California RSOL Leads Successful Protest in Carson

California RSOL led a successful protest in Carson, which included a diverse group of about 50 registered citizens, family members and supporters.  It is believed to be the first protest of registered citizens in the nation.

“We broke new ground in Carson on March 7, 2015, the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s march from Selma, Alabama,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.  “The core issue in both protests was the violation of civil rights.”

The Carson protest focused upon a city law that prohibits registered citizens from loitering in or within 300 feet of public places such as libraries, parks and swimming pools as well as private places such as restaurants that have children’s playgrounds.  The City of Carson agreed to revise its ordinance in a settlement agreement reached on July 25, 2014, but the City Council later refused to honor the agreement.  The City Council recently considered revision of the ordinance during its meeting on March 4, 2015, but decided instead to indefinitely postpone any changes to that ordinance.

“The City of Carson is an outlier and an outlaw,” stated CA RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein.  “The City Council is aware that there are court decisions determining that similar ordinances are preempted by state law and has willfully chosen to disobey them.”

The protest began at Carson City Hall where protesters selected signs to carry and short speeches were made by CA RSOL president Bellucci, CA RSOL treasurer Frank Lindsay and National Lawyers Guild attorney John Viola.  Carrying signs and banners that proclaimed “Carson Violates the Constitution” and “Carson Breaks Promises”, the protesters started a one-mile march down Avalon Boulevard toward Calas Park.  During the march, the drivers of several automobiles honked their horns in support.  Despite a front page article in the local newspaper stating, “Sex Offenders to Protest Today”, no one showed up to voice disagreement with the protest.

The protesters safely arrived at a spot 300 feet from the park where registered citizens stopped and their family members continued to the park.  Refreshments were served in the park to family members and to registered citizens at a site 300 feet from the park.  Refreshments for registered citizens were delivered in a small, red wagon pulled by the 7-year-old daughter and wife of a registered citizen who carried a sign, “I love a registered citizen”.

In a surprising and humane moment, a member of the L.A. Sheriff’s Department stated that registered citizens could move from their site on a hot sidewalk with no shade to a shaded, grassy site across the street from the park.  From the new location, registered citizens could view their family members at the park but could not join them without fear of arrest.

“I miss having picnics in the park with my family,” stated one registered citizen.  “We used to have picnics together almost every week.”

During the picnic, at least six patrol cars were parked near the park, however, no one was arrested.  As the picnic came to a close, one sheriff’s deputy noted that the picnic site was cleaner after the picnic than it was before the picnic.

Note: if you do not wish to be shown in one of these photos please let us know via the Contact Us page and we will remove your likeness asap.

Related: Janice’s Journal: The March on Carson

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.  
 

51 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The only coverage in the Sunday Los Angeles Times was buried in the B section, on B6 (left hand page), at the bottom. It was only a pic with a short caption, not a story. A good size pic, but I am disappointed that they did not choose one showing the overall participating but instead chose one that made it looks like just a handful of people is all there was, and just standing around looking bored. A line of 50 people marching with signs would have made a much more impressive and fuller report. But then, the Times has not been friendly to us for quite some time. Gee, the pic to me looks like they were more intent on picking a photo that showed the faces of sex offenders than on showing the crowd that participated — and they specifically named two of them in the photo.

I have uploaded the pic to:

http://oi57.tinypic.com/x3h0ci.jpg

There have been protests by Registered Citizens long before 2015, Janice. Miami, Columbus OH, and Coalinga all had a protest on behalf of Registered Citizens. We just haven’t held one in a few years.

If the society should fear anyone it should be the media and the politicians that they voted for that can’t and will not tell the truth. (Someone save us all)

“Sex Offenders to Protest Today”, no one showed up to voice disagreement with the protest.

This mean Carson City “Blinked” when we show up.

This CLEARLY PROVES that NOBODY CARES if sex offenders show up in parks.

You can’t have seriously expected anything else? Why would they have any motivation to make us look strong? The world is against us, remember? We are vilified and not worth the paper the news was printed on, in their opinion. Like the San Diego politician said after the ruling, “Once we are convicted, we should never have rights.” We are fighting an uphill battle: Politicians are against us, the public is against us, the mainstream media will side with whomever buys “papers”…we are a minority, and a small one at that. This protest was never about getting sympathy from the media. It was standing up to Carson and showing them we won’t back down, that we will not go away, and that we won’t lay down without a fight. All revolutions were won with sacrifice. Up against overwhelming odds. All we want is what our society has told us exists: a second chance. And yet the prevailing winds are blowing against us. Stay focused on the fight, not the triviality of the paper giving us empathy, because there is little of that out there. Don’t forget that.

This city and other-like cities and counties Fails to understand ….Their “war” is really against…is really directed at the Constitution ….we are United States citizens and as such have fundamental rights as freedom is indivisible ..with liberty and justice for ALL……their “war” is misguided and further proof registry is punitive ..blatant proof.

Here is what I wrote…
Like you, I am a native San Diegan. My Great Grandparents arrived in San Diego in the early 1900’s. My Grandfather worked for the City of San Diego, and my father’s picture hangs in one of our Hall of Fame.
My husband and I have been married for 43 years, he served his country, and recently retired after 43 years of service with a local company. I too retired from my state job of working with at risk students. We also own a business in the East County.

I wanted to address a very unpopular subject. The subject matter is something that I don’t feel you are very enlightened on. Our constitution is what makes our country great and the envy of the world. I would like to remind you that you are our elected official and registrants, the family members and friends live in your district. I am shocked that you would suggest that registrants should not have any rights. There are many listed on our Megan’s website that pose no risk to the public. I am not suggesting that there aren’t those that do, but the state needs a different system and not a blanket system that demonizes everyone. The research suggests that 90% of those committing a new sexual offense are not on any public registry.

My grandmother was 14 and my grandfather was 20 when they married. They had a very successful and happy life and produced three very successful and wonderful San Diego citizens.
Today, you would consider my grandfather “one of those” a predator and monster. I resent that and your statements. There is a lot of evidence and a lot of studies that have been done that you should read before you make such outlandish and blanket statements.

There are many different reasons and every situation is different as to how and why someone might be accused of a sexual offense.
We have a government office whose job it is to study these issues and make recommendations to our state. California Sex Offender Management Board has reported that the residency restrictions don’t protect any one. I would kindly suggest you read it because it seems clear that you lack the knowledge or the research of the registry.

I have a question. Can we sue Dianne Jacob for defamation of character? She used false information and used social media to disseminate it intentionally to further demean RCs. Can we? Huh,huh? LOL!!!

I e-mailed her office and told her how ignorant she was and start giving the true statistics. For her to be in her position and NOT know what is going on in her own county is just ignorance on her part.

Unfortunately Joel Anderson was a big supporter of Jessica’s law so I doubt he will be any better.

This was my email to Dianne
Hi Dianne –

It’s easy to just repeat a popular opinion, even if it is wrong. It’s much harder and takes a lot more courage to do the right thing and stand up for the rights of all Californians. I don’t expect you to be a Caesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony or Gavin Newsom nor do I think you will ever give a speech which will challenge the status quo and changed the world like JFK, Martin Luther King or Lincoln. I do however expect you to acknowledge the only reason women, blacks, homosexuals, the mentally retarded and yes, even released convicted sex offenders, have rights is because of our Constitution. The Constitution is what makes us all equal and makes this country great.

The California Supreme Court found that the Jessica’s Law residency restrictions could not even pass the lowest bar, the rational bases test. The Court found that these laws not only don’t make our children safer, they actually make our children less safe.

Out of 73,481 sex offenders living in California communities, 111 were re-arrested for a new sex offense in 2013 (the latest numbers available). That means the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 0.151%, closer to 0% than to 1%.

You may believe sex offenders should not have any rights but before you push stereotypes based on 25 year old repudiated data out to your constituents, read the Taylor opinion for yourself. Anything less is a breach of public trust.

You can choose to not be Anita Bryant, Joseph McCarthy or George Wallace. History has not treated them kindly.

Have some courage Dianne.

@NPS, @Molly, @JM, @Jo and others…. 10 thumbs up, if I could, for your letters to Oberfeldwebel err, Supervisor Jacobs.

Hi JBCal –
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
2013 Outcome Evaluation Report
page 26 Table 12
1.8% recidivism for new sex offenses as measured against sex offenders who recidivated
111 total offenders for a new sex offense
73,481 offenders living in the community as of tonight (Tonight’s Megan’s List statistics, March 10, 2015)
111 is 0.151% of 73,481
🙂

…and yes I know I’m cheating a little but I don’t have info on the average number of registrants in 2013. Since the total number of new sex offenses in 2012 was also 111 (which is kind of weird) I figured utilizing total registrants in the community now was a fair number because who knows, maybe when the new stats come out for 2014 (which should be soon) there will be 111 recidivists for a new sex offense again…LOL

molly said “expect you to be a Caesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony or Gavin Newsom”

Newsom supported prop 35, and years prior, wanted to install cameras on every street corner. But he was most outspoken about his disdain for Prop 8, which must be why you would group him with those other heroes.

Hi JM –
Cut and pasted from Megan’s List Website:

NOTE: The below statistics are acquired from the California Sex Offender Registry and are updated daily. Statistics for: 3/10/2015

REGISTRANT CATEGORIES TOTAL

Full Address 41,013
ZIP Code/Conditional 11,397
Transient 6,275
In Violation 15,520
Incarcerated 23,802
Deported 11,230
No Post (Undisclosed) 25,478
Excluded 5,035

The below total reflects the number of registrants displayed on the Public Megan’s Law Internet site. This number does not include the total number of registrants that are No Post or Excluded:

ON PUBLIC MEGAN’S LIST
82,595

The below total reflects the total number of registrants living in the community. This number does not include the number of registrants that are Incarcerated or Deported:

REGISTRANTs LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY
73,440

Hey thanks JBCal, that does make sense.
So would it be true to say the latest figures available show a 3 year recidivism rate for paroled sex offenders committing a new sex offense is closer to 1% then to 1.5%?
And would it be correct to say the 3 year recidivism rate for paroled sex offenders as measured against total sex offenders living in the community is 0.151%? And would that 0.151% rate even be meaningful? Or can we figure out a sentence that makes that 0.151% meaningful?
Perhaps representing the three year recidivism rate for paroled sex offenders committing a new sex offense averaged 0.41% per year?
Clearly I’m not a mathematics genius but if our opponents are going to miss-represent the number so outrageously maybe we can figure out a way (that is true) to represent a closer to zero then 1% 3 year recidivism rate of parolees committing a new sex offense…

JBCal do you by chance have a copy of a 1988 report entitled “Effectiveness of Statutory Requirements for the Registration of Sex Offenders – A Report to the California State Legislature” by R. Lewis? Apparently it can be ordered from the CA DOJ but when I click on the link it wants me to set up Microsoft account which I really don’t want to do…

Great info JBCal, you are a wealth of knowledge and like I said, I will NEVER be mistaken for a mathematician 🙂
Only my opinion but I don’t think the winning argument is going to be due process. Of course I’m most likely wrong, it sure wouldn’t be the first time. I’m working on a different angle and was hoping for some help if you had the report. It’s probably a stupid idea but I don’t think anyone has tried it yet.
Thanks anyway –