ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: A Step in the Right Direction

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), not know as an ally of registered citizens, took an important step in the right direction on March 26 by declaring that they will apply the recent Taylor decision statewide. In the Taylor decision, the California Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional for CDCR to levy residency restrictions against all registered citizens on parole as a blanket condition. Also in that decision, the Court provided CDCR with discretion to levy residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis.

CDCR’s decision to apply the Court’s decision statewide could benefit thousands of registered citizens if and only if they exercise their discretion wisely. That is, if they levy residency restrictions only on those who pose a current danger to public safety. That category could include those who have “recently” committed violent offenses and are not yet rehabilitated. The category should not include those who have committed non-contact offenses, such as public indecency and sexting.

The media has expressed great interest in CDCR’s decision, including articles in the Los Angeles Times and interviews on both Fox TV and National Public Radio (NPR) stations. There will even be a one-hour panel discussion regarding this decision broadcast on KCRW, an NPR station, on March 30.

Thus far, the media attention has been balanced in large part and even favoring the rights of registered citizens in small part. The media has chosen wisely to focus on the facts related to residency restrictions such as the significant increase in the homelessness rate of registered citizens since the passage of Jessica’s Law and the resulting decrease in public safety.

We are encouraged by CDCR’s decision and the media coverage of that decision as well as by decisions of Riverside County and the City of Downey toward repeal of their existing residency restrictions. It is important to note that residency restrictions in those communities apply not only to parolees but to all registered citizens.
If more cities and counties follow the example set by Riverside County and the City of Downey, there will be no need for a series of lawsuits challenging residency restriction. If, however, the example set by Riverside County and the City of Downey is not followed, there will be a need for many lawsuits. California RSOL and similar organizations are preparing to meet that challenge if necessary.

– Janice Bellucci

Read all of Janice’s Journal

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
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. 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.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. 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.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thanks for the update Janice. Very appreciated.

YOu’d think that since there are way more registered citizens out and off of Parole, they would come first to loosen the res. restriction(s).
Besides, they having to been out, some for decades, continually being punished (more than murders and other physically maiming and disfiguring others) but yet they undure this website and negative adornments.
Why are NOT Murder’s and others so permanent killing and loss of limb and eyes convicts not on a website??? Especially the DUI folks that are repeat offenders that KILL others and just get manslaughter and the drugs sellers that physically hurt and permanently visible damage to human life?
What about people 20 or even 30 or longer ago be given a life sentence on restrictions and pics and profs (NOT DATING) up on sites for all to see?

Case by case basis is better than just throwing away the key at just Parolees, they are usually more at risk than others that have done their time and Parole and life after w/o repeating again or just cause for any other crime than non moving violations due to no funds due to rent increases as they are not allowed to live in a cheaper area nor have a job position to pay any other bills.

Thanks to Janice for her submission and to make everything happen and get the SOMB listen in SAC.

Someday they will have State congress pass the tier program for those who patiently wait.

How does this ruling affect the stay on residency restrictions in Los Angeles county? Is that stay still in effect? I can’t seem to find any information anywhere and am nervous as to how this ruling might be misapplied/abused by parole and probation officers. In child pornography cases, for example, when the parolee has not produced the material or ever touched a child, the way the ruling is worded, the parole officer may demand that residency restrictions be applied to the parolee since the c.p. often involves people under the age of 14.

The Los Angeles County stay is not by the CDCR. This action is simply CDCR and solely for those still on parole. It has no effect on that stay.

Janice, is it possible that this is just a cynical move by the CDCR, wherein they simply order their officers to glance at each individual case and then quickly stamp them as “restrictions required” and thus be able to say they are doing it on a “case by case” basis? Seems like this might be seen by them as a more efficient way of getting around the court ruling than challenging it legally.

That’s pretty much my question. This doesn’t seem like a good thing at all. It simply gives individual parole officers more power.

I am more optimistic the registry will be ruled unconstitutional in the next 5-10 years. The current rulings are just a piece of the puzzle leading to the inevitable. Thank you Janice and crew for all that you are doing.

They can no longer hang their hat on the recidivism argument; nor the it’s already “public information to begin with” nonsense. They are running out of trees to hide behind and are scrambling daily to justify the Megan’s Law train wreck of futility.

Knowing where someone lives simply does not minimize risk, mush less enhance pubic safety. It it weaponized hatred by association, little else.

The proponents for the registry need to be attacked daily with this.

I agree with Hookscar. The entire SOMB, I call them SOB’s, are breaking the law and what they require to register as a sex offender is so unconstitutional. Their judgment day will come but that is not my place to say that. That is God’s territory and I trust he will reward those that were unjustly punished on earth by man.

If we continue to allow this illegal registry to continue, the average general public is not aware that they are creating this to happen to them in due time. The ones in power have a plan and this is just the start, cream of the crop, if you will, setting up the stage with the formation of the SOMB. The general public, voters, are allowing a group of power hungry evil people control peoples lives and they don’t realize how this is going to eventually affect them as well.

We need the media and good folks like Janice to continue to bring all this to the publics attention. We need some good folks to get voted in Legislature, in the General Assembly, to stop and do away with this SOMB. Laws are easy to put in place but almost IMPOSSIBLE to remove.

Our voices need to be heard or we are going to continue to loose every ounce of freedom which seems like it is dwindling rapidly. This is a sad world we live in. It breaks my heart to see so many innocent, decent, naïve, good hearted people who makes an innocent mistake, like taking a piss or having sex for the first time with a younger pier, have their lives ruined by the SOMB aka SOB’s.

They portray sex offenders as if they have a disease with what they have to go through. I can almost bet you someone on that board has a deep dark secret of what they did in there lifetime that would be deemed as a felony like they took a piss at a ballpark game!

How can they sleep at night knowing they are ruining peoples lives by the formation of the sex offender registry. They obviously do not have a conscience. Is that not the mind of a criminal, or insane, not have a conscience? Do as I say, not as I do is the way I see it for these SOB’s.

I’m sorry to be writing all this but We the People, really need to take a stand and STOP THESE SOB’S FROM CONTROLLING OUR LIVES. Power and money is the root of all evil. God please help us all and stamp out the Registry entirely!

If you want to hear the panel discussion KCRW is out of Santa Monica on 89.9 FM.

Not sure how powerful the radio station is. Might not even get out of L. A. county. But worth a try.

I wonder what time?

The panel discussion will begin at 2:30 p.m. on Monday.

You can listen online. Just search KCRW Santa Monica…


Thank you for the perspective, Janice. However, I see some of the comment as a bit misguided. I expect it is simply oversight, not attitude. It reminds me of the previous correct decision to stop using the term sex offender and instead call them registrants — after all, they no longer are offenders, no registrant is, someone who is an offender is prosecuted and jailed, not left free and registering. Only those who are not offenders are registrants.

The spot I note is:

I think it must be considered that no one is to be granted parole until the parole board decides they are NOT likely “a current danger to public safety.” And the parole board does not easily decide that, does not give parole readily. And also, none of these people have “‘recently’ committed violent offenses and are not yet rehabilitated”; if that were the case, they would not be on parole, they would be back in prison, either by parole revocation or new charges and conviction, or both.

As such, it strikes me as unjustified to say that it would be legitimate for CDCR to decide that some of the people granted parole are so dangerous to society that the location of their residence must be drastically restricted. That is contrary to the Parole Board’s assessment and decision! Gee, we are throwing talk of assessments around, including for tiers, and yet if they are positive, as with the granting of parole, now WE’RE tossing the assessment out the window!

The Parole Board first decides that the prisoner is NOT any kind of danger like that, and only then will they consider and maybe grant parole, although they might demand an even higher standard. And if the governor thinks that assessment and decision to grant parole is wrong, he/she can overrule it. I don’t see how the CDRC should get to overrule all that and declare the person a serious danger to society, so serious as to require residency restrictions of this extreme sort.

Maybe there could be argument for some other basis for CDRC to act, although I don’t see it offhand. But not on the basis of danger to society, or recent violent offense, as you speak. That was already decided by a truly intensive review by the Parole Board. (I note, I also confess, mea culpa, I too have misguidedly stated in other threads that I had no problem with various restrictions on parolees as they are still considered to be in custody. But I am now convincing myself otherwise. Seems to me it is either a blanket restriction, or no restriction. And I see no way to justify a blanket restriction when considering how low the recidivism rate is. All this because the assessment has already been done, and all of them have been assessed as unlikely to reoffend.)

(Continued in second post below…)

Damn this 404 error – it won’t let me post the rest! Damn it. Now you have only half of it. Hmm, unless I can get it in below this using the new edit function:

It’s easy even for us to lose sight of our grounding on these issues, under the cacophony of slander and libel and hyperbole and lies and misinformation and screaming going on about registrants. But a child molester is not automatically more likely to reoffend than someone who committed indecent exposure, or who downloaded simulated child porn, or some other lower level offense.

Consider, even CA RSOL highlights that the October 2013 state study shows only about 2% of registrants (was that actually 2% of sex offender parolees?) reoffend (I think that’s in the first five years). With around 50% of these parolees being child molesters, according to the article, then how can one take the recidivism rate and combine it with the rate of child molester parolees and say they need residency restrictions because they are so dangerous — how can they be so dangerous if almost none of them reoffends?! And can it be surprising that it is very rare for them to reoffend, considering a low likelihood of reoffense was the required assessment of the Parole Board when granting parole?

And I want to note, I say all this even though I have never molested anyone, nor done any of the higher level sex offenses (mine was quite minor, not that the state cares, the state wants to chase me down forever and do all possible to utterly destroy me). I could easily say yes, dump all the damnation on child molesters, let the public bleed them and beat them up if it gets me off the hook. But that is wrong, and we here must stand for what is right. I understand that we can get only so much at any time, and so I can accept a part of that at a time; but we should not throw the others to the wolves in the meantime. So, we must be careful about what we say and what we say we find acceptable. Se must never say it is acceptable to do this. We should be happy to get this part now; but we should not say continuing the crackdown on the others is acceptable.

And like I said up top, I expect that was simply an oversight in your comment, not an outright attitude — although I have heard others express displeasure that they say you said similar things on I think KFI (I didn’t hear that, I don’t know). After all, you have been fighting for all of us — and I am not alone in being extremely grateful to you for it. To you I can only say, “thank you very much.” That is, I’m not trying to criticize, only trying to hone.

It all sounds really good, although I do have some misgivings. If it turns out to be the individual parole agent who is deciding who does and who does not have to live under these residency restrictions I see a great potential for abuse by the individual parole agents making these decisions. Let us not forget the utter BS this whole residency/presence restriction phenomena is. Also, let us not forget that the CDCR (they really do need to drop the rehabilitation part; really, they do) is staffed by a group of individuals making up the whole. These individuals all have their individual biases towards registrants, and I believe are conditioned to believe much of what they hear as fact, weather supported by empirical evidence or not.


a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.

It is very possible that few if any will ever get that assessment. It would require a huge bureaucracy to assess them all, and the money that costs.

I note, pretty much everything about sex offender registration is done as a blanket policy! This argument could extend to other things. But I’m afraid the court will only require individual assessments for the most egregious things, not for registration itself. But even registration itself is applied by blanket policy,with the registrant not allowed any due process to even argue against it. The court have ruled it is not a due process violation. Now they are ruling for a piece of it that it is.

Another point is that in mosley the AG states that its the position of the AG and therefore the people that residency restrictions only apply to parolees and no one else and even the court states that that is the position of the AG so therefore no prosecuter can pursue charges in any court in CA if its the states and therefore the peoples position that the restrictions only apply to parolees. Am I missing something. It would be impossible to prosecute someone if the state has stated its position allready on record and with the supreme court even restating that’s the AG position. I would think it would be illegal for local jurisdictions to refuse to register anyone because there residence isn’t compliant with some local ordinance. I would think that that statement made by the AG and in the judges opinion can and should be used whenever it can.

I agree. At this point no city or county is ignorant enough to arrest someone for residency or presence restrictions. Nevertheless, even the ones which have repealed their ordinances may still try to intimidate you. Your right, “CA Attorney General Kamala Harris argued that residency restrictions are constitutional, but should only be applied to sex offenders while on parole”. With this statement and the fact that the Supreme Court has now said it is unconstitutional for parolees, is just a matter of time that this part of Megan’s List is behind us.

Mike, I’m not sure about all you said. However, one point to understand is the difference between when the AG staff or office states an opinion, whether in a press conference or when arguing a case in court, and when the AG formally issues and publishes an official opinion of the AG. The latter is citable in court, the former is not. I’m suspecting the AG opinion you are referring to was of the former kind, so not worth much.

LA Times Website today has put up an editorial in support of the state and court decision last week nixing blanket residency restrictions on sex offender parolees:

This is very supportive and argues for common sense, pointing out that it is wrong to think that registrants across the board are child molesters, are likely to reoffend, or are any kind of danger to children, and that in any case, residency restrictions like this only make matters worse, not better, that making people homeless is only going to make them more likely to be a problem and will leave them harder to track.

The editorial is NOT coming out against registration generally, although it makes a big statement about all registrants not being the same, many are not high level offenses.

This is very good, especially coming from the LA Times, which in recent years has been thrashing sex offenders, doing all possible to reinforce the idea they are all the same, they are solely parolees, they are predators after children, they have a high recidivism rate. Now, out of nowhere, they put up a very well considered and honest editorial.

I hope this means they will be changing their reporting about sex offenders too. I have personally fought them many times over it, to no avail. Gee, even in this editorial, they still don’t give a clue that even misdemeanants are caught up in this crap, to point out how low level this goes. And they say nothing about the public identification of registrants on the Internet.

The editorial board is not the same people as the reporting staff and assignment editors. I hope that changes with this editorial, but time will tell.

Read the article and things are changing. I do have a thought though….it has not happened to me but…. Has anyone been a victim of identity theft by being on the registry? We have our addresses, names and other “personal” information listed. Granted a SSI number is the grail, but I think there is enough information to help.

Somewhat off topic but relevant.

Ariz. governor vetoes bill shielding cops’ names

“The simple fact remains that we live in a world where misinformation can put everybody in jeopardy, especially police officers,” state Sen. John Kavanagh said last week. “And until we get those facts straight, we need to shield those cops and their families from being assassinated by lunatics or political zealots.”

I aid really like some feedback from Janice or chance or anyone with a legal background on the following motion I am preparing. If you have the time I would really appreciate it thanks.

I the plaintiff Michael …………… do hereby bring forth this motion for declaratory and injunction relief in the superior court for the county of sacramento in the state of California.
This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration requirement and notification laws on the state and federal levels in my personal situation.
I’m asking the court to grant me permanent injunction relief from the requirement to register as a sex offender and to enjoin any and all local state and federal entities from enforcing any and all of the sex offender registration requirements and notifications as applied to me.
I am a non-violent non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over ten years ago. I do not believe I pose any risk to the public and I have also been told by every psychiatrist that interviewed me while incarcerated and while on parole that I did not pose a risk for re-offense and I do not need treatments because I was not a sexual predator and therefore was not and am not a threat to public safety. I am unable to provide these reports because the department of parole refused to give me access to those reports.

The issues being brought forth are the following.

There are a multitude of constitutional violations that I will outline in this motion and that I would like this court to consider and address.
1. The sex offender registration requirement and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to my liberty by severally infringing on my ability to travel both in-state and intra-state and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel in this country without a very real potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is a violation of my fundamental right to liberty and to travel in this country. The registration and notification laws makes it impossible for me to travel to almost all of the major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry.
2. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my privacy rights by making public my personal address current photo which is not public information and also to my criminal record that is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and has a need to know basis not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
3.  The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary and oppressive official action.
It is unreasonable as it severally infringes on fundamental rights while not achieving any legitimate legislative purpose.   

Insert studies and reports.    

The fact that the courts have previously stated that it is minor collateral consequences of a regulatory scheme is simply unreasonable to conclude based on the severity of those consequences I endure because of the notification laws. I would like the court to not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators as to the need for the laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and heresy. The court should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from credible sources and experts in the fields such as the following. 

Insert studies and reports here…..

These laws are arbitrary as they are applied in a blanket enforcement policy that makes no distinctions between those who may or may not pose any risk to the public and provides no due process to make those determinations.

These laws are oppressive as they affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire a registered sex offender simply because they are on a website that is accessible to the general public. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to a registered sex offender for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. Also my personal and professional relationships are affected in a severally negative way because of the registry.
They also cause severe psychosocial stressors that cause major mental and physical disorders. The following is just one study on the effect of stress and is relevant since my psychiatric report by the parole department states that I was being subjected to severe psychosocial stressors because of the sex offender registration and notification laws.
Psychosocial stress and health problems Health in Sweden: The National Public Health Report 2012. Chapter 6 Authors

Maria Danielsson 1

Inger Heimerson 1

Ulf Lundberg 2 , 3

Aleksander Perski 4

Claes-Göran Stefansson 1

Torbjörn Åkerstedt 4

1 Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden 2 Centre for Health Equity Studies, Karolinska Institutet/Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 3 Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden 4 Stress Research Institute, Stockholms University, Stockholm, Sweden

Maria Danielsson, Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, 106 30 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail:

Summary Stress can be defined as an imbalance between demands placed on us and our ability to manage them. The body’s stress system is adapted to confront sudden physical threats. Today, however, we are increasingly exposed to prolonged mental and psychosocial stress. Prolonged stress can give rise to a range of problems: poor performance, chronic fatigue, disinterest, dejection, memory disturbances, sleep problems, numbness and diffuse muscle pains. These symptoms may eventually be followed by depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic fatigue syndrome, and ultimately chronic pain conditions, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

These laws also create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attackes harrasment and vandalism.

Maine Killings Raise Vigilantism Fears(two sex offenders killed) ^ | 4 18 06 | GLENN ADAMS
Posted on Tue Apr 18 2006 11:58:39 GMT-0700 (PDT) by freepatriot32…/washington-m Mobile-friendly – Jun 5, 2012 – A Washington man accused of fatally shooting two convicted sex offenders on the Olympic Peninsula …

These are just two examples and there are thousands more examples and instances that are readily available on the internet.

In conclusion I prey the court grant me my motion for permanent injunction relief and enjoin local state and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender or subjecting me to the notification laws under local state and federal laws that are unconstitutional for reasons stated above as applied in my case.

We do not provide legal advice on this website. If you want a legal opinion, please contact an attorney directly. Thank you.

Anonymous Nobody said “LA Times Website today has put up an editorial in support of the state and court decision last week nixing blanket residency restrictions on sex offender parolees”

I would give the L.A Times editorial a 100% rating on support for the state ( CDCR ) interpretation of the California Supreme Court ruling, and a 90% rating on support for the California Supreme Court ruling. The LA Times editorial supports the CDCR’s decision to interpret the California Supreme courts specific determination that blanket residency restrictions on parolee rso’s be done on a case-by-case basis, as meaning that replacing the blanket on all parolee rso’s with a smaller blanket to cover parolee rso’s who are high-risk , lewd conviction with victim under 14. A few newspapers stated the new smaller blanket criteria to be in the new class quite ambiguously, but it appears now the somewhat arbitrary class the CDCR has chosen is high risk determination parolee rso’s with lewd conviction victim under 14. The news papers adding to the confusion with the ambiguity which could lead the public to believe more people are and should be subject to the residency restrictions coupled with splashing CDCR’s ambiguously name-calling whoever they claim to still want to give the residency restrictions as a ‘pedophile’ only leads the public to more hysteria at a time when the public should be understanding the California Supreme Courts reasoning that no parloee rso in San Diego should get a residency restriction unless deemed so on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of public safety/reduction in homelessness and not buying into the media and CDCR’s rhetoric. With the CDCR’s position/interpretation and media support of their interpretation, soon to be implemented policy, the class of people most needing of a home, rso parloees who are high risk, etc will still be boxed out of entire cities, forced to be homeless. Since these people factor into the 98.2% of rso’s who do not reoffend, their reoffense rate can’t be that high. The LA Times Editorial said that some classes of rso’s have a high reoffense rate, but they did not expand on that. The California Supreme Court did not make that a part of their decision in the Taylor case, so I don’t see why the CDCR is creating a smaller blanket. A blanket is anything that is evaluating ex-offenders on a ‘more than one case’-by-‘more than one case’basis. Anything other than a case-by-case basis is using someone elses behavior to issue restrictions on another person, by steriotyping them. The California Supreme Court did not say class of cases by class of cases. They said case-by-case. But this is an improvement from the previous policy.

I hope you do not feel I am picking on your posts, but I have been tracking this issue myself for a while now…

Anonymous Nobody said “This is very good, especially coming from the LA Times, which in recent years has been thrashing sex offenders, doing all possible to reinforce the idea they are all the same, they are solely parolees, they are predators after children, they have a high recidivism rate. Now, out of nowhere, they put up a very well considered and honest editorial.”

The LA Times, when putting out editorials representing their opinions have been quite positive. Certain reporters sensatonalize, lie by omission, and paint false pictures of uncontrollable parolees and rso restrictions as having more support than they do and fail to mention recent court activity that properly negates these draconian laws. Certain columnists like George Skelton and Steve Lopez have been very hateful and support whatever unconstitutional laws are proposed. If George Skelton put out a column that doesn’t support whatever arbitrary draconian anti-rso law comes about, that would be out of nowhere. Another example of out-of-nowhere is the LA Daily News editorial on Jessica’s Law. today. Their first editorial years ago was in support of it. They do not address their past support of prop 83. But no one is perfect. They did a reversal in todays editorial. For them to make this opinion of policy reversal, it gives me hope John Roberts is open to truthful reasoning and analysis when new evidence is presented, like the LA Daily News Editorial Board has shown they are.

No, I don’t mind you “picking” on my post at all. Hey, that’s why I posted it, to inform people it was out there.

You show some understanding of the inner workings at newspapers. Yes, the Times editorial staff is separate from the reporting staff, and the columnists pretty much everywhere get a lot of leeway to speak their minds that reporters don’t get.

I haven’t seen the Times do many editorials on registration issues, but I haven’t been trying to track them on that. When I have seen it, they might say something positive, but then seriously qualify that and limit it, leaving the other horrid things imposed on sex offenders as something justifiable. But this editorial was strongly positive and was not so limited and supporting of other things in the meantime.

The feeling I pick up from this is that they might very well have finally come to decide that registration has gone far too far and needs to be scaled back and brought under control (maybe some day they will realize it should be eliminated!), and with the focus on those who present a real danger — and with that focus, it is possible to extend the outlook to include even scaling back who is subject to any registration in the first place. They seem to have come out in favor of imposing registration only on those who really present a danger – as having made that point of danger,how can they say danger should not need to be a consideration for other things about registration. (And now we can try to show that is nearly no registrant, and those who maybe really are a danger are the ones who are being sent to psychiatric hospitals after their prison term. — of course, that is another issue, as the way they are doing that is very wrong and draconian and for false reasons, and in fact, it shows those people never should have been handled in the criminal justice system in the first place, should have been in the medical system right from their arrest.)

The editorial board represents the top editors in charge of everyone at the Times. The entire staff will be listening to that and taking their cue from it, just like any other assignment.

But you are right, at the reporting level, the Times in the past several years has turned more right wing under a succession of new editors (and they are expected to be sold again before long, so probably another editor change). Like I said, I have brought a number of serous challenges through the editors and ombudsmen there of the reporting about sex offenders – to no avail. Maybe next time they will listen, now that the top editors have given this cue.

Oh, as for the Daily News, the “first editorial years ago” was under a truly fanatical, fire-breathing and inflammatory editor they brought in from the National Enquirer. He is now finally gone, and they have changed under their new editor to being more moderate.

Another fallacy I need to point out with the media…The media often print the comments of some moron, usually a politican who will say of the judges who decided something in favor of registrants in any way, be it giving them a sentence the politician thinks is too lenient or deciding some sex offender law is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, which amount to “well, I bet that judge would not want that sex offender moving next door to him, Lets see how he’d like that.” Implying the judge is the only one in the world who claims he could put up with that. As if he really doesn’t want that and move the SO in next to him and see how he likes that, which he won’t, supposedly. Thats the rational of the politician making the comment. To that I say, it’s not just some judge who hypothetically would claim he doesn’t mind sex offenders living near him but would really not want that, but 30% of voters voted against Prop 83. 1 out of 3 people, roughly, know most registrants are not dangerous, know registrants should not be restricted in residence , probably wouldn’t mind if a harmless registrant and their family moved nearby and they knew all this when they voted against Prop 83 back in 2006.

The LA Times’ George Skelton opposed prop 35. And here I had him pegged. And come to think of it, Steve Lopez was mostly a cheerleader for the victims in the Catholic Church scandal, but didn’t get into blanket hatemongering with support for anti-rso laws like George Skelton did back in 2006. So as far as the L.A Times, would you say its only the reporters of news stories recently who are not representing the truth on registrants? Lying by omission, reporting on otherwise worthless stories if not for being able to use the term ‘sex offender’ in the story titleline, misrepresenting the dangerousness of harmless registrants, implying laws for parolees apply to all non-parolee registrants in their news stories, etc..

Call me cynical if you must, but I notice that the slew of fairly presented articles came about BECAUSE the court ruled, more or less, in our favor. To wit, they probably had all this information all this time, probably much of it from myself who’s been sending this type of information since 2006. So I sense that they feel the situation is inevitable, so now THEY are trying to come out and say “Well, of COURSE we need to look at everything rationally; we don’t need residency restrictions and never did.” But a month ago they would have run to the Runners with tongues out of their mouths like exhuberant puppies hearing, then writing, about the “big bad sex offenders.”

Yes, I consider it progress, but it’s not because of an epiphony; rather, it’s because the court came out with the decision and unless the US Supreme Court ever rules on residency restrictions, there is nothing to be done about it.

How does this affect federal parolees and probationers?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x