We have three opportunities during the next 30 days to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up.
Our first opportunity is in Sacramento on April 24 when the Senate Public Safety Committee will consider Senate Bill 1143. If passed, that bill would require registrants convicted of an offense involving a minor to disclose their status as a registrant to potential landlords as well as to home sellers if the property is within one-quarter mile of a school or a park. The penalty for not making such a disclosure is that the landlord could break a lease or the home seller could break a home sales contract.
Registrants, family members and supporters are encouraged to join ACSOL on April 24 no later than 8:45 a.m. at the Starbucks restaurant, 1123 12th Street, across from the State Capitol. Or you can meet us outside Room 3191 in the Capitol where the hearing is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.
Our second opportunity is in Torrance on May 8 when four defendants who brutally murdered a registrant will face a preliminary hearing. That hearing is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 4 of the Torrance Courthouse, 825 Maple Avenue. We will conduct a press conference immediately after the preliminary hearing in order to highlight the District Attorney’s refusal to properly charge the defendants as well as the dangers posed by the California Megan’s Law website.
Our third opportunity is in Sacramento on May 9 when the Assembly Elections Committee will
consider Assembly Bill 2839 that would disenfranchise hundreds of patients at Coalinga State Hospital. This bill was introduced after patients at that hospital successfully defeated a sales tax increase.
Registrants, family members and supporters are encouraged to join ACSOL on May 9 no later than 8:30 a.m. at the Starbucks restaurant, 1123 12th Street, across from the State Capitol. Or you can meet us outside Room 444 in the Capitol where the hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.
The time is NOW for you to actively participate in this worthy cause. We need YOU to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up because together we can break free of the punishment being experienced by more than 105,000 registrants and their families in the state of California.
— by Janice Bellucci
Read all Janice’s Journals
I haven’t seen any news on the coverage of the registrant murder victim or any of his murderers since January, when the news stated that the murderers could face the death penalty. What charges are now being considered? Anything less than first degree murder, in my opinion, is considered prosecutor-based abuse, let alone cowardice, in my opinion.
This should be considered as a “hate crime” besides murder in the first degree.
I am too far north to come to LA. Is there any opportunity to sent letters to the DA?
Very intriguing. I would love to meet the people proposing these laws? I can’t even comprehend the housing proposal. Very thoughtless and immature. Shocking. Then, I read about the voting law? I suppose you can no longer vote if your convicted? Shouldn’t we also lose citizenship and be deported as well? I can’t imagine contacting a realtor and informing them of this? Neither of these will pass. It’s disturbing to see mature politicians propose these things when we have a multitude of bigger issues here in Ca. Very, very sad. It’s borderline sickening. How do they even think of this? Best regards
Maybe we should have signs for outside the court asking County DA “Why NOT 290.46” ?
Media can grab and research and make the public media aware that this was MORE Than> a ‘home invasion’…
I would like to know if there is someone we can contact in regards to this to comment and validate the fact that being on the registry does result in people taking unlawful actions.
Well stated. I’m 21-22 years registered/expunged battery/non child/summary probation and I’m still required to register. I’m no better than anyone else, but come on! This is getting gross. I would love to travel to other countries (I know there are select places I can visit), but I was unable to visit my mother n law who later died (foreign country) and that was hurtful. Best of luck to everyone. Please stay confident!!
Meet at “STARBUCKS”! I wouldn’t go to Starbucks if my life depended on it!
No, I am not black, brown, or any other ethnic color. On October 22nd, my son, a registrant, whose offense was 15 years ago, and his son age 21, were in Starbucks working on a computer. They had purchased coffee. Without warning, they were approached by three sheriff deputies and told to leave! And never return! Our grandson even works at Starbucks, although not this one.
When you’re a registrant, you don’t ask questions. Why is this okay? But if you happen to be black, the whole country is outraged! Well, I am outraged, but no one cares! Our son then received a letter saying that if he entered ANY Starbucks that he would be subject to arrest!
Has this bill bern discussed on here before? This is the first o have heard of it. So what the h##^^ the locals are supposed to be preempted by state law from creating residency restrictions so now they are going to do like facebook and use private parties to basically do the same thing??? And how the he#$/ do you fight this when all they have to say it is just requiring us to inform them “but” they cannot use it to deny housing or some crap when we all know for a fact that is exactly what is going to happen.
Senate Bill 1143. If passed, that bill would require registrants convicted of an offense involving a minor to disclose their status as a registrant to potential landlords as well as to home sellers if the property is within one-quarter mile of a school or a park. The penalty for not making such a disclosure is that the landlord could break a lease or the home seller could break a home sales contract
And what the hel#$/ is the ethics committee for? Legislation I believe is supposed to be rational and the court has already ststed thrre is no rational basis to residency restrictions so how can there be a rational basis for this law? Exactly what is the stated purpose of the law? Something other than courts has to be able to put these people in check when it comes to crap like this. I guess once again it is going to take a laymen to find out how to fight this without using the courts
After glancing at the bill this is worse than I thought. I thought Meagan’s Law specifically states that they cannot use the information to determine eligibility or to refuse housing based on the information on Megan’s Law.
This bill would authorize a seller to refuse to sell to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a sales contract, to rescind the sales contract without penalty. The bill would also authorize a landlord to refuse to rent to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a housing rental agreement, to cause the person to be evicted.
This bill would authorize a seller to refuse to sell to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a sales contract, to rescind the sales contract without penalty. The bill would also authorize a landlord to refuse to rent to a person based on that disclosure, or, if the disclosure is not made or is made after entry into a housing rental agreement, to cause the person to be evicted.
Screw it, hopefully this passes and enacted soon as then the court will have subject matter jurisdiction over residency restrictions in my case….We knew this would be coming and what did I tell everyone??? That RE Taylor did not address whether there was a rational basis to apply residency restrictions to non-parolees and these scumbags are jumping on the opportunity to exploit that as they do everything…..Hate to tell them but this is a state law by proxy prohibiting sex offenders from living withing a 1/4 mile of a school or park or whatever….
Some thoughts re SB 1143 (the disclosure requirement to prospective sellers / landlords)…
1. this requirement to personally and actively publicize this information is just as compelled speech as a front door sign on Halloween is compelled speech. Hello, First Amendment!
2. it is the explicit goal of community notification to allow “members of the public can better protect themselves and their families.” Though not stated in the actual statute, the ML web site (operated by the CA AG) states:
California Megan’s Law Website – State of California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General: Welcome to the California Department of Justice Megan’s Law Website where California is embracing technology to enhance community safety. This website provides information on registered sex offenders pursuant to California Penal Code § 290.46 so that members of the public can better protect themselves and their families.
It is NOT intended to allow individuals to dictate the residents of a certain residential area.
Requiring this notification to a seller who will vacate the property and may move across the street, or across town, or to a different city, county, state or country, does NOT allow individual members of the public to “better protect themselves and their families”. For that they have the ML web site in their new location (blah).
Requiring this notification to a landlord who may be personally residing across the street, or across town, or a in a different city, county, state or country, OR a landlord who is a corporate / legal entity does NOT allow individual members of the public to “better protect themselves and their families”. For that they have the ML web site in their current location (blah). I know, corporations are people, too.
For members of the public to “better protect themselves and their families” every RE purchase contract / lease agreement alerts the involved parties to consult the ML web site.
I cannot wait for the first RE agent to lose a sale / commission because a seller backed out for some reason (a better deal from a different agent!?!?!), using this loophole.
3. this proposed change to the CA Civil Code directly invalidates / conflicts with a section of the CA Penal Code without amending said section – leaving a legal professional to scour every single section of every last one of the 29 CA Codes (Penal, Civil, Education, etc). That is simply not practical.
Well, this is pretty sad. 1st, this bill will never pass! The sad part is that we have some many other issues here in Ca (ie: homelessness). Very sad. I suggest we either vote for politicians or they grow up! I think it’s a terrible idea!
Never pass USA???? How many laws on sex offenders have not passed??? NONE…..That is how many…..
A couple of them may have been shot down by the courts but they all pass except that I believe that a residency bill was actually defeated if I remember right. Regardless this is a whole different animal in that it uses landlords or property sellers to do the dirty deed thereby bypassing the courts and making it “extremely” difficult to challenge……A civil suit against whatever landlord or seller is the only way I see to challenge this law since like I stated the CA AG’s minions are not the ones enforcing it so you cannot sue the state really because the state has immunity if there is no direct connection to enforcement or any connection at all for that matter….This is bad really bad if it passes…I haven’t researched the issue but I cannot think of how or who you would sue and I am getting pretty adept at this crap… I cannot believe this hasn’t got more attention JOE considering how important it is and how many thousands of people it will affect. Each and everyone of us that lives in the 1/4 zone will have to immediately notify the landlords and sellers and what do you think is going to happen???? One little post about it and then including it with these other lame bills isn’t doing justice to how big this issue is and will be if passed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do not live in a prohibition zone but I am sure tens of thousands across the state do….And someday I wish to get out of this ghetto apt and into a house and this seriously hinders that and I cannot even bring it in court since it is landlords home sellers that according to the bill “may” use it against us. That “may” and the fact that there is no statutory penalty makes this law almost untouchable as far as my educated guess takes me…
AJ, Chris, New Person, any read or take on the issue????
We appear to be getting closer to NAZI Germany. I could have driven down the street drunk and killed someone with my car. I would have gone to state prison and released and no would be the wiser. I look at child porn on the internet and I am a convict for life. No way out I never shared any pictures never purchased any websites. At some point this is going to come to a very ugly head.
Well, I’m glad to hear you guys are so positive! I suppose no one remembers the beach or park bans? Or, the recent passage of SB 3844? I might recommend contributing to this site and coming up with ideas/or plans to overcome this, rather than spread negativity! I’ve never heard of anyone getting anywhere or becoming successful living with negativity. So, I might recommend donating, emailing and offering to volunteer or even looking for ways or giving suggestions! Stay focused! Your doing exactly what they want! Don’t surrender!!
Look at this AJ, this statement blows there whole efficacy claim out the window. If it is not a significant deterrent then what the hel*&^^& is it good for?? They admit it does not have “sufficiently strong deterrent effect” I hope the lawyers jump on that statement….Damn and that is a registry imposing weekly reporting requirements and residency restrictions but yet t does not have a significant deterrent effect. WOW….So a less restrictive registry without those impositions must have absolutely no deterrent effect so it is therefore arbitrary..OH bet your as*&&*^ I am jumping on that in my case….Like I said I hope the lawyers are sharp enough to make that connection because I did not until just now reading the brief in the CO case….That is a big and highly relevant statement right there….They are admitting it is useless in preventing re offenses exactly what the registry was founded on. What idiots….I need to look at the ninth see if I can find a statement like that….
“that a registry imposing weekly reporting requirements
and a residency restriction did not have a “sufficiently strong deterrent effect to render the Oklahoma statute punitive.” Shaw, 823 F.3d at 571.”
Why the ^^ hasn’t anyone jumped on this??? Maybe it is just because no one made the connection like I said or idk… but i sure as *&*^ will…Look at what smith stated:
“As for deterrence, the Smith Court found that even though Alaska conceded that the statute “might deter future crimes,” that was no enough to find that the statute was punitive. Smith, 528 U.S. at 102.”
Just a quick draft of my argument >>
Can a law be based on a rational basis just because it “MAY” deter future crimes. I think not. The efficacy of the registry is the basis for the registry along with the supposedly to help LE. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that the state does not even know if the law achieves the stated legislative objective. Where was the legislative fact findings surely they show more than a “may” have the desired stated purpose to some measurable degree.
I am running hard with this…
It seems to me that the word “may” means that they do not know…..
I like the statement out of the CO brief. That brief states that it “does not” have a “sufficiently strong deterrent effect to render the Oklahoma statute punitive.” Shaw, 823 F.3d at 571.
I like your premise USA on people should stay positive and get off their a&*&^ and do something but your condemnation of others does nothing to further our agenda. If you are attempting to shame people into fighting back and suggesting that people should just point out positive comments and not face the facts is wring though. Pointing out the negative effects and positing the obvious is not necessarily being negative my friend. Spreading the facts on this site may very well get people of their a^&^ if they see and understand exactly how bad a certain law or action bad the enemy is. Other than that I for once agree with you that no one should even give in or up and stay positive but also know the facts so you know where and when to apply the most pressure or act in the best way possible to ensure maximum results….
As far as that deterrent factor, well I slept on it and although not a dispositive factor it is nonetheless a factor concerning the efficacy of the registry. Prevention is the main element of the registry and deterrence is very relevant to that efficacy. The registry has three major elements (1) provide the public with a means to protect themselves and family members, (2) provide LE with a tool to help investigate and solve sexual crimes, (3) and deterrence: all three of those elements carry equal weight to them and are part of the puzzle in an attempt to prevent recidivism. I simply have not thought about the third element until I read the CO brief where they state there is not a significant deterrent effect. I completely debunked the first two elements and this pretty much debunks the third which I never really direct stated or addressed….So lets see: The registry is useless to the public since over 90% of sexual offenses occur with someone close to the victim and stranger danger is a myth and recidivism is already, for all practical purposes, non-existent at 1% after just three years after release and decreases dramatically as time goes by; the registry is useless to LE because it is over inclusive and contains tens of thousands of individuals that pose no more of a threat to the public than a non registrant; and according to the state, the registry does not have a significant deterrent effect for first time sexual assaults or for sexual assault recidivism. That is just the final nail in the coffin is what I am suggesting.
Hope I made sense this time around, if not please tell me I am wrong …
Okay try this and tell me how this sounds…We have to use whatever we can to debunk their assertions and what better way then by using their own words against them which is my motto and partially my main MO….
The deterrent factor, although not a dispositive factor, is nonetheless a strong factor concerning the efficacy of the registry. Prevention is the main element of the registry and deterrence is very relevant to that efficacy. The registry has three major elements (1) provide the public with a means to protect themselves and family members, (2) provide LE with a tool to help investigate and solve sexual crimes, and (3) deterrence: all three of these elements carry equal weight and are all pieces of the puzzle in an attempt to prevent recidivism. As already demonstrated through Plaintiff’s Complaint the registry is useless to the public since over 90% of sexual offenses occur with someone close to the victim and stranger danger is a myth and recidivism is already, for all practical purposes, non-existent at 1% after just three years after release and decreases dramatically as time goes by; as already demonstrated, and even law enforcement and sex offender management boards across the country agree, the registry is useless to law enforcement because it is over inclusive and contains tens of thousands of individuals that pose no more of a threat to the public than a non-registrant; and according to the state, the registry, once again for all practical purposes, “does not have a significant deterrent effect” for first time sexual assaults, or for sexual assault recidivism. See United States v. W.B.H., 664 F.3d 848, 858 (11th Cir.2011) (concluding that a sex offender’s reporting requirements lack a sufficiently strong deterrent effect); Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1005-06 (6th Cir.2007) (stating that although the sex-offender reporting requirements had some deterrent effect, the strength of the effect was not enough to make the statute punitive); Shaw v. Patton, 823 F.3d at 571(10th Cir. 2016) (“does not have a sufficiently strong deterrent effect.”)
It only goes to reason that if the registry laws do not have a significantly strong deterrent effect for punitive purposes than it must not have a significantly strong deterrent effect for efficacy purposes. It either does deter or does not deter, you can not have it both ways…