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)

ACSOL

City of Orange Eliminates Presence Restrictions and Stops Enforcement of Residency Restrictions

In a vote of 4 to 1, the City Council for the City of Orange agreed on August 12 to eliminate all presence restrictions that prohibited registered citizens from visiting public libraries, parks, bus stops, schools and restaurants with playgrounds. The City Council also agreed to stop enforcement of its residency restrictions which prohibited more than one registered citizen staying in a local hotel or motel until the California Supreme Court determines whether residency restrictions are constitutional. The dissenting vote cast on this issue during the August 12 meeting was by Councilman Bilodeau who did not speak to the issue prior to his vote.

“This is a significant victory for more than 100,000 registered citizens and members of their families,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “No longer will they be denied access to public and private places.”

The City Council members refused in a previous council meeting to revise the city’s sex offender ordinance despite a strong recommendation from City Attorney Wayne Winthers to do so. Some of the City Council members stated during the Augusut 12 meeting that they were reluctantly agreeing to eliminate presence restrictions because it would save the city’s taxpayers an estimated $500,000 in legal fees. One member of the City Council acknowledged the California Court of Appeal decision which determined that a similar ordinance in the City of Irvine was preempted by state law.

California RSOL filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the city’s ordinance on June 17. The lawsuit was filed after California RSOL sent a series of letters to the City starting in January 2014. The letters notified the City of Orange that its ordinance violated the state and federal constitutions and warned that the city could be sued if it did not revise or repeal its ordinance. The City of Orange has agreed to pay attorneys fees and related costs in order to settle the lawsuit.

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    Excellent! Another group of slime balls have decided to obey the law. Unwillingly; I’m sure. I think the primary motivating factor here was saving their collective butt’s in the eyes of their constituents by not taking this any further than they already have and getting a costly bee-ach throttling in a court of law. 🙂 I’ll bet they are resentful as hell they have to pay attorney fees and related costs. 🙂

    I think I’ll visit the city of Orange this weekend, get a room for the night and make a quick stop in front of Orange High School, or perhaps the library, and take a selfie of me flipping the bird with a HUGE smile on my face 🙂 and then go visit my family. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Thanks again Janice! Once again you have proven the powers of good are stronger than obstinacy, unreasoning prejudice and foolishness.

  2. Michale

    I cannot figure out WHY these various cites do not do this as soon as these 3 things come together:

    (1) receiving warning letters from CARSOL and
    (2) the court decision and
    (3) being advised by city attorney’s office to do it.

    So they delay and now have to pay thousands of dollars, in taxpayer money, for dithering over a decision that is a foregone conclusion.

    Its not like they “prove” anything by it…other than they are not responsible with the people’s money.

  3. Bluewall

    Woohooo the Orange Curtain (Orange County) has collapsed .. I can go visit my sister in Orange without being paranoid about cops following me and parked behind my car.. And I go with my sister and my nephews in the parks of Orange and Tustin without fear…

    Thank you Janice! Thank you RSOL!

  4. steve

    So what are the chances some politician decides to make the restrictions a state law? Will we finally have a legitimate case that registering is punishment?

    • steve

      I should say tries to pass a bill…

    • Eric Knight

      At this point in time, it is highly unlikely. Technically, Jessica’s law, the result of the initiative process, is the only residency restriction law on the books, and the courts have ruled it only applies in certain conditions to parolees, inferring that the law does NOT apply to those not on parole.

      The legislature is currently overwhelmingly Democratic, so it is unlikely that a residency law will pass. The only way this would be a possibility is if the GOP gained heavily in both the senate and the assembly, but right now they are near super-majority status for the Democrats. When Chelsea King was murdered by a registrant, I thought holy hell was going to be wrought on California through massive restriction laws across the board, but cooler heads generally prevailed, and the only major laws they passed then was to strengthen violent sex crime sentencing as well as violent rape of pre-teen children, but there were no new major laws passed that applied across the board to all registrants.

      In addition, the legislature had tried twice to introduce bills that called for Internet regulations and restrictions, but they didn’t even get out of committee, let alone to the floor for debate and votes. That law had to pass by a trojan horse initiative, Proposition 35, which Janice, EFF, and the ACLU have so far successfully staved off and is currently being reviewed by the 9th Circuit.

      To that end, though, any attempts to pass laws with regard to residency restrictions have been soundly rejected. Now, if both the senate and the assembly become more conservative, there may be a possibility of such acts being signed, but that isn’t likely to happen in the next 10 years or so. Hopefully, by that time we will have more permanent solutions to prevent such an action by then as well, though one can never say never.

      • Tim

        And, well, there might be another voter initiative hatching out of the deep rural South of southern California. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is not out there getting signatures for residency restrictions. My guess, though, is they will come up with something that will try to make it harder to challenge these ordinances in court.

        • Eric Knight

          And the day after the election at 9:00 AM sharp, Janice will be waiting by the doorstep, first in line, with a completely-written challenge in hand, including an immediate stay of the order, just as was done for Prop 35. And the stay would most probably be enforced, based upon a near-unanimity of current court decisions that have ruled such restrictions as unconstitutional.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          Exactly. I had talked with Janice on the once or twice just after she took charge of the California RSOL after the previous attempt to start a state chapter fell through. (The previous people, dropped off the face of the earth.) After Jessica’s law passed, i had heard Janice had personally filed in Federal Court the paperwork needed to get this blocked, lawsuit started. Ironically, i wanted to one day meet Janice and i missed her.. she was just 10 blocks from where i was staying.

          Anyway, i finally got to meet her in person in San Diego area at the California RSOL conference, then again in Los Angeles and then in Fresno, California where i now live. I would like to attend the Sept 20th conference and am likely to network with others again as i have a that seats 7 comfortably.

        • Q

          Hi Tim;

          I think people are actually starting to think about facts once in a while instead of just reacting to the manufactured consent to just pass the avalanche of proposed laws against registrants that are more myth than reality. If anyone does do that it probably won’t go very far.

      • FEDRC

        You said, “the courts have ruled it only applies in certain conditions to parolees, inferring that the law does NOT apply to those not on parole.”

        Have there been documented cases stating this? I’m on Federal probation, not on parole, and have been told the restriction applies to all 290’s…and the stay of enforcement only applies to parolees. Obviously the PO office is using semantics to keep me (and others) restricted but if there are published cases I could really use them. Thank you!

    • Janice Bellucci

      Sen. Correa of Orange County tried to pass such a law last year and it failed.

  5. Brubaker

    Whewwwwwwwww…!….its also a HomeRun for our Constitution ……..it works.

    • j

      The sad part is that these laws are slammed in by lawmakers knowing that they will cause havoc, disrupt the lives of reformed registrants, cause extreme hardship when the registrants are summarily dismissed from their jobs, etc. They leave the truth to be meted out downstream in various appeals courts while they enjoy the glory of the “tough on crime” bs They are never around to apologize to victims of the registry and their families who have been unnecessarily and permanently damaged while these laws ignore the true statistics on recidivism and risk assessments.

      It would be nice to see someone like Correa make a dignified statement about exactly how wrong he was as proven in appellate court. Again, you could probably wait the better part of a century before seeing any type of humility from these bottom feeding politicos.

  6. Craig

    I have said this before and do not even live in CA, but have family that does, now I will go visit. I am also glad that the cities have to pay legal fees, great job CARSOL. Stand together people that is how you win!

  7. Craig

    I see so much change in California, I just wish we could see it in more of a national level. I have so much respect for Janice and the members of CA RSOL, you are the ones who are working so hard for change, keep the good work up and hope your membership grows until you are able to demand a end to the registry.

    I have seen far to many families hurt beyond belief , their children suffer far more than most know. Most just want to get their life back after they have paid for their crime but as it seems you can never get your life back.

    Keep up the fight CA RSOL .

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 *

.