ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Mar 30 – San Diego [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Mar 23, Apr 27  [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

Save the Date: ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

ACSOLCalifornia

Wanted: Protection for Kids (Editorial)

California is often labeled the most litigious state, and a rash of lawsuits around the state not only upholds this contention, but threatens the safety of California’s children. Local ordinances defining places where convicted sex offenders may not visit are apparently going the way of the dodo, under an onslaught of legal challenges aimed at expanding the rights of offenders.

Two such lawsuits, targeting ordinances in Irvine and Orange County banning convicted sex offenders from visiting city parks and recreational sites, have resulted in those ordinances’ invalidation by a state court of appeals. The court did so on the grounds that state laws—which the local laws exceeded in their stringency—fully occupy the field and therefore preempt tougher local laws.

As if those lawsuits were not enough, Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci has apparently taken up the cause of sex offenders’ rights as her personal cause, flooding courts all over California with challenges to local ordinances that also exceed the restrictions in state law. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. G4Change

    Wanted: Parents who watch their own kids instead of expecting the government to enact useless laws that do nothing but create a false sense of security!!!

  2. John B

    “under an onslaught of legal challenges aimed at expanding the rights of offenders.”

    No, aimed at restoring the basic United States Constitutional rights of people who have paid their debt.

    This editorial is beneath contempt and, though he or she doubtless is not self-aware enough to know it, written by someone with no understanding of what it is supposed to mean to live according to the ideals of the Founders.

  3. Gerald

    And once again those who would champion a noble cause are unfairly dealt with by an ignorant biased writer. yawn….

  4. Harry

    “Editorial”? Who is the author? I would like to send thia person an email.

    • John B

      Harry, most editorials as opposed to opinion pieces are published sans author credit and is meant to convey that this is the “editorial position” of the particular publication. In essence, it is the opinion of the papers owner(s) and conveyed to us by the executive editor (though it’s unlikely that s/he actually penned the editorial. Hope that makes sense!

      • Harry

        Thank you, John for the education. I have sent an email to the editor, shown below. Here is the information of the editor: Mary-Justine Lanyon • Editor: 909-337-6145 Ext. 221 • Editor@mountain-news.com

        [Dear Editor: Wanted: Protection for Kids: Mountain News

        Fire! Fire! FIRE! Oh! It was just steam. Ms. Lanyon you are blowing steam. You said, “Under an onslaught of legal challenges aimed at expanding the rights of offenders” Is being allowed to live in a house, to have a job, to be able to walk the streets of this “Land of the Free” is this an expansion of RIGHTS? Come on, you are, suppose to be a journalist and Journalism 101 is about FREEDOM. It is not about you and your friends freedom, only. Then, you go on to say, “We hope legislators across California will rally to the cause of protecting children, rather than furthering the ends of those who would exploit these young ones for their own twisted purposes,…” Ms. Lanyon where are you finding that the legislators are “furthering” the registered s*x offender? Where? And, those whom you are steaming about are actually citizens whom have paid their price and have proven to be safe in all communities, including Arrowhead. Oh, yes the “rally to the cause of protecting children” that should be the job of parents and not government. Wake-up! Mary, before your freedom is taken away, after you have taken others away.
        Respectfully, Harry]

  5. Paul

    Here in Los Angeles, there are no less one story per week related to a police officer having inappropriate relations with a minor, and no less than 2 stories related to a teacher being arrested for sexual encounters with a child. You know what’s rare: a story about a registered citizen being arrested for re-offending!

    Seems to me that if you want to protect your kids, you need to need to keep a close eye on police officers, and your child’s teachers!

  6. Eric Knight

    Can’t wait to visit Janice in her new mansion, driving her Lexus, or her Mercedes, or her Cadillac around Beverly Hills shopping at all the chick Rodeo Drive botiques on her “attorney’s fees” from all the cases around the state. Champagne wishes and caviar dreams, laments the disillusioned columnist in Lake Arrowhead.

    Yes, this is sarcasm, despite the fact that even if the above were true, it would still be far more ethically and morally just than the current laws in place.

  7. michael

    I’m bald now. This latest crazy nonsense in the editorials made me snatch out the last of my head hairs.

  8. mike

    Yes, finally! Someone who wants to do something to protect children…sorry…thought this might have pertained to the millions of children with a registered parent that have their innocent minds warped living like outcasted,ostracised, second-class citizens instead of the now thoroughly debunked notion that presence restrictions help children. My mistake.

  9. michael

    Well, at least SOME people reference SOME studies based on SOME sort of data (also knows as facts) to indicate that residency or presence restrictions are NOT overall effective in doing what they say they are suppose to do.

    All I hear from the pro-restriction people is hysterical, irrational Chicken Little like warnings about RSOs lurking around these so called Child Safety Zones ready to snatch children. But I have seen no EVIDENCE, no research, to support that assertion.

    You don’t like the FACTS that say such restrictions are next to useless? Fine. How abut providing some FACTS or research studies that say that they (the restrictions) are actually good for something other than harassing people, who are now doing their best to live law abiding lives, just because you don’t like them. Let’s see those FACTS.

    So I will ask again, what factual/actual problem did the Carson ordinance, and others like it, solve?
    What is the EVIDENCE that the ordinance is/was needed?

    Were children being molested left and right in the, previously, Child UNsafe Zones for all the decades, or even the last 10 years, before Carson enacted the ordinance?
    If not, is there any EVIDENCE that any current RSO was even attempting to do so in these areas?

    And lastly, according to the editorial, EVERYONE on the registry is there because they have an “unbalanced psyches” and “predatory proclivities”? Really? Everyone? Does that even make sense? It shouldn’t because it is, factually, not true.

    Yes, there are those who are considered high risk to re-offend and those who are even classified as Se**ally Violent Predators (SVPs). But they are not even the bulk of the registry. And so painting ALL people on the registry with the same brush is simply NOT justice.

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

Michael Dickson Womens Jersey