ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

Monthly Meeting April 11, Lobbying April 13/14 in Sacramento (updated)

California RSOL will return to Sacramento to to conduct a monthly meeting for registered citizens / family members on April 11 and  lobby on April 13 and 14 (please note new dates for lobbying). The lobbying effort will focus on creation of a tiered registry as well as opposition to two bills that would allow cities and counties to adopt presence restrictions.

“If Assembly Bill 201 and Senate Bill 267 become law, registered citizens would once again be prohibited from visiting cities and counties within the state of California,” stated California RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “This would reverse the significant progress made when cities and counties repealed or revised their ordinances after lawsuits were filed in 2014.”

The monthly meeting will be held at 2993 Fulton Avenue, Suite A, starting at 10 a.m. Participants are encourage to arrive at the meeting early because seating will be limited.

If you are interested in joining the lobbying effort, please call California RSOL at (818) 305-5984. Lobbying will begin on April 9 at 9 a.m.

May’s Meeting will be held on the 9th of that month in Los Angeles at the usual place and usual time (the ACLU Building at 1313 W. 8th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 at 10 am).

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow if these bills get passed then America as we have known it is completely thru. The constitutional protections might as well be abolished and there el be chaos and violence and suffering all across the state.

SB 267? Where on earth did that come from? Isn’t that the same as AB 201 – except in the Senate? Have these people nothing better to do???

Yes, the language in the two bills is virtually the same. It is also the same as the language in two bills that were defeated in 2013 and 2014. The big difference is that the new Senate bill, SB 267, was introduced by a Democrat. Previous bills were introduced by Republicans.

A Democrat from Chino, i.e. San Bernardino county. The Dems out there are pretty much Republican-lite.

I agree with you there. When it comes to crime in general, and in particularly sex crimes, the two main parties are in agreement on the increasing reliance on the prison/industrial state and appear to me to both lean toward oligarchy and authoritarianism. When prop. 83 came up only two parties voiced concerns about the internet identifiers. The green party kind of wobbled on it, but the Peace and Freedom Party outright outright opposed it. No one else had the courage to defend the Constitution against that prop.

I meant other political parties… Ca RSOL, the ACLU and EFF stepped up to defend the Constitution the day after the election, we are blessed that they were there and acted.

I decided to voice my opinion and sent Sen. Leyva the following message: Your senate bill 267 is an attack on the state constitution and civil liberties of all individuals. Should this bill pass, you will be attacking not only 290 registrants but attacking their families INCLUDING THEIR CHILDREN. I am appalled that you would support an un-American policy. Please educate yourself on the low recidivism rates of registered citizens per the CA Sex Offender Management Board. Not all registrants are the same. Many have completed their debt to society long ago and deserve to live as free citizens. Additionally,… Read more »

What happens if these bills are passed? Years more of litigation or is there anyway to get injunctions or some other relief?

What if the CA Supreme Court rules that residency laws are unconstitutional in the next week? Would these bills be pretty much dead in the water?

It is doubtful that the CA Supreme Court decisions regarding residency restrictions will affect the issue of presence restrictions.

This should be some sort of sign though how they feel about presence restrictions right?

“The court says the terms of the residency restriction are ―potentially burdensome‖ but ―limited‖ because they ―do not regulate a registered sex offender‘s daily activities‖ and ―do not dictate where he or she may travel, visit, shop, eat, work, or play.‖

Defend and protect our Constitution and the armor of Constitution will not allow free citizens to be in double jeopardy …our Constitution will prevail …I Ride With The Constitution ..!

These laws are basically the same as my conditions of parole was. The only difference is that I wasn’t allowed to have any contact with children even my own 14 year old son and I couldn’t use the internet and of course the gps monitor on my leg. But basically residency and presence restrictions are parole and supervision just on a mass scale with the cops being the parole officers and enforcing these CONDITIONS.

Exactly. If these terms were terms of parole, and virtually no difference than AFTER parole.. then guess what.. that in itself is continued punishment.

SB 267 says
“(1) Sex offenders pose a potentially high risk of committing further sex offenses after release from incarceration or commitment,…”

THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE. This Senator should face sanctions for sponsoring a bill with a BALD-FACED lie in it. Is there any sort of lawsuit or injunction that can be filed to quash this piece of sh**???

Can this senator face sanctions of any kind as a result of this?

Enough with the gloves. It’s time we take them off and go after these scumbags who use BALD-FACED LIES to manipulate the system!

Exactly G4Change…let them put in that lame probozo “………of NOT committing ….” on the scales of justice and facts prove that illegal taking of rights with fraud and deception ……..the weigh-in is by FAR in favor of NOT committing ..lame probozo just got GOT.

“(1) Sex offenders pose a potentially high risk of committing further sex offenses after release from incarceration or commitment,…” potentially in some galaxy far far away…potentially only in your head, my poor deluded man.

I agree isn’t there some kind of ethical code that they violate when they use deciet and or uninformed statements to further their legislation. There has to be some kind of legal recourse to these blatant lies. I know there has to be some kind of code of ethics that can be applied when legislators use immoral and unethical means to further their careers. Can’t Janice or someone who is articulate enough and educated in law enough file complaints with the ethics committee.

The elected officials who have introduced these bills are repeating myths they have heard from others. It doesn’t make them right. It just shows that they need to be educated. Come join us in Sacramento on April 9 and 10 to lobby and educate the elected officials!

These “lawmakers” keep their jobs by winning elections. Elections have been bought and paid for as far back as I can remember. These purchases are made by duping the general public into believing that the elected officials are “doing something for them”. Under this scenario, any gains made by you and your team will be matched by as many, or more setbacks. Registered citizens are easy targets. Low hanging fruit, so to speak. In my opinion, this is a game of chess. The ultimate goal must be at the Supreme Court. Ultimately, we must overturn Smith Vs. Doe, and hopefully… Read more »

Matt on one hand you are right most elections are bought and paid for but we registrants can make a difference. I as a registrant have been involved in helping a guy win a senate seat in Orange County. He was the only voice of reason on the Orange County board of Supervisors against the parks bans although he did cave in politically and support the ban…he stated publicly that it was wrong and that it might come back as an expensive matter. His opponent an Assemblyman was heavily funded and had endorsements from every political power-house available, but John… Read more »

Wish I could join you. I was able to retain my current job. If I lose this one…I doubt I can find another with my criminal background.

These people are aware that they are liars. Elections are won by stirring emotions. They don’t care about RSO’s or their families. We are the minority, and we are easy targets. This needs to wind up in the Supreme Court. Janice knows what she’s doing. This will take time. One way to think of this: The more difficult and draconian these laws become now, the easier it should be to overturn Smith Vs. Doe down the road. Granted, it’s not ideal, but how much is enough? I have thought for some time now that it won’t be long before all… Read more »

Well, I think you are all doing a wonderful job! I’m not surprised that someone in OC suggested these bills! As such, I firmly believe that something needs to be done at a much higher level. Its so disturbing to actually see an elected official who has both an ethical and moral obligation to suggest passing these bills. Furthermore, there are so many other important things that need to be addressed here in California. Orange County is turning this into a circus. I do firmly believe that if somehow this where to pass, which I doubt, this would be another… Read more »

“…there are so many other important things that need to be addressed here in California.” Wait, until CA runs out of water.

This is great news! Let’s take the fight to the straight to Sactown! I’ll try to be there for at least the first two days.

“Sex offenders pose a potentially high risk of committing further sex offenses after release from incarceration or commitment, and the protection of the public from reoffending by these offenders is a paramount public interest.” Where did this legislative finding come from? It’s lifted right out of Washington State’s 1990 Community Protection Act: “The legislature finds that sex offenders pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders is a paramount governmental interest. [1990 Wash. Laws 3 § 116.] The California Legislature lifted it… Read more »

Well, I was just thinking that I had seen it all. This is both a very surreal and rather disturbing proposed bill! Its very ironic that we are proposing bills like this, but yet the government tears into any story where racism is involved. If someone is called a name, prohibited from attending a school or ect ect, we scream racism and people are both in shock and horror. Yet, we have people that have been brought to justice, their issues addressed in court and in many occasions required to spend time in jail/or prison. These are both state ran… Read more »

It occurs to me, the San Diago supreme court rulings will be useful for these laws should they pass.

Unless these have ben VERY carefully worded (doubtful), these too can be found the be unconstitutional.

Both proposed terrorizing acts are the same but Sen. Leyva can be thanked for the minor spelling changes, good job! Sick, sick, sick ,sick!!!! Any f****n way, good morning, absolutely a nice looking day here in Simi Valley, f**k! I’ll drop some funds in for the lobbying effort.

(7) The Legislature also declares, however, that in making information available about certain sex offenders to the public, it does not intend that the information be used to inflict retribution or additional punishment on any person convicted of a sex offense. While the Legislature is aware of the possibility of misuse, it finds that the dangers to the public of nondisclosure far outweigh the risk of possible misuse of the information. The Legislature is further aware of studies in Oregon and Washington indicating that community notification laws and public release of similar information in those states have resulted in little… Read more »

“The Legislature is further aware of studies in Oregon and Washington indicating that community notification laws and public release of similar information in those states have resulted in little criminal misuse of the information and that the enhancement to public safety has been significant.”

The study sited is pre-1996. Yep, the California legislature has not updated the “studies” in their “findings” since 1996, before the registry was put online…Why does this not surprise me?

CLIMB ON BOARD EVERYONE – THE TIME IS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! It HAS begun and now the registry MUST GO! Here is you official chance to take your stand and take it down!  The WAR Admin Team AND our Class Action Core Team are proud to announce that we will begin work this week on two law suits to be filed at the federal level this fall. That’s right – two of them! The first is on behalf of registered sex offenders and the second on behalf of families and friends of registered sex offenders. The challenges will be against SORNA and… Read more »

How did the lobbying go?

So they voted 7-0 in favor of SB 267. It now moves on to Dept of Public Safety. This is looking very bad.

After 20 years of going to beaches and parks and proving I’m not a threat they are going to try and take that away? Knowing full well this bill is unconstitutional and this will go to the courts, the politicians take the chickensh*t way out by letting the judges decide, all to not look “soft on crime”.
Hopefully the judges use the same logic as residency restrictions and look at the facts like it is known offenders who have a stable family life are less likely to reoffend. If this law passes families will be wrecked.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x