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)

California

City Council keeps sex offender ordinance intact despite attorney recommendation

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) — The City Council declined to rescind an ordinance Tuesday restricting where registered sex offenders can live in San Diego, which could expose the city to a lawsuit. Full Article

City Council Hearing, #51

Join the discussion

  1. Lawsuit time

    They are asking for a lawsuit, I think we should oblige them.

    • DPH

      Should add for the LARGEST CITY in California possibly winning the suit Janice! Go Team, now for The Board and then The City Council of SD! ReElection issues.

  2. Jojo

    People don’t realize that 2000 feet is approximately half a mile! Where in modern urban living are there no schools, daycare facilities, parks, etc within half a mile from any residence?!

  3. *Doe

    Apparently, we’re so evil, an inevitable lawsuit can’t even urge them to loosening the nooses on us. At what point does it become evident that RSO’s are the outcasts of the US? I mean, you have a court ruling deeming it unconstitutional, yet they never changed the ordinance. They now have their own city attorney encouraging them to rescind the ordinance, and they are still refusing. Any other citizen would walk away with money in their pockets from such discrimination, yet here we just have to accept it and hope that it changes one day. It baffles my mind that so much hate is spewed towards this one group (RSO’s) and more or less, allowed.

  4. AlexO

    “The issue came down to “protecting our kids versus the threat of a lawsuit,” Councilwoman Lorie Zapf said. ”

    What about the kids of RC’s who had to leave their home, or at least have their family broken up due to these restrictions? I guess those are not the kids you’re looking to protect.

  5. pgm111

    The way I read this, the city of San Diego is just begging Janice to sue the city. I encourage Janice to do so and will contribute some money to see that happen.

    • AJ

      @pgm111
      I’m with you, and just tossed some $$ ACSOL’s way. I’m not in CA, but am quite willing to fight stupid and wrong, wherever it pops up.

      • Janice Bellucci

        Thank you, A.J., and others for contributing to this case! Although we expect eventually to be successful, there are initial costs to pay such as filing fees and service of the lawsuit. BTW, funds received from this and other lawsuits are paid to the organization.

        • DPH

          Good to know Janice! We all need to donate a dollar or more, even us unemployed can do something to put forth your strong effort to change banishment. Look at the new case near Milwalkee that the father has to sleep in his truck by the airport and he has a critically ill child on resp. machine apparatus, while his wife is @ work as an RN they have other small children.

    • Lovecraft

      @pgm111
      You are certainly right. Even though the city council knows 2000 feet is absurd (The issue came down to “protecting our kids versus the threat of a lawsuit,” Councilwoman Lorie Zapf said. ”) and they likely are aware that premise and residency restrictions at best do nothing to protect minors they still want to save face over doing whats constitutionally right. They really are asking for someone else to do the dirty work so they can single them out and still be able to take the “tough on sex offenders” stance, which is really just for self promotion. If they were serious about fixing the problem they would focus their energy on rehabilitation and reintegration, which has been shown to significantly reduce recividism.

  6. Janice Bellucci

    Preparation of a lawsuit has begun and it is reasonable to expect the lawsuit to be filed this week.

    • kind of living

      Right on Janice !

    • Nicholas Maietta

      I no longer think it’s necessary to say “Good luck”. You don’t need luck anymore. You have one hell of a track record for kicking ass. It’s pretty much understood now that you they will lose or offer to settle. Thank you.

    • Lake County

      San Diego = Low hanging fruit = easy money for Janice. Janice, I know you don’t make much off these lawsuits when you win, but every bit helps you pay your bills. I wonder if they realize that when you win a lawsuit, it helps support reversing more of these unconstitutional laws. Why would they not repeal a law that is not even enforced? They must be drinking bottled water from Floridah.

    • AlexO

      You move quickly! Thank you for all your effort and work!

    • Hopeful

      Janice ur a true righteous warrior and I appreciate you for that. Thank you… donation sent

    • G4Change

      I hope the citizens of San Diego know that their elected leaders are about to “donate” a lot of their tax dollars to our cause soon! Go gettem’, Janice!!!

    • New Person

      Janice,

      Thank you!

      Also, curious about the lawsuit, will it be for registrants on parole, registrants no longer on parole, or both? I ask b/c last year my city’s PD gave me a letter with my registration stating that re:Taylor only applied to registrants on parole only, not any other registrants.

      • AJ

        @New Person
        Not dissing you at all, but doesn’t it seem absolutely ridiculous what they told you? A person on parole has *greater* rights than one released from parole? I would love to see them defend that notion before a judge! “Your Honor, we felt this parolee was no longer a threat, so we released him from his supervision. However, now that he’s been released from supervision, he’s a threat and needs to be kept at distance from others.” Do they even think before they come up with their positions?

        • New Person

          They’re following the judgement to a T. They don’t care about inconsistency in their thought. But if it isn’t spelled out specifically, then only the specified law stands. That’s how much malice is expressed in doing this notice.

        • AJ

          @New Person
          Malice indeed! It’s just beyond comprehension that “the system” even tries to function and justify actions such as this. It’d be worth a free 30-minute consult with an attorney to get an opinion, I’d think. (Yes, I do love suggesting using 30-minute freebies with lawyers. Who doesn’t love freebies? 🙂 )

    • pgm111

      Thank you Janice. On Friday I will make good on my financial commitment to you and ACSOL. Hit them hard and send a message to every city attorney and city counsel in America.

    • DPH

      Thank you for taking time to read this area and to FILE Janice and Team! THANK YOU, the Biggest City yet!
      We are moving forward!!

  7. AJ

    How stupid and stubborn. An unconstitutional law, not enforced in years, recommended for repeal by your own attorney, and yet they still cling to the “it’s for the kids” argument? Wow. They not only are asking for one, they *deserve* one. Maybe it’s all just election-cycle hi-jinks again. Don’t want to look “pro-SO” after all.

  8. commenter1

    I thought I read in another article that the City of San Diego is not enforcing these restrictions even though they are still on the books. Is that correct?

    • AlexO

      That’s correct. This article mentioned they haven’t really enforced this since 2009. But while its on the books, they could start enforcing at any time. And those caught in the middle would have to adhere to it until it was cleared up, which could take months or longer. Best to officially get off the books so that no one is caught up in the future.

  9. Joe123

    I too will gladly contribute a donation for the cause of suing the city.

  10. TRUMP is #1

    I love when this happens!!!!

  11. David

    Please, please sue them!!! 😁

  12. Registry Rage

    “Protecting our kids.”

    Translation: We can look good while getting a feather in our cap doing relatively nothing. So let’s continue to exploit unwarranted fear and the presumption of risk for a cheap and easy “win win” in the public’s eyes.

  13. Curiouser

    Political posturing at its finest. These idiots will look good to their fan bases, so much so that no one will care that they will lose a few taxpayer dollars in attorneys’ fees.

  14. HOOKSCAR

    San Diego just gave Janice a gift. I would like to inject one thing if I can. I would like to see This organization make a big wave. Sue them for damages. Not just lawyers fees and repeal. They have not learned their lesson. I want the 9th circuit court involved and force the governments hand.
    I play a lot of poker, and am pretty good. There is a path to the 9th circuit. There is a path to SCOTUS. San Diego showed me their tell, now take all their chips. All in anyone?😎

  15. ReadyToFight

    Dammmmm, Janice is Gangsta!
    I’ll be Donating.
    Thanks Janice and Team!

  16. Q

    I sometimes wonder how these people get elected. That goes for every city that has dug their heels in the dirt just before the horse drug them through the mud. It’s been said that ignorance is a choice and it’s the ignorance of these city councils that is costing their constituents time and time again. These ignoramuses have seen multiple cities dig their heels in the dirt and lose every time, yet they still choose obstinacy over reason and common sense. Oh well; you would think after witnessing all the cities that have chosen to fight and lose that they would have noticed that they may be missing something and see the need to take a look at the facts. They had better get the check book ready and be prepared to look like fools to their neighbors.

    • Timmr

      What is truly bewildering is that they hold onto this idea that these restrictions protect children. The experts they have hired with citizen’s money tell them it is not so again and again, and they are apparently still too stupid to catch on. Too bad voters can’t recognize incompetence in their leaders.
      Hey San Diego, take that money you use for paying unwinnable lawsuit and fix the roads. They are truly a neglected safety hazard in this city.

      • Q

        Unfortunately the citizenry is just as ignorant/stupid as their elected officials. I guess water really does seek it’s own level, like attracts like, etc. These people choose to remain dumbed down to the point that Janice has to sue them, and lawsuits seem to do nothing to help these people get over their willful ignorance. I wonder which city will be the next to willfully place their hand on the hot stove after they have witnessed every other city burn themselves.

  17. Chris F

    I hope Janice includes a request for a hefty amount of money. There is no other way to get the point across that city leaders have to follow the Constitution too, or there will be consequences. What better way to get them voted out of office at the next election, than to be able to blame them for the thousands of dollars put into sex offender hands straight from the citizens pockets.

    Here is a Wisconsin lawsuit story brought to my attention by Mary Sue of Texas Voices:

    https://www.courthousenews.com/family-says-citys-sex-offender-law-goes-way-far/

    and the lawsuit filed 8/1:

    https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Sex-offender.pdf

    • AJ

      I’d love to see damages, too, but who has been harmed? The existence of the law is not a harm, it is at best a threat. Were there an RC or two who had been arrested for violating it after the CA SC decision, I think it would be an entirely different matter. Their refusal to repeal it, despite the overwhelming evidence and legal opinions (by both counsel and SC), does seem to show malice. What that’s worth, I have no idea. But again, nobody has been charged in years. One could even argue the law is little different than any of the stale ones on the books from years gone by (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books).

      • Chris F (@AJ)

        I think the difference between the silly laws that are left on but not supported, and this one, is how this law, if someone knows about it, will keep them from living there. I guess that’s what the city wants. They want to keep the threat alive in the hopes it keeps law abiding sex offenders out of their city. After all, the costs involved with moving and financing a house, only to have to turn around and sell and move again, are significant.

        I wonder if this issue also becomes a Bill of Attainder at this point. They have a law they know they can’t enforce against a named group of politically powerless people. Sounds easier then most cases to win.

        • AJ

          @Chris F
          “I wonder if this issue also becomes a Bill of Attainder at this point. They have a law they know they can’t enforce against a named group of politically powerless people. Sounds easier then most cases to win.”
          Were I defending this for the State in court, I would take the stance that since it is an unenforceable law, it is impossible for anyone to suffer any adverse action–let alone punishment–and therefore cannot be a Bill of Attainder.

          I do agree that the mere presence of the law on the books is probably having some sort of deterrent effect. It’s kind of like how a sign by your front door warning of a security system, even when you don’t have one, can deter a burglar. Like a burglar, a RC will go somewhere with a lower perceived or actual risk. (And for those thinking about pouncing, no, I’m not comparing RCs to burglars. It’s a behavioral psychology comparison.)

        • Stinks all around

          If the law is unenforceable, then why is it on the books to begin with or even still to this point, especially if they know it is such? (rhetorical question – we know why, political points)

          Judge should look at the city, et al and ask that very question, then find judgment for the plaintiffs to have the law removed from the books with all costs reimbursed for the legal team by the city et al. A great legal grandstand by the city et al and waste of money for all taxpayers where commonsense would have prevailed to begin with.

          I would say their willfulness to spend tax dollars on fruitless court cases should be brought up on their next election cycle, but the public will most likely say they would rather have that done to take a chance than just roll over like other jurisdictions have. Political pandering at its worst.

        • Timmr

          Many cities don’t enforce laws. It saves on court costs and is better not overused. But they keep it around in case they suspect a registrant of some sort of re-offense they can’t actually prove. Let’s say there is some accusation by someone and the DA wants some sort of conviction to show how bad registrants are and to look like she/he is keeping sex offenders in line. I have seen that used several times, one time in my own town, they couldn’t prove the registrant was annoying children, but they got him for visiting his mother regularly and not registering her mother’s address. They can also get them on the residency violation if they keep one, which is easier to prove that way and maybe scare them into court to plea bargain. That is what the term law enforcement “tool” means, a way around due process. It is actually better for them to not always enforce these laws, because they want to keep something on you in reserve at their option and for you to get complacent.

    • Janice Bellucci

      If someone has been financially harmed by the San Diego residency restrictions, please contact me immediately at jmbellucci@aol.com. Financial harm includes, but is not limited, to the requirement to pay for lodging.

  18. kat

    Janice-
    Wish there were attorneys like you fighting for us in every state!
    Thanks for all you’re doing!

  19. Eric Knight

    It is time to start hitting these cities with MILLION-DOLLAR lawsuits for their blatant disregard for constitutional authority. Not just lawyers fees and incidental nuisance payments, but actual damages that will serve two purposes: One, increase the penalty for non-compliance with basic Constitutional tenets, and two, to have a far more immediate effect on jurisdictions currently lagging behind in their own legal morass of laws still on the books.

  20. michael

    Yep I live in the county… and I have to say the SD City council are SCUM !! Its good they will loose $$$$ soon !!

  21. The Unforgiven

    If one was to actually be 2001 feet away, I wonder what would happen? Has any one given a real, evidence based reason for the 2000 ft rule? Why not 2346? Btw, that is not my PIN for banking purposes.

    • Curiouser

      George Runner, AFTER the residence restrictions of Jessica’s Law had been thrown out in 2015:
      ‘[w]e chose 2,000 feet because 2,000 feet had been upheld in another state in regards to an acceptable distance in restrictions. So we felt that was a safe place to go. And again, there’s nothing magic about 2,000 feet. We just needed to find a number, and we felt that that was a number that have been upheld, and so that’s why we put that in the law itself.”

      Right from the horse’s mouth. Here’s the link:
      https://www.boe.ca.gov/runner/media/030315JohnKenShow.txt
      (note how he had the audacity to post this transcript on the BOE website. He must be a proud, proud man).

      • AJ

        That sure was one heck of a “legislative finding” they did to come up with 2000′! Good thing the courts take legislatures at their word about intent and findings.

      • New Person

        This excerpt from the transcript sounds like banishment:
        ==================================
        Mr. Runner: Yeah. And, you know, we’ve heard that story and, you know, at that point, remember, we also put GPS on them. And, you know, at the end of the day I guess I am — which is actually — basically one of the concerns that I had about with the court language is the court was concerned about the freedom and liberty of the sex offenders. Well, that’s interesting. I’m more concerned about the freedoms and the liberty of our kids and our families, and less concerned about making it harder for a sex offender, you know. And apparently the court felt that they needed to side with the sex offenders in this process.

        Reporter1: Yeah, I don’t know why we can’t just tow them all out to the desert.

        Mr. Runner: Well, I live out in the desert, so you’ve got to be careful with that.

        Reporter1: All right. Well, not your desert, somebody else’s desert.

        ==================================

        Mr. Runner acknowledges even he doesn’t want registrants in his area, essentially banishing them elsewhere. Where is this elsewhere? Constitutionally, there is no elsewhere b/c banishment is punishment.

        • kind of living

          LOL , tow them out to the desert ! why don’t the reporter move out to the desert , there is plenty of room for the little circle jerks , , but really I would go to the desert , I love it ! heck yes drop a nice sized community well and put a stop to some of the stupid regulations , I know a place where some people bought a nice piece of land and they have palm trees , pine trees fruit trees , a really nice garden chickens pigs goats , there is something new there every time we go out that way , we camp out by this place and they let us refill our water jugs , its much better than the city water , lol heck yes threaten us with a good time , but as soon as they seen we were doing great they would gripe about that too , what the heck lets go out and have a big party by runners house , call it the banishment open air concert ! lol just kidding of course , its just that these phony’s really think there familys and lives are more important than anyone else’s , always trying to act as if they are better and more important than someone that cant fight back , putting on there little dog and pony show being snooping snobs , there problem don’t have one thing to do with children or family , its about grand standing and image /votes

      • kind of living

        runner even says “its not so much about the crime” and then starts going off into all this crap about you never know what “they” are going to do and Bla Bla Bla , even going into someone going off and the cops having to come out and shoot them ,, what a bunch of bull , he already said that he lives out in the desert , so its his desert? , its to bad we cant hire someone like Randy Quaid to move out by Runner and sit around getting drunk with his wife doing his crazy thing swilling beer down with his music cranked ,

  22. Janice Bellucci

    There has been a slight delay in the lawsuit we are drafting to challenge the San Diego City residency restrictions. Instead of filing the lawsuit today, we will wait until early next week. Please stay tuned.

    • Lake County

      Thank you for keeping us informed.

      • DPH

        Yes, Thanks and we will watch for next week’s filing for SD City! Yes! Hope to get more SD RC’s involvement in problems there with restrictions. Thanks

  23. Janice Bellucci

    A lawsuit was filed this morning in federal district court challenging the San Diego City residency restrictions. An article regarding the lawsuit as well as the lawsuit will be posted soon on this website.

    • HOOKSCAR

      Getting my popcorn 🍿 and beer 🍻. Going to enjoy watching this show.

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 *

.