right to freedom of Religion, as it prohibits the right of the People to minister to the poor and needy as a part of their religious or personal custom and practice.
        The right to freedom of association as a natural right, as it prohibits the right of the People to befriend and provide aid and assistance to whomever they may choose for whatever reason they may choose.
        The right to peaceably assemble as a natural right, as it prohibits the right of the People to gather together to minster to and provide charitable aid and mutual kinship and comfort to those in need.
        The right to the pursuit of happiness as a natural right, as it prohibits the right of the People to enjoy providing mutually voluntary and consensual aid and assistance to those in need as their heart and personal morality may move them to do.
        The right to Due Process, as this ordinance is a violation of the right of a free People to life, liberty, property, and all the rights, privileges, and immunities of same, and in some cases, serves as a potential death sentence devoid of any form of due process or human empathy for the plight of others.
        The unconstitutional violation of the specific right to local SELF-government, as being a right specifically reserved solely to the PEOPLE of Texas within Article 1, Sec. 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution, in both their natural capacity as sovereign individuals and as a public body assembled, which is not a right or delegated power that is in any way reserved to the creation or operation of municipal corporations, counties, or the State government.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the People of Texas from invoking the blessings of Almighty God by performing His commandments and works.
        THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE
        Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the People of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the People of Texas from declaring and acting upon their individually reserved right to local self-government of THEMSELVES, both as individuals and as a community in relation to their private individual and communal actions and activities, just one aspect of which is providing consensual and voluntary care and assistance to the poor and needy. The right of local self-government is specifically reserved to the People of Texas under Article 1, Sec. 1 of the Bill of Rights within the Texas Constitution, not to the corporate municipality, county, or state governments.
        ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
        That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
        Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.          Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the right of the People of Texas to individual and collectively exercise their individual and collective political power in a manner they have deemed necessary and fitting, and denies the People of Texas in their rightful authority and to all benefits and privileges associated therewith, while simultaneously denying the People an independent and sovereign State and a Republican form of government as existing and operating by and for their individual and mutual consent and benefit, rather than for the private interests of the corporate municipality.
        ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
        Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.             All political power is inherent in the People, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the People of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon and violates multiple provisions and prohibitions of the Texas Constitution by the fraudulent exercise of Legislative authority in order to unlawfully defraud the People by the fraudulent creation of unconstitutionally enacted binding public law that was void ab initio. The power to create binding public law is constitutionally delegated and vested solely within the LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS (“Texas Legislature”) by Article 3, Sec. 1 of the Texas Constitution, and that power may not and cannot be re-delegated to political subdivisions of the state government by mere legislative enactments and statutory schemes.
        ARTICLE 3. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
        Sec.1.   SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and House of Representatives, which together shall be styled “The Legislature of the State of Texas.”
        Sec.2.   MEMBERSHIP OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Senate shall consist of thirty-one members. The House of Representatives shall consist of 150 members.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the right of all men as having a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
        ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
        Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the natural and indefeasible right of all men to protect themselves and others from unlawful and unnecessary deprivations of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or disfranchisement, without due process of law.
        ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
        Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.
        Whereas:   on its face, CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 unconstitutionally infringes upon, outlaws, and prohibits the natural and indefeasible right of all men to freely associate and act for their individual and common good, to be free from all unreasonable searches and seizures, and to petition their servant government for redress of grievances.
        ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
        Sec. 27. RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.
        The People’s Declaration of Relief and Redress
        WE, the undersigned PEOPLE OF TEXAS, do hereby declare CITY OF DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595 void on its face under the authority of the Bill of Rights in its entirety within Article 1 of the Texas Constitution, and pursuant to Sec. 29 of said Article specifically.
        WE, the undersigned PEOPLE OF TEXAS, do further petition and demand that the CITY OF DALLAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION cease and desist with any and all enforcement of the odious and unconstitutional DALLAS ORDINANCE NO. 29595, dismiss any charges, fines, and fees unconstitutionally perpetrated and taken thereunder, and to further act to immediately and permanently repeal said ordinance, thereby restoring the constitutionally protected rights that the free and sovereign People of Texas specifically reserved to themselves so as to prohibit such infringements and violations through unconstitutional abuses of power and authority as exists in said ordinance.

        That goes for ALL ORDINANCES,THEY ARE ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

        • lovewillprevail

          Rather than waste my time explaining the Texas constitution and the types of Texas municipalities and the powers granted to them by the state, I will just say consult with a Texas attorney who specializes in Texas municipal law if you plan on not complying with Texas municipal ordinances. So no offense to you, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but I am making my decisions based upon my reading of the Texas constitution and the Texas Local Government Code until a court rules an ordinance invalid for whatever reason. I have also spoken with a high profile attorney in Texas regarding some of these issues. I just had to make my comments in case anyone from Texas thinks about following your beliefs. I just do not want to see anyone from Texas running into trouble.

        • AJ

          @invisable
          Good luck with that.

        • lovewillprevail

          Out of curiosity, I looked up the ordinance you refer to above. Basically the ordinance provides a defense to prosecution for one feeding the homeless if basic health guidelines are followed, which is better than the ordinance in San Antonio which at last time I heard just outright bans feeding the homeless. Dallas does not prohibit one from feeding the homeless, it just outlines health guidelines to follow if you do not want to be prosecuted. So the city is not interfering with one’s religious beliefs to feed the homeless, only putting in place health guidelines. So I am confused to how and why all the grievances in the petition. Just follow the health guidelines and go feed the homeless. One job of government is to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. In this case, I see no issue. Go find another battle to fight such as sex offender issues.

      • invisable

        @lovewillprevail @AJ

        Here watch this video, this is from Eddie Craig an ex deputy sheriff of Austin Texas ,and since lovewillpevail is from Texas, it’s 54 minutes long, but he explains a lot that makes since about ordinances Codes and Regulations.

        https://youtu.be/zXPnMqcEQvE

        I know you probably still won’t buy the argument, but there it is anyway.

        • AJ

          @invisable:
          Sorry, I’m not going to watch the video. As I said, good luck with that. Truly. I’m out of this topic now.

        • lovewillprevail

          Thank you invisable for the info and link about the sheriff’s opinion on laws. But since the person is a sheriff, and not a judge or state legislator or an attorney who has argued law in court and who all know more about adopting laws and upholding laws than a sheriff, I will not waste my time viewing the link. Whatever the sheriff has to say is his opinion and not the facts.

          And besides, I have been lied to many times by sheriffs concerning sex offender laws and have even had a sheriff threaten harm to my children and threaten to file false charges against me in an attempt to put me in prison (they did try but failed). And most stories I read about sheriffs demonstrate they do not care about the law but only care about enforcing their own agenda.

          So I would not put any faith into whatever the sheriff has to say because if you follow his opinion, do you think a judge will let you off the hook if you follow the legal opinions of a sheriff? A judge could care less about the legal opinions of a sheriff.

          You have the right to your opinion and to believe whatever you want to believe and I respect your rights and your opinions. But I have to look out for myself and stay out of jail and prison. So I would never in my life follow the legal opinions of a sheriff. So if you want to follow the legal opinions of a sheriff, go ahead, but I wish for your sake, you don’t go down that road. I want others to think before they go down that road so that is why I responded. I just can’t see any good out of following the legal opinions of a sheriff. But good luck to you.

    • Jtc

      Invisable is NOT Invisable this time…they have a point! Respectfully submitted. Fontana’s besides San Diego’s is the same way. Not for rules and laws for municipalities but for employees and referendums. Not City Law.

  10. AlexO

    Its unfortunate that blatant lying and willful ignorance are not illegal, particularly for those who are directly responsible for making decisions that effect thousands or even millions of people.

    • Harry

      After San Diego looses it would be easy to petition a Public Servant Honestly Act initiative on the state ballot

  11. AJ

    I think it would be nice to let the citizens of San Diego know where their money is going. Maybe an ad in the local paper stating how much the city needlessly paid out in court due to their intransigence. Maybe show how many people could have received social services from it, or something along that line. (Not knowing the local issues, I can’t really give a decent example.) Sadly, many will still blame the judges and RCs for the money going out the door.

  12. Lake County

    Is it really possible for this to “cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars”? Is that prediction based on what it will cost in attorney fees defending this law, or do they think Janice might end up with a large award?

  13. KM

    Hey, it’s not their money they are wasting. It’s what’s wrong with California in a nutshell, always making policy and laws based on emotion rather than facts and logic. Also, these politician love wasting tax payer money…..

  14. Timmr

    Thank you for fighting the new sunset laws! This country has a very short memory. It is bad enough we now need a Registrant Green Book to travel safely between states and internationally, and then have to navigate through this or that city’s ordinances to see if we can simply find a safe place to live.

    • Jtc

      Hey Timmr! What is an RGB? For interstate travel? Or is this just your way of para-phrasing…(?)
      If not, please share.
      As long as they’re not video game rockets landing on us.

      • Timmr

        It a alteration of “The Negro Motorist Green Book”. The “Green Book” as it was often called was used by African Americans from 1936 to 1966 to avoid coming in conflict with Jim Crow laws while traveling. I just made up the term “Registrant Green Book” to show the comparison of Jim Crow laws to registration laws. I believe there was a 50 state registration laws handbook posted on this site at one time, to help registrants to travel without ending up jail for not knowing local laws.

        • Still there under legal tab

          Still is one, look under the legal tab up top of this webpage to find the 50 state travel reqs.

          Would be nice if it was updated to include US territories

  15. Timmr

    Breaking the Constitution is clearly criminal, and hating all registrants because they are registered shows their bigotry, but to make life miserable for the children and spouses of registrants is beyond those two other things — it is “I like ignoring the facts and I could care less about the consequences as long as I stand by my opinion” pure evil.

    • New Person

      in a way, her mentality supports the “separate, but equal” ideology. Registrants can freely live… but they can freely live somewhere else.

      Registrants can freely work… but they can freely work somewhere else.

      Registrants can freely walk… but they can’t freely walk over here.

      • She is outdated by 50 years at least

        The separate but equal ideology went out with the civil rights movement in case she forgot. She should pull up photos and stories of separate but equal water fountains, dining areas, bus seats, etc. Maybe someone ought to send her some of those or have them in the case filing for the judge to remind the City Atty about.

    • Q

      “Pure evil” – I’ve been calling this entire public registry thing and everything that has sprung up from it, like presence and residency restrictions. Glad to hear someone else calling it what it actually is.

      “Ignorance is a choice” – are you listening San Diego?

  16. mike t

    Council members ‘Asleep at the wheel’.

    …expressed concern that her daughter wouldn’t be able to safely walk the family dog if the restrictions were repealed.

    Is she safe now? The restrictions have NOT been enforced since at least 2009. Seriously… WTF? Sorry, I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around this.
    Intransigence.

    • Timmr

      I doubt if she was listening to city council. Maybe she hit one of the many potholes in San Diego and it knocked out the listening part of her brain.

    • mike t

      I think the city council bumped their collective head and did more damage than that.
      The past, present, and future walked into a bar… It was tense.
      Sex offender: past, present, and future tense. People cannot differentiate this generic term. Hence, once an offender, always an offender. This is a problem.

  17. Eric Knight

    Great column, Janice. Can this be submitted to the Union-Tribune and other media in the San Diego area?

  18. mike r

    Hey Someone can you please just post them on here??? Thank you for posting that ordinance but the way they stated that would be kind of hard to argue against even though it isn’t right they put in language that would surely make it appear more constitutional.. I know we have to have some more restrictive and blatantly unconstitutional ordinances in this state ….Like you said that is a start but I need ordinances like the one that the city of Carson had…

    • Chris F

      I don’t see that as reasonable at all, and may highlight the ridiculous and arbitrary nature of these laws.

      Look at the definition of loitering: ‘loitering’ means remaining, lingering or wandering in a public or private place for the purpose of engaging in any lewd, lascivious or otherwise illegal conduct,

      That begs for arbitrary enforcement when a police officer just wants to harass a sex offender. There is no way they can know the intent of a sex offender walking through a park. Also, since the conduct they describe you intending to do is illegal anyway, why limit it to sex offenders? That’s the definition of arbitrary, which is purely unconstitutional. So normal people are allowed to loiter in a park that want to specifically commit sex crimes but not someone that is registered? Wow…I can’t see a judge not rolling his eyes at the ridiculous nature of this law.

      • AJ

        FWIW, pretty much anytime I’ve seen loitering addressed in court documents, the word is in quotes and the definition from the challenged law is cited. That courts have to air-quote the word and repeatedly define it shows me the word really has no firm legal definition. In fact, I think some of those cases attacked the definition that was used.
        Black’s says loiter is a, “term that describes to hang about and doing nothing in a public place” (http://thelawdictionary.org/loiter/). I don’t know about any of you (for those in the South, make that “all y’all”), but if I’m in a public place, I’m certainly doing SOMEthing. Perhaps enjoying the sunshine, maybe listening to nature and watching birds, or even just resting before continuing on my ambling, etc. But to be doing nothing? Nope, never. In fact, I would posit it’s impossible to be doing nothing.
        Thus, I’m never loitering. 😉 Perhaps this is why courts air-quote it.

  19. no name

    I think it all started from Jessica’s Law, California Proposition 83 (2006)

    https://ballotpedia.org/Jessica%27s_Law,_California_Proposition_83_(2006)

    Proposition 83 was named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old girl. She was the victim of a convicted sex offender who had failed to report his whereabouts, in spite of laws requiring him to do so.

    Proposition 83 is well-known for requiring registered sex offenders who have been convicted of a felony sex offense to be monitored by GPS devices while on parole and for the remainder of their lives. It included a number of other provisions that increased the legal penalties for specified sex offenses by:

    Broadening the definition of certain sex offenses. Under Proposition 83, aggravated sexual assault of a child is defined as including offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim. Prior to Proposition 83, an offender had to be at least ten years older for a sexual assault of a child to be defined as “aggravated.”
    Establishing longer penalties for specified sex offenses. Under Proposition 83, the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison includes assault to commit rape during the commission of a first degree burglary.
    Prohibiting probation in lieu of prison for some sex offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious acts.
    Eliminating early release credits for some inmates convicted of certain sex offenses, including habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions for specified felony sex offenses such as rape.
    Extending parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders.
    Increasing court-imposed fees currently charged to offenders who are required to register as sex offenders.
    Prohibiting any person required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. For specified high-risk sex offenders, the ban extends to 2,640 feet.
    Making more sex offenders eligible for an SVP (“Sexually Violent Predator”) commitment.

    • no name

      here is the code
      http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=3003.5

      Penal Code – PEN
      PART 3. OF IMPRISONMENT AND THE DEATH PENALTY [2000 – 10007] ( Part 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 106. )

      TITLE 1. IMPRISONMENT OF MALE PRISONERS IN STATE PRISONS [2000 – 3105] ( Title 1 repealed and added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 106. )

      CHAPTER 8. Length of Term of Imprisonment and Paroles [3000 – 3089] ( Heading of Chapter 8 renumbered from Chapter 7 by Stats. 1941, Ch. 893. )

      ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [3000 – 3007.05] ( Article 1 repealed and added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1139. )

      3003.5.

      (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is released on parole after having served a term of imprisonment in state prison for any offense for which registration is required pursuant to Section 290, that person may not, during the period of parole, reside in any single family dwelling with any other person also required to register pursuant to Section 290, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. For purposes of this section, “single family dwelling” shall not include a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons.

      (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

      (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290.
      (Amended November 7, 2006, by initiative Proposition 83, Sec. 21.)

    • Jtc

      Thanks for reminding us…new person. The aggrivated was a fresh reminder pre and post 7 vs. Past 10 yr for those who it affected…during that timeframe. Cal Prop 83 not National vs. Megans later on. Interesting

  20. someone who cares

    Hi Mike ~ You are right. The language makes it seem less unconstitutional, but still, it also seems that they really can’t enforce these laws since they can’t really prove that you are actually loitering if you are just in the area. In any case, these are the two PDFs I kept from this site actually, I believe:

    http://all4consolaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/290CaliforniaOrdinancesCity_20130128.pdf
    http://all4consolaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/290CaliforniaOrdinancesCounty_20130128.pdf

  21. Eric

    So the city council member said she voted to keep the residency restriction in place because she fears her daughter won’t be safe walking the dog. So she believes taking a person from a stable home environment where they can maintain employment, have a bathroom and a bed, have mail delivery, have friends over, date, feel secure and have self worth, and have an address the police can monitor, to casting them out on the street relegating them to the homeless population with all its sundry vicissitudes will make the city safer for children walking dogs. Ok, got it, just wanted to make sure I got the logic,

  22. mike r

    perfect someone…aj and chris your both right and I like how you worded that..In my motion…lol
    ..

    • AJ

      @mike r
      Your motion is sounding like not only spaghetti tossed against the wall to see what will stick, but also a bit like the old Ragu commercial: “it’s in there…!” 😉 Now just a few meatballs, and dinner is served.

      FYI, the SCOTUS decision that said a law cannot be so vague such that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot figure it out happened to be about loitering. City of Chicago v. Morales (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/41/case.pdf). A helpful article about loitering (a liberty interest) can be found here: https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/09/a-guide-to-legal-loitering/380615/

      • Chris F

        I’m torn. I like simplicity, but I don’t think other motions get far enough because they don’t paint the entire picture of how ridiculous all this is and how many parts of the constitution it actually touches on.

        I could see some tweaking and removing redundancy, but I like that it includes so many issues.

        I see that dissenting opinion I posted about a little while ago where the judge actually thought registration doesn’t tick off any more boxes of the mendoza list than the 2003 Smith V Doe, and can’t believe it.

  23. USA

    Well, I’m not sure what to say. The City S Officials sound a bit arrogant. Can you imagine if the law had ruled with them? Yet, they still refuse to follow such rulings. I would like to see someone sue this city and follow it through until settled with a financial reward! Best of luck! Times are changing

  24. Nondescript

    Three of the five council members who voted not to repeal the ordinance Chris Cate, Georgette Gomez and Lorie Zapf have recently been appointed to head up a first of its kind in San Diego, the Homelessness Committee.
    http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/may/16/san-diego-city-council-homeless-committee/

    I must say, they couldn’t have chosen a finer group. 🤔🤔

    The homelessness task force will work in conjunction with, among others, a new County program for Community Based Services and Recidivism Reduction (CoSRR).

    ” This project will change the lives of participants by identifying and addressing complex needs at the root of criminogenic behavior, by advancing wellness and healing, building skills for self-sufficiency ”

    ( But you shan’t be able to live next door to anyone and stay away from me and my dog)

  25. New Person

    Janice,

    The more I think about your title about “Shame on SD City Council”, the more I believe they are not shameful at all. There is no shame in refuting facts for them and that the only facts that matter are their fears.

    I just hope this goes to trial and you put a whooping legally and fiscally so that all of California hears and feels the irresponsibility. No more chipping away at letting them settle out of court. Bring it to ahead and publicly educate the whole state once and for all.

  26. TS

    Janice, has their ever been a case where several lawsuits could be filed or a class-action suit where many join as one. You could have a colleague in San Diego take names and the sheer number would be a huge financial cost to SD. The precedent has already been set in other cities, this should be an easy one for you and the damages will be in the millions.

  27. perplexed

    So if my crime was over 10 years ago and none of these residency laws apply to me in California, then I move to San Diego….I’ll be subject to different laws?

    Seems unconstitutional to me…

  28. Frank

    Janice,

    Thank you so much for protecting us from the ignorant fear mongers.

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. Moderating 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. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, 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.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation 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.  
 

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

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