ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


CA: Court Grants Demurrer in Jurors Case

The Los Angeles Superior Court has granted a demurrer in ACSOL’s challenge to an exclusion of all registrants from serving on a jury. The Court also scheduled a hearing to discuss the future of the case on August 11.

“We are gravely disappointed that the court took this action,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “By doing so, the court has made a preliminary decision that the legislature can lawfully prevent anyone convicted of a sex offense, regardless of the type of offense or how long ago it occurred from being a juror.”

In its decision, the Court acknowledged that “there is no expressly stated legislative purpose” for the exclusion. The Court went further to stated that the legislative reason provided by the Attorney General’s Office for excluding registrants was irrelevant. Finally, the Court stated that its decision was based upon identification of a “plausible reason” for the exclusion.

“Although the Court stated that it had identified a plausible reason for registrants to be excluded from jury service, the Court failed to articulate that reason,” stated Bellucci. “We are currently considering whether to appeal this decision.”

The deadline for the appeal is 30 days after either the case is dismissed by the plaintiffs or the judge makes an adverse ruling on the merits of the case.

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 do not solicit funds
  • 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It amazes me how often the courts basically say “you’re right”, but still rule otherwise. How’s any justice supposed to be served in that kind of environment?

The silver lining
One positioned positive from the decision is this fact.
The intent of the registry is to impose affirmative restraint.
Restraint from the duty to serve as a jurist. While this intent was not specifically stated the effect is. One more nail in the coffin.

The court found a plausible reason why registrants should be excluded, but didn’t give the reason. Sounds like some judges need critical thinking skills and not using outdated information based on bogus evidence. Ok court why it is fine for other criminals to be on juries? There reoffending is frightening and high, not registrants.

I certainly hope you do appeal, though I understand if you don’t considering the costs and hours spent and the likelihood that the appellate court would say something like the lower court had the authority, but without giving a reason they can’t review if the ruling was proper. At most I would think a remand to articulate a reason, all of which will take months, if not years.

Or perhaps the whole thing can be revived at the August 11 hearing.

@DUstin I feel the same exact, wish we had more donations to pay her filings and mods, we need more members. so if any know of others nearby could join or even out of CA. I feel we need tha ANSWEr to why if they contin to vote against since murders and arsonists and baby killers and gang killers and dui limb and body part removers by dribing under the influence, oh excuse me people feel SAFE around them, but they killed their g ma on the crosswalk. What about US???! Are we not allowed to particp in Civic Duty… Read more »

The court is basically saying “Because I said No and you don’t need to know why” which wrecks of a parental condescending tone. Appeal because it is the sensible thing to do and taxpayers have a right to know the judge’s thinking. That judgement is no better than a non-published opinion, in my opinion. Share it or don’t judge the case.

^should be more “sounds like a condescending parental tone” not wrecks which is the wrong reek to begin with

Sounds like “they” crossed the line in the sand once again.

Plausible Reason.

That’s frustrating as can be! I’m not at all a conspiratorial type, but you truly have to wonder in regards to everything related to registration in CA. Call it a plausible reason.

CO, MI, and PA have all made strides to weaken or end this. CA is currently stuck in neutral.

Last year, just before Thanksgiving, I served on a jury. The prior July, my wobbler was reduced to a misdemeanor and I was granted expungement. Apparently the reduction threw me back into the jury pool. I disclosed my conviction during voir dire and sat back and waited to be excluded. I was shocked when neither attorney tossed me.

I believe either one currently restores your rights. The reduction because you literally have your felony changed to a misdemeanor. But also the dismissal because you’re not longer guilty of a felony. I’ve received several jury summons in the last few years, and I’ve so far checked the box that said something like, “I’m a felon and have not yet had my rights restored”. 1203.4 restores most rights (ends disabilities) except for a few specific cases. One being ending the duty to register (since it doesn’t count as a disability), and your gun rights. This particular law change skips looking… Read more »

SR: Thank you for the reply. I received the summons after the law went into effect. When I received it, I checked SB 310 to see if I would be able to wiggle out of going, but the part that I couldn’t decipher without some analysis of stare decisis (which naturally wouldn’t exist at that point in time) was that I would be ineligible due to my 290 status “based on a felony conviction.” As you reasoned, the 17(b) reduction makes the conviction a misdemeanor, for all intents and purposes. Still, I was not sure if the court would simply… Read more »

Why Tim n WI I’m glad you as well as many understand about a silver lining or if they are still using nails’ in coffins today. While those are all expressions I’m sure no one would give one the finger i court today (sorry that slipped). Who can judge another or who judges one race from another of if they are ready to take a one spet program over the cucko’s nest. Can one judge CNN news unless someone says FAKE news. Can one judge a micro chip or whats planted in the human mind in this true justice for… Read more »

There is no legitimate reason to exclude People Forced to Register (PFRs). But, the reason to exclude is because PFRs are under 24/7/365 harassment by the criminal regimes. So for the benefit of the criminal regimes, they need to exclude. It would certainly be bad for the criminal regimes if I were on a jury. I would make them pay. Always.

Wage war on all Registry Supporters/Terrorists.

Yea you know what the COURTS reason they denied it ? BECAUSE THE ASSHOLES are STILL PUNISHING us !!!!!!!! and they know we will seek RETRIBUTION by finding someone NOT GUILTY as a GET EVEN for what the evil courts have done to us with this NEVER ENDING PUNISHMENT of REGISTRATION ! ! ! !

Will Allen I love you man but I guess sending you a case load of soap wouldn’t cut it. Sure sometimes one has to stand up and take a stand as Galen Baughman, but theirs’ a difference of who takes a stand, Sure we all want to end this registry. And yes I could of gave a Rick Warren’s view that was on TED also but I didn’t. View’s are good so stick with Janice’s view’s and her team’s efforts, so come down from your treehouse Will Allen. Listening is good. Janice remember I was talking about the boy up… Read more »

They don’t want rsos to serve on a jury IN CALIFORNIA because they’re trying to cover-up the shady moves that prosecutors use at trial in those types of cases.

This reminds me of the supreme courts recent decision to ban all felons in Florida till all fines are paid. How can one pay for fines if they are unemployed or underemployed? What are politicians and courts so afraid of? Either justice for all or none at all. Perhaps that’s what the goal is all citizens to become criminals according to the elite.


You are referring to the recent SCOTUS decision to ban FLA felons from voting until all fines, etc are paid, not just banning of felons.


I just wondered if maybe it’s a sign of how they would view a registry challenge in the future. Sorry sometimes I think out loud and ask questions later.

“.. Court stated that its decision was based upon identification of a “plausible reason” for the exclusion.” That is so frustrating! How is Justice served when judges fail to articulate their reasoning?? 😠
(😣 Yes, I am aware that judges often will not articulate any reason because it could provide the basis for an appeal. Nonetheless, it sucks! 😣)

The courts don’t want to risk someone with a “character flaw” involved in the outcome of a legal proceeding. They’re afraid it will just generate more appeals and acquittals once the public finds out a sex offender was on the jury.

United States of Hate.

Ooooo … “United States of Hate”. That is striking a chord with me right now for some reason. It is so simple and basic, but don’t think I’ve seen it before. I like it so I’ll steal it. 🙂 Maybe “United States of Hate, Lies, and Dipshits” is better though, lol. That list could go on and on. The criminal regimes would be smart to keep me off of a jury. I’d never help those criminals convict anyone. Fuck them every day. And speaking of which, tomorrow, I’m going to be out and about all day long in public, closely… Read more »

The Amendments a rejection of nobility. One could say the amendments need to be seriously looked at today along with the bill of rights and the constutition as things can go wrong and with many of these offender cases one gets mixed up in. Even with the casting off of social justice and its buttressing releigon freedom. And remember its all for public safety. Guess today one has a free enterprise to be a busybody or try one’s spirit in these demeaning clashes by authorities to prove. Sure no man can tame the tongue that is aready been proven by… Read more »

If I was on a jury I would be a thorn in the DA’s side due to the fact all they care about is conviction rates and not justice. Back when President Obama was elected, Michelle said, “This is the first time I’m proud of my country.” Me seeing how the justice system really is i say, “Wow this country is a joke when it comes to freedom.”

@Brandon – you are correct and it’s absolutely disgusting. DA and THE JUDGES (nobody should be fooled!!) =‘s Conviction percentage. Not the truth. Not justice

Fueled by privatization of prisons; which is inhuman and modern day slavery.

Child sex traffickers and this IML law. Was listening today about this Chris Smith from New Jersey about his dishing out figures, percentages, rehiblitation stats and said to myself how wise can he be or for that matter who actually lives across the street from you. I wonder if its a Norman Bates or even a Decon from your church or someone upset with the status quo of liberty and Justice today or just some angry grouch or even boo living across the street from you. Yes there was a girlfriend of my sister that named her first child boo… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x