ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
November 2018 Call Audio
, 12/08 – San Diego

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

California

Yucaipa Council considers repeal for sex offender ordinance

At the City Council meeting on Monday, Aug. 28, the council discussed the consideration of repealing the sex offender residency restriction ordinance.

The State penal code currently prohibits residency within 2000 feet of a public or private school, as well as parks where children regularly gather.

The city of Yucaipa’s current ordinance is similar to state law, which also prohibits offenders from living within 2000 feet of parks and schools, but also includes daycare facilities. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. TS

    Does anyone know how the LEO show and tell went here where RCs were not invited since they were the topic of discussion? Can someone get the data from them since it is all in the public domain paid for by tax money?

  2. Harry

    “The State penal code currently prohibits residency within 2000 feet of a public or private school, as well as parks where children regularly gather.” This lawyer is worthless, as he is running a bull $hitter service.

  3. AJ

    “[I]t was very surprising to see how many people were not aware that the [Megan’s] law website exists,” said council member, Greg Bogh.”
    A fine statement as to the utility of the ML site. I recall recently reading that of those who know about ML sites, only about 1/3 ever visit one. This, too, speaks to the utility (or perhaps futility) of ML sites, RC rights notwithstanding.

    This article made me chuckle. The council seems scared to do anything aside from kicking the can down the road. It reminds me of a scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” where Robin (Eric Idle), when the party is facing the Killer Rabbit, offers, “[w]ould it help to confuse him if we ran away more.”

  4. JoeHillsGhost

    From the article:
    “Our recommendation is that the council resend the ordinances and avoid the cost of litigation that could very well be successful if they are challenged,” said city attorney, David Snow.

    Where will they send the ordinances? Have they tried sending them before? Maybe they sent them to the wrong address. I have some suggestions where they could send the ordinances.

    • New Person

      ha ha ha Oh Manny… relying on phonetic sounds than knowing the context. Quite the epitome about the registry – it’s supposed to be this, but that’s not what it really does.

      resend… rescind.

      Btw, isn’t showing the public how to use ML now actually emphasizing public humility at a town square? They are parading all those on the ML as a danger to society. It’s no longer a concern, but public humility. Do the officers also bring in citizens once a month to the local jail to show who’s in jail? Nope. You have to know who you’re visiting in jail to even get into jail.

    • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

      Proofreading has become an entirely lost art among journalists. So has journalism.

  5. TS

    @newperson

    Problem is the newspaper article used the word resend, not rescind, so the newspaper writer, editor and publisher are wrong. A quick letter to the editor might help them relearn their writing and editing skills.

    • The Unforgiven

      I found a couple of other errors. Like most “journalists”, spell check, edits, and facts are not necessary anymore. Just be first to write it.

      10th paragraph – “how many people were not aware that the means law website exists,” said”

      12th paragraph – “During the meting it was also shared that the State of California’s current”

      • TS

        Now that is funny! Three of those in a short article. Good grief!

        “I say, I say boy, where did you get your journalism skills? The bottom of a Cracker Jack box?!”

    • New Person

      @ TS

      ::: sighs :::

      The writer or editor quoted someone. Resend is a real word and spell check would not catch that mistake. Also, there is no grammatical error is using resend. This is why I denoted the lack of context as the writer transcribed the quote phonetically (by sound). Resend and rescind sound similar to one another; depending on the accent, they may sound exactly the same. Thus, it’s the lack of context for the use of the word, not a typo.

      Example, there’s a difference between to, too, and two. All sound the same (phonics), but all have different meanings. Which one to use appropriately depends on context.

      You did know that I did identify the incorrect usage of the word with the correct one in my comment. Maybe you should simply send the website their mistake than re-iterating what I stated back onto me.

      • TS

        @new person

        ::shakes my head & rolls the eyes::

        When you sight in on site, make sure you cite it correctly. If you don’t, you look like someone who does not proofread their own work regardless if spellcheck picked it up or not. If you cannot do that, stop being a writer and hand over your pen & paper or keyboard and recorder if you are modern. There was a day in the time in this country when you actually read your work to spellcheck it and ensure it was grammatically correct. Relying on spellcheck to ensure the correct word which may sound like another is used is pure laziness. Plain and simple. It only adds to the dumbing of the people in this country. It is beyond just making a mistake (or three), it is a lack of care about their craft. By the way, quoting someone and using the wrong word in quoting them is beyond bad, it’s just careless.

        Three errors in the article shows the writer to be lazy as well as the editor who read the article to ensure it was suitable to print. It also gives the article less credence as being credible unless you are one of the many misinformed and ignorant people who lives on the fear and hysteria the topic raises, then you don’t care.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

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