Anaheim City Council Meeting Video. According to the City Attorney the ordinance will be on the next agenda (October 9 ?).
CA RSOL has written and sent this letter to the Mayor and City Council of Anaheim in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
its spreading like wildfire now
Wow, just when you think it couldn’t get any worse? First, the courts have just ruled that residential restrictions are now unconstitutional? So, can you imagine how the courts may rule with regards to banning individuals from parks, libraries and now beaches? I’m truly dumbfounded. We have decent law abiding individuals who have paid their debt to society who have now been banned from tax payer funded locations? Surreal. Furthermore, The City of Anahiem definitely has bigger and more important things to deal with (The Economy/Anahiem Police Officers have fired on 7-people this year due to gang related incidents/there have been riots). Maybe the City Should look at dealing with the real issues as opposed to potentially increasing their liabilities with potential lawsuits? What are these Council Members Thinking?
California RSOL will testify at the October 9 meeting of the Anaheim City Council during which they will consider this draft ordinance which appears to violate the state and federal constitutions. Please join us at City Hall that evening whether or not you intend to speak. It’s important that we all Show Up – Stand Up – and Speak Up in order to restore the constitutional rights of more than 93,000 individausl and their families.
Research in both the US and Canada, and the statistics of the US and California Departments of Justice, the California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSA) and the national group, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and many other groups have present accurate information about offenders, recidivism, and the LACK of danger during Halloween, and other issues related to sexual offending and its risks. Despite the information that is easy to obtain, some politicians, some media, and some individuals falsely represent (lie about) the risks to children and others.
Take for example, a man who is 60 years old. When he was 18, he had sex with his 15 year old girl friend, whom he married, and is married to still. He has never had another issue for any reason, with the legal system. He had 2 children and has 3 grandchildren. Because of his offense 42 years ago, he is a registered offender, and will be guilty of a crime if he puts a picture of a Halloween pumpkin his grandson drew in his house window. Crazy but true, and the taxpayers pay the police to go through the neighborhoods looking for men like that, while other crimes go on all around us. It does make the politicians feel good, tho. They are protecting children, and can use that information when they want to get re-elected!
If these issues upset you, here is what to do: (1) become informed with the facts, and (2) confront people, the media and politicians when they present erroneous facts.
Janice I understand why you attend these meetings and why you encourage everyone to attend.I wish I had the courage to do so. But you have to understand people that are forced to register feel they would be putting themselves and their families in danger by doing so. A lot of them, myself included are like dogs that have been kicked repeatedly and cower in the corner. After 23 years of registering and being humiliated each year in doing so it begins to wear on you. The idea that things are being done to improve the situation brightens my day. But honestly I’ve been coming to this site a couple years and just mustered the fortitude to even post here. Actually after the first post I made I waited in anxiety for the police to come knocking at my door. I will probably do the same after this post. I noticed in the new ballot proposition 35 will require that basically a person that registers will have to disclose all of their internet activity. It is another kick in the face cowering us further into the corner. I would be afraid to post here anymore and this is the only place I have been able to share a few of my thoughts.
I am a registered sex offender in New Jersey and am very interested in the out-come of this civil action. Last year Parole Officers came around and told all sex offenders that we were not allowed out after dark and were also restricted from distribution of candies, answering our doors, having lights on to encourage children to come to our doors etc.. The year before there were no such warnings or restrictions. So I am waiting to see what happens this year and am going to request the order in writing if they come around. Since my crime, in no way, had anything to do with minors, children or underage victims I am really concerned how this restriction is applied across the board. This ordinance shouldn’t be applied to anyone and I totally agree that it should be challenged. John
Thank you, Jeff, for having the courage of posting your first message on this website. You articulate in a clear and concise way the feelings of many registrants who feel like you do, like a dog that has been kicked too many times and cowers in the corner. I imagine you feel a little less afraid now that you have spoken out and had no repercussions. Please know that my urging registrants and family members to speak out is not a demand, but a request. I encourage everyone to do it at his/her own speed. My urging is meant to empower and not to stress out anyone. As for Proposition 35, we are well aware of that effort and believe that it will pass no matter what we or others do. However, there is an effort underway to stop enforcement of the proposition after its passage. Stay tuned.
Who do you want at your park? A man who did his sex crime 20 years ago and is now watching his son play soccer, or a man who went to schools and parks and sold drugs to kids?
Who endangers children? A man, 21, who gives alcohol to minors, or a man, 21, who had sex with his 16 year old girl friend?
Who would you rather live in your neighborhood? A man 50 who when he was 18 streaked a football game (now a sex offender) or a man 50 years old who has been incarcerated twice and incarcerated for a total of 10 years for selling crack cocaine?
Whose house would you rather live next to? A man who flashed once when he was 30, completed his jail time and treatment and has not done anything illegal in 10 years, or a member of a gang that engages in shootings and other illegal activity?
People need to distinguish between real and imagined risk, between a person classified as a criminal by the law and one who has the mind set of a criminal. One size does NOT fit all.
It is hoped that these examples get people to think.