ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Anaheim repeals sex offender ban at city parks

Anaheim has joined the growing list of cities across Orange County and California that suspended a ban that prevents sex offenders from entering city parks.

At the urging of Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, the Anaheim City Council adopted an ordinance nearly two years ago that required registered sex offenders to stay away from parks. Full Article (Paywall)

Join the discussion

  1. Janice Bellucci

    We commend Anaheim for having the courage that the City of Orange lacks.

    • Q

      Janice:

      True; I couldn’t believe the stone cold silence when the mayor of orange asked for a second on the motion to repeal their illegal ordinance. It’s frustrating!

      • j

        Frustrating is an understatement. Add surreal, 1984 and a few other disturbing and polarized words to describe the disconnect between the constitution and the Jim Crowers acting like ostriches with their heads “buried in the sand” – and that’s being nice.

        • Q

          J:

          It’s disturbing to know that much of the population has an aversion to factual truth, and act’s in accordance with this aversion (they are victims of deception). When I read articles from the lame stream media I get the sense; very strongly, that there is a nationwide propaganda campaign aimed at keeping and expanding the ever increasing punitive measures aimed at us, as well as the general population, and the dismantling of the constitution and bill of rights.

          Much of this problem can be traced to the government funded groups like the California correctional peace officers association¹, a group that is so well monied they have lobbyists in the capitol, and if their self interest requires an extra push, they will pay for TV commercials in support of their interests; (harsher laws, more power and more prisons and fewer rights for the public.) There are other groups with a stake in keeping the lie alive, like victims rights and victims advocacy groups², that also depend on the government for their survival and are an irresistible tool used by political groups with their own retributive agendas. And the list of government funded groups goes on, like corporations created to build, staff and operate private prisons.

          It is a huge and deceptive beast we are up against; and our only hope are groups like this one (CA-RSOL) and individual attorneys that place truth and justice ahead of money, property and prestige. David slew Goliath and we have our Davids in the form of attorneys that fight for us. I’m thankful for that.

          http://webmail.cjcj.org/cpp/political_power.php ¹

          http://rethinking.catalystdemo.net.nz/eserv/rcp:530/The_Political_Exploitation_of__Victi.pdf ²

        • Tim

          I see another hope. The corrections officers are eventually shooting themselves in the heart of their quality of life by continually demanding harsher laws. The politicians say yah, yah, yah went it comes to incarcerating more people. But they say no, uh, uh, oh when it comes to building more prisons, especially if it is in their jurisdiction, or to making the existing ones safer. So the government instead goes shopping for these bargain basement private prisons, where pay is low, training is inadequate and conditions are more dangerous than in the state run facilities. It’s the Walmartization of the correctional economy and these correctional officers are going to end up as the loosers, much like the poor lot of humanity they oversee. End up being obsolete, that is if they don’t change their agenda and start to demand a more sustainable and smaller penal system staffed with well paid and well trained employees in safe, uncrowded conditions.

  2. Eric Knight

    Apparently some politicians just don’t get the reason behind the ban.

    The mayor pro tem is insisting on drafting a resolution to send to the California legislature to create a presence restriction as a state law.

    http://anaheimblog.net/2014/06/19/anaheim-calls-for-legislative-fix-to-repeals-prohibition-on-sex-offenders-in-city-parks/

    Did she NOT hear the session where Janice explained not only was the law unconstitutional, but would have NO BEARING on safety?

    Did she NOT hear the police chief’s testimony in which he said that enforcing restrictions would not only fail to to increase community safety, but would actually require him to expend more resources to enforce this law instead of REAL threats like gangs and other violence, i.e., REAL community dangers?

    Guess not. She just throws her hands in the air and whines to the legislature. Whatta gal.

    • Q

      I don’t understand how the mayor pro term thinks she can alter the Constitution to change something that is unconstitutional, thus illegal, into something with no bearing on safety that suites her. The city attorney should refuse to do this on ethical grounds. I doubt the state legislators are going to take this seriously because the supreme court has already ruled these laws unconstitutional.

      • Joe

        Let’s back up here… the ONLY reason the courts ruled the park ban unconstitutional is that they pre-empted state law. So if it becomes state law, no problem no more. Because any kind of restriction (i.e. residency restriction or prohibition to enter school property) is regulatory and is not ex post facto (Doe v Smith) it does not clash with the US Constitution, as long as it is state law, even if it becomes state law after the fact. So yes, a state law to this effect should be valid as long as Doe v Smith stands. Just like state law authorized individual municipalities to regulate registrants’ residence to their hearts content.

        It should be noted that a blanket park ban was in the inital language of 2010 Chelsea’s Law which was rejected in place of the current law – stipulating that a person on parole for an offense against a minor under 14 is prohibited from entering parks (while on parole) – the basis for the conclusion that the legislature fully considered and occupies the parks presence issue. One should remember that the blanket ban did not pass although it was well before CA ROSL’s existence and had virtually no registrant opposition (one would guess).

        This is the time to keep an eye on Sacramento and support Janice and CA RSOL. That means contributing funds to the effort! California is blessed to have a Janice. These sort of things take time and money. It would be a shame to have this victory erased.

        • Eric Knight

          Rest assured, that if this becomes state law through the legislature, the morning after the governor’s signature CA RSOL will most probably be filing against its enforcement through the same constitutional violation arguments, in the same way Prop 35 was challenged within 24 hours of passage of the initiative process. Just because the state does it dosn’t make it any less constitutional, though pragmatically it’s harder to reverse a state law than a municipal ordinance.

        • Q

          Thanks Joe; now I understand how these victories can be lost. I hope this doesn’t happen, but if it does we can at least know it will probably be challenged in the manner Eric points out.

    • Joe

      How would they attempt to enforce this sort of law? Hire more cops. Of course. (at the same time raise taxes, print more money, cut other services (education???) or how?)

      Council Adopts Mayor Pro Tem Murray Request To Prioritize Hiring of 40 Police Officers

      http://anaheimblog.net/2014/06/13/council-adopts-mayor-pro-tem-murray-request-to-prioritize-hiring-of-40-police-officers/

  3. Robert Curtis

    The court case against the city of Orange should be a slam dunk for RSOL-CA. It will

    send another clear message DON’T MESS with the RIGHTS of people that have done their

    time and paid their debt. As the case gets closer to trial I’m sure they’ll

    re-dress the issue (in close session). This is their way of posturing for

    the public on the front end and opting out with grace on the back end (which is

    fine). Like with the city of Lancaster with all their tambourine bashing by

    passing their ban only later to repeal it in close session quietly without fan

    fair. Politics, you got to love them!

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 *

.