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: The Failure of Fontana

Shame on the Fontana Unified School District!  Members of their Board of Education unanimously agreed last week to bar registered citizens from every school in their district.     The decision applies to all registered citizens, including parents of students in that district, regardless of the offense for which they were convicted and regardless of whether they pose a current danger.

What makes this terrible decision worse is that the school board’s decision was in reaction to a few angry parents who ignorantly proclaimed during a school board meeting that the presence of registered citizens on campus would place their children in danger.

The school district dug themselves into an even deeper hole today when they issued a letter describing and explaining the school board’s decision.  According to that letter, the district now has “a firm practice of zero-tolerance with regard to sex offenders on our campuses.”

The letter also explained that the board’s action “was taken in response to the concerns of our students, parents and community….over a new state law.”  Never mind that the law was passed two years ago and that there were no reported incidents of a child being assaulted by a registered citizen during that time.

The action taken by the Fontana Unified School District must be stopped!  Because if it is not stopped, the same action will be taken by school districts throughout the state of California.  In order to prevent that from happening, the decision of the Fontana Unified School District will soon be challenged in court.

And in the meantime, hundreds of children – children of registered citizens – will be harmed because they will be deprived of their parents’ protection and devotion.   The children of registered citizens will not be taken to, or picked up from school, by their parents.  The children of registered citizens will not have the support of their parents during their academic and athletic activities.

The decision of the Fontana school district reminds me of the night when we testified in opposition to a law being considered by the Santa Ana City Council that would prohibit registered citizens from visiting parks in that city.  After listening to angry and ignorant citizens, one member of the Council stated that she would not allow her children to visit city parks if registered citizens might be present.  She then loudly proclaimed that if someone’s children were going to visit a park in that city, it would be her children and not the children of registered citizens.

Following that proclamation, the Santa Ana City Council unanimously passed the park restriction and for a period of time registered citizens were prohibited from visiting those parks. Also during that period of time, many children of registered citizens were unable to visit the parks with their registered citizen parent.

A series of lawsuits were later filed challenging park restrictions such as those passed by Santa Ana and as a result of those challenges, the parks in that city as well as the parks in other cities throughout the state of California were reopened to registered citizens.

We expect the same result in our challenge to Fontana’s shameful decision to prohibit all registered citizens from visiting schools the 45 elementary, middle schools and high schools in that district.

Read all of Janice’s Journal


Fontana School Board votes to prohibit all access to registered sex offenders on campuses

FUSD Parent Letter


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

Thank you Janice, this is just unbelievable. It must STOP here. Fontana. City Hall. County of San Bernardino. STATE of California. PERIOD. No revisiting Santa Ana City Parks OC nightmare.

We have had similar issues in Wi. See below legislation.

A person must register as a sex offender with the Department of Corrections (DOC) if he or she
has been convicted of certain sex offenses, found not guilty of certain sex offenses by reason of mental
disease or defect, or adjudicated delinquent on the basis of certain sex offenses. The sex offender
registry is maintained by DOC and contains information about a person who is required to register
(hereinafter, “registrant”), including the registrant’s name, appearance, offense, address, name and
address of his or her employment, and any school in which the registrant is enrolled. If any information
originally provided changes, the registrant must provide the updated information to DOC.
Under 2013 Wisconsin Act 88 (hereinafter, “the Act”), a registrant may not be on any school
premises (school building, grounds, recreation area or athletic field, or any other property owned, used,
or operated for school administration) unless the school district administrator, or his or her designee, for
a public school, or the governing body of a private school or charter school, has been notified of the
specific date, time, and place of the visit and of the registrant’s status as a registered sex offender. This
prohibition does not apply if the registrant is doing any of the following:
 On the school premises to vote if an election is being held that day and the registrant’s
polling place is on the school premises.
 On the school premises to attend an event or activity that is not sponsored by the school.
 Has a child enrolled at the school if he or she notifies the school district administrator, or his
or her designee, for a public school, or the governing body of a private school or charter
school, that he or she is a registered sex offender and that he or she has a child enrolled at the
school. The registrant must provide the notification as follows:
o At the beginning of each academic school year.
o If the child is not enrolled at the beginning of the academic year, when the child is first
o If the registrant was not subject to the reporting requirements at the beginning of the
academic school year or when the child is first enrolled, when the registrant first
becomes subject to the sex offender reporting requirements.
o If none of the above apply, when the registrant becomes subject to the prohibition of
being on school premises.
 Is a student enrolled at the school if the agency or person who is supervising the registrant
(i.e., DOC or a county agency, licensed child welfare agency, or other person supervising the
student under a juvenile delinquency dispositional order) works with the school district
administrator, or his or her designee, for a public school, or the governing body of a private
school or charter school, to ensure the safety of the students attending the school with the
The penalty for knowingly violating this requirement is an unclassified misdemeanor with a fine
of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed nine months, or both. This is equivalent to a
Class A misdemeanor. The penalty for knowingly violating this requirement as a second or subsequent
offense is a Class H felony, which is punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to
exceed six years, or both.
The Act also provides the following:
 If DOC is supervising the registrant, it must work with a school district administrator or his
or her designee, for a public school, or a governing body of a private school or charter
school, to ensure that a registrant who is a student is not prohibited from being on the school
premises at which he or she is enrolled and to ensure the safety of the other students
attending the school.
 DOC must make a reasonable attempt to notify each registrant of the prohibition created by
the Act.
 DOC’s failure to make a reasonable attempt to notify each registrant is not a defense to
prosecution for being on school premises without providing notification as required by the
 It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for being on school premises without providing
notification as required by the Act if the defendant was traveling directly to the office of the
school district administrator or his or her designee, for a public school, or to the governing
body of a private school or charter school, to comply with the notification requirement. The
defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
 A school district administrator or his or her designee, for a public school, or the governing
body of a private school or charter school, is immune from civil or criminal liability for any
good faith act or omission in connection with any notice given by a registrant.
Effective date: December 15, 2013
Prepared by: Melissa Schmidt, Senior Staff Attorney January 6, 2014

It’s far worst here in Wisconsin
Not only does state law ban registrants from going on school grounds, entire local communities and major cities ban registrants living there. At least a registrant can still live in Fontana…..just don’t go near a schoolyard

Well, Erwin, that is not what the statute JM of Wi just posted says, which you just replied to. That statute does not bar any registrant from going on a school campus, it only requires at most that the district administrator be NOTIFIED — you don’t need his/her permission, just let that person know. And if you are on the campus for certain reasons, like voting or to attend a non-school event or activity, or other listed reasons, you don’t even have to give the notice.

That is easy compared to CA, even reasonable. In CA you cannot go on campus without first getting the permission of the principal. People in the past have pointed out that even in emergencies, such as floods of earthquakes, registrants can’t even to go the emergency shelter when they end up out of their home — because those shelters are normally set up in schools, and you don’t have permission — it takes time to get to a principal and ask permission, especially since you have to do it without going on the campus to his/her office to ask!

Get the fainting couches ready, one of “those people” are on our school campuses targeting “our childrenz.”

Again, we see the pearl clutchers passing a preemptive measure to a nonexistent problem. They might as well be having a war on dust. Makes about as much sense. Fontana is not promoting safety, they’re promoting fear, ignorance, hate and dysfunction.

What really makes me spew coals is they think children reserve the right to reasonable expectation of safety while at school, but they’re okay with having a SO’s reasonable expectation of safety in his/her home circumvented.

You’ve already caused a ruckus. The school board cancelled today’s regularly-scheduled (along with special) meeting (Sep 21), and have rescheduled it for next week. While they’ve cancelled special meetings before, what makes today’s cancellation more apparent is that this is the first regularly-scheduled meeting they’ve cancelled. That means they are worried about the legal ramifications that are about to come their way! Great job!

Intriguingly, and looking at the Fontana School Board calendar for tomorrow, the 22nd, they are having “Hemlock Coffee With the Principal.”

Could it be? Are they taking the Socratic way out?

Undoubtedly not but still hilarious, nonetheless.

(over a new state law) (passed two years ago) ?

You are right in all you said Janice. Good for you for jumping on this. Yes, it absolutely will spread to every school district if not stopped in its tracks.

I’m wondering what the legal argument would be against it. 290 specifically says registrants cannot go on school property without permission, I think it says permission from the principal. This board action would be ordering the principal how to respond: No.

You know more about these things than me. However, just to try to be a bit helpful, let me suggest one possible argument, actually gleened from your previous lawsuits.

290 says the registrants must get the permission of the principal — so 290 clearly is registrants can go on campus, although the principal has a say in that. Well, it would seem to me that in 290 saying individual registrants can seek the principal’s permission IMPLICITLY is saying that request must be given individual and serous consideration separately from other requests.

I would stretch a bit and say that in saying you can seek the permission of the principal, it clearly is barring a blanket policy. It is barring the district from setting its own policy rather than following the one prescribed in 290. And that would seem to mean that there must be a legitimate, justified reason to deny — or it would be a blanket policy by another approach. The courts have already ruled in similar matters that 290 preempts local action in territory it clearly has addressed, as it has about registrants entering school property. So the locals cannot make their own rules, they can only follow 290. And 290, as I have just said, requires an individual consideration and a good reason to deny, not a blanket policy, whether by board decree or principal bias.

And of course, that means the board cannot take this action outside of 290 under its own authority.

I don’t know education law, but perhaps there is something in there about a parent or sibling or even aunt or uncle having some kind of right or standing to participate in their child’s school. Something for the researchers to look into. If so, it would cement that a legitimate reason would be needed to overcome those points I have made. Simply that they don’t like registrants is not a legitimate reason.

One thing to point out to consider: The courts in the past have ruled that the “state” had preempted the locals on the issues in question. Technically, the school board is a STATE district, not a local district. This is why they often do not even follow a local jurisdiction’s borders. I’m not sure how or if this mixes things up, but the thought is that makes the argument that the state (under 290) has preempted the state (the school district)! Aargh.

One last thought, and I think a major one: It seems to me that if we were to argue that there can be no blanket policy, each request must be considered on its merits individually, and there must be good reason to reject it, then we also must follow up by suing when someone (or someones) is rejected anyway. That is because they will simply reject everyone anyway, and state the reason as some specious, groundless, generic crap. That kind of rejection is just a blanket policy by another approach, and if we don’t stop that, then the entire fight will have been pointless. So, first stop the board’s blanket policy, the later follow up by suing over someone being rejected, and not necessarily even in the Fontana district, maybe several different applications being rejected. To take that case to a different district would really scare principals all over the state, they would not see it as localized. And the only way to make that lawsuit, of maybe a couple/few, have impact is to win a very large settlement or verdict. A big verdict is the only thing that will stop other principals from blanket policies. Simply an agreement to stop the practice and pay attorney fees would not make the impact needed. An example needs to be made.

That might be no help to you, but I just thought I toss out a little food for thought.

My question would be how will they enforce that at the entrance of a high school football game?? Answer I would not be surprised at all if one or all the board members are on the take with that company that has that photo scan for offenders software. There’s is no other way they could control a sporting event. Something to watch….

If you are in a small town where “Everyone knows everyone and their business” and there is only one high school in that city. Then yes it could be a problem.

They don’t need to ID and stop everyone. But if you get caught because of something you never expected or thought of, you go to prison. The unexpected happens all the time.

I’ve only been on here a year, and I’m from Texas, so I’ve missed a few things.

Would this issue open up both a challenge to the School as well as a challenge to 290’s provision since it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that has already established a parent’s right to participate completely in the raising of their children as being a fundamental right? I think they stopped using Strict Scrutiny on parental rights after 2000 but it probably isn’t needed and could be used again if SCOTUS chooses.

Chris F, you raise a very good point — I almost delved into it in what I wrote above, but did so only tangentially (I think I wrote enough to not elaborate on every point, and I’ll bet everyone else agrees. 🙂

My thoughts were that there is not necessarily any US Constitutional due process right involved here — after all, the courts have ruled there isn’t even any such issue about making you register without any review of you.

However, I did mention the possibility that there might be something in education law that does give you some rights, someone would have to go through all of education law, including case law, to find out — there might very well be something that conflicts with or outright overrides 290. That would be where what you just said could come into play, such as a parents having a right to be involved in their child’s education and that requires being on campus at least at some times.

But I also suggest that the way California’s 290 is written, I think it implicitly gives the registrant the right to be on campus as long as the principal does not provide a good reason to deny, a legitimate reason based on facts and based on YOU. I read 290 as specifically giving registrants due process. I say that because it specifically provides for registrants the process for entering campus — that specifically means any registrant can enter campus under 290, there is no blanket prohibition, not even categorical, and that implicitly means there has to be a GOOD reason to deny you. 290 has preempted the locals on this, they can act only within 290, they cannot impose a blanket denial that 290 does not provide for.

I think until now, everyone has read it to mean the registrant has no rights, but the principal may grant them a special exemption for a particular moment. But I think not, I think it reads the other way, I think it means the registrant has the right but the principal must be given the chance to deny if there is a good reason to do so.

290 can’t be interpreted to mean it goes to the trouble to make sure you can go on campus with the idea that you can be denied for no reason at all! That kind of interpretation would make the scheme to allow you on campus superfluous, meaningless, pointless! 290 simply means there can be circumstances and situations and details that could never all be anticipated by listing in a law, and so rather than write it like the Wisconsin statute that JM of Wi. posted above, the California law simply provides for the principal to have a chance to consider circumstances, situations, details that might not have been able to be anticipated by a list in law.

A blanket policy by either the district, as Fontana has just issued, or the principal would violate that scheme 290 set up, it would deny the DUE PROCESS that 290 absolutely requires. I don’t see how 290 can be read as not requiring due process for this issue — without arguing that that entire section is superflous — and the courts will generally interpret via the approach that something in the law MUST be in there for a reason, an interpretive approach that strengthens our argument.

There is your due process argument, not constitutional, but statutory. We have statutory due process rights on this. Turn the arguments about 290 around, make 290 our protector rather than our oppressor. (I am rolling through my head what else in 290 might be able to be turned around to our benefit too. I welcome all thoughts on that — but maybe in another thread, we want to stay on topic here.)

Isn’t banishment unconstitutional? Why aren’t DUI’s or any convict subjected to the same banishment?

Because half of Congress would be on the DUI registry!!

According to the analysis of SB326 before the assembly in 2013,
“Under current law, parents and guardians of pupils have a right to participate in the education of their children (e.g., attend special education hearings, parent-teacher conferences, expulsion hearings, etc.). According to the Association of California School Administrators, when notified that a parent or guardian of a pupil is a person who must register as a sex offender, principals honor the right of the parent or guardian by making accommodations as to the place and time the parent or guardian may participate in his or her child’s education. For example, a principal may
make alternative drop off and pick up arrangements, schedule meetings after school, or escort the parent or guardian in and out of a school site.”
Also, the law, SB 326, came into existence itself when a parent became outraged that a registrant obtained the principal’s permission to volunteer at a school event. So SB 326 required two week notification of parents in addition to permission from the administrator. Now more uninformed parents want to create zero tolerance and zero intelligence and feel they have a right to disregard both policy and law in order to obey the hormones produced in the amygdalae. And it is always registrants who are claimed to be irrational acting on base instinct. At least at the state level these types of rules have to go before several committees, and there is a process whereby cooler heads may prevail. Still, this is a downward trend. I feel for those trying to raise children under these laws. This school board has added one more bomb to the minefield registrants have to navigate through in order to live a productive life.

Excellent, you’re getting there. What statute(s) was SB326 referring to giving rights — that is something we need to know, to see how specifically it is written or if it is overloaded with interpretation or exemptions? Was that in education law, or where? I’d have to see the full context of the legislative analysis, it might or might not be very usable in court, it might or might be interpretation too. But it nonetheless gives us the lead to the statutes I was talking about that might give rights, and might conflict with 290 or even override 290, but at least have to be considered and weighed in conjunction with 290.

This all bolsters the due process claim. Such statues giving such rights would absolutely bar a blanket policy, there would have to be a case by case fact-based and legitimate justification.

That is a good question. I doesn’t look like they reference the law that gives the right. Here is the link to the analysis.
By the way, many of the analysis tagged onto these type of bills going before the lawmakers are very good, showing what may be wrong with the law, and the legislators routinely ignore it and support the new seks offender law anyway. In court these analysis may find an ear I don’t know, but in the legislatures a much better bet of success in opposing bills is when people just physically show up and speak out.

On a tangent, how can the legislators make a claim that a law is in the public good when their staff analysis questions that? They can’t just say they didn’t read the analysis, or just ignored it. If they are not using their staff, what are we paying them for? Would that lack of diligence on the part of the lawmakers be useful in challenging laws in court? I mean in attacking that pillar used to test whether a law is not punishment, that is, of the lawmakers say so of their own good intentions? You knock out one leg and the remaining have a hard time supporting the construction.

Yes, the analyses can be used in court to a degree. They can be used in showing or interpreting the legislative session on the matter and, in interpreting the law, be one of the things to consider about the lawmakers’ intent of what they meant to do.

As far as how the lawmakers can vote contrary to the analyses, yes, of course they can. That analyses is nothing but information and some advice — and it is far from being the only information, the only knowledge, the only consideration. It is up to the lawmakers to decide what, if anything, they want to do with it. Maybe they have other information and knowledge of their own — they better if they are going to be lawmakers rather than clerks. But of course, they are simply playing politics of the corrupt kind.

Thanks for your diligence, Janice.

I already sent an email to the board members stating all you pointed out, Janice. I added that i hope their children don’t grow to show such bigotry to their neighbors.
I also wonder what would be the outcome of a group of offenders demonstrating at the next board mtgs. They would probably have it on school property so they wouldn’t have to face them.

The only thing I know about Fontana is Kaiser Hospital where I was born. Shortly afterwards, my parents had the sense enough to get up out of that town

Fontana was an old steel town next to San Bernardino. It died back in the 1970s when the steel factory(s) was closed because of air quality regulations. All those good and well paying jobs lost, and so follows the local economy and tax base.

Suppose you’re a registrant on probation with a walking stick standing within legal distance of a school and you see a rottweiler charging toward a 5 year old kid on the play ground. As John Quiñones would say,

“What would you do?”

Be a hero. Risk violating probation & Fontana city law. Run onto the grounds with your stick to beat that dog silly or shoo it away from the kid

Do nothing and just watch from a safe distance. You don’t want to risk being sent back to the pen although you MAY get charged for doing nothing but even that penalty would less severe than a felony probation violation plus breaking city law. But of course you will be painted as coward for doing nothing

The 3rd option is run for help or calll 9-11 even while the kid is getting mauled. All your bases would be covered. You won’t violate probation or any laws. However, some folks would still look at you as a coward but they know at least you tried to seek help

We need a version of Janice in Florida. Those same restrictions do exist in Florida, and have existed for a number of years. As a registered citizen I have been banned from participation on my children’s activities, including graduations and concerts.

As I understand this new group, Janice is now everywhere, she has gone national, she is ubiquitous. In fact, with the IML, she has gone international. Watch out world, Janice is on the job!

Unfortunately, Janice can only practice law in California. We need to find a great attorney for each of the 50 States for our reform advocacy. Although, Janice’s work here in California will certainly lay the groundwork for changes in other States and will hopefully cause changes to Federal Laws.

She should be able to get reciprocity to practice in most of the states in a specific case, and she should be able to get entry to the federal courts without a lot of trouble, already being in the State Bar of California and having a track record. Its actually much easier to get into the federal courts.

Fontana declares war on children of parents deemed unsuitable for entry to school campuses regardless of their accomplishments and additions to the academic community.
The rights of these children to enjoy the same parental support in their scholarly achievements along with their parents right to assist in their safety and goals have been ruthlessly torn from them without due process in a community which seems indifferent to the needs of children already suffering from too many fear mongering laws.
What child doesn’t want and need their parents in attendance for acceptance of their awards, open house, meetings with their teachers and etc.

Well said. FUSD places the paranoid feelings of a few loud parents above the child’s right to a supportive family.

This is institutionalized child abuse against children of registrants sponsored by the cowardly dimwits on FUSD who cowered to the mob of even more ignorant and self righteous parents.

It is obvious the environmental contamination from the steel industry must have left many brain dead residents as evidenced by their delusions that they above state law. You’ll find many of these hypocrites lined up in church, which is what makes it really nauseating at the very least.

They don’t call Fontana “Fontucky” for nothing

Even my little town in Texas has regulations governing what Sex Offenders can or can’t do, but they somehow managed to have them make sense for the majority of it.

Here, a sex offender can’t go to a school unless they have a child there and a reason to go. Basically, they just don’t want an offender hanging out there for no reason.

Similar thing with parks. You can go if you have kids and they are with you. If you don’t have kids, you can go if you are using the facilities but can’t loiter in an area where children are present and must leave if requested.

It’s a shame most places go overboard and over-broad with restrictions instead of narrowly tailoring them to just stop the kind of activity they want to stop.

I noticed that the school board and the population of the district is heavily Hispanic. This is a group that historically has known the negative affects of categorizing, generalizing, and oppressive laws. How soon we forget.

I understand. What is worse is that people are making bad decisions, that they know are wrong, but do it anyway. That to me shows a definite loss of moral compass.

That doesn’t mean they are involved in politics or have <elected the school board. Many minorities don't participate for a variety of reasons, as do poor people generally. They are often too busy commuting and working to go to a board meeting or can not afford to take the time to run for these positions. I live in such a community were the hispanic community is about 35%, yet you don't see that percent representation on the local boards. Most of the time they are white retired men or business people like realtors or contractors who have the flexibility to go to meetings.

I wonder what steps the school system (the board, teachers, staff, administrators and volunteers) are taking off-paper to identify children who live with FCD parents or guardians? What is the policy they do not dare write?

In order to enforce this illegal rule, the school system in Fontucky will have to conduct research and identify those children and watch the adults they associate with to ensure that no FCD parent is on school property. Those children then become a sub-class of student, not part of the good kids, but considered as bad as the FCD parent because of the extra work the system must perform to enforce this rule.

The unions would surely have an issue with their teachers having to be covert spies and paramilitary protectors (sort of a brown shirt) for the School Board’s illegal policy. The union will want to increase salaries and benefits because of the additional danger posed by marauding FCD in the hallways and bleachers.

It will only take ONE incident of a teacher stopping one of the marked kids and the adult with them to drastically alter and potentially ruin forever the potential of a child. If another child OR parent is within earshot of the questioning and even if the adult with the child is a non-FCD, that child is forever marked as the child of a FCD, and we all know the pains, harassment and harsh treatment out children face in school if they are outed as having a FCD parent.

So I counter that while the rights of the FCD are indeed hampered, the illegal action taken by our enemies on the Fontucky School Board are endangering children, not protecting them.

If the child of a FCD is leaked by as teacher or a volunteer, they WILL become the target of bullying, harassment and unfair grading practices. This drastically increases the potential for retaliation (I prefer retribution as the proper term) against the child enemies in the school in the form of extreme violent outbursts such as mass shooting or stabbings or in the form of more subtle retribution like mass poisoning of meals being served to that child’s enemies using dimethylmercury or some other effective agent.

The only way they can actively enforce this policy is to identify FCD kids. When the information leaks, the child will be harassed, attacked physically, treated differently by teachers and be transferred to the loser-schools. I can tell you this from experience, not conjecture.

So the Fontana School Board has officially taken steps to endanger their entire student body and at a minimum has determined that the children of FCD are not worthy of the same love, attention and support as “good kids.”

For that, I hereby declare the Fontana School Board AND their families as our enemy.

I must hav missed something. What does FCD stand for? Thx.

Former Citizen Detainees = Sex offenders who were once American citizens but have been stripped of their citizenship with the passage of the IML.

GET THEM Janice ! go in there like you got a War pony! I will burn some sage and blow a prayer your way

Does any school board decision to ban registered people from campus help? Does not sound like it given this situation.

Is the boy really a victim here if he knows what he is doing through blackmail? Shouldn’t he face charges too for his felonious act? The boy has a sheet of previous crimes, so he knew what he was doing. Is she a victim maybe of a con artist? Will she get her money back with interest?

Teachers on the inside and on campus already–regional-govt–politics/cases-improper-teacher-student-relationships-hit-year-high/UE0uA8f83tzJGHNrp5GkwO/

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x