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 “This would reverse the significant progress made when cities and counties repealed or revised their ordinances after lawsuits were filed in 2014.”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).
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???
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?
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.
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!
“(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.
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 feel good bill that would end up in court for years to come. As it already is, its almost impossible to travel within California now as a registered citizen without breaking the law? This should be a big wake up call for legislators for the need to support and pass a tiered system. Otherwise, we might all be implanted with computer chips, be forbidden to go to the grocery store and who knows what else? Again, if someone had even suggested this could or would be possible 10 years ago, I would have laughed. Today, I stand before you 20 years later with no prior/past criminal convictions, a battery that was expunged/summary probation and it was prostitution/massage parlor related. Its time to move on and let me and other people live their lives! Anyone with any intellectual capital know that when people are working, starting families and being productive members of society, they are rarely the ones who break the laws. Very sad. I’ll be attempting to obtain a Certificate of Rehab with the Public Defender this year. Please wish me luck so I can wake up and hopefully this is just a bad dream!
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 in 1996. They are very lazy…They did update it in 2006 when they added the word ”potentially”, after that bit of hard work they all went out for beer and congratulated themselves on a job well done…
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 institutions, but yet the state continues to rant about registered citizens with a less than 2 percent recidivism rate? In summary, they are essentially attempting to sell the judicial system as being incapable of rehabilitating first time offenders? Yet, they still want to continue to institute new laws? Wouldn’t it be better to institute better ways to rehabilitate first time offenders and set them up for success, rather than failure?
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 criminal misuse of the
information and that the enhancement to public safety has been
significant.”
Wasn’t there recently a sex offender murdered in Washington…What a lie!
“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 the impact to the registrant families, which has been verified and documented by researchers. Also, the public impact will be defined in an upcoming survey being developed with the assistance of Professor Crysanthi Leon of the University of Delaware.
Even though these laws were mandated at the Congressional level then enacted to varying degrees by the state legislatures, we will be asking the court to rule on “the law” thus removing the manner in which legislators have purported to keep children safe – punitive punishment for registrants and families. It is time to take the issue out of the state legislators hands and campaigns and place it firmly in front of the supreme courts.
The concept of filing based on the collateral damage experienced by those who seek to provide positive support at re-entry and thereafter will gather steam and provide a more assertive approach than is being used today.
Please consider this your invitation to visit our website where you will instantly see the announcement as well as the opportunity for participation. We have also listed some Frequently Asked Questions to help answer as many immediate questions as possible.
http://www.womenagainstregistry.com
Join the ‘Movers and Shakers’ in these law suits.
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.