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

California

Sharon Runner Demands Transparency from Corrections Department

SACRAMENTO – Senator Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster) has called upon the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to provide insight into its decision to terminate enforcement of the uniform sex offender residency restrictions under Jessica’s Law.

“I was alarmed by CDCR’s sweeping decision to stop enforcing the people’s will as expressed in Jessica’s Law,” said Runner. “The residency restrictions in Jessica’s Law provide important peace of mind for California’s families.” Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. mike t

    Sharon Runner Demands Transparency from Corrections Department
    ————————————————————–

    “As an author of Jessica’s Law, I continue to stand behind the package of reforms that have made California’s communities safer,” said Runner.

    http://www.signalscv.com/section/36/article/135246/

    It would appear that she has continued to ignore the studies and research that have concluded that residency restrictions do not provide any measure of public safety, especially aimed at protecting children. We have constructed many safeguards to insure that children are safe in their classrooms from registrants, yet any given day you can ‘Google’ “Teacher Molested Student” to find out how well these policies are working against child sexual abuse. It’s the same thing with public parks and little league coaches, Churches and priests, cops and explorer scouts. The threat has already infiltrated these sanctuaries and yet we get blindsided every time. It’s insane. It’s time to start educating children how to deal with situations that make them feel uncomfortable in their environments and pay closer attention to the real threats.
    70% of voters approved Jessica’s law. Well, yes, but 100% of the California Supreme Court Judges voted it unconstitutional as applied in cases where registrants were left with no place to live. I Guess Sharon didn’t read the CDCR statement thoroughly in that it still leaves discretion to parole agents on who to apply the residency restrictions to, instead of blanket coverage to all registrants including those whose offense had nothing to do with children and no contact.

    • Harry

      The problem with Mama Wolf Runner is that her sheep skin has holes in it. She is trying cover the lies that her and papa wolf has been doping. When the lights are turn on. the rats will run, in this case, Runner runing at the mouth. I hope she keeps doing it until all her sheep clothing is gone. Than it will be easy to see the evil.

  2. j

    She is an exposed demagogue and now is professing to know more than the collective experience and research of those who do this for a living.

    We citizens of the state demand truth and integrity from Legislators!

  3. David

    Transparency?! It’s time for the voters of this nation to start demanding transparency from elected officials like Runner!! These vote-pandering politicians continue to promulgate unconstitutional and fallacy-based laws that enact endless punishment of RCs and cost millions in tax-payer dollars, all while doing nothing to increase anyone’s safety.

  4. Margaret Moon

    I wonder why everyone is being so polite as not to mention that the Runners used a fabricated research study (never happened) to quote the statistics that persuaded voters to pass their initiative. It sickens me that this woman is now a state Congresswoman.

    • j

      She was alarmed at the truth. What is a person like this doing in office?

      I guess arbitrary and random thoughts just get on ballot initiatives because she knows they’ll never fly when subject to legislative scrutiny.

  5. Jo

    Of course she is upset, she and hubby got slammed and made to look like the idiots they are, not she is flailing her arms and making a lot of noise, furthering the evidence of their stupity

  6. Q

    ” Senator Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster) has called upon the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to provide insight into its decision to terminate enforcement of the uniform sex offender residency restrictions under Jessica’s Law.”

    Oh yea? I think Sharon Runner needs to provide insight into her reasons for being so “alarmed” with CDCRs decision. I also think Sharon Runner and her kind need to wake up to the fact that not everyone believes what she believes and most people have their own opinions (people seem to be waking up to the truth and the facts).

    With the pendulum swinging in our favor I would advise everyone forced to register as a “sex offender” (even the ones who’s “crime” had nothing to do with “sex”) to prepare themselves for the inevitable avalanche of “frothy emotional appeals” from people like Sharon Runner and others who’s main claim to fame is getting unconstitutional laws passed and have built a major portion of their careers by totally disregarding the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    (I am getting a really heartwarming satisfaction knowing that the truth finally seems to be coming out into the light and people like Sharon Runner are feeling threatened by this) 🙂

    • j

      Runner rolled the dice on passing laws based on false, misleading and missing information. When the smoke clears and the dust settles, the truth is revealed about the inefficacy of these laws and the true character of the people that push them.

      This is why Tyranny of the Majority is a constitutional protection. We need laws to protect society from these types of politicians and the damage they do on many fronts.

      • Q

        It’s a little disturbing the way she seems to believe her own hysterical arguments as sound reasoning and truth in light of the fact’s about the ineffectiveness of the registry, presence restrictions, etc that have been coming out via the propaganda ministry (any lame stream media outlet). Her arguments for getting these laws passed were and are nothing other than pure sophistry.

        “Runner writes: “The public, the press and the Legislature have a right to a transparent explanation of the Department’s position.”

        And we the people, as well as the press and the Legislature, have a right to a transparent explanation from Runner why she pushed a law without the backing of any research or actual facts; let alone a pilot program to see if any of her great idead actuallw worked and were cost effective. We the people also have a right to empirical proof of her claims and position.

        “people’s will???” I have to wonder what would have happened if she had been honest and not such an alarmist. It was more like her will.

        sophistry (ˈsɒfɪstrɪ)
        1. (Philosophy)
        a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
        b. the art of using such arguments
        2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
        3. an instance of this; sophism

    • mike t

      Another thing that would warm MY heart would be to see the “Lifetime GPS Monitoring” (per Jessicas Law) for ALL released registrants stricken from the books. It seems it should be easily challenged based on the recent SCOTUS ruling that this is a violation of Fourth Amendment Rights. I realize It’s not being enforced, nor was the residency restrictions beyond parole/probation. It would be nice to see our government do a little housekeeping and it’s entertaining to see George and Sharon Runners reactions.
      ——————————————————————-
      Jessica’s Law, California Proposition 83 (2006)
      Proposition 83 is well-known for requiring registered sex offenders who have been convicted of a felony sex offense to be monitored by GPS devices while on parole and for the remainder of their lives.

      http://ballotpedia.org/Jessica%27s_Law,_California_Proposition_83_%282006%29

  7. Cool CA RC

    if you have time you can contact Runner at the link below
    http://district21.cssrc.us/

    • Ron

      I tried to contact Runner at the above link, but she does not accept comments from people that are not in her district.

      • coor CA RC

        then we can contact the people in HER district

      • j

        And contact your own legislator and most importantly the members of the public safety committee.

      • Will Allen

        Send one anyway.

      • Ron

        Her link looks at your required address and will not send your comment at all if not in her district. You would have to call or write her.

  8. Clark

    While you’re ‘demanding transparency’ chairnsummer how bout demanding transparency to the right of a fair public trial…..let the public know you are a fair honest public servant and demand orange county answer why they didn’t correct a trial record..why a backhall conference after prosecution witness accuser confirms defendant’s innocence and accuser’s motive ………the demand here ms. runner is prove your position of transparency and open orange county to answer that incident.

  9. Eric Knight

    I would submit that the multitude of studies, statistics, constitutional violations, etc. etc. is not only transparent, but invisibly clear.

  10. G4Change

    “The Rule of Law

    The law that your Department seeks to preemptively repeal was approved by the more than 70% of California voters who supported Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83, 2006)….”

    Ummmm….Someone needs to break it to Mrs. Runner that EVEN THE LAW must abide by THE RULE OF LAW.

    • j

      What she failed to mention is that the law is based that on lies and guesswork and could be loosely (though appropriately) termed as “Voter Fraud”.

      When all the facts are in, the truth becomes painfully clear to her and that is what is really making her sick.

      Mob rule is not part of any law that will work for the objectives of trying to improve any situation in a free society. It did however work in 1933 and we all know what disastrous results ensued. What was the body count on that campaign?

  11. mch

    Ms. Runner is a serial political predator and she should be subjected to lifetime registration for being a chronic liar and predator. She should not be allowed within 2000 feet of her constituents.

  12. Mjk

    Is it just me, or is this bill attempting to permit local governments to act with no regard to the Supreme Court ruling from last month? It would enable cities to make these ordinances, leading only to further law suits. It’s time for the CA Supreme Court to clarify their opinion from March. This is just going in circles now, just as this type of politician prefers. #slowclap

    • Janice Bellucci

      You may be confusing two decisions by the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court on March 2, 2015, issued the Taylor decision which focused upon residency restrictions, not presence restrictions. In April 2014, the California Supreme Court refused to grant review of a decision by a California Court of Appeal which determined that local government laws restricting the “presence” of a registered citizen are preempted by state law. They are both positive decisions.

      • Mjk

        Thank you for the clarification Janice! Is there a possibility of “residence” overlapping with “presence” if a law/ordinance is written and passed with vague language? It seems residence is also presence. Or am I way off on this one?

        • Timmr

          I don’t know what language they use in law, but in standard English, in order to reside in a place, you have to be present there at some time.
          The following comments may not belong here with your question, but I spent a lot of time thinking about them and wanted to post them somewhere:
          Seems like language is often used to make distinctions that don’t reflect reality, like calling registration a membership, when the reality, as we on the registry experience it, is, it is blacklisting.
          A register is a place to hold public information, such as births, deaths and marriages or criminal records. The sex offender registry does contain objective material, the criminal record (although the government does not care to see that the information is accurate). Compare that to “membership”, which means only belonging to an organization or group, and in most cases involves voluntarily belonging to that group to obtain certain benefits. The sex offender registry also implies other things about the registrant that goes way beyond simply listing a crime that an individual was convicted of, such as the individual’s perceived dangerousness to the public, which is not part of any other registry I can think of. It also spawns a slough of laws that restrict the registrant, again assuming that just being on a registry is justification for the restrictions.
          I’ve looked and looked for a word that truly describes the facts of our being listed on the sex offender registry. The best word I could find is “blacklisting.” It was used to describe the labeling of suspected communists and anarchists in the 50’s by the movie industry and ended up causing many to loose their jobs. Sound familiar? I see many parallels to the sex offender registry, but the two main ones are the fear and hysteria that serve as the basis for the lists and the lack of empirical justification for the lists or verification that the lists serve their stated purpose and may be counter to the purpose, whether it is protecting Democracy or saving children.

        • Mjk

          Thanks for sharing Timmr. I appreciate your use of the term “blacklisting” to describe more accurately what is happening to “registered” citizens.

        • Q

          I think this is what you are trying to describe. 🙂

          “Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, “McCarthyism” soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

        • Timmr

          They had the House Un-American Activities Committee. Now we have SMART.

        • mike t

          Another term associated with registration is ‘Matriculation’ though usually it’s associated with enrolling in some form of higher education (i.e. college, university,..).
          Matriculate is a diminutive of the word matrix, which by definition is something that constitutes the place or point from which something else originates, takes form, or develops.
          So, for anyone looking for an esoteric alternative to calling themselves ‘Registrant’ instead of ‘Sex Offender’ I believe the term Matriculant will work.

        • j

          How about Planetary Matriculant?

        • mike t

          Unfortunately, due the outlandish restrictions, my physical being is a predisposed terrestrial matriculant. But, the thetan shall roam the astral planes freely.

        • Timmr

          No, I am looking for a word that describes how we are treated. Matriculate refers to a privileged list, such as enrolling for a college degree or becoming part of the Scottish heraldry (hey, I like that, I have Scottish ancestry). I think you misunderstood me, I am not looking for euphemisms, words to make me feel good. The misuse of words by the courts is the heart of the problem. They use “registrant” or even “member” to downplay the hardships associated with the registry. When they want to justify the registry, we are “sex offenders” (implied, those likely to offend). You can’t win until you change the dialogue by using words that reflect the reality. Otherwise, all we will get is more sophistry.

        • mike t

          Disenfranchised (matriculants)?

  13. coor CA RC

    have the CDCR response yet?

    • Anonymous

      They won’t, and really there is no need to. The supreme court has made their ruling, and there is nothing CDCR can do about it. Yes, the ruling applies to San Diego county, but now anyone can make a case in any other country, and pretty much win be default since the supreme court set the precedent. Why waste time and money for something you will surely lose? Runner will just yap her head off to anyone that will listen for a while, then it will be old news.

      Also, the wording that CDCR used is very clever. It makes it seem that any parolee that has a victim under 14 will have the 1/2 mile residence restriction. This is not true. They used the adjective, “high risk” SO. To be labeled high risk by CDCR, you need to have a 6+ for your static score (my PO told me this), which applies to a small minority of SO’s on parole. My guess is they worded it this way to misdirect the public into thinking anyone with a victim under 14 will have the restriction.

      • Harry

        The Runner’s are drowning in their lies and they are grabbing anything to stay alive. I want them to talk more, which means. they will lie more and it will make it quicker for their followers see that they are liars and no good.

  14. cool CA RC

    In other words. Welcome back home!!

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