ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


Fullerton Council to Revise Sex Offender Ban in Parks

Fullerton’s ban on convicted sex offenders in city parks will likely be revised in the wake of court rulings and a potential lawsuit. Since the 1940s, California has wrestled with laws that deal with convicted sex offenders and what they can and cannot do after they are released from prison and complete parole.

In the past four years, about half of Orange County cities adopted laws that banned adults convicted of sexually abusing children from living near or going into city parks. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    Ahh; Fullerton. The town that spawned a group of murderers wearing police uniforms. A town I used to live in and a town I “thought” was alright. But then again, that was in another life all together. I wouldn’t have paid this little piece much attention were it not for ¶2 and the misleading nature of what is said in that paragraph. California hasn’t struggled with laws that deal with convicted “sex offenders” (God! I hate that misleading label) since the 1940s as Tracy Wood states; the self imposed phantom struggle didn’t start until the 1990s, and then took off like a rocket between 2002 and 2006.

    Tracy demonstrates the kind of ignorance that by all rights needs to be kicked to the curb. I almost wish Fullerton would dig it’s ill informed heel’s into the dirt and get a legal smack across the face 🙂 Ever since I’ve been relegated to a lower caste status I’ve watched how that town mistreats, oppresses, publicly shames and otherwise maligns registrants, as all other towns do. It’s kind of funny that you kind of get the sense that Fullerton and the author have never heard of CA-RSOL; I have a feeling every town in the state is going to know about us real soon. I suppose it’s a good thing their attorneys know if they oppose state law and thumb their nose at us they will be starting a fight they know they will lose.

    It’s ironic; at the time I was living in Fullerton I had the beautiful Caucasian significant other and the beautiful blond haired, blue eyed and very photogenic 8 yo little girl that called me dad. Since her mom was always preoccupied with her career and other things I was the one that did all of the functions associated with our blond haired blue eyed bundle of energy, like brownie and school functions and much of the shopping; people used to say we were joined at the hip. It’s also ironic; once I got pulled over by the Fullerton police and warned that it was illegal for me to have a pick up truck loaded front and rear with lat least 15 little girls; we were delivering and selling brownie calendars. But like I already said. That was in another life.

  2. Janice Bellucci

    The Fullerton City Council tonight decided to delay for two weeks their decision regarding whether to revise or repeal their ordinance. This decision was made after significant pressure from a local group. California RSOL will continue to monitor the progress of actions taken by the City of Fullerton toward the ultimate goal of removing all presence restrictions from that city. If the City chooses otherwise, they could be subject to a lawsuit due to the recent CA Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions.

      • cool rso guy!

        should we post comment there? but will it be approved?

        • Eric Knight

          I will go on a limb and say, for now, NO commenting would be favorable, unless the comment can employ a specific taxpayer cost argument (based upon the blog’s targeted users, “taxpayers”). Obviously, the city council is trying to figure out how to get around the state and federal constitutions, probably the first time they actually looked at the documents in the first place. The blog owner, Levinson, is trying to make a name for himself more than bring up points that haven’t been run through the wringer time and time again.

          Keep in mind the tide is definitely WITH us, not AGAINST us as is overwhelming everywhere else. That’s the power of going through the court system, as Janice, Chance, and Co. have all the facts on their side. To that end, the squabbling will go on between this group and the city council. A wise warrior would stand aside and let the others destroy themselves before committing, hence my recommendation for not commenting on their blog.

        • Q

          Hi Eric Knight:

          I can’t escape the feeling that it’s Mr Levinson & his wife Susan that are the stumbling block in the way of Fullerton repealing it’s presence restriction ordinances. I also can’t escape the feeling that the Levinsons and their friends and supporters are going to be very disappointed when all is said and done. I wonder how they’ll look with mud on their faces.

      • G4Change

        WOW….this Barry Levinson needs to get a life. I mean, seriously!!!

        • Q

          Hi G4Change:L

          Did you notice what Mr Levinson said towards the end of his little “the sky is falling” rant? He said

          “Why would the city manager, the city attorney and a majority of our city council be against a public study session that would both allow for the people’s participation and allow for the free flow of factual information that people like myself possess? “

          I certainly find it funny he thinks he is going to be the one putting factual information out there because he’s going to embarrass his self and make himself look the fool if he does, because it’s pretty clear he has his facts skewered; actually I don’t think he has any fact’s, period! Those folks should have did their study and sought out facts back in 2010 when they bought into the “stranger danger” myth. I think this dude is way past a day late and a dollar short.

        • G4Change

          You’re absolutely right, Q! One of the things I loved in reading his BS is that it seems like lawmakers are starting to ignore this guy. This is causing him frustration. In my opinion, this guy is a narcissist who does not know what he’s talking about. I would love the opportunity to debate him with facts…true facts. In my opinion, NIMBY narcissist fools like this guy are ruining this country. I believe he is more of an enemy than the lawmakers who are basically scared little sheep just trying to save their own jobs. I feel that this scumbag is an example of the catalysts which are fueling this fire. Our only defense against people like him is SOLIDARITY and FACTS.

        • Q


      • mike

        To Barry (and Susan) Levinson,

        Try to acknowledge your defeat gracefully. Please don’t burden your taxpaying community with a frivolous lawsuit that’s already doomed unless you’re willing to pony up the attorney fees. Spare yourself the humility. It’s time to go home now. The party’s over.

  3. Ron Lake County, CA

    Janice Bellucci, isn’t it not to your financial benefit to go ahead and file suit now so you can win attorney fees? Just wondering.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The primary objective is for all cities within the State of California to remove all presence restrictions from its ordinance, not collect attorney’s fees and court costs. The Fullerton City Council appears to be trying to do that while at the same time answering the “needs” of their constituents. We are willing to wait two weeks for the City Council to make the right decision. If they do not, a lawsuit will be filed.

      • MM

        The fact that the California Supreme Court refused to hear the presence restrictions case, thereby making the Court of Appeals decision stand ~ doesn’t that mean it doesn’t matter what the cities say??

        Why would they need two more weeks to “think”? About what? Whether or not they are going to revise/repeal the ordinance that has already been deemed unenforceable? They can’t enforce the laws, right? Or is it simply a matter of updating the paperwork and minutes for “the record”?

        I’m confused …. based on the Appeals decision shouldn’t every city already know they need to repeal their presence ordinance? Period. I don’t understand their wanting to keep it? How can they even go to court to fight? It’s already been decided???

      • Joe

        Totally your call but I do not really see those two as being mutually exclusive 🙂

        I also fail to see how the “needs” of their constituents (okay, one guy / couple – I watched the hearing and read the media building up to this) outweighs the needs of 100,000 people having their constitutional rights violated. Plus the over 100 registrants within the City of Fullerton – are they not constituents?

        That the City is so ill prepared to make a move on this is beyond upsetting. The first decision was what – well over one year ago, Appellate Court ruled 4 months ago. Hello!!!!??

        My feelings? They do not deserve better. You are clearly a forgiving and compassionate person. As people here are all aware. I just hope the City of Fullerton appreciates this. Lord knows we do.

  4. mh

    They’re just gonna lose. California Supreme Court denied review, so the appellate decision is upheld. And that, my friends, is what we call the Law. Something these people know nothing about. Thank God our founding fathers had enough foresight to draft a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    • Eric Knight

      I think the threat of having Janice or Chance show up at the meeting of decision with a copy of a challenge in hand, to be delivered to the Central Circuit Building in Los Angeles at 9:00 next morning, should make the decision as stark as possible.

      I’m still working on the packet for providing cities once they rescind their laws on how to move forward with a proactive, constitutional method of protecting their children and communities from actual threats, not from the perceived threat spawned by the registry. Once something like that can be done, and can be presented to city councils with regularity, can we fully make a dent into public perception.

      • Brubaker

        Taxpayers will understand the wasted amount of money involved that fullerton will cost them…they are far Wrong on this….as for that “packet”…in a shiny color bow only needs the state and federal Constitutions…with instructions :::::Read it…support it…protect it…learn it…live it……..that’s all you need in your “packet” with a settlement $$$$$$amount to be forwarded to each registered for the violation of civil rights.

      • Q

        Hi Eric Knight:

        My hat is off to you for your educational efforts. Thank you.

  5. Q

    I wonder if these people are even aware of what’s happened to the other cities that didn’t want to let go of their illegal ordinances? Instead of just repealing their ordinances cities had to $ pay attorney fees and court costs $ as well as repeal their presence restriction ordinances anyway. The state says these presence restrictions are illegal so resistance is self defeating at this point. I’m reasonably sure they’ll find out and do what is wise.

    When Janice says the city is trying to answer the constituents “needs” I hope she means the city of Fullerton is referring to education. To me these presence restrictions are all based on what some would call misinformation; I prefer to be more realistic and call their “needs” a belief in fear based lies. I think this is what they need to address and education is the only way put their fear to rest. This is probably going to be another missed opportunity by another city to educate themselves and the people they serve.

    • Eric Knight

      As I said above, just bring a copy of an already-written up court challenge, of which the original will be delivered the next morning at 9:00 AM the next morning at federal Circuit Court building in downtown L.A. will be sufficient argument enough. I don’t see much more that needs to be done, and either they rescind and all is done, or they don’t rescind and it’s game on 12 hours later.

      What can be simpler?

  6. Robert Curtis

    There’s more beyond the surface here. Most people don’t know how easy it is to get put on the Sex Offender Registry. There has been children on the sex offender registry as young as 9 years old. Punitive measures are added Ex-post facto at the whim of any politician looking to get elected (like that of the DA). Making the registrant their new whipping boy for votes. What about the rights of the registrant’s child? Don’t they have a right to be with their parent? These laws break more than constitutional law and the God given right (spiritual law) of a parent to be with their child but it also breaks natural law. Even a mother bear is allowed to be with her cubs, but for a registrant and their child these laws dare to break those fundamental God given rights. Really? Where are we in pre-1945 Germany? Oh, about the sheriff giving out passes for registrants to go to parks. Why would a law enforcement agency give out passes for people to break the law? Sometimes Kids get hurt in parks and beaches. Whether by falling from a tree, drowning or choking on a hot-dog. It seems okay to violate the registrant child’s safety by disallowing their first line of defense (their parents) to be there. Ladies and gentlemen these kind of laws are not for freedom but tyranny. The numbers and facts don’t justify these fear based draconian laws. TRUTH

  7. Q

    Hi Robert Curtis:

    There’s been talk of a post-constitutional America in some circles.

  8. cool rso guy!

    Does that mean that they want this law to stay but don’t want to be the 1st in line in court?

    • Q

      Hi cool rso guy:

      I was watching the video of the city council meeting and what sticks out to me is when they were saying the pledge of allegiance; the entire room, in unison said “with liberty and justice for all.” This confirms they are hypocrites; stupid hypocrites. They all look so respectable and speak that way too, but “never judge a book by it’s cover.” What they do and what they say is very telling!

  9. Michael

    Even if they, and other cities, do not remove the ordinance, is it not now null and voild and unenforceable after the recent court decisions?

    If they do not remove it, in light of those court decisions, what’s the pratical harm?
    They make an knowingly illegal arrest of someone violating the ordinance, and the person arrested gets a big settlement?

    • MM

      Michael … that’s pretty much exactly what I asked on May 7th … (see below). I am thinking like you … who cares if they don’t remove it, right? But … then again, maybe not. I suppose ‘legally’ it needs to be reflected in the paperwork, although null and void anyway … ugh.

      The fact that the California Supreme Court refused to hear the presence restrictions case, thereby making the Court of Appeals decision stand ~ doesn’t that mean it doesn’t matter what the cities say??

      Why would they need two more weeks to “think”? About what? Whether or not they are going to revise/repeal the ordinance that has already been deemed unenforceable? They can’t enforce the laws, right? Or is it simply a matter of updating the paperwork and minutes for “the record”?

      I’m confused …. based on the Appeals decision shouldn’t every city already know they need to repeal their presence ordinance? Period. I don’t understand their wanting to keep it? How can they even go to court to fight? It’s already been decided???

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 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.  

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