Janice’s Journal: Buckle your Seatbelts

There are 3 significant events expected during the next 30 days:

  1. introduction of a tiered registry bill in Sacramento,
  2. two California Supreme Court decisions regarding residency restrictions and
  3. an attempt to make peace with the City of Carson.

What occurs during this 30-day period will significantly impact every person required to register as a sex offender in California.

First, there currently is a draft tiered registry bill supported by the California Sex Offender Management Board for which an author is being sought. The draft bill is reported to be consistent with the Board’s report issued in April 2014 and includes three tiers for registered citizens with automatic termination of registration requirements after 10 or 20 years provided that the citizen has not committed a new sex offense. The bill must be introduced by February 27 or there will be no tiered registry bill until 2017. In the absence of a tiered registry bill, California will continue to be 1 of only 4 states in the nation that does not have a tiered registry.

Second, the California Supreme Court has a March 2 deadline to render decisions in two cases focused upon residency restrictions including whether such restrictions are constitutional and if so to whom they apply. If the Court accepts the argument of the Attorney General, the Court will decide that residency restrictions are constitutional but can only be applied to registered citizens while on parole (not on probation or after parole). Because of the Court’s recent heavy handed decision to overturn the Hofsheier case, many are concerned that the Court will decide that residency restrictions apply to every person on the sex offender registry. Regardless of their decision, we can expect confusion if not chaos as registered citizens look for new housing.

Finally, California RSOL will reach out an olive branch to the City of Carson on March 7. The City Council of Carson recently declared war on registered citizens and refused to honor a settlement agreement, which would have made Carson’s sex offender ordinance consistent with state law, despite the fact that the agreement was signed by the City Manager and City Attorney. Registered citizens, family members and supporters are invited to join California RSOL on March 7 at 10 a.m. at Carson City Hall for this event. Additional details will be available soon.

Keep your seatbelts buckled. The next 30 days could be a rough ride.

By Janice Bellucci

Related: Janice’s Journal

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  
 

97 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Janice, how will Baxter’s retirement off the Court affect the residency rulings, if at all? Since he heard oral arguments, does he still participate in the Court’s ruling?

Steve said “Do you think he said that knowing this would get out of hand so it can be challenged?…”

At the time, he was the attorney arguing the case for the State of Alaska. He probably was doing his best to win the case and at the time, did not foresee registration getting so out of hand with all the arbitrary unconstitutional draconian legislative addendum.

Hey look, Steve, I think to say registration back in 2003 is regulation, not punishment was a total stretch. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS of 2003 made that stretch in a 6-3 decision. I miss John Paul Stevens wisdom on the court as well as I respect the wisdom of Ginsburg and Breyer who along with Stevens dissented. Things have changed so much since 2003. Now, internet disclosure is used as a hit list for vigilantes against registrants and people mistaken for registrants. And registration is draconian whereas a price club application would not be described as such. Bottom line is that circumstances have changed to make it absolutely clear registration is punishment.

“The majority will never persuade me that the registration and reporting obligations that are imposed on convicted sex offenders and on no one else as a result of their convictions are not part of their punishment.” – John Paul Stevens 2003

Since a few people are making references to Nazi Germany, I’ll make one of my own. Cali RSOL’s support of a three-tiered registry reminds me of Sophie’s Choice. Just how many registered citizens are you folks willing to sacrifice to cut at most a handful of registered citizens off the registry? I can’t help but to question the leadership at Cali RSOL. In fact, I’ve pulled their links off my website.

Harry said “Yah! We are politically unpopular, even, among the LBGT. There are many of them are ‘throwing us under bus’ for their causes.”

Anyone of any gender to support insidious draconian restrictions on anyone is a fool. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback just retroactively reinstated legalized workforce discrimination against LBGT Kansas government employees. Thats what happens when the spirit of the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution is ignored. Actions like this.

One simple bill which would generally be better than even a tiered registry would be a bill that removes the restrictions on who can seek a certificate of rehabilition. The bill would also state that anyone being granted a certificate of rehabilitation would no longer be required to register, period.

The bar to achieving a COR is high, but it is validated by a judge hearing your particulars including all that you have done since your offense.

This relativly small change to the penal code would undo “false fear induced” legislation which has crippled so many reformed registrants ability to be treated as any other criminal group. Prove yourself reformed and here is your way out of this living hell.

What is going on out in California. Its as if everyone is scared about losing there house or having to move or something. Its people like Janice and the RSOL movement that strive to get the job done. Sure we all can worry but why worry. Don’t you know what Roman’s says. They are the ministers of Good and Not Evil. All Governments want to be evil and oppress the people. One comment this person wants to pray which is good another person wants to dodge the mines’ and another person talks about a German leader. Christian or not Truth is Truth and if Government is dehumanizing more with all these rules and law’s than let your light shine more brighter. You know the tongue is a hard thing to tame and its just like a two edged sword but love is more important. Where is the love in the sex registry issues?

As I recall, Jessica’s Law made residency restrictions applicable to ALL registrants. The only problem was they forgot to include consequences for not adhering to the restrictions. No fines or jail time if you refuse to move. This is why it was enforced only on probationers and parolees, because they could be held in violation of their terms.
Though it is a blatant desecration of the constitutional rights of American citizens to create an ordinance like this, I’m not too concerned about the outcome of this trial at this point as it cannot force me to move.

If worse comes to worse, perhaps WE can go around the legislature ourselves and come up with an initiative. Although the process would be significantly harder, we do have the benefit of having a significantly higher-motivated volunteer base to collect the signatures, so the cost, while not cheap, won’t be substantial. In addition, the target election is November 2016, as the window for 2016 is pragmatically over, and we would need a lot of prep time anyway.

To qualify for a ballot iniative, we must collect a certain number of VALIDATED signatures in a period of time. The amount of signatures that must be collected is 8% of the total voters in the previous gubernatorial election. The GOOD news, at least for us, was that voting in the last election was WAY down, which means the total number of signatures we would have to collect also goes down proportionately.

For instance, when Chris Kelly had to bankroll the email identifier law (sorry, not calling it the pragmatically fraudulently named “Human Trafficking Law”), he had to get over 500,000 signatures. But we only have to collect 365,880 signatures, which is a considerably less threshold, and amounts to less than four signatures per Califonria registered citizen. With a smartly-designed and promoted campaign that has NO reference to “sex offender’s rights” or even “constitutional rights,” but rather conducts a hard-targeted, 100%-verified community safety and 100%-verified significant cost reductioncampaign, we can probably get this done prior to the general election on November 8, 2016. (There is one SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM, though, that I’ll address later.)

Remember, if Chris Kelly was honest and called it the “Keep the sex offenders off the interne bill,” while it may have succeeded, it wouldn’t have had nearly the same impact as the more sensationalist “Human trafficking” component. The only difference to US doing our campaign is that we HAVE ALL DATA on OUR side to substantiate safety of children as well as enforcement costs, while Kelly had to hide behind HT because he couldn’t even BEGIN to justify an email law.

If the legislature does not want to get this done, and I suspect that will be the case, I’ll look up the preliminary requirements to see what is needed to put such an iniative in play. It is absolutely VITAL that we have thousands of volunteers, though. The good news is that ANY voter-elgibile registered citizen (who, by definition, is NOT on probation or parole) can be a signature collector.

I have to look up certain requirements for signature windows, Attorney General title assignment, and whatnot, but the general timeframe is this:

April 2015 through September 2015: promotion and training of volunteers and gneeral Internet and public media-based campaign

October 2015 through December 2015: Petition summary and process, including fiscal review, through the California AG’s office.

January 2016 through April 2016: Collect the aforementioned amount of signatures, including significant overage to overcome potentially illegal signatures.

May 2016: Once signatures turned in, AG validates and creates actual Title of bill. THIS IS KEY. If the AG calls the bill the “sex offender registry tiered level” bill, we are cooked. If the AG calls the bill the “Community and Child Safety Bill”, we have a good chance. The KEY will be in how the entire process is promoted in the months BEFORE.

These are just ideas on how to move forward. The Initiative tool is generally not our friend, but if done correctly, WE can CORRECTLY set the agenda. I don’t call it “wordsmithing” as the connotation is negative, but it is vital that we DOWNPLAY registrant “gains” and HAMMER HOME the safety and fiscal reduction aspect of the initiative.

Thoughts?

Eric Knight: “Thoughts?” Absolutely no way. Imagine the media feeding frenzy as soon as it was learned who wrote the initiative and who would be out collecting signatures.
Sorry, absolutely no way.

In a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1795, never overturned.
They ruled in Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrator’s ” All governments are corporations, in as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, a creature of the mind only, a government can deal only with artificial persons. The imaginary having no real substance cannot create or attain parity with the real. The legal aspect is no government, or any law agency, or court thereof can concern itself with anything other than corporations, or artificial persons, and the contracts between them.

Erie V. 1938 Tompkins, ” No Contract No Case”.

Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The legal definition for involuntary servitude:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7102

22 U.S. Code § 7102 – Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute
6) Involuntary servitude
The term “involuntary servitude” includes a condition of servitude induced by means of—
(A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
(B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.

” The state citizen is free from any and all government attacks and procedure absent contract.” see Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly “… every man is independnt of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70,

At Pat…good comment Pat…I too have involuntary servitude in the line-up to HomeRun the restrictions and this ripe to contest registry.

Mr Knight,
I may be mistaken but I believe you can register to vote if on Probation??

Criminal Justice Realignment Act
In 2011, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Criminal Justice Realignment Act (CJRA). Under Penal Code section 1170(h), low-level felons are sentenced to county jail and/or supervision by the county probation department instead of state prison. CJRA has caused some confusion about voting rights among people who have criminal convictions. Below states who is eligible and who is not eligible to register to vote in California.

Not Eligible
In state prison.
In county jail serving a state prison sentence.
In county jail serving a felony sentence under Penal Code section 1170(h).
On parole, mandatory supervision, or post release community supervision.

ELIGIBLE
In county jail serving a misdemeanor sentence. A misdemeanor never affects your right to vote.
In county jail because jail time is a condition of probation.
On probation.
Done with parole, mandatory supervision, or post release community supervision. Your right to vote is automatically restored when parole or supervision is done.

We’re going to need a miracle on this tierd bill being introduced on time and passing in the committies and in both houses in Sacramento. For those who believe in God pray asking Him in the name of Jesus Christ His Son for that miracle. And thank you Miss Janice and all those whom have put their time and efforts to make this unjust registration law the way it should be applied-for we are up against people who feel and think that they are above God because they still hold our past against us and disregard our constitutional right to be FREE! etc. They need to do what is RIGHT AND JUST!

There has to be some other way to get this bill passed than to put our hopes on some one to author this bill that may or may not have known anyone in our shoes(assemblyman) (Senator) you name it. Hopefully we can get someone in our corner that understands,knows & feels what some of us are going through. These are some hurting situations, very impossible to close the book on situations. The best thing that i know to do is call on a higher power in the name of Jesus to help us and the Mrs. Janice + team on this journey!! Yall pray with me.

You’re right religion and the registry is a huge failure and introduced by hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach, who use both means to fill their pockets, etc. But I know there is a God that truly does exist that sees the injustices, their greed , the hypocricy and how we’re being used to stay in office and keep their pockets full Why even have a Management Board if they’re not going to implement the Board’s recommendations especially knowing that the budget funds could be better used in other meaningfull areas. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. I think it would be nice if they would read all these comments just so they could know that we know what’s REALLY GOING ON perhaps they’ll get off their thrones and high horses and on their knees along with the many of us and pray for mercy and hopefully they’ll stand up with the conviction to do what is constitutionally right in the interest of justice of their promise to uphold the CONSTITUTION!

For the life of me, Im trying to figure out why the Ca sex offender management board would wait so late to back the bill. With limited time to find some one to author this bill and introduce it into the Senate, wow!! Tom Amiano must have known another assemblyman who favored him when trying to introduce AB702. Tom had to have some type of influence then and he has to have some what of influence now. Half of the job is done with the Sex offender management board backing us,The bill just needs to be introduced. I mean there are several other states who have adopted a bill for a tiered registry by using this same method. Tom’s influence is the key, i believe, somebody needs to get a hold of this guy!! We have 9 days left. Thank you in advance for helping us Lord in the name of Jesus amen!!! I apoligise to those of you who do not believe in a higher power. !! I believe that we will prevail this year!!

BAM, most of us are praying with you for this Bill’s introduction and passage.
May our prayers and wishes be heard.

OnceFallen said “Since a few people are making references to Nazi Germany, I’ll make one of my own. Cali RSOL’s support of a three-tiered registry reminds me of Sophie’s Choice. Just how many registered citizens are you folks willing to sacrifice to cut at most a handful of registered citizens off the registry? I can’t help but to question the leadership at Cali RSOL. In fact, I’ve pulled their links off my website.”

While to compare tiering of the registry to Sophies Choice could be considered very dramatic language, I can see the comparison’s validity. But even with a choice as hard to make as that, it’s better than no choice at all I would think.

This is regarding the Mosley case!, from what I read about some of the people that attended the oral arguments on December 2nd 2014, was that the Justices seemed to agree that the residency restrictions was a “stupid law”! obviously they tried it with the parolees and it was a major headache for both sides. It just seems to me that applying the residency restrictions to every RSO, would be a disaster of epic proportions right? I think common sense will prevail on this one. PLEASE COMMENT 🙂