ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Next Call: June 14 (California Tiered Registry Bill – SB 421)
Conference Call Recordings Online (May 10 call uploaded)
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q2: 6/16-17 in LA (Conference) [details], Q3: 7/15 in Berkeley [details]

CaliforniaGeneral NewsJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: IML – Court Denies Request for Preliminary Injunction

Today the dragon won.  That is, the federal government was given permission to continue its implementation of the International Megan’s Law (IML).

The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California denied our Motion for Preliminary Injunction which attempted to stop the government’s addition of a Scarlet letter to the passports of American citizens as well the government’s notifications to foreign countries that citizens intend to travel there.

The court’s denial was based, in part, upon the legal concept of ripeness.  That is, whether the issue was ready (or ripe) for judicial review.

The court declared it was not.  Why?  Because the federal government has not yet determined the appearance or placement of a “conspicuous unique identifier” on a passport.  In making this declaration, the court avoided the broader issue of whether any identifier placed on any part of a passport could pass constitutional muster.

The court’s denial was also based, in part, upon the legal concept of standing.  That is, whether the plaintiffs in the case have identified a “certainly impending” future injury caused by the IML.

The court declared they have not.  Why?  Because any injury that plaintiffs suffered could not be traceable to the IML.  In making this declaration, the court failed to consider the harm already done to plaintiffs in this case as well as to thousands of others including the inability to live with one’s spouse, assist an elderly parent or conduct lawful business overseas.

Although today’s decision was not unexpected, it is disappointing.  It is one more decision in which a court ignores empirical evidence and relies instead upon myths.

The big picture is this.  Today the dragon won.  Tomorrow we fight again.  Our challenge to the IML will continue.

Decision

Read all of Janice’s Journal

Related Media articles

Judge won’t block passport marker law involving sex crimes  –  ABC News

Too Soon to Fight Sex Offender Passport Mark (Courthouse News)

Judge tosses out challenge to sex offender passport law (SF Chronicle)

 

 

Join the discussion

  1. Friend of RSOL

    Horrible, just horrible. The analogy of the dragon is apt. In Christian symbolism, the dragon represents the devil. It seems as though the devil himself is energizing lawmakers and the federal government. And the most pathetic thing is some (not all – many are simply cynical) believe that they are doing good.

    What is also twisted is that courts seem to argue from petty points of law instead of greater principles. Upholding the Constitution has been reduced to nitpicking at fine points – straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

    Somehow, biblical metaphors seem to apply here. David and Goliath, etc. etc.

    My overall impression of the judge was that she was uninformed and misinformed, like the majority of people in this country. As you said, they are building upon precedents of myths and lies. Untangling this mess needs a multi-pronged approach – PR, education, RC involvement and organizing, legal coalitions, whatever we can muster up.

    • Rocky

      Right, because god really cares who wins the war…”not”. But I don’t doubt that our conservative’s actions are motivated by their religious beliefs.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Rocky, actually, much of all the sex offender crap has been imposed by the Democrats and moderates – gee, it went nationwide under Bill Clinton’s administration and Attorney General Janet Reno, not a Republican conservative. Obama imposed this notice crap years back, and it wasn’t done via legislation then, it was done by executive power, and he isn’t considered a conservative. The California Legislature had added tons of crap onto registration, and it is overwhelmingly Democrat.

        • Erwin

          You’re quite wrong
          If you look at the places where most RSO residency ordinances have popped up, it’s mostly in red Midwestern & southern states. Here in my state Wisconsin, more harsh penalties for sex offenses & laws against where RSO’s can live have went into overkill ever since GOP took control of the governorship & assembly in 2010.
          On the other hand, New England blue states have the least restrictions for RSO’s. Pennsylvania courts have also overturned local ordinances. The state of New York may have longer registration periods, but at least they no longer have the residency ordinances except for the worst violent offenders. In addition, level one offenders in the state of NY aren’t listed on the public website. A California court has also overturned local RSO ordinances. However, Sharon Runner, a state republican senator, is on a crusade to put those ordinances back in place. A republican lawmaker Christopher Smith is the creator of this latest bill that ups the restrictions on International Meagan’s Law. You may have some libertarian minded states with small populations like SD that don’t have harsh laws against RSO’s but that would change very rapidly once a politician decides to exploit the issue. For instance Arizona for a long time has hidden level one offenders from their public registry. But that’s about to chance rapidly with GOP Sen. John Kavanagh’s bill to make public the names & pictures of previously omitted level offenders. And I’m willing to bet you the AZ GOP controlled assembly will let that bill sail thru & be signed by the governor.
          ……yes both parties have pandered to the sex offender hysteria but the GOP has pandered way more. For what it’s worth, RSO’s are basically on their own & the few friends and allies they do find tend be among liberal, some libertarian minded people as well as family members

          • David Kennerly

            Well, you’re both right and you’re both wrong.

            The sex offender hysteria has gone through a number of phases which overlapped the risings-and-fallings of the fortunes of both dominant political parties.

            Both parties, at various times, have taken the lead in the war against sex offenders, starting perhaps with Walter Mondale (a Democrat) more than forty years ago which is the approximate starting point for the current hysteria which rages still.

            However, it was then a political landscape with far greater cross-party support for such things as “child abuse” which, at that time, had not yet seen “sexual abuse” come to completely dominate all discussion of “child abuse” to the exclusion of non-sexual abuse, as it has now.

            Back then, the efforts were more likely to be bipartisan than the most recent efforts of IML in which the Republicans have clearly been the driving force, but Democrats and, most particularly Bill Clinton and his Democratic supporters in Congress, were quite terrible for us, too. Still, that was very much more of a bipartisan effort than today.

            It is very difficult to separate out the naked political motivations for anti-sex offender legislation from the ideological ones.

            Republicans are more likely to derive their hatred of us from the Bible while Democrats’ beliefs are more likely to have been forged in the cauldron of unchallenged feminist dogma which has come to be central to a contemporary humanistic credo.

            The truth is that neither party has been kind to us and neither should be counted as our friends. Indeed, they really hate us a whole lot.

            And that’s the point: these laws have come into place precisely because the dominant political forces have found them to be equally useful, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama no less than George Bush (either one of them) or Chris Smith.

            This makes having a favorite political party, for us, a pretty futile and silly exercise.

            As Tom Lehrer once said in a song: “And everyone hates the Jews”.

            We’re the “Jews”.

            • Erwin

              You make some good points but we have to agree to disagree. Republican Jim Sensenbrenner is the person who introduced the Adam Walsh bill in 2006 under George Bush.

              Yes, Megan’s Law & Jacob Wetterling were part Bill Clinton’s anti-crime bill in ’94 but remember that’s when the GOP took the control of the House. So Clinton in his “triangulation” efforts worked with the new incoming GOP freshman. I’m not making any excuses for Clinton who did pander to victim’s rights groups but my main point is to look at what’s happening on the state level.

              Let’s be honest. Would you rather get convicted of a sex offense in a red state like Alabama or Florida or a blue liberal state like Massachusetts? It could mean the difference between getting probation or serving a life sentence just for getting caught with CP. Florida is really harsh. Plus blue New England & Northeastern states have in effect threw out local RSO ordinances. SORNA & Adam Walsh ultimately depend on what the states do with it

              • David Kennerly

                “Let’s be honest. Would you rather get convicted of a sex offense in a red state like Alabama or Florida or a blue liberal state like Massachusetts? ”

                Well, I think that’s a different issue. It goes to the retributive vs. rehabilitative models of punishment which do align more along conservative and liberal lines.

                So, of course, I would not wish to be in a Southern, bible-beating state. However, having said that, Massachusetts, said to be one of the most “liberal” states, has ghastly prison conditions for sex offenders. Many have been murdered and beaten there with the complicity of staff. What’s more, they continue to convict individuals using such discredited theories as “recovered memory”, critical to the conviction of Paul Shandley who languishes in their dungeons to this day. Recovered memory is more of an artifact of feminism, by the way.

                There have been several out-and-out witch hunts in Massachusetts such as “Fells Acres” and the personal destruction of Bernard Baran. Martha Coakley, a “liberal” and a feminist, was responsible for prosecuting the Amiraults in one such witch hunt.

                California, a “liberal” state, has a long history of prosecutorial misconduct in sex cases, as you know, perhaps most notoriously the McMartin Preschool case and also the Kern County travesties.

                Janet Reno, a Clinton appointee and a “liberal” was responsible for similar career-making prosecutions, such as of Frank Fuster and 14-year-old Bobby Fijnje while Florida State Attorney.

                But all of that is apart from the lengths of sentences and the more fundamental shift in sex offense legislation, both at the state and federal levels.

                I would give only the slightest edge to the Democrats here as a less-responsible party. Really, I find it almost indiscernible when examining such things as sentence length and the sheer proliferation of criminal sexual laws.

                My greater point is that the juggernaut would not have been possible without the broad-based support of, and the drift towards authoritarianism in, both parties over a period of forty years.

                This is why this issue is best framed in terms of authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian rather than Republican vs. Democrat. The trend in both parties has been towards authoritarianism.

          • Mallory

            And just to stir the pot a little more, our elected politicians are only doing what we, the people, elected them to do. They are a reflection of the majority of their constituents. And if we were all honest, we would admit that before we got embroiled in this issue, before either we or our loved ones learned all about the registry and what it does, we favored “law and order” government also. Think way back…before…if one politician said he would make tougher laws to protect children from predators and his opponent said that he thought laws against those called predators were too harsh already and he wanted to show some leniency, which one would you more likely have voted for? Be honest. Perspectives change on the other side of the fence.

            • Timmr

              There was about 30% who didn’t approve of Jessica’s Law and I think 20% who didn’t approve of prop. 35. I probably got them backwards, but I think I am close enough to say about a quarter of the population does not go along with endless punishment of people once convicted of sex crimes. That percentage would probably be higher if the public knew more about how this is affecting us and our families, the cost and the lack of results, basically had information about what is going on. I remember, I was not a tough on crime type of guy, a bleeding heart liberal is what they called us, although I admit I was greatly ignorant of what was really going on until I entered the system.

      • Frank

        For the most part Rocky, I believe that the real followers of God are a compassionate group of people. I honestly think its a group of the far far right wing radicals who you are thinking of.

        There has been such a brainwashing of the mainstream of society, that you can’t nail it down to any one group now. I find that much of our punishment is coming directly from the Liberals equally with the more Right ideology.

        And these lawmakers will go to the ends of the earth to buy votes. Many are looking at a 4 or 6 year stint, and they receive a lifetime of income as a result. Many don’t read the “Bills”, and many times they don’t even discuss what’s in them before they vote on them. Those willing to continue to punish and the louder they get, the more I believe they have something to hide as well.

        It’s a very stressful life we live. We need to live clean, accept our mistakes and hope and pray that cooler heads will eventually prevail.

        • American Detained in America

          I’d have to agree completely. The church I attended while on parole was very supportive, and the church I now attend is as well. My current pastor was molested as a child by a catholic priest and yet he knows my situation and is very understanding and non-judgmental. He sees me as he does anyone else, someone who isn’t perfect and needed grace just like everyone else. I’ve probably told over 100 Christians of my standing as a registered citizen and why and not a single one has chosen to judge me or be prejudice against me.

          The problem isn’t Christians and those who do not believe, conservative or liberal. The problem is people believe the loudest voice and so far that has come from those who persecute us for their own gain, whether political or monetary.

    • PK

      “My overall impression of the judge was that she was uninformed and misinformed, like the majority of people in this country. As you said, they are building upon precedents of myths and lies. Untangling this mess needs a multi-pronged approach – PR, education, RC involvement and organizing, legal coalitions, whatever we can muster up.”

      How could this Judge be uninformed?

      Janice’s Complaint and Preliminary Injunction explained everything in great detail.
      Any 10th Grader could see the differences between Janice’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the Government’s Response. They had no response, except for to recite the facts about the Sex Offender Registry.

      You mentioned that the Judge was building upon precedent, myths and lies.
      I don’t see anywhere where this Judge relied upon any previous case or precedent.

      “Untangling this mess needs a multi-pronged approach – PR, education, RC involvement and organizing, legal coalitions, whatever we can muster up”.
      Who is going to do all that? education, PR etc? NOBODY.
      I thought they already tried to get a “legal coalition” and no other legal firm was interested.

      My prediction is that this case could possibly take from 6 to 8 years to be resolved.

      “whatever we can muster up” I’m not mustering anything up, but getting the hell out of the United States and staying out! FOR F******** EVER.

      • Friend of RSOL

        The judge was uninformed about Angel Watch. She assumed that there was a law in place that authorized it. There is no such law. She also made comparisons (somehow, and I’m not sure why, since it doesn’t seem relevant), with the Mann Act, way back when – 1916, I think? In both of these instances, she also made an appeal to precedent. I’m not saying there is a legitimate precedent for either the notifications or the passport stamp – just that she thinks she is relying on precedent.

        The sex offender registry itself is a precedent based on myths and lies, and she relied on that as well.

        Regarding PR, education, etc. People are trying. A few activists and writers exist- journalists, human rights activists, sex offender specialists, and a few lawyers here and there. And there is CARSOL and its counterparts – and for what it is worth, that’s something. Otherwise, we have to just give up. Those of us who can’t get out are essentially screwed otherwise, and short of suicide, we need to do whatever we can. Bullies pick on people who can’t fight back.

        If I can get out, I will.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Another reason the judge might have wanted to wait to see what is proposed for the identifier is what I said in a previous comment in the original thread: It might not necessarily be visible to the eye, it might be part of the RFID chip on the passport card. And if it is, it would seem this judge will have no problem with it, but it still will get you denied entry to other countries.

          That’s what I have been pointing out too, that it is the information being sent that is far more dangerous than the identifier – they will be contacting the state and the police department where you register and getting all the criminal background info on you (and in the process notifying those agencies) — and what reason would there be other than to send it. That info alone will get you denied entry, even if the additional notice is not sent for your offense. I still think this lawsuit is too limited. I’m afraid even if we wink e are still going to be denied entry to other countries, and when the Feds and state and even locals are notified and take a close look at you, you better hope they don’t find some excuse to come after you — its none of their business that we might be taking a little trip, and that notice to them is also wrong, there is no justification for it.

          These details are easy to overlook. The devil is always in the details.

    • Matt

      The judge made a decision to not make a decision…..Pass the buck; kick the can down the road; etc. Just like everybody in power does. No standing. We don’t know yet, so we can’t make a decision. This should be no surprise to anybody. Every once in a while, we see people in power take a stand for what’s reasonable. But that’s rare. This argument was to stop something similar to a policy adopted by NAZI GERMANY! And it failed. The FBI calls that, “A clue.”

  2. TG

    So, what is the next step?

    Also, I have six years left on my passport. Does anyone know if I can I use it until it expires?

    • PK

      I would use it with caution TG.

      • TG

        PK, why do you say that?

        • PK

          What do you mean, what do you mean? Because they’re going to revoke it!
          Nobody knows when, and I’m sure they’re not going to make some huge announcement.

    • Paul

      I think you can use up until the time they revoke it.

      What you need to be more concerned about is predeparture notification! 21 days in advance. Who do you provide that notice to, and how do you provide it? Currently, there is no method providing the scheme (currently, there’s no state law mandating it). But just make sure you provide that notice! Even if you can’t provide that notice, just make sure it gets done!

      Welcome to our world!

      • Anon

        I don’t know how other states are doing it, but PA, which is a SORNA-compliant state, requires that the notice be given at the same place and in the same manner in which normal status updates are made, which for us is the state police, for the most part. The state police process feeds a central database, where the “real” compliance monitoring is handled. This centralized division of the state police notifies the U.S. Marshals, so the registered person’s job is done when he reports the information at the usual place.

        Also, if you look at the U.S. Marshals’ site where it deals with this matter, the language they use appears to be aimed at jurisdiction authorities and not individuals, so it seems to me that the registrant’s duty is complete upon reporting the intended travel to the usual authority.

        • PK

          Hi I don’t live in PA and I’m not reporting ANYTHINGGGGG

          Soon I will be leaving here FOREVERRRRRR

      • Allen W

        I was wondering who do I notify too… I found the answer. You notify the office where you register. I live in Washington state. Washington state didn’t opt into the AWA act because they already are more strict. In RCW 9A.44.130 Registration of sex offenders and Kidnapping offenders, it says; (3) Any person required to register under this section who intends to travel outside the United States must provide, by certified mail, with return receipt requested, or in person, Signed written notice of the plan to travel outside the country to the county sheriff of the county with whom the person is registered at lease twenty-one days prior to travel. The notice shall include the following information: (a) Name; (b) passport number and country; (c) Destination; (d) itinerary details including departure and return dates; (e) means of travel; and (f) purpose of travel. If the offender subsequently cancels or postpones travel outside the United States, the offender must notify the county sheriff not later than three days after cancellation or postponement of the intended travel outside the United States or on the departure date provided in the notification, whichever is earlier. The county sheriff shall notify the United States marshals service as soon as practicable after receipt of the notification. In cases of unexpected travel due to family or work emergencies, or for offenders who travel routinely across international borders for work-related purposes, the notice must be submitted in person at least twenty-four hours prior to travel to the sheriff of the county where such offenders are registered with a written explanation of the circumstances that make compliance with this subsection (3) impracticable.

        • PK

          This was all discussed in great detail, on this very blog, back in February when this Law was enacted.

  3. PK

    I’m confused about the Judge’s argument:

    “Since the marker provision has not yet gone into effect, deciding whether to block it over constitutional issues would be premature” so therefore it is not yet ripe.

    However, “Hamilton also rejected a request to block the notification provision, saying federal authorities were already notifying countries when sex offenders travel there”.
    Isn’t that part ripe enough?

  4. steve

    So what does this mean. We need to challenge pre-existing notification law, which actually isn’t a law.

    “Because plaintiffs are not challenging the pre-existing notification provisions, they have not shown that an alleged injury resulting from implementation of the IML would be redressable. Further, any injury that plaintiffs might be asserting relating to such notifications would not be fairly traceable to the IML, and cannot be said to be “certainly impending.” In light of these facts, the court finds that plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success on the notification claim.”

  5. anon

    We should have a passport burning event !

    • Renny

      Now THAT is a good idea! They are useless anyway.

      I tried to sell mine on eBay, but they took it down.

  6. Mike

    Does Janice’s lawsuit clearly target the notification process with its language of the RC is likely to commit a crime in the foreign country? It is very clear that we need to go on an aggressive campaign to grow each state’s memberships of RSOL groups. The longer that we wait, the more ridiculous laws will be passed. We need more members and a lot more money to not only file lawsuits but maybe more importantly, to promote a PR campaign where facts are emphasized so that even Federal judges have a clue. This judge seems to already have her mind made up as to the merits of the case. Either that or she is gutless.

    • PK

      Yea, so I’m guessing that this case would be decided by this Judge, not a Jury correct?

      Is there any way to switch Judges?

      I think Janice needs a Team of Lawyers to help her on this.

  7. brunello

    Does anybody know if there is any kind of precise legal definition for the standard “certainly impending” that the judge used? IMHO nothing in human affairs can be said to be predictable with absolute certainty. So is there, say somewhere in case law, a notion of how closely to 100% certain something can come to merit the word “certainly” in a legal sense? I know this sounds nit-picky but a few weeks ago the SCOTUS justices were arguing about the plain meaning of some words and phrases in a law. Shouldn’t she have used “likely” rather than “certainly”?

  8. Chris F

    Wait, what??? I read the decision and don’t understand this part:

    ***
    However, at the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that plaintiffs would not
    oppose the passport identifier “if it were limited to [those with] convictions for child
    trafficking and tourism.” In other words, plaintiffs do not necessarily seek to enjoin the
    entire passport identifier provision. Plaintiffs’ counsel reiterated that the purpose of the
    IML was to address child sex trafficking, which she asserted was not what her clients
    were convicted of and not what resulted in their being required to register as sex
    offenders.

    For these reasons, the court finds that the claim regarding the passport identifier is
    not yet ripe for resolution. The consequence for purposes of the present motion is that
    plaintiffs cannot clearly articulate which acts they seek to have enjoined, or why.
    Accordingly, plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success on the passport identifier claim.
    ***

    The judge makes it sound like the law may not apply to the plaintiffs once everything is finalized, but it does as long as they were convicted of a sex offense against a minor.

    Questions:
    1) Were the plantiffs convicted of a sex offense against a minor???

    2) If someone is given deferred adjudication and probation but is a registered sex offender and the original charge involved a child, do they get the passport identifier and is Angel Watch notifying other countries too even though they were not convicted???

    The IML states “Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction qualify as covered sex offenders for purposes of this provision”

    • PK

      ***
      However, at the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that plaintiffs would not
      oppose the passport identifier “if it were limited to [those with] convictions for child trafficking and tourism.” In other words, plaintiffs do not necessarily seek to enjoin the entire passport identifier provision. Plaintiffs’ counsel reiterated that the purpose of the IML was to address child sex trafficking, which she asserted was not what her clients were convicted of and not what resulted in their being required to register as sex offenders.

      For these reasons, the court finds that the claim regarding the passport identifier is
      not yet ripe for resolution. The consequence for purposes of the present motion is that
      plaintiffs cannot clearly articulate which acts they seek to have enjoined, or why.
      Accordingly, plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success on the passport identifier claim.
      ***

      I see that this Judge is twisting the wording and what Janice was implying in order to rule against the Injunction.

      It’s like what Friend of RSOL mentioned:
      “that courts seem to argue from petty points of law instead of greater principles”.

      My gut is telling me that it’s going to be a disappointing legal journey with this Judge. I don’t see how any Lawyer could continue with the same motivation and enthusiasm that is required to win. It is so obvious that this Court does not want to base her decision on the law. This Judge based her decision and will base all of her future decisions- on politics.

  9. Rob

    This site is seriously depressing me today.

    IML, colorado, New York, Taking away my gun rights to protect myself ughh

    • Paul

      I saw the gun rights thing, and I’m with you. Same boat.

      The only small solace I have is that the idiot proposes that law every other year, and it never goes anywhere. That’s not to say that it eventually won’t! IML took years to get through! But maybe, just maybe, the idiot’s law won’t survive this year.

    • PK

      I feel like I got punched in the stomach today.

      For me this situation regarding the Passport Mark is more distressing because I have family out of the Country. Yet I must return to the U.S. for medical treatment.

      For me, this is not just for international vacations.

      So the question becomes which one do I give up?

      • Jason (There may be two of us)

        If you can “unregister” by moving to the country where your family is at, then you will no longer be “required to register”. Not being required to register means no passport mark. (as stated elsewhere in the thread)

        • PK

          Exactly TiredO- even without IML the Country is STILL a cesspool.

          Un-registering is probably not possible.

          NY doesn’t allow people to un-register even if you don’t live in the state or work in the state. I heard that Florida is the same way.

          Anyway do you think I would somehow “trust” that they wouldn’t try to confiscate my passport anyway? The US Government does whatever the hell they want period.

        • Renny

          If you have a NY conviction, you cannot unregister no matter where you go, in some cases that includes your grave, because New Yorkers are the most incompetent and corrupt scumbags on the face of the earth.

          If you escape the US and renounce your disgusting citizenship of this filthy nation, New York still requires you to register.

          If you fail, they will file a warrant and the next time you have police contact anywhere in the world, you could be arrested.

    • James

      I am with Rob….seriously not a good day. And yet nothing has changed for me…except maybe the world has gotten a little smaller. But then, it was the old unauthorized Angel’s Watch thingy that killed me anyhow….long before the IML, so at some level the IML was a non-issue in a practical sense for me.

      Colorado just scares the crap out of me. Geeze, if that becomes generally accepted practice…we will have problems far beyond what we know now.

      California is a big place…lots to see; Oregon has a 10 day presence requirement, as does Arizona. And I will attempt Europe…

      There seems to be a virus like thing attempting to crush all hope…of people continuing on and living decent lives. This is entirely contrary to what Social Policy should be…

      1. Reinforce successful reintegration of the RSO’s back into society

      2. Promote job and living stability

      3. Protect the Family life of RSO’s and their family members

      4. Establish a path for RSO’s to have a stake in Society, something to lose should they re-offend.

      This would be intelligent social policy…why it is not followed is beyond me. Current policy is just stupid and counter production at best, at worst, it creates a very large sub-class of disenfranchised people entirely unmoored to their…world, their society.

      This so doesn’t make any sense at all…

      So yes, a distressing day…but this is a fight we have no choice except to fight, to resist, to champion our very real humanity.

      Good Luck All

      Best Wishes, James

      • Timmr

        The only way it makes any sense is it exists as a social welfare program for the law enforcement industry. They are the only ones benefiting from these laws… oh and the politicians they lobby, they profit off of the ignorance of the general population.

        • kelnothiding

          timmer you right on the money , every word , lets have a hell yes!

        • B

          It is also likely a convenient test for the creation of world wide law enforcement mechanisms. Inter jurisdiction enforcement in the same spirit of trade agreements like TPP NAFTA etc. Parts of the U.S. ruling class are trying to create a one world government like the Germany of Hitler. America is a republic that is being manipulated and controlled like a democracy at the expense of the minority. What happened to inalienable human rights?

  10. Shawn

    2 questions:

    1) Since the issue isn’t “ripe” now, will an injunction request be filed again once the creation of the passport scheme is complete?

    2) The law says:

    “Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction”

    Today I live in a jurisdiction where I don’t have to register. But I would be required to register in California. I assume I am no subject to the passport requirement since I’m not “CURRENTLY” required. But if I moved to California and then I applied for a passport, I’d get the mark. But if I moved back to a state where I’m not required to register, then I wouldn’t get the mark. OR does the language mean that since there exists a jurisdiction where I’d be required to register, I get the mark no matter what?

    • Rob

      Shawn,

      -If you do not have to register anymore then you will not have the unique identifier on your passport.

      -If you do not have to register anymore but your crime was against a minor, the government will notify the arriving country of your visit.

      • Notgivingup

        So Rob what you are saying is anyone convicted of a offence against a minor 17 or below will have a notice sent to whichever country they are traveling too even if they no longer have to register? Next question would be what if they had deferred adjudication probation, then when they successfully completed it the charges were dismissed and have no conviction on their record, just shows they were arrested? And many have no conviction but are still required to register, wonder how that would be handled? This would also apply to the gun law that they might get passed, what to do about people with no final conviction. What a mess this country has become, we can pay taxes at every level but they continue to strip our rights away one bill at a time.

        • deferred

          I had deferred adjudication… have no conviction…. still registered in my previous state, but not registered in my current state. I changed my name legally and did not nor do I intend to provide it to my previous state… I cross the Canadian border all the time and never have any issues. I served on juries, registered to vote, and have passed background checks for major companies I have worked for. If you are not CONVICTED, then you SHOULD be fine. The law clearly defines the word convicted in the passage of the law

        • Rob

          Notgivingup

          Are you signed up for the monthly call in tomorrow night? If you are not you should head over to National RSOL and sign up. Janice will be there among others.
          The session is usually very informative.

          Yes any conviction of a minor below 17 will have a notice sent to the travelers intended country even after you are done registering. This is from the wording of the bill. You just won’t have the passport identifier on your passport which will not really matter if you can’t get into a country.
          Whats really bad about the bill is there not calling a 17,16,15 year old a minor, there calling them a child and labeling us as child sex offenders, who are deemed a risk to engage is child sex tourism.
          Joyful sounding isn’t it?
          I imagine if you have no conviction on your record you are good. Did you ever have to register?
          That said I cannot answer that question. It might be a good question to ask at the call in tomorrow night.

    • good question

      I am in the same boat.. I, not required to register in my current state, but am so for life in my previous state. I hope someone can answer

      • PK

        Yes they’re going to confiscate your Passport and then put an Identifier on a new one that you will pay for. It’s Registration in ANY STATE.

        You’re not going to get away mister.

        I’m in the exact same situation: not required to register in my current state, but am so for life in my conviction state.

        • good question

          sorry..forgot to mention.. I was not convicted, got deferred adjudication…it still applies? I dont think so

        • Erwin

          I’m just curious. I’m pretty sure some folks may have beaten this question around on this forum but I can’t find it. What if your “convicted” state doesn’t require you to register for life but only 15 years. You then take a 2 week vacation to Disney World in Florida that requires folks to register for life. You check in at the local cop shop to register but you tell them you’re only their temporarily to see Mickey Mouse. Does that registration stay on Florida rolls for life even if you returned to living back in your home state?

          • Rob

            Erwin,

            Yes in Florida you will be on for life even after your 15 years is up.

      • Steveo

        What state could a person move to that requires no registration, where another state requires lifetime registration?

        • Robert Curtis

          Depends if the the state took on SORNA to whether you must register. My conviction was in CA but Tx. Law doesn’t require my type of conviction to register.

        • good question

          Washington State…. you will have to register here but there is a process you have to go through to petition to get off. It requires hiring an attorney, taking a polygraph, getting an all clear from a pyschologist, etc.. lot of hoops to jump through, but it is worth it.

          • Allen W

            Not for Class A offenses.. there is no getting off.. ever….

    • Notgivingup

      See this is the part that I am still not sure of, “Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction” I have to register but do not have a conviction, can vote, own firearms, serve juror duty etc, so I will guess I will still have passport mark? I wish I could get a clear answer, lol, I bet we all would like that. Anyway another disappointing day and more BS from our government.

      • Steveo

        Exactly. You are still on the list. The IML considers you and calls you “convicted”.

  11. Doc4Justice

    Can’t you appeal the judge’s ruling? This is normal action in a majority of states. Judges do whatever they want not following the rule of law. Ultimately more lawsuits need to be filed so this issue goes before the USC. To me this is normal course of action. Most judges wipe their ass with the Constitution throughout the USA. It’s really a meaningless document.

  12. Paul

    Here’s an interesting paper on “certainly impending”. Made even more interesting by the fact that it actually focuses on the Northern District of California. It appears our little judge went against the precedent set by her peers. How very nice of her!

    http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/standing-iii.pdf

  13. T

    Well in my opinion and mind u it’s just an opinion this judge is gutless and took the cowards way out. There was plenty of information in the motion to support our complaint but chose to ignore it. I think she was much more worried about her reputation than our rights. Thus making a cowards decision to protect her reputation. But our right is not over we will re- group and right on. So fellow registered citizens keep your head up and keep calm and right on. Janice is not going to let this deter us from our fight. We lost the battle but not the war.

    • PK

      How would you win the war with a Judge that is determined to take the “coward’s way out”?

  14. Spreadtheword

    You can read the Judge’s Order online at the link provided. You can come to your own conclusions.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/308438358/IML-Injunction-Denied-by-Federal-Court

  15. TiredOfHiding

    Predictable and pathetic – just want you would expect.

    I can’t wait to find a way to escape this cesspool of a country the USA has become.

    Our government is actively fighting us and marginalizing us more each year and yet we are supposed to remain optimistic.

    You only have to put your hand on the stove one time to learn you will get burned…how many time do you have to be burned by the government until you will realize that nothing is going to change.

    Lies and more additional punishment year after year is all we have experienced and there is NO reason to expect anything else.

    This just proves the point.

    • kelnothiding

      TiredO ,, I think your right , we have to stand up some how in big numbers , and raise alittle hell ,

  16. John

    I think I’m done with all this stuff… if all 800,000 of us just stop listening to this crap and rebel they will have to do something else. Unless they build a prison to house all 800,000 of us

    • kelnothiding

      I think there already built , , we can be peaceful and make our point , see you around john , keep on keepin on !

  17. Renny

    My response to this ruling will be offensive to many.

    I am going to start talking. I know things about what “Americans” do when they travel posing as teachers, electrical contractors and other trades.

    I know that right now in Thailand, Americans “working” as electrical contractors for Marubeni drink and drive on the streets of Thailand, which is essentially attempted murder of Thai children.

    I am going to write a letter to the leaders and papers in EVERY single nation, telling them that they should refer to the DOJ website for statistics on Americans that are not convicted greatly outnumber those convicted and that every American is a potential child rapist, corporate or government spy, identity thief, drunk driver, arsonist and serial killer. The only way to protect their children is for every American to be escorted 100% of the time by an official from the host governments and that all electronic devices should be seized from Americans upon arrival and returned when they leave. Any American caught with electronic devices should be arrested and charged with espionage and/or child sex trafficking.

    I will also point out the factual evidence that allowing an American into their country attracts death, as an American citizen is to a devout Muslim terrorist as sugar water is to ants… when these countries allow Americans in, they take the risk that their own people will be killed as the devout Muslim terrorists try to kill Americans.

    I am tired of waiting and losing. I am going on the offensive.

  18. Renny

    Is there a poll-system that is worldwide? We should pose the following question to the people of the world:

    An American woman, traveling alone, comes into your shop to purchase good or services. As is customary you require her identification to verify her credit card. When she opens her passport you see in bold red letters the words “SEX OFFENDER” above her photo and personal information.

    What is your response? Keep in mind the rights of an American do not follow them outside the US.

    Will you serve her?
    Will you notify others of her sex offender status?
    Will you have the urge to harm her?
    Will you charge her more for the goods or services?

    What if it was an American man, also traveling alone…..

  19. someone who cares

    There are so many good questions here. Can we appeal the decision based on a biased judge? When will they stop making decisions without ever looking at the facts? What if she decided that anyone who ate red meat was a murderer? Does she not have to have some evidence to prove this? Same with “sex offenders”. If the statistics show that those on the registry are NOT the ones committing these imaginary crimes, then she should not be able to make her decision based on what she has heard. She has to present the facts when making such a detrimental decision. So, is anyone who looks at pornography already a rapist? She would probably say yes. She has to be stopped. Someone else has to look at this case.

    • PK

      “She has to be stopped. Someone else has to look at this case” that’s what my suggestion was and my previous question was about-

      If this entire case will be heard by the same Judge or a Jury?

      What about an appeal for the Injunction? Same Judge?

    • Lake County

      Everyone has bias, including judges. And all Lawyers and Judges have different interpretation of the law. So just because we don’t agree with her decision, we can’t appeal based on bias. Now if the Judge was related to the Fed’s defense attorney, then maybe you could make a claim of bias or conflict of interest, but even that issue would have required us to make a conflict of interest issue prior to the hearing. This issue is not over as we still have our case in chief. It just would have been nice for us to have a win at round 1.

  20. John

    I’m pretty sure any registration is a Hit List on its face. Thus must I say it? Punitive! Is it possible we could all chip in and buy this island they all want to send us too. Because I will happily go to it.

    • Lake County

      I’m sure if we all sell our houses we would have enough money to buy or take over a county with our 850,000 votes in a small farm state. We could build a wall to keep politicians out.

  21. Paul

    I was told that after 10 years I could petition to be removed from the registry…that being said I am looking to get out of this country. I lived abroad several years ago (should have stayed) and would like to go back. I know the laws in each country are different, but if I wanted to move to Germany, let’s say…what are the chances? My hopes are that during the 10 years on the registry I can try to say enough money to move away, but would Germany even accept me?

    This country is ran by a bunch of cowards and I would rather be a citizen of another country than allow the government to prevent me “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    any help with that would be much appreciated.

    • Jason (There may be two of us)

      Do you happen to have family in Germany? Spouse? Child? I suspect that would help your chances tremendously. I believe I heard someone here (PK maybe?) mention that a foreign court ruled in favor of and RSO letting them stay in the foreign country permanently to “preserve the family unit” or something like that.

      • Paul

        Unfortunately, no family in Germany to speak of. So I guess that’s out.

        • James

          There is always Marriage!

          I considered it, but…Nah, been there, tried that, been there, tried that…rather stay in the USA….lol…(than be married again)

          Actually my London wife has suggested this…but I married her once…heeheehee…can’t do it again, but for someone else, this could be an answer on how to get out of the United States.

          Best Wishes, James

          • Paul

            Haha, well I wouldn’t be opposed to marriage, but it’s doubtful I’m going to attract anyone while on the registry…so there’s that.

      • PK

        Mexico is all about the Family Unit, above all else. I got married there.

        However, that doesn’t mean they are going to simply hand you a visa.

        It’s yet another legal process that I will endure to prove to Mexico that NOT Everyone on this “list” is a danger and out to traffic children.

        • Paul

          My lawyer suggested Mexico as a place to live…but I have 0 knowledge of Spanish.

  22. Steveo

    I always though the whole marker on the passport thing was more of a red herring, or a symbolic part of the International Meagan’s Law. The real issue is that they inform other nations that anyone on the US Registered Sex offender list is a criminal. It does not matter if they were ever found guilty of a crime or not, or if they received deferred adjudication, and therefore NO conviction. If you read the law, they call anyone on the list a criminal, and they tell other nations this. That is the REAL issue, because all the mark on the passport would do is confirm the list they already have you on to not let you into their country in the first place.

    • PK

      “If you read the law, they call anyone on the list a criminal, and they tell other nations this”

      Not only that, they actually send Notifications that are FALSE and misrepresent the conviction. That happened to me in Mexico. They sent them a Notification that I was convicted of Sexual Assault! Which is complete and utter BS and a COMPETE FALSEHOOD!

  23. G4Change

    One step backward. Now let’s prepare for two steps forward!
    Thank you, Janice, et al for continuing to fight this ugly fight!!!

  24. Frank

    IMHO the only way this “identifier” will ever go away is like this: Every convicted felon, no matter what the offense, should be required to register for their mistake.
    This registration will be mandatory and failure to register will result in a prison term.

    There names will be published with details of their crime for all to see. Any travel out of the country will require a 21 day notification and the destination country will be notified of the high risk and danger of the traveler engaging in a similar crime upon arrival to the destination country.

    As well, there should be an “identifier” on their passport.

    That would put an end to all of this unconstitutional ex post facto bull-*rap.
    And it would end in a hurry when one quarter of the US citizenry all of a sudden
    feels the punishment with these type of laws.

  25. Brubaker

    This injustice to free Americans is for all the world to see.
    This wrong can be corrected… Can be righted.
    There are issues that are yet to be argued and set forth that can win.
    For all free Americans , NO one should be treated in this manner. ‘…Not only an offense against history, but an offense against humanity”… .
    The Berlin Wall came down…so can this.

    • Brubaker

      Keep on Rockin ‘n a Free World….
      Fundamental rights are at issue and the Constitution commands they be addressed fully in trial.
      Any restriction to liberty must be afforded Due Process.
      Freedom of Speech is at issue and must be allowed strict court address through trial hearing.
      Other major issues must be addressed through trial hearing on that iml.
      Fundamental Rights are involved and they are being violated in this iml.
      When the United States is the gate keeper of Fundamental Rights/Human Rights then this court must allow a petition to address those issues further in trial hearing.

  26. PhilInAZ

    There is no hope… why even bother going forward? it’s just a waste of money and time…. i try to stay positive and have some sort of hope… I just don’t see any more hope…
    I’m seriously thinking about having a long conversation with my loved ones tomorrow about actively looking to move out of the country.. I’m not seeing much hope coming from Janices team her past posts seem to have some sort of hope and her arguments seemed super strong too…

    Is there any other district that would have a better chance at this? I’m in Arizona I am a level 1 offender here they base things off of the individuals risk and if your a level 1 there is no notification, and your not on the public website… I still have to check in once a month via mail or if i move or buy a new vehicle.. otherwise i am left alone..

    If i had the legal knowledge and an attorney that was willing to fight that battle here in this district i would do it in a heart beat its worth my money…

    • PK

      Like I mentioned:
      My gut is telling me that it’s going to be a disappointing legal journey with this Judge. I don’t see how any Lawyer could continue with the same motivation and enthusiasm that is required to win. It is so obvious that this Court does not want to base her decision on the law. This Judge based her decision and will base all of her future decisions- on politics. I don’t think we’re going to win with this Judge. She could perhaps win on Appeal, but we’re talking years.

      I just the email that Janice won’t be able to attend tonight’s phone conference.

      • Janice Bellucci

        I am not participating in tonight’s phone call, organized by national RSOL, because I am not available. National RSOL did not ask me to do this prior to sending a notice that I would participate. My first knowledge of the phone call was receipt of the same notice that others received. After receiving that notice, I informed national RSOL that I had a prior commitment. Please note that the attorney in Rhode Island is also not participating in the phone call. I can only guess that national RSOL did not ask him if he was available prior to sending out the notice. As a result, someone who is not an attorney will be speaking about both cases.

        • Lake County

          About a 1/2 hour into the conversation, I read your post. So I just hung up the phone. I only called in for the first time to hear directly from you about IML. Sorry they screwed that up Janice. I hope maybe you can arrange another phone call session about IML threw them or perhaps just do your own broadcast.

          • Paul

            I agree. Obviously, it would have been nice if the judge had granted the injunction. That said, this case still has a long, long way to go before a final decision is ever made. And the door is open to an injunction at a future time, when it becomes more ripe.

            It’s easy to get discouraged, as we all had our fingers crossed that this would go our way, right from the start. But we should all count our blessings that we have someone who is willing to go to bat for us. Most of the states are not so lucky to have someone like Janice, and their rights are being trampled on left and right.

      • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

        One should not be so easily discouraged.

        The current developments are a opportunity to exercise ones Discipline which is composed of:

        1. Impulse Control:
        Can be defined as ignoring your own emotions, feelings, the human heart.

        2. Delayed Gratification:
        The ability to resist the temptation for an immediate reward and wait for a later greater reward.

        These skills must be mastered in order to develop one self into a Mature Being.

        This is the time to Steel your self & prove your Character, demonstrate your Faith is True & Reliable to the end.

        As Yehovah lives, so should we

      • David H

        PK:

        But are we continuing with this judge??? I didn’t have that impression!

        • PK

          I think it’s a valid question. I don’t see why they would have a different Judge for every proceeding, but I guess anything is possible.

          I’ll just assume that the case will move forward with the same Judge and there is no way to change that fact.

          I wish there were more words of encouragement.

    • Erwin

      That’s the whole point of the new law. RSOs won’t be able to move out of the country now given all the green notices sent out and the word “sex offender” plastered on your passport. I don’t know what countries will take you. Many of the low cost undeveloped countries in Asia & Latin America (like the Philippines & Brazil) have been turning away American RSOs left and right according to some reports on this forum. Europe may be the best option (although it’s more costly plus they have an immigration crises) However the “unique identifier” passport hasn’t been tested in Europe yet so no telling what they’ll do in the future. Arizona isn’t so bad if you’re a level one because your name/photo is omitted from the public website. HOWEVER, a Republican politician in AZ is currently working to get that changed

      • Mike

        Does AZ have a strong state group? If so they had better get to work. Has there been some high profile cases were RC’s not on the public registry have created problems? From perusing the news clips, it seems like every time we win some sort of victory there are ten more attempts to further erode our lives. The root of all of this is the registry. We are not even putting a band aid on the worsening situation. We need to be much more organized and raise a lot more money.

        • Erwin

          I live in WI but hopefully the O.P. Phil can answer those questions as well as get involved in a group in Arizona. He has one good thing going for himself…..he’s level 1 and not listed on the public registry. So Phil shouldn’t give up an uproot his family and try an move out of the country. Get involved, and make sure politicians in AZ don’t make life any worse for RSOs

          • Phil

            Sorry it has taken so long for me to reply… I just need help with getting involved i’m in the information technology industry if you want to e-mail me feel free to do so at phil@goispusa.com
            I want to fight but it just doesn’t seem like there is any hope at all.

            • Robert Curtis

              Fighting creates hope.. by design the systems are there to discourage and still hope. For the sake of freedom and justice not just for those on the registry but for all freedom loving Americans we fight even for those that would rather have us in a hole somewhere chained by the neck.. Why? Because freedom lost by anyone is to risk the freedoms of everyone.

      • Phil

        I need information on this political person so that i can follow this and get involved with local attorney’s etc… If this goes into affect I will most likely have no reason to stay in Arizona… I hope they do not succeed. But if you can email me the name of the political person i want to get involved. this is extremely important to me.

        phil@goispusa.com

        • Erwin

          Hi Phil,

          The politician trying to get level 1 offenders listed on the Arizona Registry is Republican State Senator John Kavanaugh of Fountain Hills. The proposal is under Senate Bill 1286

          Here is a recent article on the proposal:

          https://woodnicklawchildcustody.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/proposed-senate-bill-wants-to-add-omitted-offenders-to-sex-offender-database/

          Another hysterical article in the Arizona Republic mentions the proposed bill

          http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2016/02/10/arizonas-sex-offender-registry-omits-many-child-molesters-rapists/79841342/

          Now I live in Wisconsin, not Arizona Phil, so I can’t help you much with support groups. Although I’ve been thinking about moving to AZ with my family. From what I gather, I don’t think there’s an active Arizona RSOL chapter or website. But there is this resource site: http://www.sexoffenderresource.com/arizona/

          Now Kavanaugh’s bill is just a proposal so far….so don’t panic. It has to get thru both houses and signed by the governor. The legislature being GOP controlled is a bad sign however Arizona does have a libertarian streak which could prevent some of the GOP lawmakers from ramming thru another useless law

          Good Luck!

          • PhilAZ

            Thanks.. i will keep a very close eye on it… I have participated in a couple of Janices calls… even asked some really good questions publicly… I have a very interesting story and it wound me up on the list and all i did was run a internet provider. I accepted responsibility for my actions did my time and working for the airlines now i have flight benefits… i would like to use them but this bill really put a ding in those plans.. I will be honest with people on here… this really has had me depressed at times severely… almost to the point were i just feel like at times life might not be worth living… but i certainly try and fight as much as i can.. my honest opinion is unless a major political figure has to even deal with this… chances are .. it’s a very steep uphill battle….

            Any little glimer of hope… is good.

          • PhilAZ

            Also, I love Arizona… being a level 1 i only have to respond via mail and thats it… nobody bothers me…. its warm, not cold,(the way i like it) my employer knows my history and supports me and wants me to grow… people here are for the most part wonderful.

          • PhilAZ

            @Erin looks like it was passed by both the house and the senate… and most likely going to get signed into law… Just great….
            extremely depressing.

            • Erwin

              That’s a bummer……I had a feeling this legislation would go thru. But don’t be discouraged.

              The good thing is you have a job and your employer knows about your past. Plus you have a place to live.

              As far as I know, there’s no RSO residency ordinances in Arizona. Yes, your picture and info may now pop up on the public website but the only ones who care about it are busy bodies & families paranoid about there kids. Remember it’s a crime if someone harasses you. So I wouldn’t worry too much Phil

              But if you’re really concerned about you and your family, there are still 4 states left that don’t list level 1 offenders: Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts & New York (it’s no coincidence they’re all blue states) Oregon & Minnesota only list level 3 predators. Unfortunately, all of those states are either cold or rainy, but they’re good livable states

              I wish you the best in whatever you decide to do

              • PhilAZ

                I think we are gonna stay put for now… IT doesn’t look like it goes into affect until July 2017.. And they added some more provisions whatever “dangerous exploitation offense against a minor” would mean and if that would include federal offense? it’s all so freaking vague i hate it.

                We are eyeballing oregon as a potential… but i think for now we are gonna stay put. Like you said my employer knows my history, i have a home for now signed lease for 2 years.. i don’t show up on background checks anymore.. only when people google my name has it ever been an issue.

                I do want to go to St Martin sometime soon.. I wonder if i would be turned around.

  27. JJ

    Step backward (ahhhhhhhhh) how about a hop skip and a jump backwards “signed sealed and delivered “it’s over”

  28. David

    A interesting comment left as a review from the book…. A memory of skin.

    All alone in the world, hiding in the shadows of society, part of an ever-growing mass of exiles electronically shackled to a society that despises and shuns them.

    Who are these modern-day lepers? And why are almost a million of them in America? What if sex offending is a symptom of a malfunctioning society, and these men are just the canaries in the coal mine, carrying the burden of society’s shame? What if the Internet is the snake in the Garden of Eden, and pornography is the forbidden fruit?

    The deeper ironies of a culture that condemns man for life, even while turning its children into dehumanized sexual commodities. The punishment becomes profound loneliness and isolation, alienated by the digital age, the inability of people to get beyond false facades to truly trust and connect with each other.

    Fear of outliving family only brings near total isolation on a virtually deserted planet called earth. One can’t help but feel like a shipwrecked survivor on a island. The reminder of others existence only comes in form of hatred and distain. How can strangers have so much hate? Every individual is surly different. Every case must have different variables of guilt. Not in today’s digital world. Even after death peace will not be given. The red dot on the map will still exist.

    Sex offender registration—a kind of social death sentence. Entire families sentenced to social death.

    Since when did the general public trust and believe anything the government has said?

    The hypocrisy of the sex laws… Written mostly by sex offenders. Foley, Hastert, Walsh, Lungsford, Schwartzenegger.

    Immortal sole, electronic prisoner of war.

    • kelnothiding

      David ,, that is strong stuff ,, but we will win in the end ,

  29. Paul

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/europe/air-passenger-data-sharing-terror-europe/index.html

    In an effort to combat “terrorism”, and “trafficking”. I’m thinking our days of traveling to the EU are coming to a close. It certainly won’t be long before the IML stuff finds its way into this mess! Especially given the IML goal of obtaining reciprocity from other countries.

    • PK

      Paul, there are still a few countries in Europe that RSO’s can travel to.

      Paul from RTAG created an Excel Spreadsheet, several months ago, which detailed many of those countries.

      I kind of wish he would update that list.

      • Steveo

        I’d like to see an updated list as well. Can someone post a link to places that a RSO can travel to?

  30. Jason

    Well like it or not the court used the facts to deny the injunction so lets watch and see if they use the facts to dismantle IML once implemented!!!! Keep up the Great work RSOL and ALL involved….

  31. steve

    I think this would have been a lot different if the John Doe who was a pilot was fired from his job because he can’t fly his cargo plane anywhere. The fact he’s still flying into countries without a problem, so it seems, is an issue. The only real affects so far are people being turned away. Yes, that’s bad but not serious enough for the judge to grant this injunction and she’s right that we have no idea what this “identifier” will look like.
    I believe we should have fought the notifications when they first started happening. The judge, it seems thinks so.

    • PK

      “The fact he’s still flying into countries without a problem, so it seems, is an issue. The only real affects so far are people being turned away. Yes, that’s bad but not serious enough for the judge to grant this injunction”

      I’m not clear if that’s actually the case where this pilot can still continue to fly to any country.

      Actually- the “real affects” are a little more for some people than just simply being turned away, as you put it. SOME people cannot see their spouse or family who live i a foreign country. OTHER people cannot conduct business in a foreign country.

      I irks me when people post things on here, that really don’t have a clue or are just making blind assumptions.

      • Timmr

        Funny, that excuse of “you should have complained earlier when this first began” just doesn’t fly with any other victim situation. Imagine if the judge said that to a victim of rape. Imagine the petitions to have her removed from the bench! Or even if she said it to a victim of a con man. No, this judge does not care for us.

  32. PK

    “Because plaintiffs are not challenging the pre-existing notification provisions, they
    have not shown that an alleged injury resulting from implementation of the IML would be
    redressable”.

    I think what the Judge was saying that Janice did not challenge the pre-existing notifications in her Motions.

  33. Jon

    Of course they ruled against it. The US doesn’t want us here, but doesn’t want us to leave. They want us humiliated, ostracized, and bared from civilization. They want a front row seat for their efforts, to watch us die alone, in a ditch or under a overpass as far away from civilization as they can push us, with nothing but our shame and humiliation to keep us company. They claim that they don’t want us going to other countries to commit new crimes, which is absolute BS. They don’t want us going to some other country because they know that there we might get a fresh start and a chance at living a normal life, and that would ruin all of their hard work to watch us suffer under their thumb.
    So many people are so quick to point the finger of blame and hate. So quick to judge and hate anyone that has even just been accused of a crime. Those are the real danger if you ask me. Those are the people who turn vigilante and take the law into their own hands. Maybe out of frustration to begin with, but soon enough that turns to enjoyment, self riotousness, and satisfaction. Why not lock them up? Those are your serial killers right there. But I guess murder is OK unless someone sees you naked when you do it. Then you have to pay for life.

  34. Terry

    Read and reread judge’s decision. I can see her point about waiting til things are a bit clearer as to who will be hurt and how. She obviously believes in the good intent of legislation and legislators. We know better! She seems oblivious to how these laws have grown to grotesque proportions, and how bureaucrats expand and build on the original law’s or regulation’s intent to cover more and more types of crimes, and more and more types of people. We have seen and KNOW how each state has expanded the punishments and restrictions, and seen the day to day realities of the registry. She has taken the road of logical extension instead of common sense. The Justice system is too often like that. Logic is a dangerous thing when you compare slightly different situations to each other…and the more you do it, the farther you move away from the original common sense point of view, until you end up, logically of course, with an insane conclusion bearing no resemblance to common sense. I argue these things with my lawyer brother all the time.
    Unfortunately, we pay the price and the judge enjoys a nice glass of wine in the evening!
    Well we have Janice, and she’s fighting the good fight, and we have to applaud her. It will be a long war, but criminal justice reform is starting to be a thing, and hopefully we’ll see the day…

  35. Unforgiven citizen

    Does any know who we to give travel notice to in california?

    • unknown

      no one knows anything right now… They have not issued guidelines or implemented the law yet… all that is starting to take form now

      • PK

        I think you all still have a little time to escape the United States if you’re serious about it. However, I would not take chances after the end of October.

    • LeftCalifornia

      PK…just curious why you feel October may be the drop dead date. Also, I’ve asked the DOJ where I’m registered if I would be allowed to sign out and sail the Caribbean for an indefinite amount of time. The response was ‘yes’. I’m registered in a SORNA compliant US territory. What I don’t know is even if I sign out and sail away would they still consider me when it came time to revoke passports. Any input?

      • PK

        My guess is October- that’s my drop dead date. After that time, I will no way in hell ever return to the United States.

        • LeftCalifornia

          I need to read the bill again. Somewhere in the wording of HR 515 I believe I read it was to be implemented within 90 days of b’n signed into law.

  36. Stephen

    I can’t knock the judges reasons on the fact it hasn’t taken place
    on passports yet. But I can tell she would rule just being an RSO is reason to reject entrance into a country, and not IML fault for listing a true fact.

    • Mike

      No the real problem is the green notice. The warning that the the RC is likely to commit a crime in their country is the big problem. When I tried to get a tourist visa at the border I told him why it was taking a while to get an ok from MX City. The agent told me that it was the alert that was the problem. Saying that this person has a record is one thing, but the statement that I was likely to commit a crime is the reason that I was denied, according to the agent.

      • James

        Mike has this correct…it is the Angel’s Watch Program, previously unauthorized, now permanent and sanctioned under the IML, that is the problem…what government wants to take the risk of letting someone in…when they have advance notice that the person can cause serious headaches to this person doing the admitting, the agency that supervises foreigners entering, and that government itself?

        Even if it is only 1 individual out of 250~500, a very low percentage proposition….allowing us in is still extraordinarily dangerous for that government…Why?

        People love talking about sex, here and abroad…it is a primary topic of the media and every day we see new cases…that excite and inflame the masses.

        I can read through the BS, but some of the cases really are bad…the difficulty is extrapolating from these very few, but in a population of over 300 million, still frequent stories, to all of us…it is that linkage that we need to break…if possible.

        And this is an uphill struggle…I was a little distressed to see some people almost giving up because of the Court’s ruling…I tried to tamp down expectations a little in advance…but maybe not sufficiently.

        Do you see the Named Defendants…John Kerry, Sec of State, Loretta Lynch, Head of the Department of Justice, etc…this is the United States Government we are suing…!

        This is a hard fight…but remember, we have no choice in this matter, we must fight, and this is our strength.

        And thanks again to Janice, she and the CARSOL staff are…so precious to us.

        Let us not forget this.

        Best Wishes, James

  37. James

    Unforgiven:

    Travel notice? To where, for how long? I gave notice to my local agency for Europe, for three weeks.

    They told me there was no requirement of notice now, but if I wanted to send a letter that was fine.

    Instead, I went back East for a Funeral. I stayed a week, the amount of time allowed in that state before I felt it was necessary to register…even as a temporary transient…or visitor. (I will note an attorney in that jurisdiction insisted I had 37 days!)

    At some level I am inclined to think each of us has to figure this out for themselves.

    But in general, talk to your local agency…it can’t hurt and shows to some degree your sincere desire to stay compliant.

    However, don’t be surprised if you don’t get the hard answer you want.

    Good Luck

    Best Wishes, James

  38. Timmr

    The judge clearly believes that sex offender literally means sexually offending in the present, and that if you are on the registry you are dangerous. Therefore, she justifies the government’s actions. She is apparently unable to conceive of the situation that so called sex offender is traveling on an innocent family vacation or legitimate work travel. Despite appearing to know the law by all the cases she site, she has no concept of the real situation and the reality of those she is making a judgement against.

  39. anonymously

    Stephen wrote “I can’t knock the judges reasons on the fact it hasn’t taken place
    on passports yet. But I can tell she would rule just being an RSO is reason to reject entrance into a country, and not IML fault for listing a true fact.”

    I can also tell that too, that she would illogically come to that conclusion since she did not acknowledge the Government’s lack of nexus of registrants being involved in child sex trafficking and child sex tourism. The Judge does not point out that these statements I list below that the Judge repeats from the Government response do not show registrants engage in these 2 crimes, child sex trafficking and child sex tourism.

    Decision states “The IML was enacted to “protect children and others from sexual abuse and exploitation, including sex trafficking and sex tourism.” IML, Preamble. In enacting the IML, Congress noted that “[l]aw enforcement reports indicate that known child-sexoffenders are traveling internationally.” IML § 2(4). Congress found that “[t]he commercial sexual exploitation of minors in child sex trafficking and pornography is a global phenomenon,” with millions of child victims each year. Id. § 2(5). ”

    She nitpicks plaintiffs but let’s this nonsense stand. A nexus was not established of registrants and child sex trafficking and child sex tourism, in these statements. The Judge also does not scrutinize the Government where in their response , they only mention child sex tourism and child sex trafficking. The Judge could have said the Government should only be concerned with sending notifications and establishing passport identifiers for those convicted of those 2 crimes, since those were the only crimes mentioned in the government response. The Judge took it upon herself to mention whats mentioned in the content of the title, that mentions ‘other’ sex crimes other than those 2 only mentioned in the government response.

    Since the Government in their response mentioned only those 2 crimes, and it’s reasonable to assume the Judge would be questioning the government in their response to plaintiff’s stated case as to why they are not defending notifications and passport identifiers for those convicted of sex crimes other than child sex trafficking or tourism, pointing out you are not opposed to notifications or identifiers for those convicted of the 2 crimes, trafficking or tourism, only re-enforces that the government is not defending notifications or passport identifiers for those not convicted of trafficking or tourism. In my opinion, the Judge did not make a fair ruling, by ignoring these things and selectively applying logical scrutiny. I also take issue with her using Chris Smith’s statement on country-hopping registrants. She just accepts Chris Smith’s fantasies as worthy of inclusion in her decision. Theres not only no nexus for the notification, but also she offers no support for a nexus for a need for a unique identifier since Chris Smith’s statement is unsupported.

  40. anonymously

    Timmr writes “The judge clearly believes that sex offender literally means sexually offending in the present…”

    Which makes as much sense as saying a drunk driver is on the road, when it is someone who was once convicted of a DUI 30 years ago and hasn’t had a drink since.

    • James

      Gentlemen!!!…lol (anonymously & Timmr)

      Great arguments by you both, and in time there will be future hearings, opportunities to present our case and sharpen the evidence before the Court.

      In time this will happen…today was a request for a Preliminary Injunction, Preliminary…Remember, The successful Journey begins with the single first step.

      We have taken that step…I don’t know if it is 100 more paces or a thousand.

      But we have begun…this seems almost miraculous to me.

      There was never this kind of coming of together of RSO’s before…all this is new…and we will get there, in Time.

      Be Good and Good Luck,

      Best Wishes, James

    • Timmr

      Ha! Much better way to say it.

  41. Kevin

    I think it is important to remember what a preliminary injunction is designed to do. It is to stop the action of the government right now before too much harm is done to the plaintiffs. Firstly, as of the time the case was heard, the government was not yet labeling passports, thus the plaintiffs could not show any damage done to them. Furthermore, the identifier has yet to be designed so the plaintiffs cannot show how damaging it might be. That’s why it wasn’t deemed “ripe”. Perhaps by the time the injunction is heard it will be ripe. Secondly, the Angle Watch program has been in place for some years now. With the implementation of IML there is no significant change to the notification program that has already been going on. Thus, the plaintiffs are no more damaged then they were before IML became law.
    If you think about it that way it’s not a surprise that the injunction was denied. At some point the passport identifier issue will become ripe and there may still be a chance for success against it. However, since the Angel Watch program was not law prior to its implementation, I’m not sure an injunction can be granted against it. How do you stop the government from doing something that it has not been authorized to do by law? Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can answer that question.

    • Timmr

      Hmmm, the court granted the preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the internet identifier provision of proposition 35. It was not (knowingly) in affect, but it was stopped before it happened, because the harm, chilling of free speech, was seen as likely to happen if the law was implemented. The danger was ripe enough to cause potential harm in that case. Don’t understand the difference, except the judge’s discretion.
      Put simply, the judge did not see the IML doing any harm to registrants. From the point of view of a registrant wishing to travel or already traveling, the harm is already ripened, the threat of more harassment, a letter sent to a foreign country enhanced by a visible mark on the passport. That is BS about the mark only being in a chip that only some can see. Clearly the authors of the bill’s intention is for the mark to be recognizable for all to see. It is a stopgap measure to foil any registrant changing his itinerary. When the harm of passport identifiers becomes ripe by being enshrined in law, by that point it will go beyond ripe and become rotten to use this stupid imagery.

  42. MarkSF

    Will a transcript / audio recording of the March 30 IML hearing be posted onto the CA RSOL site here for us to read and/or listen to the proceedings? I am not in a financial position to order.

    Here is information on how to order a transcript or audio recording of March 30 initial IML hearing in Ninth District Courtroom, Oakland, CA:

    US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Clerks Offices (San Francisco and Oakland locations)
    http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/locations

    Transcripts Procedures and Requests
    http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/transcripts

    US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Home Page
    (Cases of Interest shown on Home Page do not include IML)
    http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/home

  43. someone who cares

    So, they are saying that the plaintiffs could have not shown any damage done to them yet since the identifiers have not been placed? I thought they were good at imagining how things would be? Like, they can imagine a sex offender re-offending, even after having been crime free for decades, yet they can’t imagine the hardship this will cause the registrant AND their families? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

  44. Chris F

    From ICE’s web page:
    ***
    Through Operation Angel Watch, HSI uses publicly available sex offender registry information and passenger travel data to strategically alert foreign law enforcement partners through its HSI attaché offices of a convicted child predator’s intent to travel to their country. In Fiscal Year 2015, HSI made over 2,100 notifications to more than 90 countries.
    ***

    Has a lawyer reviewed the list of 2100 notifications to confirm that is what they are doing?

    What is their definitions of “child predator” that makes them so likely to engage in Sex Tourism? I can see if they were doing it only to those convicted of Sex Tourism, but we know that’s not the case at all.

    What countries do they consider likely destinations?

    I wouldn’t consider England, Australia, Canada, Japan, France, or Germany likely destinations and not needing to be notified even under their vague wording, but I bet they still notify them.

    Doesn’t it violate “due process” to blacklist any registered sex offender without the slightest bit of review on our side?

    By the U.S. sending any “warning” or applying a “Scarlet Letter”, that puts the burden of diagnosing an individuals threat and liability if they are wrong on every other government a person ever travels to instead of it being done just ONCE here, through a fair evaluation. Obviously, that will result in complete denial of entry for everyone marked because other nations aren’t going to wast the time/money or take on that liability when they can simply deny entry.

    Heaven Forbid if they ever identify a specific gene in the human body that makes sex offense more likely, because with the type of logic the government is using that will justify those people being marked as well.

    • PK

      I love how they conveniently changed it up:
      from: “Sex Offender”
      to: “convicted child predator’s intent …”

      • Timmr

        The colloquial phrase “Sex offender” must be losing some of its shock value.

        • Steveo

          And the fact that they lie and say convicted! Diferred adjudication is NOT a conviction. Words mean things, especially in the law. Or they are supposed to, and this is our government, clearly lying! How can God bless America when, left and right they purposefully deceive to get the effect that they want.

  45. Bill Arthur

    It seems to me from reading the travel comments, that fighting the IML is by now useless and irrelevant, since Angel Watch is already doing the job in all of the countries where they accept the myth that previous sex crime convictions are a warning for future behavior, or where they are so beholden to the US that they do whatever they are told. I guess that was the judge’s point. And Angel Watch does this, apparently, with no legal authorization. The lawsuit should be directed to stopping the Angel Watch notifications, which are as illegal as the IML. Will overturning IML stop Angel Watch? They are doing it just fine with no benefit of IML.

    Why is Janice and CA RSOL the only fighter in this battle? Why are there not many suits in many states to tie up the State Department in multiple depositions and maybe get them to cry uncle? I read on RSOL, for example, that ACLU is fighting a registry rule in Illinois and taking a case to the Illinois Supreme Court that does not sound any more significant than the fight against IML. Doesn’t anyone reading this have any contacts within local ACLUs which can be recruited? Sounds to me like we need much more firepower.

    • PK

      “The lawsuit should be directed to stopping the Angel Watch notifications, which are as illegal as the IML”

      I would tend to concur although I’m not an Attorney. It seems to me that this program was operating illegally, and that it probably would have been a good place to start with the Lawsuit. That’s not to say that I don’t think that the entire IML Law is horrific, the plaintiffs were injured to to the pre-existing Angel Watch Program, not the new IML Law.

      I was told by Galen Baughman from the Washington Lawyer’s Committee who said that he thought the Lawsuit was too broad. At one point, that Law Firm was only considering challenging the passport provision of IML and nothing else. In the end, they did nothing because they couldn’t get a ACLU Coalition.

  46. TiredOfHiding

    I would like to point out that the identifier will in all likelihood be data stored on the electronic chip which is in all new passports. It doesn’t need to be visibly printed on the outside.

    If the Nazis had had the technology to “chip” people they would have done so. Instead they forced them to wear a star symbol which was an identifier that they were a member of a monitored group…and of course, they also give them a physical tatoo as a permanent marker.

    Since a passport is required for travel across borders what this new “law” does is effectively CHIP us just like a dog so we can be identified. We are being marked just like dogs.

    Make no mistake about it. If they could get away with it they would actually implant the chip within our bodies and most likely the next step in the ongoing abuse and punishment that is added yearly. This virtual chipping is just as insidious.

    Think I am taking this too far? Well, did you ever think that our freedom of movement would ever keep us locked in a virtual prison within the borders of the USA? Did you ever think that a simple sentence would result in a lifetime of punishment with no possibility of ending?

    Well, just look at what has happened and is there any reason to think this will stop? NOT AT ALL

    Make no mistake about it. We ARE considered second class citizens and this unprecedented destination should make every American quake in their boots!

    These are dark days for the once great land of the free.

    • Commenter1

      Whether it’s marked on our foreheads or programmed into a chip isn’t it still a violation of the first amendment? After all it would still be compelled speech albeit one that is carried in digital format.

    • PK

      I had a question about this passport chip.

      Is this thing programmed when they submit the new passport?

      Can this chip be updated remotely somehow?

  47. Robert

    My passport has the RFD chip. Back a year ago I used my passport for identification. It was scanned through a machine like they use in immigration and at airports. I ask what what information does the RFD chip hold and the man who scanned it turned his computer screen to show me. All it shows is the same info as what is on the inside cover.Your info and picture and no other markings or other writings.

  48. Mike r

    it’s nice to see a lot of new names posting on here maybe the words getting out to a lot more people

    • Timmr

      You’re right, it used to take a couple days for one’s posts here to be pushed off the recent comments column. Now it happens in a few hours or less. Either more people come here to comment or the same people using changing names are commenting more often — most likely the former. This growth is good if that turns into more action. I think it is leading that way.

  49. Bill Arthur

    Could someone (Janice?) get this article on the judge’s desk? Seems the entire sex offender registry scheme (and all the other ensuing restrictions) originated with a Psychology Today article that was based on no empirical evidence whatsoever, but has been quoted by innumerable judges and politicians, starting with Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2002.

    A forthcoming article in Constitutional Commentary notes that Kennedy’s words about the recidivism rate of sex offenders — “frightening and high” — have been cited 91 times by courts around the country. The scary thing is there’s no empirical data to support Kennedy’s oft-cited phrase, and the statistic Kennedy cited is paper thin and demonstrable false.

    Justice Kennedy likely found the reference in the single source for the claim, an article published in 1986 in Psychology Today, a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience. That article has this sentence: “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses– indeed, as many as 80% do.” But the sentence is a bare assertion: the article contains no supporting reference for it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/20/how-a-dubious-statistic-convinced-u-s-courts-to-approve-of-indefinite-detention/

    • mike

      If you look at many of the states laws on registration, nearly all start with the stated premise that recidivism rates are very high.

  50. Bill Arthur

    I have read the entire Ellman article, and I still don’t understand why Janice and the other advocates you read about in the blogs are scratching around the edges (challenging the IML, residency restrictions, etc), when the entire system is clearly based on bogus facts. Why isn’t registration itself challenged? It seems quite evident that it’s completely indefensible.

    You can read the article here. Click on Open PDF in Browser at the top.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429

    • PK

      IML has residency restrictions?

      I agree with you that SORNA and other State Registries are based upon bogus facts.

      However, the SORNA Registration needs to be challenged in pieces, not the entire thing.

      The Lawyers are doing their job.

    • Lake County

      The problem is that SCOTUS has already ruled that the registry is not unconstitutional punishment. The (false) facts presented during the hearing needed to be contested at that hearing. Getting the court to change their ruling afterwards is almost impossible especially since SCOTUS gets to pick and choose what cases they want to hear. Getting the court to hear a case with similar issues will take a miracle and will have to be an exceptional case with exceptional plaintiffs. As much as we want to go for the home run, we will have to be satisfied with base hits. We will have to first change public opinion which will take many years as misguided beliefs are very hard to change. We must ensure that any 290 case going before higher courts have sympathetic plaintiffs with proven scientific facts. We also must ensure the wrong lawyer doesn’t try a bad case that could screw up future cases. We can’t just decide we are only going to fight the largest battle first. It’s not up to us even if we had the funds to do so. Despite what we want, we must start with “baby steps” and I think Janice has done an exceptional job so far. Changing CA residency laws by local communities was a major win for us.

    • New Person

      Because in Doe vs Smith, the US Supreme Court ruled registration was not a punishment. Because it is not a punishment, there is nothing anyone can do. Which is why more and more punishment can be levied upon registrants b/c the classification isn’t a punishment.

      So by winning all these “edge” cases, it proves under law that something is contradictory. At least that’s how I think this is going. You can’t go to the Supreme Court to say, “hey you screwed up, but we lack any legal proof that contradicts your ruling.”

      By winning the smaller battles, we may find something that drives a wedge to break this wide open. The IML case could be just that – especially if Angel Watch was proven to be unconstitutional and never should have been implemented a la internment camps.

      I don’t want to lose hope. Hope is all I have left. =[

    • mike

      People make decisions on the information or evidence that they have on hand. When new information becomes available, then it is prudent to rethink a previous decision. It used to be common knowledge that the world was flat, but new information became available and ideas were changed. The registry was and is based on very flawed information. Now two decades into the registry, there are two basic flaws. One, we now know that the recidivism rates are very low and maybe even more important is that the registry has not reduced the overall rate nor reduced the recidivism rate. It is bad public policy.
      I think we need to go after the registry itself, especially if a moderate or liberal judge is appointed to the Supreme Court. I am in my sixties and do not have a lot of time left.

    • Timmr

      I don’t think registration itself will ever be ruled unconstitutional, per se. Having it ruled as a form of punishment will change the whole picture, though. It will then be a requirement of your sentencing and will have a set list of conditions and time limit that can’t be changed wholesale by the legislatures or applied to people that haven’t had that as part of their sentencing. This would result in registrants having varying conditions applied to them, based on the particulars of their case and the registration laws at the time, creating a mess for law enforcement to manage. It is already a mess for law enforcement and costly to the public, some law enforcement, like the ones on the CASOMB are recommending it be whittled down.
      But as long as this is still not considered a punishment, the legislatures will extend the time and the restrictions on even a tiered registry.
      Eventually registration will be looked at like banishment is today. Banishment, as is shaming, is still a constitutional form of punishment, but it is looked on as a petty, archaic and cumbersome way to enforce laws, and so will registration one day be looked at as petty retribution and cumbersome to enforce, forcing resources away from more legitimate aims, such as helping victims or catching criminals.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The documents we have filed with the court so far are full of references to “facts” such as those found in the article mentioned. We contrast those “facts” with the myths surrounding our community. And we will add more “facts” as the case moves forward hoping to educate the court. This case has the potential of challenging the Smith v. Doe case in that one of the plaintiffs’ claims is ex post facto. We all need to be patient. This is a marathon, not a 100-yard dash and it could take a few years to reach a final decision in the case.

      • Steve

        So let’s say the court rules in the Feds favor can an appeal be made the court failed to take into consideration any real facts? I know this is a simplistic question and there are many variables.

    • wonderin

      I agree Bill and even though I have not read the report you linked to it has been obvious to me since day one that the registry holds as much logical evidence as religion.
      And fighting against the perpetuated myths of the religious and the psychological community bear a similar resistance. However, I believe strides can be made with constructive arguments and strategies.
      Too many so called constructive arguments (like sex offenders are wired to commit sex crimes and need a stable job, home and etc. to keep from re-offending ) only perpetuate value of a registry.
      If something is true, it can be demonstrated. The claims about sex offenders can’t be demonstrated by any factual arguments or empirical evidence.
      It’s time to insist that those supporting the value of the registry either put up or shut-up!

      • David Kennerly

        I agree! There are many assumptions being made without empirical evidence, not only from the comfortable high-ground of the ‘non-offenders’, but from within our own community of the damned, as we are reminded by several of today’s comments.

        Many of those assumptions will be accommodated by a perceived need to divide that community which does, indeed, consist of very different people with very different reasons for landing on the registry. The mistake they always make is in assuming that, because there are those here whose actions were rightly sanctioned by the state, that our only realistic hope is in finding ways to accommodate a regime of continuous – and unconstitutional – oppression by exempting their own favorite subclass (which they, invariably and coincidentally, happen to occupy) from its obsessive and draconian attentions. This appeal will always be made in the spirit of practicality as in “Let’s get real!”. They can “get real” all they want but the remit of this organization is to challenge a broad class of injustice, not to carve out exemptions for their favorite ‘offense’ subcategory from the unwanted attention of the state.

        I am all for making distinctions between acts and, as a constitutionalist, insist that our laws must do so with far greater precision than is being done now and that demonstrable victimization must be the basis for any criminal laws. However, the Registry, itself, is an unconstitutional beast, at its core, which must be slayed for the benefit of everyone on it.

        Therefore, we should not expect others to remain within its confines as a means for OUR desire for relief.

        This group does not apply a means test for entry based upon an historical accumulation of behavioral assets and must not narrow the scope of its advocacy to exclude their representation.

  51. Timmr

    Facts really do take a long time to sink in,especially when they are based in a type of religiosity to the orthodox view, and when the powerful have invested much capital in the existing theory and would lose much of their authority if shown to be wrong.
    Such, after 200 years of Copernicus presenting his evidence that the planets revolved around the sun, Galileo was forced to recant his support of the heliocentric cosmos.
    Humans still think that they believe are the center of the Universe and therefore truth emanates from them. We have had decades of the myth of the roving sex offender danger and its solution, the sex offender registry, and the myth became very compelling because it reinforced the myth of the sacredness of innocence and childhood. Who knows how many more years to untangle the myth from the fact and still convince people you are not overturning their most sacred beliefs. When all is said and done, falsehoods are not going to protect children, but for the same reasons people would not want to see the Sun made the center of the Universe, they will have a hard time accepting that facts are even relevant to the discussion — indeed, at present, even questioning the registry and the punitive model is heresy. It would be a step in the right direction to get those in power to admit that it is not simply a matter of believing in children or not, many of us even have children we believe in and want to be safe, and move on to at least discuss what is known.

  52. Unforgiven citizen

    Thank you Janice for bring actual facts to our justice system. The truth will set us free, and hopefully will stop these unscrupulous politician rallying the momb, spreading more lies and hysteria for their own selfserve attempts for votes. Education is how this will be won and then our media will be force to report facts not lies, and only then society will stop buying the hype. My dream is one-day society will stop lumping us all into one category not just a pack of rabid animals they need to put down.
    All we’re asking for is true justice to be served as every US Citizen deserves.
    My grandfather always said, “You keep kicking your dog,it will one day bit you back”…
    I am done hiding in the shadows my voice well be heard.

  53. Paul

    Unfortunately, after reading so many sex offender stories on other websites it seems to me that the public has one general thought: “Facts don’t protect lives.” Nor do facts tell them what they want to hear. I made a comment in the past about legislators using “Wikipedia facts.” And it seems to be very true, but then I was told that I falsely assumed lawmakers actually look at facts at all. And it got me thinking…when I was in college and was assigned a paper to write, I had to cite any fact that was given. I couldn’t just give a random number based on my own personal feelings about the topic. I was required to go great lengths to find scientific journals which were peer reviewed by no less than 5 of the authors colleagues. Now, I know that writing papers in college could be described as being “trivial,” not really having a large impact on the lives of people. But then I see lawmakers coming up with some asinine information regarding sex offenders…my question to congress/senate is this, “Why aren’t you requiring the lawmakers to supply even more citations when they their stats?”

    These laws have such an impact on the lives of the offender and the offenders family and in some cases it has cost the offender their life.

  54. John

    Money talks! We need to donate including me. I just gotta figure out how.

    • Timmr

      Coming up with money is hard for us, in the mean time actual words talk. Comment at the related media sites, articles, write letters, speak. Education is free, well almost. Flood the sites with comments. The media will see a great interest in these issues and have more stories related to them. Like the secret vote of Congress to pass IML, silence is our enemy.

  55. Mike r

    I really hope the courts get challenged on their justification for these laws since the recidivism rates are so low that’s what really needs to be addressed

    • Timmr

      Great argument, but how is this? Say you bomb a town in the Middle East that is known to have 5% of the population as active terrorists and randomly kill nearly everyone. That would be really, really immoral don’t you think? Now you bomb a town with 90 percent terrorists and end up killing the five percent who mean no harm. That may be more practical as far as national security, but would it be more moral? I don’t know. I am only asking. Now if 90% of people on the registry or 5% of people on the registry who never harm again are subject to discrimination in hiring, in obtaining shelter, in being a target for vigilante wrath, is it moral to punish a crime that has not been committed, no matter what the ratio of possible offenders to reformed?
      Just my take, the Supreme Court had put off these questions by claiming that registered citizens should be regulated as commodities with statistical qualities, rather than people having inalienable rights. I suppose that we may be found to be not so dangerous commodities, but will we be classed as people again? Sorry, it is an important distinction to me.

  56. Unforgiven citizen

    We are a society of people lied to, purposefully mislead, and manipulated via our emotions. We are consistently and purposefully lead to believe the dogma put forth by self-serving legislators and highly-biased victim advocacy groups. Like scared little children we believe all the terrifying stories intentionally told us relating to the ever-present, 21st century ‘Boogey Man’, i.e., the sex offender. We never question the veracity of those who claim this boogey man is everywhere and always waiting to exploit any opportunity to snatch away and/or defile our children. We believe he cannot control himself nor can he be controlled. We believe he is a forever threat. We are offered all the proof we need of the Boogey Man’s existence, as well as his predatory nature, via sensationalize and intentionally misleading media coverage. Each and every high profile case is used to further frighten the already frightened children – children who only appear adults. Emotionally, most of society responds on a level comparable to that of a pre-schooler when the Boogey Man is thrust upon us. Each and every mention of the Boogey Man results in knee-jerk, emotional reactions. Our society vacillates from hysteria to near hysteria when it comes to issues related to our modern-day Boogey Man.

  57. Unforgiven citizen

    We, or at least many, believe those who commit this class of crime do more harm to the victim than do murderers. Is that some distorted thinking or what? Yet, all one needs to do is begin to question those around them and it will not take long for a respondent to voice just such a belief. Crazy, huh? As is the case with actual children who have been needlessly terrified by an imaginary evil, all attempts to bring forth the truth and enlightenment are met with great resistance. Once a belief is formed and reinforced over and over again facts contrary to those believes are rendered irrelevant. Fear-based, emotional beliefs are the most difficult to overcome. Whenever people, especially those behaving as frightened children, those experiencing strong emotional reactions to a subject, particularly one felt so strongly as sexual threats, the ability to reason logically is all but lost. As a result, we turn to our protectors, for relief – just as children turning to their parents do when faced with fears they cannot control. The problem is our protectors are in the business of exploiting our fears. Our protectors further their careers by responding to perceived threats, often threats which are intentionally greatly distorted, with what is nothing more than ‘feel good’ legislation. They, our protectors, present themselves as champions intent upon addressing and resolving societal protection, but in reality this is not their primary motivation for any steps taken. Opportunities to earn favor with the children they entrusted to protect, i.e., professional attainment, maintenance, and advancement, is, in reality, what they seek most. Furthermore, it is easier to control a fearful group than one free of fear and allowed to think clearly. And because we, the children, are so very consumed by our fears, despite those fears being more imagined than real, we never seem to notice that the protections being offered are also a mechanism which unavoidably leads to the limiting the freedoms of all – not just those who we fear. Today our constitutional protections against expos facto legislation is under attack due to the retro-active nature of current sex offender registration laws. Those convicted of having committed past sex offenses can and are being forced to comply with laws restricting their freedoms enacted long after conviction – long after the date of the offense.

  58. Mike r

    PLEASE Janice et el challenge the Court to justify these laws using the current data. I find it very difficult for the Court to come up with a viable rational reasonable reason to justify encroaching on so many constitutional rights and what their justification is for all the regulations being put in place for rc when the recidivism rates are practically nonexistent.this could be a blessing in disguise that could actually topple the entire registration scheme.YOUR HONOR WHAT IS THE RATIONALIZATION REGULATE,RESTRICT, AND ENCROACH THIS CLASS OF CITIZENS WITH A PRACTICALLY NONEXISTENT RECIDIVISM RATE!!!!!!!!!

  59. Drew

    Janice, so what are the next detailed steps? Will this information be posted somewhere or will there be a conference call on this? How can I get involved aside from donating money?

    Off topic, does anyone know if this IML will effect pending AWA cases? I have my wife’s immigration (2nd attempt) pending due to the AWA. I just hope the IML somehow does not jeopardize it.

    • rob

      Drew,

      There was just a conference call a few days ago on the 14th.

      I was away skiing and couldn’t listen in. Hopefully the audio will be posted soon on the national rsol website.

      • David Kennerly

        Where do they post that? I had tried to find the audio from the previous meeting, which I had missed, but without any luck.

        • Rob

          David,

          They post it under is under the media link and then click on Webinars.

          I just went there and they have now posted last weeks conference call.

      • Lake County

        The conference call did not include Janice, so not much info was given. See Janice’s post earlier.

        • David Kennerly

          The previous conference, which I was not able to monitor, and in which Janice was present, seems not to be on RSOL’s website. I would like very much to listen to it.

  60. Harry

    Why can’t all these governments entities (US Gov’t. lawmakers, cabinet members, State/local governments)and sex offense hysterical celebrities, like J Walsh, PFML, Runners, Book and etc. be sued in a massive class action for fraud and harassment?

    • Drew

      Harry, if this was doable, I would be the first in line. The bigger question is, can/will it achieve anything?

      • Harry

        ‘…is, can/will it achieve anything?” It will expose Governments and the host of fear mongers that they are bunch of liars and bigots.

        • Drew

          But that’s the thing. The general public already knows politicians are bigots and liars, but do nothing about it. It’s like voting. Everyone complains about the establishment, the people elected to office, the crooks, the liars and two-faces. Yet, when it’s time to vote, everyone still votes for those very same people and use the lousy excuse of “the less of two evils”. Well, I say, do not chose either! Fill in your own candidate, or don’t vote period!

  61. PhilAZ

    There should be a online forum setup so we can all communicate and better know how many of us there are and this would allow a place to store and better search for information. phpbb or otherwise software. I would be willing to donate my hard earned money to host such a forum.

    • Drew

      I am a host and run my own dedicated server. I’m more than willing to provide free hosting if someone will want to take charge and manage it. I’ve got so many things on my plate, I just can’t put aside the time to do so myself, but I believe it’s a good idea.

  62. Joe Mandt

    Florida has required notification for at least 10 years, but only if you were going to be out of the country for more than 5 days (nights) More recently, the instituted a 21 day rule, but did provide for unexpected travel which only requires that you notify them as soon as possible. In the past I gave them a heads up, but kept my trips to 5 nights or less, so no paperwork was required. for the one or two trips where I was gong to be gone longer, i just filled out the form.
    After I was pulled aside in Brussels in November 2013, I asked the deputy who was doing my 6 month registration update in December if they had sent my info to CBP? He said no, they weren’t sending it anyone. CBP/Angel Watch got the information from the passenger list of Delta Airlines. That was the first time that I was required to give my full name as it appeared on my passport to Delta when I bought the ticket online and not my first, middle initial, last like it appears on my Florida Drivers license and every other card that I have. I was a bit wary at the time as to why they were asking for that info and in hindsight, with good reason.
    My question about the IML is if you live I live someplace like Vermont where as of this year, I am no longer required to register by operation of statute or Georgia where I can be removed from the registry by court order, who would I report my travel to? As I live in Florida, I would still be up on their website with my last known address listed (the state actually went to court to be able to keep people on who had left the country) but under absolutely no legal obligation to maintain my registration unless I came back to Florida. I naturally follows that my old registration would still be somewhere the national registry, but Florida would not maintain/update it once I was gone and in the case of a state like Vermont where they will “pre clear: you before you even move there and as such, I would have never even registered, they would not even report me to that central clearinghouse.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *