CA RSOL Meeting – May 9 in Los Angeles

The monthly meeting for May will take place on May 9 in Los Angeles at the usual location in Los Angeles, at the ACLU Building at 1313 W. 8th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Start time is 10 am.

The main focus of discussion will center on the recent California Supreme Court decisions about residence restrictions.

We welcome registrants, friends and family and other supporters to attend. The meeting is off-limits to media and government officials in order to ensure everyone’s privacy. There is no charge to attend.

Show up, Stand up, Speak up!

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.  
 

42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We need answers NOW. Not later, but now. Too many of us who I’ve talked with are at a complete loss as to what we’re supposed to do. Do we stay in our homes, or do we leave?

I am seriously disappointing in lack of information on this website because i turn to this site as my official source of information relating to the California side of things. There must be a darn good reason why it’s so quite here relating to the rulings.

M&T said “It’s not unlike the US Supreme court’s positive ruling on gay marriage in California in June 2103, which people “assumed” meant you can’t enforce a ban elsewhere. But nearly two years later Alabama is doing just that. Until a clear decision is “ripe” on Jessica’s Law by the Cal Supreme court, it will be uncertain and murky for registrants. And I’m suspect that’s just the way law enforcement and the courts want it.”

I agree it is a positive ruling to let a lower courts decision stand, which is what the SCOTUS did in June, 2013 regarding gay marriage. But it’s even more positive when California Supreme court in Taylor took the case and decided blanket residency restrictions are unconstitutional. Janice made the point that Taylor was a clear victory, which it is since the California Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all of California. In the case of the SCOTUS letting the decision stand by the 9th Circuit court, it is positive and it looks like the SCOTUS, if forced to make a decision on the constitutionality of gay marriage would rule that it is constitutional, since they let the 9th circuit decision that it is legal to stand. Of course, it would have been even better if the case would have been taken and gay marriage declared constitutional outright. The rulings in 2013 meant that by not taking up the case decided by the 9th Circuit, gay marriage in California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon and Washington are legal. Not gay marriages in Alabama, meaning those gay marriages that happened in a state where gay marriage is valid don’t have to be recoginized in Alabama. Striking down DOMA does not affect gay marriages in states like Alabama that don’t recoginize gay marriage since DOMA only forced the federal government to recognize gay marriages in states that recognize it as legal. I know you didn’t mention DOMA, but it was one of the related decisions of 2013 regarding gay marriage.

Blanket residency restrictions for california registrants were declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. I see more similarity with presence restrictions to the SCOTUS 2013 decision not to review the 9th circuits decision to make gay marriage legal, than to residency restrictions. Alabama wants to force the SCOTUS to take the case and decide the constitutionality of gay marriage. It does not look like Alabama will prevail since the SCOTUS declined to review the 9th circuit courts ruling, which was in opposition to Alabama’s anti-gay marriage position. Somewhat similar to the rich, corrupt oil city of Carson’s position since the California Supreme Court declined to review the lower 4th circuit courts decision. Also, presence restrictions furthur got shot down by California Supreme Court deciding blanket residency restrictions unconstitutional because it makes no sense to be able to live somewhere that you are simultaneously not allowed to be present in. I think things are going well in getting rid of the draconian residency and presence restrictions. City officials who do not respect the authority of the courts and do not follow the law should be banned from any public office. If Carson is still enforcing residency restrictions, after 30 or 90 days, the city needs to face stiff penalties for not following the law, where registrants overall do follow the law , despite lies from bogus Lifelock reports.

We all have to deal on with this bs injustices. We need to stick together to fight and win this battle. Not cry and give up when things dont go our way.

I am so grateful for Janice and her team. I felt so alone before I found this website. I feel that it has been NOTHING but helpful.

Every time I attend my therapy mandated by Parole, I feel that it is a win for our side if I can educate just ONE person on this noble cause of RSOL and it’s website.

Which I do a lot Janice!

I know right now it seems tough. I am currently a student studying to be a paralegal. The other day I had to read about the California Supreme Court related to citing sources and what they are SUPPOSED to do. I just stopped reading and cried. But then I remember, hope is more powerful than tears and finished the chapter. *pat on back* 🙂

I truly enjoy everyone’s input, even I do not 100% agree with everything said. How lucky are we, as citizens, that we have a SAFE place to ban together and share our thoughts and feelings and our experience. I respect anyone that has the courage to stand up for their beliefs regarding registered citizens.

God Bless you Janice and your team of warriors. I’m still on parole and have not attended a meeting but I WILL be on the frontlines and voice my hearts opinion about the injustices we have ALL had to face.

Being a female offender, there are not a lot of people to talk to. I know this is funny sounding, but I WISH I could attend group therapy. To hear from you wonderful people. To feel a part of.

But until then…I have this. Scared and broken after I got out of prison, I found this website and my confidence began to grow. The icy fear I felt cracked and started to melt away.

September I’m off parole. One day at a time, I will understand the gratitude of only answering to God and my support group. Goodbye CDC! (I don’t use the “R” because I do not believe rehabilitation exists. If anyone can prove me wrong, that’s ONE less soap box I will have to stand on.)

If you are woman offender, my first order of business off parole, I intend to start a support group online for women so that we have a place to share. It has been a dream of mine.

Ok enough out of me! 🙂

Even if I don’t know, I love you and happy I found you here.:)

M&T,

Jessica’s Law was about local cities being able to enact this insanity. I personally, speaking only for myself, think the California Supreme Court ruling would HAVE to be applicable to ALL rso’s. To carve out a special pocket for San Diego parolees only seems ridiculous to me. The justices considered many things that show difficulty in rso’s to get housing that apply to all rso’s. They mentioned landlords not wanting to rent to parolee rso’s which applies to all rso’s. They mentioned parolees mostly only able to afford low cost apartments. Also applies to all rso’s. The case was about what the CDCR was doing. CDCR is California-DCR, not San Diego Dept of Corr and Rehab. So since California Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all of California, and CDCR is a California wide agency, the fact the case mentions San Diego only is an extension of where the case originated, but has no limiting scope on the final ruling, in my opinion. In the decision, they mentioned, paraphrasing here, that they like to decide cases of as-applied laws, not take the timely endeavor of examining every avenue of possible application. So the Cali Supreme Court rendered a decision on what was before them. They didn’t purposely leave out all non-San Diego non-parolee considerations because they are so different but they left it out because they looked at the as-applied case coming from San Diego. And they did acknowledge non-parolees have more rights than parolees, which only would help the case of non-parolees.

Timmr, that’s very interesting that they sent a Parole Officer. In doing so, it suggests that Registration IS continuing punishment as they clearly consider Registration to entail continuing CDCR supervision BEYOND your original sentence!
Continuing supervision BEYOND the original punishment would be Ex Post Facto punishment, wouldn’t it?

Timmr, they probably use “compliance investigation” instead of “compliance check” because it sounds more serious and time-consuming (thereby allowing for more billable hours/overtime.)

Where were you? I was in Sacramento with Janice and Frank to lobby the Legislature. There were four of us on the registry that participated. I took a day off without pay to be there and the expense of flying up there.

Where were you? There are 80,000 of us on the registry, hundreds attend the RSOL meetings across the state. Where were you? We complain about a lack of action. We ask Janice, Chase and Frank to be the bearer of our cross. We want action. But where are we? Janice has been saying for years, “Show up, Stand up, Speak up.”

I hid for a time, but it is now time for EVERYONE to speak up. There are ways to do it that won’t harm you. Going to the Legislature is one of those. Writing the members of the Committees is another. Phoning them. It takes time, a few stamps, and being bold enough to take YOUR LIFE into your own control. Janice, Chase and Frank can’t do it all. The time it takes to complain on this website would be better used to make that call to Assembly Members Maienschein or Quirk.

If they got 80,000 calls and/or letters, this issue would die. If each of us had one or two family members or friends do the same, it would be another 80,000 to 120,000 calls. Wouldn’t that impress them!

Our future is in our collective hands. We can control our future.

ok all you guys can chill im here now iv been liveing this nightmare for 17 years now i waz very young when i got put on memegans law im a dad now and my kids have lived a crazy life becus of this now im not bout to go into everything iv been thrue becus i know you all know all ready but im here to change theez laws i think this happen to me for a reason i will fight and change theez law till the death of me

Janice, an L.A. meeting request: If possible, can you update us about how Los Angeles County prosecutors and/or sheriffs will be handling “residency restrictions” in light of the recent CA Supreme Court’s decision? Thanks in advance for any info. See y’all Saturday!

Good meeting. Got all my questions answered. Valuable information was shared. Good opportunities to learn from fellow RCs and supporters how to navigate the 290 minefield. Helps you feel less isolated and abandoned.