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

Supervisors set to repeal sex offender ordinance

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors are expected to repeal Ordinance 902, the ordinance that sets rules on where sex offenders can live or visit. The board decided to appeal the ordinance on the advice of legal counsel following Appeals Court rulings on similar ordinances in nearby areas as unconstitutional.

Third District Supervisor Jeff Stone registered a “No” vote, making a strong political statement on the subject during the July 1 meeting. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    Amazing; simply amazing. These people act as though they actually have a choice, at least with the presence restrictions. These people actually believe that presence and residency restrictions actually address something! If the state supreme court ruled some of these ordinances are unconstitutional even the most marginal of thinkers would realize that would make them illegal.

    I’ve often pondered the question of why so many people know so little about the true nature of these laws and the registry in general, and why people are so willing to believe anything they are told to be unarguable fact. It’s pretty clear the supervisors wish to appear “tough,” yet know if they don’t repeal these ordinances they “would be legally challenged and most likely lose.” Doesn’t that mean they are in the wrong? Or does it mean the state is picking on them for no reason what so ever?

    Perhaps these supervisors could still appear “tough” and actually do some good. All they would need to do is stop obsessing on a group who has throughout the years been proven to be the most least likely to be any kind of a problem and focus their laws, rhetoric and posturing on those that have historically proven to be a problem.

    All this talk of replacement ordinances to “reflect state law?” The only way these people can do that is to repeal and forget about it. Then find a real problem to pursue.

    A Better Path to Community Safety below in link:

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

    • Q

      Apparently the Valley News doesn’t want it’s readers to read the 2014 CASCOMB tiering paper. I believe the moderator purposefully excluded the link because it doesn’t line up with the moderator want’s to believe. I think I’ll try sending the Valley News an email reporting an error and see what; if anything is done.

  2. mike

    I’m not really surprised that Jeff Stone essentially went on record to state he doesn’t support the constitution that he has sworn to protect. It’s ridiculous that his chief of staff should try to explain him. He has consistently proven that he is incapable of reasonable forethought and that he wants to be “tough on crime” as opposed to smart on crime. It scares me that he’s running for state senate this fall. Hopefully his opponents will use his gross negligence against him.
    Do we really need another politician in Sacramento that’s going to stand their ground and try to hold up progress out of pure stubbornness to satisfy their ego and personal agenda? Regardless of constitutionality? That’s too costly.

  3. Q

    Unapproved
    5 hours ago
    Murray & Wonderin

    I strongly suggest you both check out the 2014 tiering report by the California Sex Offender Management Board.

    (“yup; it’s censrship”)

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 *

.