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


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

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

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!!!

“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.

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

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

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!

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 • [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?… Read more »

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!

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.

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

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.

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… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x