The Fullerton School District Refuses To Correct Their Erroneous Message To All District Families About The Impact Of The Repeal Of Fullerton Ordinance No. 3149 (The Child Sex Offender Residency Restriction Act).

  1. #1 by Barry Levinson on June 22, 2017 - 10:47 pm

    It is now two full days after I have appeared for the third time requesting that the FSD do the right thing by correcting their erroneous false assurances about the repeal of Ordinance No. 3149 (The Child Sex Offender Residency Restriction Act). Obviously after three appearances and several emails to Dr. Pletka providing all the necessary proof of the district’s erroneous message, I get total and complete silence from the FPD.

    Nor did anyone from the district address the egregious gutter mouth behavior by one of their own, Fullerton School Board Member Chris Thompson. Why have we as a nation gone from the first President’s fabled story that he could not tell a lie and admitting as a boy that he chopped down a cherry tree, to people in government, such as Superintendent Dr. Robert Pletka refusing to correct his erroneous message to the parents on the issue of child safety from convicted child sex offenders? Why would he refuse to correct the district message after it was proven to him beyond any doubt that his message was indeed grossly inaccurate and gave parents the false assurance that the ordinance being repealed had no impact on child safety in our community of Fullerton. I say shame on you Dr. Pletka and all the members of the Fullerton School Board. Your failure to address these two issues is a stain on the Fullerton School District.

  2. #2 by Barry Levinson on June 24, 2017 - 5:20 pm

    Question: Why is the FSD Superintendent Dr. Robert Pletka and the entire Fullerton School District board members remaining silent on this issue? Why would they continue not to correct the district’s own error. For they all know what was sent out to all FSD parents was a false assurance on Fullerton children’s safety as it relates to pedophiles.

    The district’s Mission Statement clearly states that part of the goal is to teach the children in as safe environment. So why won’t they correct their egregious error about the remaining protections from pedophiles after the repeal of Ordinance 3149?

    Is it that hard for them to tell the truth to the district’s parents. They failed in their fiduciary duty by putting out false information. Any district made up decent honorable people running it should obviously make that correction. They had no problem making a false statement that if they had done their homework prior to the announcement would have known was false. Now that they have absolutely no excuse to plead ignorance, they still remain silent. What kind of role models are the board, Dr. Pletka and his district team?

    I know one of the most important things I teach my son is to be honest. That is what people with decency and integrity strive to always do, be honest with themselves and others. To be honest with others is one way to show respect for others as lying to others is a clear sign of disrespect.

    I guess the old school ideals of honesty, truthfulness and being a good role model has been thrown overboard for more mundane goals such as each student having an iPad.

    As I have said before, character counts. So I am waiting for even one person out of the 9 or 10 people sitting on that dais to come forward and demonstrate some character as regards this very important issue.

  3. #3 by S. Dominguez on June 27, 2017 - 1:24 am

    Oh boy, someone just doesn’t know when to quit…

    For starters, it sure sounds to me like the message by the FSD was factually incorrect. In a public message, making a reference to a law that the highest court in the state just invalidated is totally lame.

    But so what? What do you want from them? A correction? An apology? Will that make you happy? What will change? Will the Fullerton school kids be any more or less safe because the district sent out a bad message? If so, how?

    And for that matter, I also believe that City Attorney Touchstone misspoke during the first repeal meeting when he referenced all 290 registrants. Again – so what?

    Fact of the matter is the CA Supreme Court ruled that blanket residency restrictions – even for those ON PAROLE, are violating the CA Constitution. Please, not again with “but a case for a blanket ban for a certain sub-set has not been adjudicated” – (big word, but nonsensical argument nevertheless). Because… yes it has. By stating, and I quote from in re. Taylor (p. 17/18) “the trial court concluded parole authorities retain the authority to impose special conditions on registered sex offender parolees that mirror the residency restrictions of section 3003.5(b), or are even more restrictive, as long as they are based on the specific circumstances of the individual parolee.” Key word here being INDIVIDUAL. Any restriction on a group by default is unconstitutional. THAT is what the highest court in the state decided. Does not matter if the offense was against a minor or an adult, committed on a rainy day or a sunny day, by a short or tall person, a black or white person… a blanket restriction on all 290 registrants or on a sub-set is unconstitutional. How is that difficult to comprehend?

    The City Attorney misspeaking is no reason to plunge the city into unnecessary, costly and certainly futile litigation. And litigation there would be, make no mistake about it. If I understand correctly, a contracted City Attorney can no longer invoice on a matter he recommended not to oppose. It would seem that City Attorney Touchstone should be all for taking this lawsuit on the chin and crank out loads of billable hours while basking in the lime light of child protector with 100% from you and your cohorts. That he did not, but recommended to repeal, speaks volumes to his ethics.

    Lastly, you keep asserting that the children of Fullerton are now less safe. How so? You yourself have reported the ordinance to be a success because it produced a lower number of registrants within city limits / banishes people from YOUR city. Again, real slow…. banishing certain people (not on parole) for the rest of their lives from residence in a jurisdiction may be swell for your property value, but it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not my words – the California Supreme Court’s.

    When it should be easy to support that this law increases public safety. How many cases of child sexual abuse were there by A) a person required to register under PC 290 for an offense againts a minor and B) at a school, park, playground or day care that was C) less than 2,000 feet distance from the perpertrator’s home (A, B and C must all apply)? For the specific time frames of a) before 2006 (before Jessica’s Law), between 2006 and 2010 (the “toothless” Jessica’s Law), and c} between 2010 and now (the “toothy” Jessica’s Law)? This should be easy to research. My best effort is 0, 0 and 0. So what gives?

    I tell you what gives. A few weeks after the Fullerton repeal, the City of Seal Beach did likewise. You were nowhere to be found at those City Council Hearings. You claim to have spent countless hours on child protection, driving up and down the entire state for Fullerton’s ordinance, but could not be bothered to make the 30 minute drive to Seal Beach City Hall to repeat your earlier testimony for those children’s safety. Yikes.

    So it is all about YOU and YOUR property. I trust your home is smack in the middle of the 2,000 buffer, as it was – or at least your unpopular neighbor’s property was – within the completely asinine buffer for the presence restriction that thankfully has bitten the dust quickly without much brouhaha. True or false?

    Surely this won’t be the end of it…. keep poking the bear. What I would love to see is how much money your absurd quest has cost the good tax paying residents of Fullerton. Can wasting public resources for individual benefit can be construed as Character?

  4. #4 by Barry Levinson on June 27, 2017 - 9:54 am

    S. Dominguez your comments shows how dangerous having a little knowledge can be in the public arena.

    My point over and over again was that the Fullerton Ordinance 3149 WAS NOT, I REPEAT WAS NOT A BLANKET RESIDENCY RESTRICTION AGAINST ALL SEX OFFENDERS BUT RATHER SPECIFICALLY A RESIDENCY RESTRICTION AGAINST ONLY CONVICTED PEDOPHILES, CHILD SEX OFFENDERS. That was and is the uniqueness of the Fullerton Law. I also stated over and over again before the city council and the city attorney that a residence restriction against only child sex offenders has never been adjudicated in any California court. As far as City Attorney Mr. Touchstone is concerned, when he was informed of his so-called mistake by saying incorrectly that the Fullerton Law impacted all sex offenders at city council and then chooses not to admit that so-called mistake, it then is no longer a mistake but a conscience decision to let a false statement by Mr. Touchstone concerning a Fullerton Ordinance stand without correction.

    I have spoken to experts on child sex offenders and to a convicted child sex offender as well. They both stated that there are two types of offenders.
    Those that acknowledge that what they do to children is wrong and attempt to stop their urge to reoffend and
    those that have no conscience and will reoffend as often as they can. The first group of offenders does everything in their power to keep themselves away from their sick temptation for children. They would never voluntarily live next to a school, park or day care center/pre-school. But the second group wants easy access to our kids. The Fullerton Law was intended to keep those offenders with no remorse for their crimes from living right next to large populations of their potential future victims.

  5. #5 by Fullerton's Conscience on June 27, 2017 - 11:18 am

    Why does it seem that topics relating directly to the safety and well-being of our children seems to get a lower response rate than other posts?

  6. #6 by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 - 9:48 pm

    moved to Napa with my wife and did alittle research about the State of our local schools. Its a mess. Same issues as we all know too well. The District just swept $12mm from their operating budget to pay for unfunded pensions – thats a huge number for this District and of course got my attention. Then they laid off dozens of newer teachers – as their revenue is flat or faltering because their performance against Statewide testing is abysmal and they can’t ” fill the seats” – as parents are taking their kids to private or charter schools. Meanwhile, the % of non English speaking kids overwhelm teaching resources and drags down net performance rankings at the expense of US kids’ education. And the cycle repeats itself. That said, we have many farmers here who need workers
    – but a massive % of these kids aren’t farming. Looking further, I found this nugget. Look at the % growth they expect to have taxpayers pay for the expected increased pensions over the next 5 years tp CALPERS and CALSTERS..its in the high teens and goes over 20% ANNUALLY.

    • #7 by Anonymous on August 12, 2017 - 11:25 am

      Layoffs have begun in LAUSD. Computers are taking over. The teaching profession is dead. All that will be left is the shell of a para military organization with a heirearchy similar to the Vatican.

  7. #8 by Anonymous on August 11, 2017 - 12:19 pm

    Why cant you get a job in FSD unless you speaka spanish? Build the wall now and deport these mofos! Chinga la raza.

(will not be published)

Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved. 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!