Barry Levinson, the driving force of Fullerton’s sex offender ordinance discusses the despicable behavior of The Fullerton City Council in repealing Fullertons sex offender ordinance.


 

, , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Sarah Dominguez on February 25, 2017 - 7:33 pm

    Why, on earth, should there EVER be a criminal penalty associated with residing in a residence, whatsoever? Especially if a person is not under court ordered supervision??? And even if not??? Mr. Levinson? Care to expound???

    • #2 by Anonymous on February 26, 2017 - 8:26 am

      Lets get rid of restraining orders cuz after all people should be able to live wherever they wish.

    • #3 by Sarah Dominguez on February 28, 2017 - 12:01 am

      Apples and Oranges.

      Any JUDGE can put a restraining order on anyone for CAUSE, based on a specific person.

      The LEGISLATURE cannot banish an entire group of people from residence in an entire city, irrespective of personal circumstance and due process. THAT is called a blanket ban (even for the sub-set of CHILD sex offenders, duh!), and THAT is unconstitutional.

      Thank you for making my point.

    • #4 by anon on February 27, 2017 - 2:08 pm

      “Little 9-year old girl Jessica Marie Lunsford was found dead inside a hold in the ground where her murderer and rapist John Couey left her a day or two earlier. The autopsy found some of her fingers with no flesh and just bone as she poked them through the garbage bag John Couey wrapped her in as an attempt to breathe as she suffocated to death. John Couey broke into Jessica’s home early in the morning and kidnapped her. He brought her to his trailer where he rapped her at least twice before tricking her into a garbage bag and burying her alive.”

      http://www.floridabackgroundchecks.com/jessicas-law-the-jessica-lunsford-act/

      There is a huge problem with pedofiles, not limited to California.

      You should recognize that children are more vulnerable and that predators will go out of their way to seek them out. They are unlike any other segment of the population and that is the reason for the law, to protect children.

      They arrested over 470 involved in child sex trafficking in LA. This was just the low hanging fruit, more will come. http://ktla.com/2017/02/01/474-arrested-28-sexually-exploited-children-rescued-during-statewide-human-trafficking-operation-lasd/

      I gather that you think the children are not worth protecting.
      You have a lot of company with the city of Fullerton Council, they do not vote to protect the children.

    • #5 by Sarah Dominguez on February 28, 2017 - 12:18 am

      How would this ordinance have prevented any of the things you describe? I am all for protecting children. This ordinance did and and does not do it.

    • #6 by Where were you? on February 27, 2017 - 9:19 pm

      You care about Constitutional rights? You are selective.

      Where are you when they sign off the NDAA every year?
      That’s arrest w/no due process.

      Where are you when everyone is illegally searched at airports?

      Where are you when they force illegal taxation via healthcare?

      I could go on but I won’t. Only when you can level the playing field for access to children by pedofiles do you open your mouth on constitutional rights.

      You choose to assert unconstitutionality only when it protects pedofiles.

      Why do you want to protect those that prey on children?

    • #7 by Sarah Dominguez on February 28, 2017 - 12:15 am

      I will open my mouth about whatever I pretty well please, thank you very much.

      I will do so with confidence when there is a recent California Supreme Court decision (in re Taylor) to substantiate my position.

      This ordinance does not, and was never designed to, protect children. It was / is banishment, plain and simple. And that is un-american.

Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!