«
»

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).


This entry was posted on June 22, 2017, 9:57 am and is filed under Are they turning their backs on the children?. 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 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?

    Reply Quote
1 2 3 4 5 … 7
(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!