HOW DOES A LAW PARTNER FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE PRESENTING AN AGENDA ITEM TO REPEAL FULLERTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 7.150 AND SWORN TO DEFEND THE LAWS OF AND WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MISREPRESENT THE KEY PART OF A LAW BEFORE THE FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL? By Barry Levinson


Barry Levinson

One of the most important duties of any local government is to keep its’ people safe.  Yet the action by our city council on February 7th, in my opinion, goes against that simple principal.  Back in September 2010 the FPD led by Captain Kevin Hamilton delivered a presentation and endorsement of Ordinance No. 3149, which was entered into the Fullerton Municipal Code as Section 7.150.

Kevin Hamilton

Now the presentation to repeal Ordinance No. 3149 and Municipal Code Section 7.150 was given by James Touchstone, a partner and Litigation Department Manager in the law firm of Jones and Mayer representing our outside City Attorney Dick Jones.

The City Council asked very few questions of Mr. Touchstone and did not seem to care that I pointed out that the presentation had misrepresentations in it.

The council did not appear to want to take the time to make sure they had the facts straight on a somewhat complicated issue as it relates to the already issued court cases here in the State of California.  They did not even get to this agenda item until almost 10 PM.  Certainly, it was too late for the two television stations that had interviewed me in hopes of making the 11:00 PM news deadline.

In my public comments, I made the point that our law specified having residency restrictions against only child sex offenders, not all sex offenders, which was the language of the laws being negatively affected by the California Courts.  The residency restriction of only child sex offenders has not yet been adjudicated in any California court.

Mr. Touchstone took exception with my comments.  He stated as follows:

“With respect, I must disagree with Mr. Levinson and his comments.  Specifically, I am looking at the language before you right now of our municipal code and it states that any sex offender is prohibited from residing within 2,000 feet of any school, park or day care center.”  What Touchstone failed to tell the City Council members was the definition of sex offender provided in the ordinance at 7.150.020H is as follows:

Sex offender means any person required by law to register with government entity as a sex offender for an offense against or involving a child or children, including, but not limited to, the California Sex Offender Registration Act, Penal Code section 290, et seq.”

Regardless of whether you believe Mr. Touchstone’s egregious error was by accident or intentional, it is imperative that the city attorney and the city council jointly correct the record as soon as possible.

Fitzgerald acting like Pontious Pilate washing her dirty hands of responsibility-deferring to a State legislature that for years, has turned its back on the children, including her darling hack Young Kim.

Further misleading the citizens of Fullerton, the City of Fullerton management and the FPD seem to have coordinated an effort to get out this incorrect message concerning the repeal of this Fullerton Ordinance at Section 7.150 of the Fullerton Municipal Code.  I along with all other parents within the Fullerton School District received a very misleading message from them by recorded phone text message as well as by email as follows: *

“Fullerton School District is aware of the repeal by the Fullerton City Council of municipal codes regarding sex offender residency and other similar restrictions. The District Superintendent (Dr. Robert Pletka) has been in discussion with and will continue to work with the Fullerton Interim City Manager on the implication of this change in City Code. Meanwhile, please be aware that state law remains in place, which include residency restrictions prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regular gather. There is no change in the enforcement of these laws.”

FSD’s Pletka seated to the right of FSD Trutsee Thompson

As a Laguna Road parent, I explained to our schools’ PTA the following:  that the above message was very misleading; and the assurance given that state law “remains in place, which includes residency restrictions” is not an accurate and complete description of reality in Fullerton after the actions just taken by our City Council 5 to 0 vote to repeal and remove our Child Sex Offender Ordinance No. 3149.

The state law, which they are referring to, Proposition 83 known as Jessica’s Law, passed with over 70% of the people of California voting for it in November of 2006. However, it was the lack of penalties attached to this state law, which caused my wife Susan and myself to spearhead the Fullerton Ordinance.** Except for certain parolees and those on probation (both temporary situations), no convicted child sex offender could be arrested and charged for violating the above residency restriction under Proposition 83. I learned this fact from none other than the Fullerton Police Department back in February 2010. Now seven years later the FPD have issued their own official written statement on the City of Fullerton website dated February 9, 2017, with a similar assurance to the Fullerton public to not worry because we are covered by this very flawed state law. This public written statement directly from the FPD is very disturbing and troubling. Did the department that informed me of the huge deficiency in the law back in 2010 suddenly have amnesia?

Here is the article written under the FPD section of its website, entitled “Behind the Badge” by Lou Ponsi as follows:

Lou Ponsi

“The Fullerton City Council this week repealed a section of the city’s municipal code section pertaining to residency restrictions for sex offenders. Pending litigation has found the municipal code to be unconstitutional.” (I was not aware that Mr. Lou Ponsi writing this article for the FPD, has the power to speak for the California Judiciary when the specifics of the Fullerton Ordinance to limit the law to only Child Sex Offenders has not yet been specifically addressed or adjudicated in the courts. Needless to say I have to point out the outrageousness of Mr. Ponsi’s assertion here representing the FPD.)  He continues: “The Fullerton Police Department wants resident’s to know that a state law that establishes residency restriction and prohibits sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather, remains firmly in place.”

Firmly in place with no authority to uphold the law due to a total lack of penalties for violating the residency restrictions for any convicted child sex offenders who are no longer on parole or probation, which are the majority of child sex offenders living in the city.

Do you believe these words representing the official position of the Fullerton Police Department were an innocent error or the deliberate attempt to mislead and fool the public? It is my belief that this was an intentional act by our FPD to state that the residency restrictions covered in Ord. 3149 is still covered completely by Jessica’s Law.

Just when you think our City Government and our FPD can’t possibly do something to lower their reputations, they do something like this…. Namely take away a safeguard for our children with a unanimous 5 to 0 vote and then the FPD justify it with statements above that on its face do not hold up to any scrutiny.

This was a well thought out law. When people ask how many have been arrested based on this law, I believe they are asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is how many pedophiles decided not to reside in Fullerton based on the more stringent laws on the books in our city. Statistics provided back in 2014 showed that Fullerton had one of the lowest percentages of sex offenders living in our city compared to surrounding cities.

I WANT TO ASK EVERYONE TO COME TO THE NEXT FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NEXT TUESDAY, FEB. 21 AT 6:30 PM TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 3149 AT THE SECOND READING OF THE MOTION TO REPEAL IT! TELL OUR PHONY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE MORE CONCERN FOR OUR INNOCENT CHILDREN THAN FOR CONVICTED CHILD PEDOPHILES!

* Please note that I assume this message was sent to all parents of school children throughout the entire FSD, not just Laguna Road School as it was directly from the Fullerton School District.

** I tried unsuccessfully in 2010 and then in 2014 to get our California legislators to back a simple fix of Jessica’s Law by adding penalties to the law. I could not get one of them to help me.  Please believe me that I called numerous state representatives including my local representative in 2014, Sharon Quirk Silva and Bob Huff and got the same disappointing non-response from them.

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Fullerton's Conscience on February 21, 2017 - 10:02 am

    Question: Why don’t the 5 city council members have a conscience?

    • #2 by Sarah Dominguez on February 27, 2017 - 11:23 pm

      Oh but they do. It is called following good sense and logic. More importantly, it is called adhering to the Constitution of the State of California, as ruled on by the California Supreme Court.

  2. #3 by Fullertons toast on February 21, 2017 - 11:55 am

    Kudos to Barry for his continued effort to try and keep our children away from sick monsters. Folks, are City Council has been a joke for years and are being bought at every corner and every back alley. When will enough be enough for these individuals that pollute our town with alcohol and drugs and continue to overdevelop our town. Our roads are a four letter word with an ed at the end. Our sewer system is in ruins, forcing iPads and wifi radiation exposure to our kids daily. A corrupt police department with a budget being overspent to patrol downtown Fullerton from Thursday thru Sunday and response time for citizens calls for help is aweful, if they even show up. Wake up Fullertonians your City has become a joke.

  3. #4 by Barry Levinson on February 22, 2017 - 2:03 pm

    The Five Frauds And Total Phonies Who Serve on the Fullerton City Council – Mayor Bruce Whitaker, Council member Jennifer Fitzgerald, Council member Greg Sebourn, Council member Doug Chaffee and Council member Jesus Silva.

    With the approval of the second reading of the repeal of our Child Sex Offender Residency Restriction Ordinance 3149, they were on the side of pedophiles and not our children.

    The Council made sure that this consent item did not come up until the wee hours of the morning, after 12 midnight. Not a time that is conducive to citizen participation. They planned it that way!

    God have mercy on their souls. But if not, then Lucifer will be anxiously awaiting their arrivals!! And City Attorneys, Dick Jones and Jim Touchstone will also be welcomed by Lucifer with open arms!!

    • #5 by Sarah Dominguez on February 23, 2017 - 6:18 pm

      The overwhelming majority of these people are home owners, renters, workers, business owners, tax payers, community members. They are not roaming their own neighborhoods like packs of rabid dogs looking to snatch a child from a playground, park or school. Many of them have families, including children. What about those children?

      These ordinances violate the Constitution and hurt children.

      Mr. Levinson – why do you hate America? Why do you hate children?

      • #6 by Joe Imbriano on February 25, 2017 - 11:18 am

        These pedophiles violate the Constitution and destroy children, not the ordinance.

        • #7 by Sarah Dominguez on February 25, 2017 - 7:10 pm

          How so? A person required to PC 290 is NOT necessarily a pedophile. Please cite evidence to the contrary.

          Even so, how would residency by such a person – so diagnosed -violate the CA or US Constitutions? Or DESTROY children? Please be specific. Thanks in advance.

          • #8 by Sarah Dominguez on February 25, 2017 - 7:11 pm

            *A person required to register pursuant to PC 290 is NOT necessarily*

            pls. correctt

        • #9 by Sarah Dominguez on February 27, 2017 - 11:55 pm

          These people (the least amount of whom are diagnosed pedophiles) have broken State or Federal law. That is without question. So has every other criminal.

          The City of Fullerton is violating the Constitution every day that this ordinance is active.

          Child killers / murderers destroy children. Kind of “funny” that this ordinance does not apply to them in the least.

          • #10 by Anon on March 8, 2017 - 8:27 pm

            Whose to say those that actually wrote the constitution would have ever thought that it would be taken to defend the rights of those that have hurt others, especially children. Back then it was probably just assumed that the rights were to upright citizens and upright citizens only. Wish we could dig them up and hear their thoughts so they could bury this once and for all. Just a guess, but Sarah’s interpretation probably would have been automatically judged ludicrous.

            • #11 by Anonymous on March 13, 2017 - 10:11 pm

              Pornographers use the Constitution to defend their business ventures. The Constitution is useless when the population is immoral.

      • #12 by Barry Levinson on February 27, 2017 - 4:47 pm

        Sarah claims that pedophiles are just like you and me. Then she claims I hate children and America. Wow. There is absolutely no set of facts and no logical argument I could make that would bring Sarah back down to earth. Sarah how many pedophiles have you taken in to live under your roof?

        • #13 by Sarah Dominguez on February 27, 2017 - 11:44 pm

          @Barry Levinson – first of all, it is not a crime to suffer from the mental disorder known as “pedophilia”. Please look up the term. I suggest the DSM-V. If you find the term anywhere in the California Penal Code, please cite the section. A very small portion of California 100,000 290 registrants are diagnosed with pedophilia.

          Your quest to affect LAW without knowing (or perhaps with the full knowledge of and ignorance of the law) is unconscionable. Your incendiary mis-use of a mental health term for effect in legal matters is embarrassing.

          I do not know who lives in my neighborhood. Chances are there is no shortage of drunk drivers, wife beaters, drug dealers, murderers. Why should I have a say in that? Why should you?

          Second of all, please cite the facts. Just HOW MANY children, every day, every week, every year, are abused IN a place considered a protected location (school, park, day care) AND by someone required to register AND who could not be bothered to WALK LESS THAN 5 minutes (2,000 feet) from his front door?

          HOW MANY? In the past year? In the past 10 years? What exactly are you trying to accomplish with your ordinance? Except get rid of people you find undesirable?

          You wanting to dictate who lives in your neighborhood / city simply does not fly. The California Supreme Court has said so (in re Taylor). Your continued agitation is nothing but unconstitutional.

          Willingly violating the Constitution (US and CA) is un-american. Banishing the children of over 100,000 California residents from the City of Fullerton, and all it has to offer these innocent children, is unconscionable.

          Yes, please “bring me down to earth” with a “set of facts” that supports your position. Because you have not done so. Not in 2010, and not last week. Except in 2010 the CC and FPD gobbled up your hysteria, while now they are bound by sanity of the California Supreme Court decision.

          Checks and Balances is what this country is all about. Perhaps you missed that in Civics 101.

  4. #14 by Anonymous on February 24, 2017 - 11:19 am

    Why would the Fullerton city Council and City Attorney be in such a rush to repeal our specific law that has not yet been tested in the Ca. courts?

    It seems that they are intentionally and willfully protecting pedophiles.

    It is bad enough that our city council has proven to be both corrupt and inept repeatedly but to go out of their way to help protect perverts who want to harm our children irreparably demands our condemnation.

    A city that will not protect its children is a city in decline.

    No one can ever claim now that Fullerton is a family friendly city. But we certainly can claim that it is a pedophile friendly city.

    • #15 by Sarah Dominguez on February 27, 2017 - 11:51 pm

      The ordinance was found to violate the CA Constitution in 2015! Repealing it in 2017 is hardly ‘rushed’. In any event, they were ‘helped’ by a pending law suit. A law suit that the City Attorney sees no chance of winning. Are you willing to put large sums of tax payer money at risk to support Mr. Levinson’s supposed ‘right’ to pick his neighbors? Not me, no thank you.

      I am not arguing that the Fullerton City Council is not corrupt or inept. But in this case they simply had no choice but to intentionally and willingly follow the decision by the CA Supreme Court. Because no one wants to claim that Fullerton is a city that violates the Constitution and wastes tax payer monies. Do you?

    • #16 by Anonymous on March 20, 2017 - 2:56 pm

      They are. Hughes going to work for Disney, and the repeal of this law are tied together. Did you know Hughes gave the orders to not give Felz a breathalyzer when he ran into the tree on election night? Felz is friends with a known sex offender.

  5. #17 by Fullerton Resident on February 28, 2017 - 2:26 pm

    This issue will not go away. It will be the downfall of all 5 council members if and when they seek higher office.

    Jennifer Fitzgerald “Loves Fullerton” or so she likes to say but does not Love Fullerton’s children. She already proved to us by her hurtful and very insensitive remarks that she has not love or protect Autistic children

    Mayor Bruce Whitaker allowed City Attorney Jim Touchstone to not answer the specific points raised by Mr. Levinson and others and then thanked him for answering the questions raised. Very dishonest of you Mayor Whitaker hiding behind and endorsing a City Attorney false narrative. That sir is pure evil!

    The extremely pompous Doug Chaffee claimed our law was unconstitutional. Since when does Chaffee speak for a majority of the California Supreme Court before they speak on the specifics of our Fullerton law themselves. Another council member all to willing to make our children less safe.

    And then you have Greg Sebourn being quiet on the issue altogether. Way to go Greg! Once again your performance on the dais underwhelms us.

    And last but not least you have Jesus Silva stating that he will have his wife Sharon Quirk Silva look into it. Hey Jesus, why did she not look into it during her previous term in office.

    Not one member of the City of Fullerton government; not one council member, not our Mayor, not our Interim City Manager or our interim Police Chief would stand up for our children.

  6. #18 by Disgusted in Fullerton on March 1, 2017 - 11:31 am

    I agree with Fullerton Resident’s comments above. It is a very sad day that council members make statements they know are false in supporting their ill-advised votes.

    True leaders have courage and integrity. When was the last time any of you can remember when any council member displayed true leadership? I for one can’t think of a single instance when any of them acted like true leaders.

  7. #19 by A Sad Commentary on our City Council on March 4, 2017 - 11:41 am

    Fullertonians your kids were made less safe for purely political and not constitutional reasons. The council last year voted for huge raises for both the police and fire departments that will increase our budget by approximately 50 million dollars or more over the next 10 years. Now we learn at the budget meetings that the city is looking for up to a 12 million dollar shortfall in the coming years. This resident is not at all surprised and nor should any council member. After all they are the ones who set in motion this future large shortfall in our city budget.

    Yet the supposed concern about the future cost to defend a very good law, which could cost 10 to 100 hundred thousand to defend (successfully in my opinion) was a price that the city council thought was to big to take on. Instead they pay out 5 thousand to cover the cost of a convicted child sex offender who has filed 17 law suits against various municipalities including Fullerton. It is easy to see, which groups the city council truly represents and it is certainly not our kids!

    But it is sad that some activists get more riled up about a new apartment building than they do about the safety and welfare of children. In fact those that are behind the charge for the referendum on Oak Tree Development were in attendance when the repeal of our Child Sex Offender Ordinance was on the Agenda. None of them spoke out for the children.

(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!