Notice of Appeal Filed in IML Case

A notice of appeal was filed today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the first formal step required in order to appeal the dismissal of the only court challenge to the International Megan’s Law (IML).

“The IML unfairly and unjustly labels hundreds of thousands of American citizens as sex tourists and sex traffickers,” stated ACSOL President Janice Bellucci. “This punishment will increase when the State Department adds unique identifiers to their passports.”

The IML challenge was filed in federal district court in February, one day after it was signed by the President. The case was dismissed on September for both procedural and substantive reasons.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m confused.

What’s the basis for appeal and reasons it should be considered?

It was already stated by the judge that the plaintiffs still would have travel impacted because of Angel Watch regardless of the identifier being on their passport.

Has the case been amended to challenge Angel Watch or has it added plaintiffs that will only be affected by the new passport mark and weren’t impacted by Angel Watch?

With implementation of IML and the identifier so close, wouldn’t it be better to file a new case that addresses all of the judges concerns and at a time when it is “ripe” than risk drawing this out longer? At best, won’t appeals just send it back down to this judge that is against it?

Could the moderators PLEASE add the links at the top for the original lawsuit and any other relevant developments? Thanks!

can anybody give me some info on my possiable travel abroad,to London England .ive BEEN INVITED. TO LONDON 2/17 . CAN I GET A PASSPORT? IM A REGISTERED CITZEN 20 PLUS YEARS ON REGISTRY, ANY PIT FALLS, MAY INDURE, LONDON .. CAN I GO ARE IS THE TRIP LOTS OF RED TAPE ENGLAND?

James,

after they deny you and before they ship you back, can one have legal appeal while still in detention?

Dear David:

I honestly don’t know the answer to your question or what an appeal process would entail…and the time limits to be heard, and even if you must stay in detention for whatever time period is involved?

I was detained only once, at the airport in South Korea….fortunately I was outbound to CA and was only held for 12 hours….I don’t think, from detention, I would have waited out any appeal process.

I just don’t know how this would work, the mechanics of it, from London.

Sorry.

Best Wishes, James

Back to the Appeal Subject at Hand:

I was wondering if we could have a follow-up phone conference to discuss generally the logistics of the Appeal?

Some questions I have include:

How long would the Appeal Process take?

Would the approval of this Appeal enable a new Motion for an Injunction?

Thanks in Advance!

Not sure if it’s been posted yet, California is now enforcing IML and the 21 day notice, I went in today just to have peace of mind and they had a form you have to fill out, they also stated that I have to return within 5 days of my trip to “check out” of their jurisdiction. That part I did not know that I had to do. The form is basic it asks for your name, address, addrsss of where you are going, days of travel, flight info and passport info and the country that issued it, i will be traveling to Mexico with family.

What sense does it make to require a registrant who can travel anywhere around the world but has to do the 21 day notification prior to travel? only to learn if he does that then an alert notice will be sent by the feds to that country he’s heading to and will get setup for denial of entry and sent back to the US.

@T:
And I agree. We must give the government 21 days notification so that they have time to ruin a vacation or business trip. It seems that the “Angel Watch” program needs to be challenged right alongside of the “IML”.
If paying for a vacation including flight, Hotel and rental car…only to find out that when you arrive to your destination country, you are refused entry, is a horrible form of Punishment, IMHO.
Those who pass these type of laws are vindictive, hateful pieces of crap.
Both of these unconstitutional legislative nightmares of the worst kind are “RIPE” to be tossed back into the toilet where it came from.

My question is was the IML reviewed and passed on legally when the President signed it, and didn’t let all registrants know the business of it? Because when an innocent registrant is traveling internationally and upon arrival at immigration, he is unaware that an alert notice was sent by the feds, then gets denied and sent back, and has to explain to his friends and family about what happen.

Notifications sent to Mexico.
Paul Rigney met with a representative at the Mexican Embassy in Washington DC recently. He shared with me that Mexico’s position is that it is a problem for the traveler in the USA. Well yes it is of course but they are under the impression that the USA is telling Mexico not to allow entry. I recently talked to another source with a representative in Mexico who said the same thing. Mexico is under the impression that they are complying with the wishes of the USA. It would be great if anyone has a copy of the paper that Mexico asks you to sign or a photo of it to send a copy to Paul at Registranttag.org or email a copy to latintravel@registranttag.org.
This is a big contradiction from what has been stated by the US in that the position of the USA is that they are merely notifying the foreign country of the problem. What is true? We do not know.

I think in my opinion that’s a good idea for him to do which is going to the embassies of those countries that are listed in the RTAG Matrix and do exactly like he did with going to the Mexican Embassy in Washington DC and getting their feedback information about the alert notices being sent out by the feds, and maybe let these countries know what’s going on with our government.

Just a quick update I flew into Mexico Christmas Day, 21 day notice was filled out prior to trip as well, presented my Mexican passport to Mexican authorities upon arriving, not a single question was asked.

Well it’s been over a year now for the Appellate filing. What’s happening with IML now? Denied? Not sure.

I listened in to the “International Travel” conference and had a question about the caller from Sacramento, CA who had problems getting into Thailand. He said he gave the 21 day notice, but I thought California was not a SORNA state and therefore does not require a notice to be given? Am I misinformed? Do you have to give advance notice, leaving the country, if you live in California?

Where does the fight stand on this? And if a person no longer has to register will notices still be sent out notifying that a monster is getting off the plane?

Any updates on this fight against the IML?

I would love for someone to get a restraining order against the IML / Angel Watch, and they are just slandering people when they send out those notices. No due process, and no proof that anyone is doing anything they claim, or even a danger to anyone.

Plus… it is racist in that the AWA says you can’t sponsor a foreign national, or marry one, but any american citizen is fine. With or without children. So basically AWA is only protecting non Americans…
Of course, none of it makes any sense.

In case anyone hasn’t heard, Pennsylvania’s SORNA law was dealt a death blow by the PA Supreme Court (Case 47 MAP 2016) on July 19th 2017. The case was Muniz v. Pennsylvania. This caused a ripple of a $hit-hemorrhage across the vile and corrupt system here in PA, and was immediately appealed to the US Supreme Court on 13 October 2017 (Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jose M. Muniz).
Fearing that a good chunk of their posts and budget would be taken away, the PA State Police filed an amicus curaie brief on 16 November 2017, and the respondent’s pleading is due by 18 December 2017. If certiorari is denied,as it was in the case of Richard Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al. v John Does #1-5, et al. (15-1536, 15-2346, 15-2486) the we in PA who suffer may be finally free. This decision was just rendered on October 2nd 2017.
As these dominoes begin to fall, I predict that the IML will fall right with them, as the US Supreme Court will ultimately hold the federal government up to the same standards as it is doing with individual states. Fingers crossed.