If you mean replacing “s*x O**ender” with Registered Person, Registrant, or Person Forced to Register when referring to the label placed on us, I agree. It doesn’t take long for whoever makes posts to do this.

I wish they’d go a step further and always add reference data when they make a post because news media quickly deletes articles or buries them behind paywalls; this means at times, I’ve had to rely on an FAC article instead of the source material but I have to jump through extra hoops to try to track down the original source as it was moved or deleted.. I know it seems like a hassle but when I write a reference, I add author (if available), “article name”, source of article, date, and weblink.)

For this page, for example:

Source: “CA: From Absurd to Insanity: Fresno’s War on Registrants Involved in City Council”. FAC, 3/18/26. https://floridaactioncommittee.org/ca-from-absurd-to-insanity-fresnos-war-on-registrants-involved-in-city-council/

“The Ralph M. Brown Act is a California law that guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. Located at California Government Code 54950 et seq., it is an act of the California State Legislature, authored by Assemblymember Ralph M. Brown and passed in 1953.” (I’m lazy and copy-pasted Wikipedia, but this was mentioned in the news story.)

CC:
Civil Rights Enforcement Section
Office of the Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Email: civilrights@doj.ca.gov

Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Email: crt@usdoj.gov
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel

American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)
Email: aclj@aclj.org

Reference: Hannah Gonzales, “Fresno Looks at Banning Sex Offenders from City Council Meetings,” Local Fresno News KSEE24/CBS47+, March 17, 2026

Dear Chairman and Members of the Fresno City Council,

I write to strongly oppose the proposed ordinance barring individuals listed on sex offender registries—who have completed their sentences and all supervision—from entering city facilities, including City Hall.

This proposal cuts against core constitutional principles. Individuals who have paid their debt to society remain citizens. The Constitution does not recognize second-class citizenship, nor does it permit government to exclude a class of people from access to their own government.

By prohibiting entry into City Hall, the ordinance directly interferes with fundamental rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including the right to petition government, attend public meetings, and participate in civic life. These are not privileges to be selectively granted—they are protected rights.

The ordinance also imposes a blanket restriction based solely on status, without any individualized assessment. It treats all registrants the same regardless of the nature of their offense, the time elapsed, or evidence of rehabilitation. That raises serious Equal Protection and Due Process concerns and resembles additional punishment after a sentence has already been served.

There is also a broader principle at stake—one this country has confronted before. In earlier periods of our history, entire classes of Americans were excluded from public spaces and meaningful civic participation, often under the justification of public safety or order. Black Americans were denied access to institutions and government spaces in ways that made their rights hollow in practice.

The issue here is not an equivalence of groups, but a similarity in method: the use of government authority to exclude a defined class of citizens from public institutions based on who they are rather than what they are doing. History has already shown that approach to be unjust and incompatible with equal protection under the law.

If allowed to stand, this ordinance sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door to broader exclusions—against other former offenders or any group deemed undesirable. That is not consistent with constitutional governance.

Finally, a system that denies full participation in civic life after a sentence is complete is not justice—it is perpetual punishment. That undermines rehabilitation, weakens communities, and erodes confidence in the rule of law.

I urge the Council to reject this ordinance and uphold the constitutional protections that apply to all citizens.
Respectfully,

Yes, Brevard County violated the Sunshine Act. But do they have a “Sunshine Act” in California?
It seems like this would blatantly violate the US constitution, right?

Claiming to be a living, breathing sovereign citizen doesn’t work.

We sued Brevard over this a few years ago and won.

WRITER’S DISCLAIMER
This document is commentary and opinion on civil law, constitutional rights, and oaths of office. It is not legal advice, not a factual claim about any specific person, and not intended to defame any agency or official. Its purpose is to encourage public understanding, independent research, and constitutional literacy.

“Congress shall make no laws respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GREVIENCES. “(capital letters mine).

This is how governments lose millions of dollars in lawsuits and cost the taxpayers they are “trying to protect” absurd amounts of money. Aside from attending the meetings, perhaps some enterprising soul who is on the registry in Fresno could obtain a press pass and see if the council would let them into the meeting.

But the question remains, what is it that this council is afraid of or is this part of a ruse to further take away the rights of citizens. After all, persons on the registry are easy targets. Who will be next? How about easy targets, such as felons who commit violent crimes (bank robbery, assault etc.). It gets a bit more difficult after that but banning all felons would be next. Then perhaps those with multiple arrests….and then those who dare speak up against those in power.

Remember this poem

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

History has shown us where all this leads and it does not end up in a pretty place.