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)

ACSOLCalifornia

Cities grapple with sex-offender code changes

HESPERIA — Reluctant to bow to state-level pressure, councilmen deferred adopting amendments to the city code about the regulation of sex offenders spurred by recent and pending court actions.

With two of the city’s five councilmen on vacation, the motion to approve the amendments died on a split vote (three yes were needed to pass).

Councilman Russ Blewett, who voted no, said after Tuesday’s meeting that he was basically protesting state laws and court decisions dictating what a city must do. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. j

    Blewitt sure lived up to his name. Why wouldn’t a public official keep the state’s constitution intact? Blew-it drank Tony’s kool-aid and it worked – at least for him…

  2. michael

    So they amend the city ordinance to be in line with state law. In other words, they copy the state law, but just attach a city ordinance number to it. So what is the point of that?
    I guess so that individual council members could technically say, if they run for higher office, that they passed a law in their city that was tough on sex offenders.

    • j

      You hit the nail on the head – It’s an election year and time to pad their resumes.

  3. Avig

    I regret that these elected officials will seemingly do anything to avoid obeying the laws. If I am not exempt from obeying the laws, why are they?

    What makes it worse: the laws they so assiduously defend are of little or no value in protecting actual people.

  4. Brubaker

    Geez dude…you really blew-it if that’s what taxpayers get for public service…please resign or quit immediately for not supporting and defending the Constitution …you blew-it.

  5. Q

    The Hesperia model? Are these stupid people trying to sound smart? It sure does look that way. OK Rachel Molina; go ahead and say –

    “What distinguishes the ‘Hesperia model’ from action being taken by other cities is that we are not seeking to repeal our existing ordinance but rather seeking to amend it to align with state of California law.”

    The only way I can imagine they can do that is to repeal their ordinance; then they will “align with state law.” I lived in the Victor Valley for aprox 8 yrs and I can say without a doubt that that area (The Victor Valley) is like Santa Ana in OC and Pomona in LA, I’ve lived in both of those cities too. What do these two cities have in common, you ask? Their crime problems are really high and registrants contribute a whopping 0% to their problem. Whenever I would hear of a “sex crime” it was always by someone not on the registry.

    A sampling of what one would think would be more pressing issues for the cities in the High Desert are drugs; a whole lot of drugs. There are gangs; high school gangs, as well as outlaw motorcycle gangs. I can think of four outlaw motorcycle gangs off the top of my head. There are Crips, Bloods and allot of prostitution. There are assaults, rapes, robberies, fraud, etc, and they think a group with a re-offense rate of under 6% is a problem worthy of their undivided attention?

    Sorry if I sound utterly amazed it’s because I am. I know allot of the media doesn’t like to report the truth about this issue. So; I recommend and encourage everyone and anyone to read the (2014 Tiering Report by the California Sex Offender Management Board).

    http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%203-21-14%20(2).pdf

    It’s insane to waste so much time and resources on a problem with such a low re-offense rate when the majority of other crime groups re-offend in the 70% range.

    Remember folk’s; Ignorance is a choice. Don’t believe everything you are told without checking the facts for your self.

    “Unfortunately a Face Book account is required to post a comment. If someone is willing to post this for the cause it would be greatly appreciated. Whoever posts this may edit it if they wish.”

    I would venture a guess the Bot’s invaded this site?

  6. Joe

    Another City Council Meeting worth watching. Calls to violence, discussion about a certain attorney without naming names, righteous indignation all around.

    http://hesperia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1486 (#12, at 1:00:00)

    In summary, Cowboy Government in the High Desert at its finest… quote Councilmember Blewett (at 1:17:55)

    “I guess we can’t shoot them…. although that would be a great alternative. But we can combine Items 11 (Animal Control Ordinance) and 12 (RSO Ordinance) and maybe spay and neuter them. That would be a great thing to do”. Response: “You know if we can do that I’ll bring it back now” Chuckle chuckle.

    It should be noted that the current ordinance is so far out of line with State law that it is absurd. No loitering within 500 feet of all kinds of uses including school bus stops and family home day care etc, and no residing within 4,000 feet of these uses. While not familiar with Hesperia it would appear that residence in this city is completely off limits, as well as being in any state other than perpetual motion (lacking a definition of “loitering”).

    Staff Report http://www.cityofhesperia.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1239 #12

    The ordinance amendment was shot down, instead continued to early August. This will give the City Council time to bask in the glory of standing strong, of what apparently has been dubbed “The Hesperia Model”.

    One can only hope that the “Hesperia Model” will soon include a Federal Law Suit. Not that any of this is or should be personal, but maybe a certain attorney will take exception to the tone of the discussion?

    • Q

      Joe:

      Wisdom? Clarity as they seek justice? Peace? Subject themselves to the governing authorities?!?! I really find myself struggling to understand how they expect God to grant them these things when their actions relating to registrants is based on a lie and they are resisting, dishonoring and choosing to rebel instead of obeying the governing authorities. God hates lies. They must be praying to the other god; their god; the father of lies. I take offense these hypocritical vigilantes ask for these things in the name of Jesus; I take equal offense when men and women of their stripe pledge allegiance to the flag and recite the words “with liberty and justice for all.” They obviously don’t mean it.

      The council member with anger issues who claims our pursuit of that part of the Pledge of Allegiance that says “with liberty and justice for all” is the one who’s out of control because he obviously is just another dummy ignorant of the facts / truth. They can dress their hypocrisy up as pretty as they want, and they can act like they are unbiased upright citizens all they want. But at the end of the day a lie is a lie. There is more than enough evidence that proves their beliefs about registrants are largely false and therefore a lie. The “Hesperia model” sounds ludicrous. Why (especially the city attorneys) are these city counsels seemingly so ignorant of the fact’s surrounding this manufactured issue? The fact that Sacramento was referred to as a “cesspool” pretty much sums up their respect for the governing authorities; these people are outlaws. They can go ahead and “shout from the mountain tops” all they want; in the end it’s just going to prove their ignorance.

      Ooh! that 9+9=18 was a hard one!!!

    • j

      … quote Councilmember Blewett (at 1:17:55)…

      What is this idiot doing on any public dole? He should be leading a klan meeting according to his words. He is a danger to anyone who does not see things his way and proceeding should begin immediately to oust this charlatan.

  7. Eric Knight

    Going past the pompous and borderline criminal platitudes by the city council, there is a troubling development that I picked up on.

    The presenter, a legal associate working with a firm who is representing many cities who are opponents of Janice Bellucci and RSOL on many suits, stated that Janice has “accepted” Hesperia’s modification to allow for the continued enforcement of restriction registrants’ actions with regard to residency and proximity in the lawsuit because they “align with the state.” I am a bit puzzled, though. If true, doesn’t this essentially endorse the city’s justification for punishing registrants in the first place?

    I would like to know more of what the game plan is involved here. It sounds as if Janice is signalling to other cities that they don’t have to repeal their laws, but just modify them to meet a state standard that is obviously in violation of state and federal constitutional law. WORSE, it can provide an incentive for cities to move forward and create their own local ordinances that are “in line with state law” as well.

    While there may be some confidential legal strategy going on with this process that Janice doesn’t want to reveal, from my standpoint I can see how cities can use this action to move forward with their restrictions. Even some cities who Janice has already beaten through court settlements can reestablish their registrant restriction laws to the level of the state.

    To me, this was the most jarring item on tape, even more than the blathering of the idiot city council.

    Can we be clarified on this development from the position of CA RSOL officials? Thanks.

    • Joe

      Not sure what you are objecting to – I did not hear any reference to preserving ordinances regarding proximity. Perhaps I need to re-listen.

      The (successful) law suits are about cities and counties having adopted ordinances that went over and above State Law and, as such, are contrary to the California Constitution. That was the whole and only basis for the law suit.

      State Law clearly has a 2,000 foot residency restriction with the express permission for cities to expand on that in terms of penalties. It does not have the same leeway regarding presence restrictions (limiting those to people on parole for crimes affecting those under 14).

      True – some cities have repealed all restrictions in ANTICIPATION of a (n adverse for them) ruling in re. Taylor, but honestly I found that to be pleasantly surprising as I thought them under no obligation to do so.

      I would think if all presence / loitering restrictions were repealed that is a victory, 100%.

      • Eric Knight

        Let me try to be clear here. I don’t want to go transcribe the woman’s presentation cause it will take more than a couple of hourse, but if you go to the 1 hour mark on the video she’s talking there.

        This woman is an associate or legal person who works for a law firm that is advising several cities, such as Lompoc and Pomona, in defense of Janice’s lawsuits. She is giving the briefing by saying that as long as any ordinance does not exceed the punishment that the state laws provide for, they can have the law on the books and also enforce it.

        This means that since California has the 2,000 foot law on the books, then the city can have their OWN ordinance about the 2,000 foot law, reduced from the city ordinance of 3,000 feet or more. The woman giving the presentation stated that (paraphrasing) “the attorney on the other side said we will stop the lawsuit if the ordinance is no harsher than state law.”

        If this is exactly the case, then something is not kosher, unless Janice has a legal or strategic reason for doing so. The point of the lawsuits is to keep the law from being on the books in the FIRST place, I thought. This is why I have my concern, and to be blunt, the cynic in me says that since this legal “acknowledgement” has been understood, that the scenarios I presented above are still possible.

        • sérviam

          Eric, actually, you have to consider the merits of the case — i.e. standing to sue, ripeness, and legal theories. If there is no law broken, then there is no law to be enforced, which means you don’t have a good case. Unfortunately, since In re Taylor was depublished pursuant to grant or denial of review, it is not citable case law and therefore, the attorney representing these cities is basically saying “let’s just repeal the part of the ordinance that violates State law — People v. Dryg, and wait on the parts that are still pending.” Hence, we CANNOT win a lawsuit based on case law that is not citable while pending review. In other words, we can’t enforce common law while it is currently NOT THE LAW.

        • j

          “…occupies the field…” – this should mean exclusivity protection from any ensnarement and prosecution at the local level.

  8. Brubaker

    Could you(ericknight) keep your request as ‘you’ want ….”….leave ‘we’ outta your request …surely you don’t speak for me….just saying own your debbie downer comment as your own.

  9. Michael

    I just listened to and saw the vid on the July 15th council meeting in Hesperia. What a bunch of knee jerk Neanderthals.
    Someone needs to send them a fact sheet on just who sex offenders are where most of the offenses against children come from (like relatives and close or trusted family friends).
    They also seem ignorant of the fact that not all RSO are the same. As if all are sexual predators.

    I understand that there are well meaning, but ignorant, people out there that are just trying to look out for their kids, but those three jokers on that council take the cake. Especially that one guy in the middle.

    I really hope that CARSOL is able to do something soonest to pull these people’s choke chain.
    I know Janice knows best, but man i wish these people could somehow be slapped down with some sort of “pull your head out of your A” letter or legsl filing.

    If i wasn’t try for a Certificate of Rehab this year, I’d fire a letter off to each of them myself.
    No use sending one anonymously as they’d just hold it up and deride it as being from some cowardly RSO…”like the one lurking outside your little girl’s bedroom window”.
    Morons!

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 *

.