ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Jessica’s Law Authors Attempt to Overturn CA Supreme Court Decision

Sharon Runner is at it again.  She is trying to overturn the recent CA Supreme Court decision that declared unconstitutional residency restrictions as applied to parolees in San Diego.

Runner is attempting to do this through the “gut and amend” process by completely rewriting Senate Bill (SB) 54.  In its current form, SB 54 would create a state law that prohibits most registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children regularly gather as well as authorize municipal jurisdictions to pass even more stringent residency restrictions Sharon Runner is best known for her “leadership” in Proposition 83 (“Jessica’s Law”) which was significantly limited by the recent CA Supreme Court decision.  Jessica’s Law may be Sharon Runner’s only claim to fame which may be why she cannot remain silent.
In addition, Senator Sharon Runner’s husband, George Runner, cannot remain silent regarding the Supreme Court’s decision and has used state resources to voice his opinions.

George Runner — a former state legislator and current member of the Board of Equalization (BOE) — has posted the following criticism of the Court’s decision in a press release on the BOE website:  “The California Supreme Court has substituted the opinion of the court over the will of the people.”  In the same press release, George Runner identifies himself as “Jessica’s Law author” as well as Vice Chair of the BOE.

George Runner also criticized a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to apply the Supreme Court’s decision statewide in a second press release posted on the BOE website.  In that press release, he stated that “Jessica’s Law authors George and Sharon Runner….were disappointed by the Corrections Department’s sweeping decision…..”

One can only wonder why or whether the BOE, a state agency dedicated to taxpayer issues, cares about a public safety issue, that is, the application of residency restrictions to registered citizens.  One can also wonder whether the use of the BOE website to post press releases on this topic is a wise and lawful use of BOE resources.

As for SB 54, the bill has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee where it will be assigned to one or more Senate committees for further consideration.  When that bill is heard, California RSOL will be sure to testify against it.

By Janice Bellucci

Read all of Janice’s Journal

Join the discussion

  1. Nicholas Maietta

    I cannot believe they published his “response” on the State Board of Equalization’s’ website. The “Press Release” is a personal opinion and the subject matter doesn’t even belong on that government website. He’s using government resources for personal gain, which is a FEDERAL CRIME.

    As a business owner myself i am now worried about Runner being a chair member of BOE. If he can post personal opinions on the BOE website which tax payers pay for for restricted usage, then what else can he do to my business? I cringe at the very thought.

    Janice, Chance and others, PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS. My task today is to bring to light to proper authorities this criminal act.

    See:
    http://www.justice.gov/jmd/misuse-position-and-government-resources

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Sorry about my previous post: I only read halfway though this post before it “clicked” that i needed to start making phone calls to whoever i can to report this misuse of resources and decided to tell you about it…. lol you already though about the same thing. Good.

      I cannot (so far) seem to find the right department to report this to within the US Department of Justice. Anyone who feels they can locate and make the report, please feel free to do so.

  2. Garrett

    People there is a petition on Change.org to abolish the registry please make sure you sign it!

    https://www.change.org/p/abolish-the-sex-offender-registry

    Thanks

    • C

      Signed. How is it that there are such a small number of signatures on this thing – was it published 5 minutes ago?

  3. Q

    Wow, these two don’t seem to know when enough is enough! It’s like, what part of unconstitutional do those two not understand? And now George Runner claims “The California Supreme Court has substituted the opinion of the court over the will of the people.” This is not true. They spent allot of time and resources to convince people to jump on their bandwagon, and now that the Supreme court is actually calling these laws unconstitutional the Runners, George at least, is criticizing the State Supreme court and the Department of Corrections? Sounds like these two are shooting themselves in the foot to me!

    I wonder why this issue is so obviously important to these two in light of all the evidence that proves most of their logic is flawed. I’m with Nicholas Maietta on this one. That is to say I think “Janice, Chance and others,” really need to look into George Runners crime of using government resources for personal gain. He’s using the BOE as his personal soap box!

    I’m wondering if people are starting to get tired of hearing these two finger pointers making what are obviously alarmist statements that research and statistics show to be false.

    • j

      The constitution protects (or is supposed to) against tyranny of the majority. That is a fundamental truth that continues to elude Herr Runner.

      The sick distortion going on here is that Herr Runner thinks that his obsession with registrants is now somehow relative to his duties at the BOE.

      I guess the real 64 thousand dollar question to the BOE is what does Herr Runner plan to do to harm registrants on behalf of the BOE ? Would BOE be kind enough to outline their strategy against registrants and if they have none, why does Herr runner use this forum to further his unconstitutional agenda?

      I guess I’m being facetious but level a question like that directly to the board will make it plain for all to see how utterly ridiculous Herr Runner’s web-page looks with what appears to have nothing to do with his responsibilities at the BOE
      and everything to do with his failed attempts at punishing registrants and their families unnecessarily, retro-actively and into perpetuity.

  4. Harry

    The whole political legacy of the Runners are based on Prop 83 and they are like a drowning swimmer trying to save it. The more they try the quicker they and Prop 83 will drown. Their efforts maybe a blessing to the RC causes.

  5. VSPSVS

    They can do what ever they want. Hopefully they did break the law or an ethical code but you know they are perfect people.

  6. Clark

    Could very well be misuse of office ..?..conflict of interest to the duties of board of equalization office ..? …can you smell what’s cooking ..? …the BOE is now the office of propaganda ….remember that office of propaganda installed by Hitler..?….shouldn’t Ms. Bellucci, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the ACLU, Housing California and Alameda County have fair equal time to respond on such a taxpayer funded website for all to see and read as well ..?…you bet they do..!

    • Clark

      I would love to put my opinion on the BOE website for the millions and millions to see and read…probably like most here would like to do also…..uh runner…?…secret ..hide..oc trialwithout accused present in proceedings …you can get anyone guilty of anything when proceedings are NOT public open court and done in a back hallway and readback of transcript is behind closed door …(the second incident there covered up the first).

      No…runner..you have to be fired or resign from that position …you cast the cancer of bias..discrimination ..prejudice and hate in a position that calls for none of that and in which you were to remain neutral ……..registered citizens and their families won’t be getting a fair honest shake to justice when the scales are already biased and tampered against them….runner resign …derelict of duty.

  7. Molly

    You can make life difficult for George Runner’s Communications Director, David Duran, by calling George Runner’s office directly at 916-445-2181 and asking to speak to Mr. Duran. When I called to complain about George’s misuse of BOE assets David told me that as an elected official Mr. Runner was free to use state assets any way he wanted. I asked him if I could quote him on that and he got a little nervous and tried to intimidate me by letting me know he had my phone number. It must come up on their phone system when you call. If you don’t want them to have a record of your phone number, you might not want to call from your house.
    George’s Lancaster office phone number is 661-723-8469.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      The reason i didn’t call is because i don’t want someone accusing me of making threats. This has happened to me in the past.

    • Q

      If Runners office was on the up & up threats and intimidation would not be necessary. It was just assumed that you were an ignorant nobody not worthy of respect. And that is an insult aimed directly at you and anyone else that doesn’t think Runner is a untouchable god.

      What say gang; I think we should band together and flood the appropriate agencies (not Runners office) with phone calls and letters calling for Runner to be held accountable for his misuse of office. What we did with SB 267 proves we are powerful and can make a difference. Janice; what do you think?

    • Eric Knight

      The unsolicited admission of Duran insinuating “he has your phone number” can be construed as a threat by some legal entities. While the level of this threat probably doesn’t warrant legal followup, the fact that he is using this statement upon a perfectly legitimate request to quote the PUBLIC POLITICIAN’s office is not only troubling, but frightening. I know that if Janice got that response, all hell would reign on that office.

  8. curiouser

    Didn’t the Assembly AND the Senate committees just “suggest” to a couple of authors that their presence restriction bills wouldn’t stand up? Didn’t the California Supreme Court just state that blanket restrictions were unconstitutional? What is the classic definition of insanity? I think we can reduce it to just one word. “Runner.”

  9. MM

    OMG! Here we go again.
    Another reason to never be certain of calling any place ‘home’.

  10. Michael

    Once again I can only go back to George Runners confession, on KFI’s John and Ken Show, a few days after the court decision in the San Diego case, where he admitted, on the air, that there was “nothing magical about 2,000” and it’s relationship to protecting children.

    He further admitted, on air, that the ONLY reason they picked that number was because it was a number that had survived court challenges in other states.

    All that is just what the court said in it’s ruling when it said there was no rational relationship between the restrictions and the goal of protecting children.

    I’ll look to see if I can find that KFI interview in the podcasts. I think that would be a couple of sounds bites worth to have played around.

    And in this case they would be sound bites that mean the SAME thing weither or not they are played in or out of context.

  11. Eric Knight

    George Runner claims “The California Supreme Court has substituted the opinion of the court enforced the integrity of the Constitution over the will of the people.”

    Fixed it.

    • Timmr

      Thank you. The will of the people is an excuse used to terrorize a minority.

  12. Jo

    There is a contact us option on the BOE website and I just ripped them a new one for his misuse of position, I suggest you do the same

  13. mike r

    Man will the evil never die in these people. Bill oriely was just bragging bout Jessicas law last night its ridiculous.cowards and evil hatred with no shame in exploiting children and fears for personal gain. If these laws were effective and really helped protect kids or anyone then I could understand and believe that the runners might be working in good faith instead no one can doubt that its for their own agendas and they don’t give a damn about safety or children or anything except their reputation.

    • Q

      I find it amazing they still beat their rabble rousing war drum in spite of all the evidence now coming to light that proves their claims are not true.

  14. td777

    I guess the powers that be didn’t like what I said about an interview I heard from George Runner a few years back and removed it.

  15. Molly

    You can file an anonymous complaint about Mr. Runner with the California State Auditor at:
    http://www.bsa.ca.gov/hotline/

    PLEASE NOTE: If you want to file a complaint using the online form you have to click on the department you are complaining about. The BOE is listed as “Equalization, Board of” (I had to call them to figure it out)

    You will need a short, clear, concise statement about the alleged violation, why it is a violation and any evidence to confirm your allegation. Including a link to the press releases on Runner’s BOE website might be enough proof but think about including specific code violations.

    Please do your own research as I cannot guarantee I copied the statute numbers down correctly but:

    CA Government Code Title 9, 8314.(a) as defined in (b) (1), (3) and (4)
    California Government Code Title 9, 82032
    and CA Codes part 9. State Board of Equalization, Chapter 1, § 15603

    might be relevant and helpful in crafting your argument and of course the federal codes Nicholas Maietta suggested are a great resource.

    There is no way to find out if any action is being taken on your complaint but I would think the more complaints the higher our chances.

  16. mike r

    I hope if this bill comes up it will go in front of mark leno and that same committee. After all doesn’t the CASOMB state specifically that residency restrictions are counterproductive and is not good policy.

  17. Anonymous

    Both of them should be publicly cited as being pro crime, pro recidivism and anti safety given the immense volume of data we now have showing that these laws do nothing to protect people and in fact increase the likelihood of re offense by bringing instability, shame and homelessness to the people on the registry.

    The amount of hypocrisy among the people supporting these laws is astounding. Take into consideration the following.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/dennis-hastert-promoted-himself-crusader-against-sexual-abuse-children-1944886

  18. Robert Curtis

    RSOL and members,

    We should take a personal interest in Senator Sharon Runner’s political career. I have ideas and action steps to help the process in that regard…to think you’ll actually gain income while doing it. I have (for now) only a few students but with over 106,000 of us… imagine the force we have together by our focus on one single goal. To defeat the registry!

    • Janice Bellucci

      Because California RSOL is a non-profit, it cannot be involved in any campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate. Every member of the organization, however, has a right to be so involved as an individual.

      • http404

        Exactly. CARSOL is a 501(c)(4) organization which means it is bound by the same rules of Citizens United, primarily for establishing a collective voice on political or social issues. That said, campaign laws say you can’t support an election campaign in voice or in dollars, it would have to be through a PAC. But as we learned in Citizens United vs. FEC, a 501(c)(4) CAN publicly voice their opposition to a candidate based on factual information, because, as SCOTUS ruled, not permitting this would seriously quell free speech.

        Many people boo and hiss the Citizens United decision. Few grasp the gravity and weight for upholding the First Amendment. Had they ruled otherwise, for example, organizations like NAACP or SPLC would not be able to speak out publicly when an outwardly racist candidate decided to run for office.

  19. Avig

    The latest proposals from the Runners are lacking in merit; in my opinion, it is time for them to retire from public life and enter the obscurity that is rightfully theirs.

  20. j

    It’s time to throw these two miscreants out of office, ban them from public service for life and keep them from within 5,000 feet of anywhere law abiding citizens gather.

  21. A

    Has anyone wondered who is paying them to continue this facet of the Witch-Hunt?
    They have to be on some corporate payroll and or PAC to continue this. IE: GPS manufacturers, Containment Model Contractors, etc.
    I do assume here, but I ponder that there must be a few shady deals made on the golf course as Registered Citizens are de-humanized. George was asked specifically in that post Ca SC interview why someone registering for an offense with an adult was unable to reside near a school. His response was pretty much business as usual, all registrants are child molesters..
    SMH!!!

  22. http404

    I just read the text of SB 54 and it appears they are trying to “loophole” on the court’s decision. The State Supreme Court ruled San Diego County residency restrictions were unconstitutional when applied as a blanket policy. That speaks to the need for due process.

    Because they are writing in a provision to petition for relief, I can only surmise they are trying to pass that off as due process. This is no different than the Orange County DA’s misguided belief that requiring written permission to enter a park constituted due process.

  23. Harry

    Another place to complaint about G. Runner. https://www.boe.ca.gov/feedback.htm

  24. curiouser

    The thing about Runner’s gut and amend is that it is STILL a blanket prohibition she is pushing for. She wants all RCs to be subject to the 2000 foot ban unless they petition the court for relief:
    “The bill would permit a person who is subject to the residency restriction to petition the superior court of the county within which he or she resides for relief from the requirement … The bill would require the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there is a pervasive lack of compliant housing in the county and that a majority of sex offenders are unable to comply despite good faith efforts.”

    So, basically, a blanket restriction, with the caveat that you could petition for relief. Which is just like saying California is a lifetime registration state, unless you are so fortunate as to petition the court for a COR. Me thinks this attempt at a law was just ruled unconstitutional (in re Taylor). I guess some folks just like getting punched in the nose.

    • j

      This is double jeopardy in that the person that has completed his sentence is subject to a second (and unconstitutional) adjudication of his case if he needs to petition for relief after his sentencing.

  25. A

    well… left a comment on BOE page. Hope this helps. My comment below.

    “George Runner using the BOE as a platform for something that has nothing to do with the BOE is unacceptable to the Tax Payers. We as citizens are held accountable for our actions. Yet we pay for positions being held to serve a personal agenda? Most employees would face termination for this act. With no one held accountable, are you saying by doing nothing about this that your office is above consequence? Please resolve this issue immediately as you are here to resolve issues, not make more of them.

  26. Anonymous Nobody

    What’s kind of bizarre about this entire discussion, and linking it to the state Supreme Court decision, is that Jessica’s Law was not decided by the high court. That decision did nothing to “gut” Jessica’s Law.

    The court decided the other Legislature-created statute pertaining only to parolees, not to other registrants. That law was passed by the Legislature in hope of diminishing the push for more, for Jessica’s Law. But the Runners took Jessica’s Law to a ballot measure anyway, and it was passed, and it applies to all registrants, not only to parolees.

    The high court’s ruling in San Diego was only pertinent to those on parole. Yes, the state’s decision to extend it across the state is more, but that still is applicable only to those on parole.

    The Runners now seem to fear — accurately — that the logic will be expanded either by the court or the lawmakers to presence restrictions against all registrants. So they are making a preemtive strike.

  27. ca

    So this bill, if passed would only apply to registrants, who’s convictions are in penal code 667.81?

  28. Cool CA RC

    Great this is going to my weekly letters to my local Law maker letting them know that I think of runner posting on boe.

  29. ca

    I meant penal code 667.61! Does anyone know the answer?

  30. Q

    I think the press release may have been removed. I looked and couldn’t find it.

    • Janice Bellucci

      I have just checked the BOE website and found the press releases which are dated March 2 and March 26. You need to find George Runner on the website and then go to the “media center” on his home page. There you will find “press releases”. Click on that tab and you will find them.

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 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.