ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOLCalifornia

Rights Group sues over Lancaster’s restrictions on sex offenders

Constitutional rights advocates sued the city of Lancaster on Tuesday to block a recently enacted ordinance banning registered sex offenders from going to – or even being near – the city’s parks, movie theaters and other public and private locations.

“The ordinance basically violates the state and federal constitutions, and fails to protect public safety,” said Janice Bellucci, president of a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws. Full Article

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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 or other website issues 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.  
 
15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yes…thank you Janice Bellucci….thank you.

Again, thank you Janice Berlucci. You are doing what the ACLU should have made a top priority for at least the past 20 years but refused to do (I have contacted them in the past about the SOR issue and just been flat out rejected out of hand, told they did not consider it a problem). That aside, you made a comment in this Daily News article to which you link that goes to one of my complaints about SOR and about everyone reporting of it and even about your efforts against it: “People who are on the registry have… Read more »

Actually, I would be in favor of a person being removed from the registry once all court mandated probation and counseling has been completed.

Anonymous nobody …. While I agree with most everything you wrote …. There is one thing that stands true. As Janice Bellucci has said in her meetings and on various posts …. The pendulum has been swinging in ONE direction for a very long time. It will take time to bring the pendulum the other way, which I don’t believe it ever will, BUT, if it can be brought back down to a middle area where it should be … Then from there a more even battlefield is drawn. Those are my thoughts … Agree or not agree … Even… Read more »

MM: I understand what you are saying. But I disagree. It is easy to add bad stuff on incrementally; it is not easy to do that in reverse, making time frames less and less and making fewer offenses registrable. The reality is that when you go at the reverse incrementally, you end up with a small reduction, the minimum increment that is the maximum they think they can impose that will still get you (meaning this group) to give up and/or lose its backing. As for misdemeanants, I do not think for a minute that the majority of people in… Read more »

Nobody – you seem to know your stuff. Up until what year did an expungement or 1203.4 relieve one of the registration requirement? What made that change?

Joe: I would have to look it up for exact years when it changed, by the legislature — and my materials are a huge effort to get at, so can’t look it up right now. But expungement via 1203.4 PC (1203.4 PC “expunges” the conviction upon successful completion of probation) provided for automatic end to the registration requirement for both misdemeanors and felonies until the early or mid 1980s, I’d have to look up the exact year. From there it relieved registration for misdemeanors only. It ended for misdemeanors in the early 1990s. They simply made little word changes in… Read more »

Thank you for the explanation. Interesting!

The current law suit you mention – is it this Doe vs Harris – https://all4consolaws.org/legal/court-cases/? Many people are watching that one. It should shake things up. There has been no movement in almost a year, though. Is it still alive?

Yes, that’s the case. I’m not positive, but I think the Calif. high court has issued its decision on the matter — but unpublished, so no longer online. I was very disappointed to see the Ninth Circuit, in sending the question for input from the Calif. high court, specifically say that the Calif. court’s decision would be the determining factor in the Ninth Circuit decision — in other words, that the Ninth Circuit was planning to default to whatever the Calif. court said. That is unfortunate as the Calif. court is more conservative and has shown itself very ready and… Read more »

Re: DOE V. HARRIS The case# is #S191948. California Supreme Court website shows the docket as “fully briefed” as of February 10, 2012 but does not show further action taken. I would assume even if unpublished the docket would show the matter was closed.

Yes, I have watched it there. And I saw that. But when I checked in September, I forget all the details of what I saw, but I saw something that suggested it had been decided in May. But they post an unpublished decision online for only 60 days — and thus you don’t see anything now. But what I saw was not quite crystal clear, and now I can’t even find where I saw that! At any rate, gee, the Calif. court has had it for a year and a half now!

Here’s the thing. We all need to do our part to put pressure on not only our local leader but our churches. This is as much of a faith issue as it is a constitutional one. The registry violates the very principles of forgiveness and recovery. The registry doesn’t allow for a place for forgiveness, recovery and reinstatement. It actually slaps in the face of God and his fundamental principles of reconciliation. So, by being in support of the registry puts you at odds with the constitution and with God. I challenge anyone to a debate on either of those… Read more »

All of this discussion is well and good, and I am glad to see it happening. What I want to see more of is related to elected officials. Without saying where, I had an elected official tell me no one with only a misdemeanor ever registers, and he was an attorney for years. He was a county supervisor, who proposed laws, etc. It shocks me how many elected persons don’t know what really is going on with sex offender registration. People are shocked when they find out that a 19 year old who had consentual sex with a minor (16… Read more »

You are absolutely right — they deny and lie through their teeth. I have had the state attorney general’s office allege almost the same thing to the LA Times — contending that worrying about misdemeanants is irrelevant because just about all of them go on to commit a felony anyway send up having to register for that, and that as a result hardly anyone is registering merely for a misdemeanor — which of course is absolutely false. They lie to you through their teeth so they can continue forcing misdemeanants to register and not have to face what I “know”… Read more »

An example: PC 647.6 (Annoy and Molest a Child) is always a misdemeanor (unless repeat offense with priors for that very offense). It carries mandatory registration and publishing on the internet in the Zip Code Category. It is subject to petition for internet exclusion but who knows that. If you were to look (if legally allowed to!!!) at the website profiles that say “Specific address not subject to disclosure” I would guesstimate a good third are 647.6s. Violating PC 647.6 can be accomplished by making crude comments to someone under 18 (making them uncomfortable), taking photos of fully clothed minors… Read more »

15
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.