ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley, August 17 – San Diego, September 21 – Phone meeting [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  June 22, July 27  [details]

ACSOLCalifornia

CDCR Withdraws Halloween Sign Requirement Statewide

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) today announced in federal district court its decision to withdraw a statewide requirement that sex offender parolees post a sign on the front door of their residences on Halloween. Immediately following that announcement, CA RSOL withdrew its request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).

“This is a significant victory for more than 10,000 registered citizens and their families,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “They are no longer faced with the risk of significant injury.”

CA RSOL and plaintiff John Doe were represented in court by three attorneys — Janice Bellucci, Chance Oberstein and Alex Landon — who are also members of the CA RSOL board of directors. CDCR was represented by an attorney from the Office of the Attorney General as well as a representative of CDCR.

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that CDCR’s sign requirement violated the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution because it was speech compelled by a government agency. CDCR levied the Halloween sign requirement for the past seven years, even requiring homeless registered citizens to post signs on their sleeping bags, tents and vehicles.

“We are grateful to plaintiff John Doe who showed up, stood up and spoke up,” stated Oberstein. “Without him, we could not have filed this lawsuit.”

Related

HALLOWEEN SEX OFFENDER LAW HEARING TO BE HELD OCT 26 [UPDATED 10/26 5pm]

Join the discussion

  1. jo

    Small victories lead to bigger victories leads to an avalanche of change. Thank you, again and again, Janice and Team.

  2. David

    Awesome!! Another victory for Janice, CARSOL, and for the safety of registered citizens!!! Woohoo!! Janice, you rock!

  3. j

    Thank you Janice and co. for another win. All or any of these violations of civil rights are significant as they erode the American spirit, which is the absolute point of why they are battles that must be taken on.

    What is key to this case is that arbitrary punishment, especially through the use of such hateful and shaming based mandates, represent distortions carried out to the fullest extent. When they are done willfully by government employees clearly suggests that these people are unfit to serve in those capacities.

    Enter Carson and the whole of the inland empire and shame on them for using government to further their constitutionally deprived approaches to “manage” problems that – for the most part – are contrived to further their own agendas.

    The hate they display for families and children of registrants is never acknowledged but it is a significant part of the equation and on full display for anyone of conscience.

    • Q

      Hi J

      I shake my head in wonder every time I hear a new depth ignorant malice has been reached. When I first saw this thread the first thing to come to mind was the CDCRs statistics. Being the CDCR there is no excuse for them to have tried to do this to people. They aren’t about any kind of rehabilitation; it’s more like their credo is continual ex post facto retribution. These laws have to be done away with. The way things are (laws) anyone can take a cheap shot at any victim of the registry and get away with it. It’s like the punishment never ends and a case like this sign BS crosses the line into actual persecution reminiscent of what the Nazi’s did to people. My thesaurus likens persecution to McCarthyism, which is actually extremely close, if not parallel, to what the state and citizenry have been doing to us for decades.

      • j

        The CDCR sets the tone for bullying and harassment of registrants which happens to be illegal and also helps set the stage for citizen vigilantism and retributions. This makes their credibility questionable.

        As you pointed out, they produced the statistics about recidivism which turn out to invalidate many of the top heavy approaches, yet do not follow the implications of those statistics, and continue to punish and shame the registrants, in every way imaginable, while they are on parole.

        As I mentioned in earlier threads, they need to start by going back to CDC by removing “R” from the Acronym, since there is no actual rehabilitation going on for the most part.

        It really makes it look like the CDC is run by chance of who happens to be in control and to what polarized extent they take rhetoric, turn it into policy, run with it, and victimize registrants at the same time.

        Sadly for them this is their definition of a Win-Win situation. I think that Boosting Officer Overtime is a the only thing that is not a myth.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          So you want the state of California to spend $12 million to drop the R from CDCR? Because that is how much was spent on adding the R to CDCR as passed by Arnold, just over a handful of years ago.

          When i was locked up, the moment the “rehabilitation” part of CDC was added to become CDCR, we lost our “Arts In Corrections” program and lost schooling and vocational opportunities. They didn’t have the funding for that, which cost far less than $12 million. See where the priorities are?

          They wanted the public to know they were working to rehab inmates, but instead what was really going on was a major push to ensure inmates were put back in repeatedly for technical violations beyond their control. I’ve almost went back in a number of times for things that were completely out of my control, such as GPS bracelet failures, failure to find a place to live, et cetera.

        • j

          I guess it would be expensive and counter productive after all.

          In the meantime, we can all agree to ignore the letter R since it doesn’t stand for anything to do with rehabilitation. We can find another ironic meaning
          for the letter and use it accordingly…

          Lungren in 94 got everyone on board to basically remove rehabilitation from the equation and focus on punishment, solely. Almost twenty two years later and we still haven’t dug out fro the avalanche of chaos.

          I don’t know that Ahnold did anything besides add the letter. It has no tangible meaning in the real world.

        • noname

          California Department of Correction and Robbery

  4. Harry

    Good job! Lets start removing the SOR, which is the cornerstone of all the hateful laws and activities against RC and families.

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    US Constitution: 1. CDCR: 0.

    I suspect CDCR is under pressure from the sheople to create such absurd rules in the name of public safety, despite facts known about sex offenders not actually being as dangerous as other parolees they must monitor. They know the truth, but the people don’t and thus, the problems continue.

    • Timmr

      They have the facts, it’s in their reports, but apparently use such well organized media campaigns as Operation Boo to compete for tax funds that a well informed public would more likely demand go for education, environmental protection, health or business development.

  6. pgm111

    Thank you Janice and company. Now we need to focus on the registry itself.

  7. Timmr

    Thanks to our three Protectors of Liberty and thanks also to that parolee who stood up for his rights.

  8. Eugene Darden

    I would like to thank all three lawyer for fighting for me,one for our team, we have many more to go.

  9. Q

    Very cool! They quit before the paddle came out because they knew they would have been spanked good! 🙂

    Thanks Janice, Chance and Alex for standing up for these victims of the CDCR.

    And by the way; if anyone hasn’t read Alex’s book “A Parallel Universe” I suggest that you do so. It’s a highly informative read.

  10. Robin Banks

    This is great news – however, this decision doesn’t affect county probation departments from enforcing the “sign on the door” and “lights out” policy does it?

    • mk

      I think they (probation/parole) can still make you stay in your residence for whatever time they say with lights out, and no answering the door unless its LE. Not sure about the sign saying no candy tho.

  11. someone who cares

    Another great victory for a great cause, worth fighting for. Congrats Janice and Team. You are so awesome.

  12. Anonymous Nobody

    Allow me to seek a bit of clarification. In today’s Los Angeles Times, the story said that the CDCR actually said it does not now nor has it ever had a STATEWIDE policy to this effect. That left open the possibility that the requirement was being imposed by the local county parole office, and the local office does has some amount of ability to impose rules. Agreeing not to impose such a requirement statewide doesn’t mean the local office can’t impose that requirement.

    I hope the Times didn’t represent what happened quite right. Oh, they did not say anything about what the local office might or might not have imposed. But simply not imposing the policy statewide does not mean the same as the state barring the policy statewide. The story simply said the state would not impose it, not that it would bar it. If what the state said in the Times story is correct, then it was the local offices that were imposing it, and maybe they still will.

    Don’t anyone freak out about these thoughts, I’m just seeking clarification, rather than presumption that the state’s action in court includes the local offices.

    • MarkWinSF

      Agreed.

      Would be good to have clarification about exactly what this CDCR withdrawal means. Either from Janice/Chance, or have a link with accurate information as to what this means.

      Also would be good to know if any other aspects of CDCR policy or CA legislation or local ordinance still restricts RCs on Hallowe’en, regarding staying indoors, lights out, etc etc.

      Congratulations on this effort to Janice, Chance, Alex – and the RC plaintiff(s) who showed up, stood up, spoke up. All victories are very significant.

      Thank you, Janice, Chance, Alex and RC plaintiff(s)!

      Let’s all continue for civil/constitutional/human rights!

    • Janice Bellucci

      During the court hearing, CDCR argued that they have the right to require registered citizens on parole to post a sign on the front door of their homes on Halloween. They then stated that although they have that right, they have chosen not to exercise it this year. Due to the first statement, we are continuing the lawsuit in order to obtain a ruling from the judge that CDCR does NOT have the right to require the Halloween signs.

      • jo

        Thank you Janice. They must have thought they were pretty slick and that this would assuage you. They are learning that Janice is not to be trifled with!

      • David

        Thank you for pressing forward with this matter, Janice. CDCR’s we-can-do-what-we-want attitude is unacceptable.

      • Q

        Yes, continuing the lawsuit sounds like the only thing to do. But I’m curious; did they say what gives them the right? The only thing I can think of is that they somehow think the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to them and that somehow parolees should somehow or other not enjoy this birthright. And do they not have the right to force parolees to post a sign on their sleeping bags?

        • jo

          I would think its not too much of a leap to guess they feel, because someone is technically still in custody when they are on parole or probation, that they can force you to do anything they want. Which is a very dangerous precedent to leave alone. What next?

      • MarkWinSF

        Thank you for the clarification.
        Sounds like San Diego office of CDCR tried to push the envelope even further than overall CDCR wanted to go.
        Or something of that nature.
        Thank you for continuing litigation.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Janice, despite what they might have said in court, it appears registrants on parole in fact were under orders not to leave their homes between certain hours on Halloween, not to turn on their outside lights, not to decorate, not to answer the door to anyone, and to post signs saying they do not participate in Halloween. This according to a story in the Los Angeles Times the day before Halloween, written to alert everyone to those signs so they know what they really mean. See that Times story here:

        http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-trick-o-treat-sex-offenders-20151030-story.html

        And the day after Halloween, there were news reports about how parole sweeps were done on registrants on Halloween, and their homes searched on Halloween, and some of them were arrested for parole violations, but the state refused to say what the violations were (and I take that to mean they were so unbelievable minor that the state was afraid if they revealed what they were, the general public would be appalled at the state). see one story about it here, but there apparently were other news reports with these sweeps being for other reasons too:

        http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-halloween-sex-offenders-20141031-story.html

        So, no matter what was said in court, the program seems to have not been curtailed in any way. I suspect it is not the state level department ordering it statewide but the local offices doing it, and the state is fine with them doing it locally. Again, it is simply a matter of the state not imposing it as a statewide order rather than the sate barring it by any of their local offices.

        So, it WAS done this year, despite your best efforts. Telling the court about this can help your case, as it certainly will undermine the state’s credibility. Judge don’t like being manipulated or lied to.

        • curiouser

          The San Diego Chapter of the CDCR only stated they would not enforce their “rule” of posting signs. However, the Department still runs the stupidly-named “Operation Boo” regarding “grounding” parolees in their residences for 12 hours on Halloween. LA County Prob also does its version of this travesty, albeit with shorter hours (6 to 11 p.m.). By the way, the second link is related to a story from last year.

          On top of that, there are a number of cities which have muni codes that prohibit registered citizens from decorating the exteriors of their homes on October 31, keeping their porch or even garden lights on, or answering the door for trick or treaters. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties also have ordinances to this effect. This might become an issue for litigation some day, being as it seeks to curtail a registered citizen’s right to expression in the form of decorating his/her home. However as we all know, with the constant fight against residence restrictions (cypress for one), presence restrictions, internet identifiers, et. al., the one-day ban on home decor might have to be back-burnered for a while. Larger fish to fry.

        • steve

          Agree..more important issues than halloween

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Actually steve, I disagree. A win on this issue could have much wider impact that might be obvious at first. For starters, the logic of any win on this would have to carry over to all registrants who have completed parole or probation. It also would be another slam on crap imposed on registrants, and the more one hears of that, the more attitudes start to change, and the more people see a bandwagon to jump on.

          Of course, the strategy is a bit risky too, going after the tougher argument regarding parolees rather than registrants who are off parole. But I think Janice (when I say Janice, I’m talking actually of the entire legal crew, Chance and whomever else) has considered that, and feels this is definitely winnable and is a better win as over parolees than simply for those not on parole.

          If you can’t even do things like this against someone still in custody (parole is a form of custody), then how can you do any number of things being done to the rest of us — that would be a strong argument on other issues regarding other registrants not on parole? This is a smart and sneaky kind of strategy, get this win, then throw it in their faces on a long list of other things.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Curioser, yes, sorry about that second link. I just grabbed that as I was looking for the first one, missed the date on it. But what I said about it is from a news report on the radio from the day after Halloween THIS year; so what I said is current, but that second link is not. Thank you for catching that.

    • Anon

      I actually have some second hand info about this. I’m on parole, and my therapist is the main contact for the parole office. Basically, he said there was a huge rift on this issue within CDCR. Like the prisons, each region of CDCR can “create” rules for their region, as long as they are following the general guidelines. For operation overtime, I mean boo, there are certain guidelines that have to be followed, ie curfew, decorations, etc. However, the sign thing was something that San Diego county thought up and would try to apply.

      He said this was not a CDCR policy, as my county thought this was the stupidest thing ever. And the San Diego thing caused a rift between regions, basically other regions accusing San Diego of going too far. And San Diego region basically saying FU, this isn’t going against the rules type of attitude, that is until Janice stepped in and forced the higher-ups to force San Diego to stop.

      Anyways, who knows if what he said is true, but sounds very plausible.

  13. SWY

    There’s a reason Janice is one of the top 100 attorneys in CA.

    Personally, I think Halloween is a stupid “holiday” – dressing up and panhandling for junk food? Most people don’t even do this foolishness anyway. Although you hear in the news that mega millions are spent every year. Really? To each, his own.

    Even though this ruling doesn’t apply to me, I’m happy for those to whom it does!

    • c

      Doesn’t apply to me either, but I am super stoked others no longer have to be bothered with this BS and I am appalled by the so-called legal analysts and the sighs and head shaking reporters of the lame stream media about this change in policy. This morning Royal Oaks was on the radio offering some analysis and could not have sounded less genuine as he stated why the CDCR has decided not to put up a fight and then exchanged disbelief with the host about how this defies logic. At no point did either one mention constitutional rights. It really seemed like both of them believed this was a good move, but they had to appear to be in support of RSOs. I imagined a political office in the studio to make sure each toed the line.

      I have resented for years how Halloween has been promoted to the point that it is the second biggest consumer “holiday” after Christmas. We see the same effort with Valentines Day, Easter, etc.

      My whole life my parents never put out more than a pumpkin, but now so many people decorate their homes with fake (one hopes) corpses and styrofoam headstones, etc. One of my neighbors is a studio grip and really goes all out with ghosts and goblins, but no gore. Really well done. (You should see his house at Christmas – wow!) Unfortunately this raises the bar pretty high for me, dear old dad, to decorate the crap out of our house. On Christmas I go nuts for the kids. I mean, Clark Griswald would be jealous. But at Halloween I have 3 reasons for not doing anything more than a pumpkin despite my kid’s pleas:
      1) it’s a stupid holiday
      3) it costs money
      4) I don’t want to store any more crap
      5) as an RSO I don’t need to attract any more attention to my house than I need to. I should hate to be accused of trying to attract kids to my house.Nome sayin’?

      So, what reason do I give my kids for not decorating? I simply give them a choice:

      “Guys, the more money mommy and daddy spend on Halloween decorations the less money we have for Christmas presents. So, which do you want?”

      Never fails.

  14. Eric Knight

    I wish I could have recorded the audio, but Janice’s soundbite was on the premiere story for national news on the radio. I listen to an obscure station from Iowa during the political season, and just heard it there, so I know the story has nationwide implications.

  15. Eric

    Thank you

  16. wimpy

    wimpy-Radio station AM 640 had a lot to say about janices win. they say they talked with her and seemed reluctant to give up there bigotry and defense of cdcr. This station and commutator”s pride there self with videoing the raids by Boo Gestapo.

  17. Mark Judkins

    Congratulations to all involved and to the Plantiff(s) for having the courage to stand-up and speak out. I spent the past 5 days in the District of Columbia. Saw and read our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Very moving, and speaks to so much that is occurring in our government today. Everyone in any political and judicial office should be required to reread it daily. Everyone who votes, should read it before they vote. So much of what Janice and Chase do is rooted in our initial Declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    While this ruling does not directly affect me, denial of rights to any minority of the population is an affront to the rights of everyone. We The People have certain unalienable rights. Last I checked my passport said I was an American Citizen, I expect to be treated as one.

    Thank you to all involved for reinforcing our rights.

  18. Craig

    Thank you Janice and all the people of CArsol that have taken the fight to the courts.

    Dig deep and donate any amount you can so the fight can go on.

  19. anon

    Someone who is on parole also in SD. The CDCR Is SCUM….a EVIL Empire… Here is stats for the HATERS that are worried…. Over 100k(close) on the ML Website. Currently apx 300 290’s in SD. And it was ONLY ones on PAROLE that the EVIL CDCR Wanted a note on the door. How does this make the “community” any safer when there is another 97,000 in this STATE NOT on parole, that CAN pass out candy/decorations and no “sign” that the EVIL Empire wanted ?… its a SCAM on the taxpayer…. Why ? Because they CAN.. and they GET THE $$ from the state to do witch hunts… Funny thing this OP BOO… When has a 290 that is on PAROLE EVER been caught with the light on or passin out candy… ? NEVER… AGAIN its a $$ thning and the taxpayer is footing it all, and for the 97K on the registry not on parole… they cant DO ANYTHING (Except the school thing I believe)…. no curfew etc….. the CDCR is all about the CONTROL In and OUT of prison…

  20. Dray

    I just had the police here telling me that the city ordinance does not allow me to have Halloween decorations or pass out candy tonight on Halloween I have been off parole for 20 years. I told them that and they said it still apply to me. When is this ever going to stop

    • curiouser

      Dray, could you share what city that is?

    • Craig

      It is not going to stop until the counties and cities lose millions from lawsuits, I hope Janice gets rich.

  21. Dray

    This is the city of Rialto

  22. Lake County

    KCRA Channel 3 (Sacramento/SF Bay Area) did a story on Operation Boo tonight. Several arrests made. But they at least spoke of the DUI problem on Halloween in the next story.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.