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

Orange Joins Cities Changing Sex Offender Bans

The city of Orange is set to join a growing list of cities revising bans on registered sex offenders in parks in the wake of recent state appeals court rulings. … Orange has already been served with a lawsuit, Lindsay v. City of Orange, challenging its laws banning sex offenders in parks. The suit alleges the entire ordinance must be repealed, but the city attorney is recommending only one section pertaining to parks be removed. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    Jesus H Christ!?!?! If anyone doesn’t understand why Janice referred to the city of Orange as “not too bright” at the 2014 RSOL conference in Texas just watch the video of Janice’s presentation and then read the article. I sincerely hope this lawsuit moves forward because this town still thinks the constitution doesn’t apply to them; or only the parts they choose. And now they want to remove only one part of their illegal laws pertaining to parks? I agree; they aren’t very bright at all! These Hitler wannabees don’t even wan’t registrants to be able to decorate their homes on halloween! And how is a registrant supposed to know if another registrant is in a hotel before they check in? I’ll still be avoiding that town like the plague because I would still fear being arrested if I stopped at a gas station that had a child day care less than 300 ft away on the street behind it, or any other kind of place where children congregate.

    Janice Bellucci: Challenging Presence Restrictions

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViFpnd7JHec

    • Michale

      Well, I have to say, I register there, and I put right on my form that I go to various parks. HOWEVER, I am there for some legitimate reason or another and not standing around staring at kids. Which is what I assume they mean by “loitering” In 10 years I’ve never been bothered by OPD.

      • Q

        Michale:

        That’s good you haven’t been bothered by the OPD. But that doesn’t change the fact that their laws are illegal and a threat to any registrant they decide to use them against.

        • Michael

          Well, in my case, it was just a case of credit where credit was due. Orange has always treated me with courtesy as an registrant. I only had a problems with one detective in the 10years Ive registered there

          She would interview me over my registration form like mine was an active investigation. But that stopped when i complained to her Sargent. Otherwise, since there were no complaints or evidence to the contrary, everyone else before and after has treated me with courtesy and like that had enough work to do already without trying to conjure some more out of thin air.

          One did talk to me about being in the parks. But only to say that if a patrol officer saw me, and was able to articulate in his/her report, if it came to that, that it seemed i had no other, reasonable, business there, except to be scoping out kids, it could be a sticky situation.

          The problem i have with the vast majority of these laws is that they link all RSOs as one. But common sense should prevail and prohibitions should be offense specific.

          To wit; Does anyone really think there should be NO prohibitions of any kind, even after probation or parole is over, on an RSO whose past MO is to approach little kids in a park restroom and do whatever? I think keeping THAT guy outta parks, for a very long time, is actually a good idea. Don’t you?

        • Q

          If any “prohibitions” are unconstitutional then they should not exist. The RSO that approaches little kids in a park rest room you speak of is more the exception rather the rule, and would be a rarity at that. Aside from parole or probation, presence/proximity restrictions should not exist and I, for one, am glad Janice is going after them just like she did with the Halloween signs registrants were forced to place on their residence in Orange and Simi Valley.

          I was borne in the city of Orange at St Josephs hospital. I went to elementary school there at Killifer elementary; My siblings also went there as well as to Yorba Jr high and Orange High. My family has had a presence in that city since the forties and my mother has been in the area since the twenties, went to school there in the twenties when what is now Chapman U was the school for the entire area. The two original buildings housed the kindergarten classes, jr high on through high school classes. I used to walk to school through the orange groves and stop and visit with the hobos in their hobo camp, as did many other children. There was never any kind of problem.

          Like I said before, it’s a good thing the cops don’t seem to have a problem with you. But what if there was a registrant they didn’t like? It’;s not like they post signs or afford registrants any kind of courtesy. Or what about the registered traveler that unwittingly checks into a hotel already occupied by a registrant and some cop happens to drive around checking license plates? Someone could get arrested simply for resting. I won’t go see my mother and other family members because I fear cities like Orange with their draconian laws and ordinances. These laws and ordinances do not line up with the constitution on so many levels and are thus illegal. They must be repealed ASAP.

        • Tim

          Sorry, the registry started like that: put the really bad ones on notice and have everyone know where they are and keep an eye on them. Then it expanded and included more and more. In fact it never really included just repeat offenders. It is doomed to fail that way. You can’t give legislative bodies the power to put people back on parole. They can never, even if they were operating on pure reason, rather than hype, have all the correct information to tell just who is going to re-offend and who isn’t. Instead they are always going to lump diverse groups of individuals into broad categories, and steep themselves in stupid arguments about which type of offender type they like least and therefore should apply more surveillance to. No, we ought to go back to the Constitution. Let individual investigators who have specific and verifiable information about an individual’s motives and actions, to present a request to a court to have those identified based on the specific evidence and so monitored for the public good. And, the object of the surveliance should have the right to challege that determination. This is how it is done with all other types of crimes — the exception being terrorists. Even then they aren’t on a public registry.

  2. Paul

    “…and checking into motels where other sex offenders are staying. Violations result in a $1,000 fine and possible jail time.”

    And how exactly does Orange expect registered citizens to comply this unconstitutional law? Require us to ask the desk person if there are any registrants already checked in? Require motels to hang a “Vacancy for Registrants” sign, indicating that it’s a “compliant” motel?

    These laws are so beyond the point of being insane, it’s nearly impossible to imagine that the people who thought them up, have ANY intelligence whatsoever! How do these clowns get elected? Oh yea! By proposing these types of laws! Even scarier is the fact that enough idiots exist, to elect these morons in the first place!

    • Q

      Paul:

      The only way to avoid a fine and arrest or jail time would mean any registrant wanting to check into a hotel in Orange would be compelled to ask if there was anyone staying at the hotel who is a registered sex offender. This violates the first amendment to the US constitution, which is about free speech. If the government forces you to say something; that’s not free speech.

      After asking the forced question the hotel probably won’t rent the registrant a room because of being a registrant. Who’s to say some cop won’t drive around the parking lot checking license plates, only to discover that more than one “sex offender” is staying at the motel. Then everyone gets arrested because how in the hell is anyone supposed to know about this part of the city’s ordinance in the first place? let us not forget; the City of Orange can’t even afford postage stamps let alone a sign informing registrants of their illegal law.

  3. Brubaker

    Remember orange county is nixon county…they don’t honor a fair trial..they can erase evidence from record..nixon tactics are par for that county..back hallway removing evidence cheats crooks.

  4. Tim

    I’ve never been arrested stopping at a motel or checking into a campground, althought there is a good chance I unwittingly violated some ordinance or other somewhere with serious consequences. I will say this: whenever I travel some where, it’s always a worrisome business pulling over to stay the night (or even to rest in the day) somewhere. These ordinances and shaming laws have done nothing but make the world a much more dangerous place for my family and me.

  5. Janice Bellucci

    The Orange City Council will meet tonight starting at 6 p.m. During the meeting, the Council will consider whether to significantly revise the city’s sex offender ordinance by eliminating all presence restrictions and placing a stay of enforcement on all residency restrictions. The agenda item is 9.2. The meeting can be viewed live online tonight.

  6. Janice Bellucci

    The City Council of the City of Orange voted 4 to 1 on August 12 in favor of removing all presence restrictions as well as placing a stay of enforcement on all residency restrictions. There will soon be an article added to the website which provides more details about this vote.

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 *

.