Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Since these stupid people have to have someone they totally hate for no good reason tell them “The city of Carson Municipal Code violates the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution,” something their city attorney should have told them in the first place then they need to repeal and pay. These stupid people on city counsels in this state don’t seem to know anything about the very principals they swore to uphold. They are a mentally insulting pathetic lot.

I think $3,000 isn’t nearly enough and that they should be asked for more. but that is not my business; I’m just saying. Janice has been accused of being in this fight solely for monetary reasons by some of these bigoted idiots. These people on these city counsels being sued are a sad bunch of people handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness and unreasoning prejudice. The experience of losing this lawsuit should humble these city counsels, but instead many of them have chosen to totally disregard the principals they swore to uphold and conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the way they portray themselves. Are we the only ones that notice this?

Glad to see this happening in Carson as well. I much as I wish it were true … I don’t think the last paragraph of the article is correct. Says that State law doesn’t restrict were registrants can live – isn’t that up for debate still? On whether PC290 does or does NOT apply across the board or to only those on parole?? Like I wrote, I wish what she wrote as fact were true – then residency restrictions would be a moot point.

“Among other differences, state law does not restrict sex offenders from loitering near places where children congregate or place restrictions on where they can live in relation to child-care centers.”

Isn’t it a federal offense to fall back on a sworn duty to uphold the constitution?