ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

California

CA: Judge Allows San Diego Sex Offender Lawsuit To Proceed

[kpbs.org – 4/1/19]

San Diego City Council members are under more pressure to repeal an unenforceable law restricting where sex offenders can live in the city, after a federal judge allowed a lawsuit challenging the ordinance to proceed.

Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz ruled in January against the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in 2017 by a group of unnamed sex offenders. The lawsuit rests heavily on a 2015 decision by the California Supreme Court finding blanket restrictions on where all sex offenders can live increase the rate of homelessness among sex offenders, depriving them of their right to seek treatment.

The court said such laws can also make society less safe by making it more difficult for law enforcement to keep track of sex offenders, who are typically under strict supervision when on parole.

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    This idiotic San Diego city council of buffoons has been wasting taxpayer money pushing this personal agenda for over 7 years. This fraudulent law has been struck down at every level of justice including the San Diego Superior court. These deplorable city council loons should be arrested for refusing to adhere to the rule of law. They are doing this because they have nothing innovative, practical, or progressive to offer the city, only waste, corruption, personal perks and agendas, and idiocy. So to seem relevant they cry, “Get those sex offenders,” and that gets an emotional reaction from a percentage of the ill informed. Put these liars in jail.

  2. mike r

    “which was filed in 2017 by a group of unnamed sex offenders.”
    So, here it is 2019, is there a stay order? If not then these people are being subject to this unconstitutional law since well before 2017, probably all the way back to Jessica’s law. Just as many of us were subject and made homeless because of that unconstitutional law. There has to be repercussions for these terrorist acts. What is stop them from enacting a law stating put us all on an island and let the courts figure if it is unconstitutional after we have them all there for ten years while it goes through the court? BS man, accountability some way needs to happen…..

  3. USA

    Interesting. What took so long? Was this law only affecting child related offenders? Repeat offenders ie: Mike R? The law is completely out of line and makes no sense! It will be banished! Great news

  4. mike r

    USA:
    Should people be banned from parks if you commit let say two muggings in one 30 years ago? How about a grocery store if you stole candy twice 10-20-30 years ago? What is your cutoff dates? How about offense qualifications? Where are your limits on laws targeted at specific classes of individuals? What about bank fraud? Should they be banned from any financial institutions for life? DUI drivers, life ban from driving and bars? Twice convicted jaywalker, banned from walking down the street? Why stop there. What about repeat verbal assaults, have their tongue cut out? At least not be able to talk in public, right? Please answer so we can have an intelligent debate.

  5. USA

    One of the common traits among repeat offenders is to minimize the serious crimes (molestation). It’s also not uncommon to blame others or even the victims. Then, they might commonly compare their serious crimes to others, to both minimize and ideally portray themselves as a good person. Ie: I guess jay walkers, drinkers and people who write bad checks are on par? Not. It’s simply a poor misjudgement on their part. Terrible comparison. I hope you feel better about yourself. Dont jay walk!

    • Eric

      USA, Mike r is obviously being a bit sarcastic, but not so farfetched. I would say a large % of people on the registry never had physical contact with anyone, but DUI’s kill 10,000 children a year, no joke there. Bank fraud is very serious because they just raise YOUR rates to recoup, as is the same with shop lifting. Maybe not verbal assaults, but certainly domestic violence. I think the main flaw in the entire SO controversy is that all SO’s are grouped together. A guy in our group was drinking in a bar and slapped a girl on the rear. He is now one of us, SO for life. He was in the room with some people who did very serious harm to other people. Calling everyone an SO and putting them on the registry for life is as ludicrous as restricting a jay walker from walking the streets IMO.

  6. USA

    Eric, I completely concur. I believe drunk drivers are the worst of the worst! There is actually one Superior Court Judge in OC who was convicted of a DUI and another who was married and having sex with his interns in his chambers! Both are still on the bench

  7. USA

    Here is really something to talk about. Hypocrisy! I live in the city that 1st opted out of the sanctuary city law! In summary, they are tough on crime. Yet, there are (open for years) 2 massage parlors within 5 mins of the Mayors office. These places offer anything you desire and one is across from a church? The City of Cypress (I recall they are tough on registered citizens) is nearby. They have 6-7 massage parlors that ALL offer every sexual service you can imagine! One is near a pre school and the other next to a church? If you enter one, the girl greets (in a shopping center) you scantly clad? You (if someone was organized) could embarrass the etc out of the city! A multitude of these brothels are located all over SD as well? It’s almost mind boggling to think exist in OC, yet OC pretends to be tough on crime?

    • JM of Wi.

      The establishments are all profit driven. They, in one form or another will exist if there is a demand, at the right price……

      “One of the common traits among repeat offenders is to minimize the serious crimes (molestation).”
      I would say the common traits of all people is to minimize their crimes. “Then, they might commonly compare their crimes to others, to both minimize and ideally portray themselves as a good person.” Take a “John” who portrays himself as a “victim” of the brothel business.

  8. mike r

    This is a joke USA,
    “One of the common traits among repeat offenders is to minimize the serious crimes (molestation). It’s also not uncommon to blame others or even the victims. Then, they might commonly compare their serious crimes to others, to both minimize and ideally portray themselves as a good person.”

    So I guess you are a psych now as well. I am not even going to go there with you any more, it is a joke. Anyone can go on my website and see my briefs and see you are out of your mind. https://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite I really doubt that anyone would believe that I am going to lie to the courts in my suit.

    Now lets see if we can be grown ups okay USA, let me be a little more specific since you did not understand sarcasm.
    Should people be banned from parks if you commit let say two muggings in one 30 years ago? What is your cutoff dates? How about offense qualifications? What about bank fraud? Should they be banned from any financial institutions for life? DUI drivers, life ban from driving and bars? Where are your limits on laws targeted at specific classes of individuals? What about domestic violence like Eric has mentioned? What kind of restrictions would you put on them?
    Give some specifics and not just character assassination attempts.

  9. mike r

    USA just give it a break man. Just stop attacking people’s characters. That is all anyone ask of you. But if you must, go ahead and hit me, the “repeat uncontrollable child rapist.” Sure that is why I am getting denied in my suit. Should not be lying to the courts about my charges or status huh? :0 If you are a psych you sure are not a very accurate one. I am following Will’s and AJ’s and all the other respectable tactics from now on.

    Not sure if it posted, but how about answering the questions that many on here have asked but you seem to refuse to answer and want to go to schoolyard tactics. I will take out the sarcasm just to be sure you understand. If you do not answer these question you have really lost ALL credibility. You may even be able to get what little you did have back if you act like an adult and have a real conversation or debate on these questions.

    Should people be banned from parks if you commit let say two muggings in one 30 years ago? What about bank fraud? Should they be banned from any financial institutions for life? DUI drivers, life ban from driving and bars? What about repeat gang-banging drug offenders standing on corners? Should they be banned from loitering on corners? Should all these be for life? What is your cutoff dates? How about offense qualifications? Where are your limits on laws targeted at specific classes of individuals?

    • mike r

      And I did not say a one time misjudgment of these very serious offenses, but repeat offenders. One time is misjudgment, you repeat your mistake again you did it deliberately and as Eric has stated these are just as serious if not more serious than molestation or whatever you want to think about me or our fellow ex-sexual offenders..

      But lets stay on topic,
      Should people be banned from parks if you commit let say two muggings in one 30 years ago? What about bank fraud? Should they be banned from any financial institutions for life? DUI drivers, life ban from driving and bars? What about repeat gang-banging drug offenders standing on corners? Should they be banned from loitering on corners? Should all these be for life? What is your cutoff dates? How about offense qualifications? Where are your limits on laws targeted at specific classes of individuals?

      • AJ

        @mike r:
        “What about repeat gang-banging drug offenders standing on corners? Should they be banned from loitering on corners?”
        —–
        Chicago already tried something along this line, and SCOTUS bitch-slapped them. See Chicago v. Morales (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/41/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Chicago_v._Morales).

        • AO @ AJ

          So are all the RC restrictions we face from not being able to attend our loved ones schools functions to sometimes not even being able to drive past a park, fall under mens rea? Seems like a huge stretch to state that every single RC’s reason for being in such a place is to commit a crime.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          AO, I would guess that mens rea, because these restrictions are “civil” regulations, doesn’t enter the picture. Oh, what mischief becomes possible once a people become civilly regulated by their masters! The tortured legal yoga positions makes my head hurt. AJ?

        • AJ

          @AO:
          Most RC laws I’ve encountered are strict-liability laws, meaning mens rea doesn’t apply. In the interest of public safety (and saving just one child), the mental state of the offending RC is irrelevant. This of course makes perfect sense, because we all know those who commit sex offenses can never be cured and have a frightening and high level of recidivism. As such, they need to be kept away from the temptations that only occur if a kid is at a school, park, etc., because no children are ever snatched off a sidewalk or abused inside the home. Strict liability effectively removes any defense for the RC unless s/he can prove the law to be irrational (see below) in every instance, real or imagined.

          Just like seemingly everything else associated with the civil court (I refuse to call it “justice”) system, IMO these laws are serious and dangerous end-arounds on the Constitution. A prime example of this extra-constitutional system is O.J. Simpson. He was found not guilty (though NOT declared innocent) in criminal court for two murders, but was later found legally responsible in civil court for those same deaths. Nothing new was found, no “smoking gun” evidence discovered. The big difference in the two trials was that in civil court, O.J. couldn’t avoid being deposed, and there’s only a “preponderance of the evidence” standard in order to find culpability.

          My point out of all of this is that ever since Calder v. Bull (1798), courts have created and maintained a separate track of laws that are highly resistant to constitutional scrutiny. Toss “rational basis review” into the mix and civil regulations become virtually immune to any challenge. This gives States and locals almost free rein to make whatever regulations they wish, and without any palpable fear of the courts striking the regs. I think that’s total BS and reduces the Constitution to a nice, quaint wall hanging. But I’m not an old fart in a black robe, so what do I know? I hold out some hope that we’ll eventually over-regulate ourselves so much that the courts wake up and get us back on track. My optimism wanes much more than it waxes.

          @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
          “Oh, what mischief becomes possible once a people become civilly regulated by their masters!”
          —–
          Spot on.

          I recall having a discussion years back with a guy who worked in a key management position for a major airline. He related an encounter he’d had with a FAA person after some new safety regulation was being proposed or enacted or whatever. With exasperation, the airline guy finally told the FAA dude that they were going to “safety” the airlines out of business! Not due to costs, but rather due to the physical inability to function under the web of regulations. Taken to absurdity, the best regulations to prevent aircraft from crashing would be the ones that make it impossible to fly them. THAT was the point he attempted to make to the bureaucrat. It fell on deaf ears.

  10. AERO1

    A lot of cities and counties in the state of California just don’t wanna come to the realization that things are changing these are the same people who started the fear-mongering that led to a 15 almost 16 year Witch Hunt that left a lot of registered citizens incarcerated,homeless separated from their familys and banished from society… No one should be restricted on where they can live or go because of something they did in their past 30 years ago but some people’s crimes are more serious than others especially people with multiple offenses they should be restricted from where they live and where they go obviously anybody with multiple offenses has some serious issues going on and make it hard for people like these registered citizens in this article

  11. USA

    I can’t agree more. Prohibiting people from visiting parks, beaches, libraries and living in certain areas is both disturbing and disgusting! We have some people who have 25 year old misdemeanor convictions that have been expunged and can’t travel internationally? Really?

  12. mike r

    There you go USA, no one should be banned from anywhere….

    • mike r

      And although I am not a repeat offender, lmao, it does not matter how many times or how long ago a person was convicted. If you did your crime and did your time be done with it and all rights restored is how it should be. But we all know we are far from the rational world such as that…

  13. mike r

    “The only issue on certiorari was whether the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, either on its face or as applied, in violation of “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

    Although the question that was presented was vagueness I think that could be to easily fixed. Shit, stating no more than two people can stand within 25 feet of a corner for more than 5 minutes could pretty much solve the vagueness problem.
    The following is where the heart of liberty and the foundation of criminal law are embedded,
    “”an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.”
    “One particular “sticking point” was whether “It is a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement … and infringes on constitutionally protected rights….”

  14. Bo

    There is nothing on recap between the motion denying dismissal in 2019 and the extension in Sept 2017, can All4Consolaws make the other documents available?

    I’m always amazed at what’s written by the city in these cases. Things like an almost generic argument of failure to state a claim.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Bo – What documents are you looking for? Original complaint filed Aug. 2017 followed by city’s motion to dismiss filed in Oct. 2017 and judge’s order in Jan. 2019.

  15. Bo

    Wow, I had assumed there were things in between, a year for a decision. I’m sorry for severely underestimating just how long cases can take.

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 *

.