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


Lompoc May Revise ‘Presence’ Restrictions for Sex Offenders

The City of Lompoc is poised to repeal its stringent requirements on where registered sex offenders can visit, a change stemming from a lawsuit filed by a Grover Beach man. Full Article

Santa Maria attorney files sex offender lawsuit against Lompoc

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    Hmmm….. I find the ambiguous statements in this article about
    the Grover Beach man “Frank Lindsay” interesting; “but has not
    been convicted of a felony since then.” I’m sure if this man ever
    got any kind of a charge beyond a parking ticket the story would have
    been all over it. It appears this man committed one crime a lifetime
    ago and has not committed another crime since, has apparently lived
    as a normal citizen without any kind of legal problem since, yet
    Lompoc doesn’t want him to be able to take his children or grand
    children to the park or library, as well as most other places in the
    city? I’m not seeing the logic, let alone need for this kind of
    preemptive ordinance against Mr Lindsay, his children and
    grandchildren, or anyone for that matter, in any city or town in the

    I also don’t see why these cities and towns have to think twice
    about repealing these now; according to the State Supreme Court,
    illegal ordinances. Perhaps they still believe all the rhetoric about
    “stranger danger,” etc, that has been empirically proven to be
    the furthest thing from the truth.

    The fact of the matter is that at least 95% of sex crimes are committed by someone with a trust relationship with the victim, like a parent, teacher, coach, priest
    or family friend or family member. Another one of the biggest myths is most sex crimes are committed by previously identifies sex offenders, which statistics show to be untrue.

    The research says 95% of of solved sex crimes are committed by people that have never been identified as a sex offender. Perhaps these kind of laws and
    ordinances are misguided and aimed in the wrong direction and at the
    wrong people.

    I’m sure there are many people out there that will be as shocked and unbelieving as I was; so I’m posting a link to the California Sex Offender Management Boards 2014 report. There’s allot more information by reputable sources that are very informative.

    It appears I have been told, and I believed, allot of things that
    just aren’t true!!! I hope this helps.

    • Q

      OK; here’s another site that practices censorship. It took less than an hour for this post to disappear. maybe it will show back up; Yea Right!

    • Q

      My comment is gone! I don’t know if it’s my computer (not likely) or if it’s censorship. Small wonder the most of the general public is in a stupor when it comes to actually knowing anything that isn’t outright fantasy regarding registrants and the true nature of these preemptive ordinances. As long as these news outlets that encourage discussion remove comments that don’t line up with their opinion we cannot expect the public to change it’s opinion anytime soon.

  2. Q

    OK; my post is there. I sure hope allot of people read the CASCOMB report. 🙂

    • Q

      Anonymous Nobody

      Simple logic says if the state supreme court ruled these ordinances are unconstitutional, then that means these ordinances are illegal. I’m in total agreement these ignorance based ordinances, used rigorously by self serving individuals and groups need to go all together. I hope your wrong about the state supreme court. It’s like a crap shoot with them; not allot of jurisprudence there when it comes to victims of the registry. I hope the concerted effort by Janice and others comes to pass. We’ll see.

  3. Anonymous Nobody

    I’m not sure we should allow ANYTHING to remain on the local law books. If regulation of sex offenders is preempted by the state, locals should not have any kind of sex offender ordinance, even if it simply state the same language as state law. Finish this local ordinance crap once and for all; don’t leave it to fight all over again another day.

    We can’t always have hundreds of battles to fight over any and every little details instead of having it all in one place and one fight. If they won;t agree to that, then we shod proceed with the federal suit now, not put it off until later – get it done once and for all. I know nothing is ever guaranteed when you go to court, but on the other hand, we can’t sit here interminably accepting or fighting every little local crap detail they want to keep coming up with.

    Re residency, I predict the state high court will OK the restrictions. They will lie to do so, and then they will approve them. I say this because this is how they have dealt with every sex offender issue for the past 15-20 years — our state high court is the worst state high court to deal with on these issues. The only benefit they might give us on that is whether they allow the residency restrictions to be applied retroactively.

    These restrictions are 110% unacceptable even is not applied retroactively (if not, they will not affect me — but they are very wrong and unacceptable nonetheless). So, I hope a plan is already made and steps being taken to take that fight to the next level and fast.

    • Janice Bellucci

      There is a concerted effort and strategy to end all city and county presence restrictions in California this calendar year. So far, 28 cities have repealed their presence restrictions without being sued and 13 lawsuits have been filed. The lawsuits will continue until these restrictions are gone.

  4. USA

    Janice, I think you are doing an amazing job. I still disagree with the laws forbidding where people can live and these Halloween Ordinances need to be overturned as well. Great job!

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 *