«
»

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.


, , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on February 25, 2017, 11:07 am and is filed under Agenda 21, Are they turning their backs on the children?, The twighlight's last gleaming, The Way. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  1. #1 by Anonymous on February 20, 2017 - 12:59 pm

    There is a special place in hell for those who not only do not protect our children but go out of their way to make them less safe.
    The fact that the City of Fullerton’s Fullerton Police Department and City Attorney justify their actions with a misinformation campaign is simply diabolical.

    Reply Quote

    • #2 by Sarah Dominguez on February 25, 2017 - 7:07 pm

      There is, indeed, a special place in hell, for those who do not adhere to the US and CA Constitutions. Because they are evil, evil people.

      The fact that the City Attorney is recommending action based on the law, based on the CA and US Constitutions, should be commended. In that is is saving the FULLERTON tax payer needless expenditures. What other course of action could there be?

      Quote

    • #3 by Barry Levinson on February 26, 2017 - 12:39 am

      Sarah the Fullerton Ordinance dealing with only child sexual offenders has never been adjudicated in any California court. Therefore your statement that it is unconstitutional is only your opinion and not the opinion of any Ca. Court.
      Your claim that I hate both children and America is both absurd and ridiculous.

      Quote

    • #4 by Sarah Dominguez on February 28, 2017 - 12:26 am

      Barry in re Taylor deals with a much smaller sub set – on active supervision, no less. And was found still to be an unconstitutional blanket ban. That is hardly my opinion. Is the California Supreme Court not a CA Court?

      Your continued refusal to act in accordance with the highest court in the state, and your willingness to make thousands of children “pay for the sins of their fathers” shows a disregard for the Constitution and for children other than your own. Why would a person act in such a manner if they did not hate both?

      Quote

    • #5 by Barry Levinson on March 10, 2017 - 3:01 pm

      Sarah the re Taylor case referred to all sex offenders, the California state law not just child sex offenders, which was the Fullerton Ordinance.

      Therefore I reiterate that the issue of residency restrictions for child sex offenders has not yet been adjudicated by any California court.

      Why the Fullerton City Council and City Attorney would mislead the public and repeal a law whose constitutionality has not yet been specifically adjudicated yet is troubling at best and morally sickening at worst!

      Quote

    • #6 by Anonymous on March 10, 2017 - 3:01 am

      You are one sick bitch. These fuckers need to be publicly executed. You fuck with children, you get to be tortured. Capish? Fuck you and your fucking sicko husband you vile cunt.

      Quote

    • #7 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???

      Quote

    • #8 by Barry Levinson on February 27, 2017 - 10:20 am

      I believe Anonymous is being sarcastic when stating he is in favor of allowing stalking and other serious actions against individuals to be allowed by society without any recourse for the innocent victims.

      Are freedoms do have limits. You can not scream fire in a crowded theatre.

      Question: How many times should society allow a pedophile to attack a child before putting that person behind bars for life?
      Is the answer one time, two times, three times or more?In the case of the person who inherited the house next door to me, Ca law allows a four time convicted child sex offense to be free to live his life with no restraints, no restrictions involving children. Should these monsters be given custody unsupervised in a divorce? Any judge who would grant that should be held accountable.

      Quote

    • #9 by Anonymous on February 27, 2017 - 7:19 pm

      it must be tough to play a ball game with you when you move the goalposts so quickly!

      Quote

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

      Answer: that is up to a judge to decide. Who is held accountable via the democratic process (re-election / re-call proceedings).

      If a repeat offender were clinically diagnosed with pedophilia or other parahilia and proven in a court proceeding to be a threat to society, he would have been civilly committed under WIC 6000.

      Question: how many times should society allow any criminal to victimize others before putting that person behind bars for life? A repeat drunk driver, wife beater, drug dealer, murderer, etc?

      Living next to you and whether you like it or not is not a consideration the judge should have to factor in his decision making.

      Now I am confused…. is this ordinance intended to protect children in parks, schools and day cares, or is it intended to get rid of the neighbor you loathe?

      Quote

    • #11 by Anonymous 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.

      Quote

    • #12 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.

      Quote

    • #13 by Anonymous on March 7, 2017 - 7:08 am

      You are incorrect. Please read Levinson’s responses to questions, below.

      Quote

    • #14 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?

      Quote

    • #15 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.

      Quote

    • #16 by Anonymous on March 7, 2017 - 7:15 am

      Obviously, you will open your mouth whenever you please, even when you are ignorant of the subject matter.

      How biased you are to pick this one issue, children preyed upon by adults.

      As I asked you before, of all the blatant denial of constitutional rights in this country, why are you so preoccupied with a one dealing with pedofilia?

      You won’t answer that, will you ?

      Quote

    • #17 by Anonymous on February 28, 2017 - 12:01 am

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

      Quote

    • #18 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.

      Quote
1 2 3 … 14
(will not be published)


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!