ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 by phone, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

General News

176 sex offenders, mostly Americans, barred from entering PHL in first half of 2017- BI

[GMA News Online]

The Bureau of Immigration (BI) has barred nearly 200 foreign sex offenders from entering the Philippines during the first six months of the year.

Immigration Commissioner Jaime Morente said the 176 foreigners were denied entry due to their record as registered sex offenders (RSOs) or individuals convicted or are wanted for sex crimes in their home countries.

Read more

Join the discussion

  1. PHL? Hmmmm

    Without reading the article, PHL is the airport code for Philadelphia…..makes you do a double take on the headline 🙂 That would be some strict restrictions!

    Would be nice if they broke down the 131 ‘Muricans into what their RC charges were to see the spread. That info would be very help in understanding IML. If it is just RCs regardless of what the charges were, then there is info right there that would help in a lawsuit.

  2. 131 'Muricans

    Can a legal professional contact the news org, PHL BI or the PHL Consulate(s) in CA (SFO and LA) to get the 131 ‘Muricans break down and what info is actually shared other than an RC with this name is traveling to the PHL Islands? Isn’t that US info available via FOIA request of our USG at least since it is gov’t provided?

  3. j

    I tried visiting the Philippines last year in March, i have been there before many years ago but with secondary of course, I was 19 at the time of my situation im 42 now, i called Phillipines embassy here in los angeles to ask about entering and informed of my situation, the gentleman replied saying there’s (no problem) im good to go, so I’m thinking I’m free to travel as I’ve done many-many times (so I thought) i purchased plane and hotel ticket but upon getting to customs in the Philippines after swiping my passport I was asked to go in the backroom, they didn’t tell me why I couldn’t get in until hhmmmmmm, thinking about 6 hours later than they told me why, immigration says it’s a moral turpitude issue, that was my one and only situation in my entire life, i ended up on a plane back to Los Angeles which they payed for, my situation happened well over 22 years now, I’ve flown to 4 countries and multiple states here in the u.s with no problem until last year, but my passport expired and have no plans in the near future to venture again until 2018 (hopefully) sb 421 passes, than I will apply for passport again, make a few calls, petition to get off and roll the dice and see what I come up with.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      I am terrified of attempting to leave the country for any reason anymore. Hell, i’m terrified just to cross state lines.

    • Moral Turpitude?

      Moral turpitude? That is what they said?! That is the catch all clause of all clauses when nothing else will work. I say they are still pissed about us taking their country many moons ago and payback is a bitch.

    • KS

      Dude, you called the embassy and told them. They are probably required to tell US Angelwatch. He probably said you were good to go because he really did not know you would be turned back. There is a papertrail of due diligence which ends with Angelwatch sending the Philippines BI a letter notifying them of your entire itinerary, so, of course they were just basically waiting for you at that point. This system makes good use of due diligence processes in which the last official is obligated to inform the next.

  4. MatthewLL

    This is so stupid. I know several filipino men from work who travel every year back to their home country to visit local brothels with minors. Even saw them sharing photos amongst themselves and their conquests. I called them pedophiles to their face. So the Philippines won’t let anyone in who has a hint of sexual misconduct years ago, but have no problem serving little girls to their countrymen on a regular basis. These people are pathetic. Fortunately I have no desire to go visit that despicable country and their dictator.

    • Double A

      I agree with you that not letting people into a country because of their criminal history is stupid. I agree with you in regards to their leader being a dictator, but I completely disagree with you in regards to the country. I know a lot of Filipinos who are good people. Just because a few of them do things that YOU don’t agree with doesn’t mean the entire country is despicable. Every country including the United States have citizens displaying moral turpitude.

    • Counting the days

      It’s so comforting to know that hypocritical politicians aren’t just an american issue. Even worse is that a majority of Pinoys are Catholic. Such a hypocritical religion. It’s so frustrating to have to live by another’s leave. Those that privately fluant the laws they publicly endorse, and then use their money, friendships, and influence to avoid prosecution. I have found the general public is too wrapped up in their own miserable existences to bother with condemning others. That’s why politicians have to keep reminding them who the ” bad ” people are. Otherwise, they wouldn’t know or care. Sure, there are a small group of fanatics that probably were either molested themselves or are fake zelots bent on saving the world from “evil”. They will always be out there. Lurking about. Waiting to justify their own sad lives.

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    Should new information coming from foreign governments be used as evidence to show that IML is in fact causing this problem? Because it sure seems coincidental that IML was implemented and suddenly we can’t travel anymore to the Philippines yet prior to IML and “Angel Watch” this wasn’t an issue?

    As more of those countries public information, this will help support our stance that yes, we have been banned from traveling outside the US, because the US designed for this to happen and obviously, it’s working. It’s not direct, but indirect. I can’t see how this can be glossed over by the courts.

    • New Person

      Wouldn’t this be an extension of the registration system since the IML uses the registration system? If so, then according to Snyder case, the IML is ex post facto.

      • Civil rights first

        I am one that had travelled to a foreign country then after IML traveled to that same country again and was stopped as I deplaned and was denied entry because IML. We all know this is punishment, adding more crap on us. I traveled several times to other countries and never once had any issues. I’ve been in the community now 14 year and my offense was 20 years ago. Young and dumb ass they say… But forever being punished. I even did 10 years on probation and never once got any violation… But none of that matters. Washington state just enacted the 21 day notice before travel on the 28th of July to comply with IML. I was reading in a case though… A supreme Court case that a judge said making someone give an advanced notice of travel was wrong. I’m not AJ or some of the other guys on here but I’ll try and find that case again and read it again. I think the case was guest vs. united states…
        Anyway, has there been anymore development in the fight against IML? And I see mention about this Snyder case allot… Can someone post the link to it please.

        • AJ

          @Civil rights first
          Here’s a link that should give you all you need about Snyder: The decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is the link under “Op. below.” You can read a more plain-language summary here:

          On its face, Snyder is only about ex post facto; however if declared ex post facto, that means it is punishment–something the governmental bodies have denied up and down all along. If punishment, it cannot be applied without a judge’s input, something else that isn’t happening. Going a step further, if punishment, the double jeopardy, Equal Protection, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the US Constitution would apply. This means a State to which you move or travel wouldn’t be able to impose additional burdens on you beyond what was given at sentencing in the State where the offense happened.

          If/When you find that other case law, I’d love to read it!

          • Civil rights first

            @AJ Here is the link to that case… I not sure if any of it is usable but I found this interesting.
            In yesterday’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown wrote, “Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States such as traveling by car or train, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world. Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly such as for the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity, or a religious obligation… the Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the list.”


            Probably not much there but I’m sure you’ll understand it better

            • Robert

              Another relevant case is US v. Cotterman. A lot has evolved since this 2007 case regarding the issue of reasonable suspicion and traveling sex offenders. Undoubtedly IML must have its day in the courts because IML has taken the reasonable suspicion concerns by the Cotterman court to an unprecedented level that seems unlikely to survive a thorough judicial review by the high courts.


              This case took place in April 2007 and is a reference case for DHS and the Angel Watch. This case is particularly interesting because it revealed an early confirmation of the “Angel Watch Program” operating in 2006: footnote [8] The TECS alert is part of Operation Angel Watch, a program that targets California residents who are registered sex offenders based on the suspicion that those individuals who travel internationally are engaging in child sex tourism.

              Reasonable Suspicion was a big factor in the case and is worth reading in the opinion as well as the dissents: “In further support of reasonable suspicion, the government asserts that Mexico, from which the Cottermans were returning, is “a country associated with sex tourism.”[15] The ICE field office specifically informed Agent Riley that the alert was part of Operation Angel Watch, which targeted individuals potentially involved in sex tourism and alerted officials to be on the lookout for laptops, cameras and other paraphernalia of child pornography. See 156 Cong. Rec. S9581-03 (daily ed. Dec. 14, 2010) (describing Operation Angel Watch as a program “help[ing] ICE [to] identify travel patterns of convicted sex offenders who may attempt to exploit children in foreign countries”). Cotterman’s TECS alert, prior child-related conviction, frequent travels, crossing from a country known for sex tourism, and collection of electronic equipment, plus the parameters of the Operation Angel Watch program, taken collectively, gave rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

              Dissent: The majority considers the TECS alert to be a sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion, but in reality, it is nothing more than a mechanism that automatically flags all individuals who are registered sex offenders in California—no matter the nature of the sex offense or how old the conviction—who travel frequently.[8] California is home to more than 106,000 sex offenders.[9] Some of these individuals are required to register as sex offenders for life. Depending on how many of them travel frequently, a TECS hit could affect tens of thousands of Californians—many with decades-old convictions. The TECS database clearly hits on “a very large category of presumably innocent travelers, who would be subject to virtually random seizures were the Court to conclude that as little foundation as there was in this case could justify a seizure.”

              • Robert

                In our future IML challenge: ACSOL, Does v. US

                (proposed) Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS
                Question presented: Is an individual with a sex offense conviction involving someone under the age of 18 and their intent to travel internationally – the criteria currently asserted by the DHS Angel Watch Center to generate a “traveling sex offender” alert to a foreign country, sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion that the individual intends to participate in child sex tourism while traveling abroad?

                We can win this !

            • AJ

              @Civil rights first
              Thank you! I’m sure there will be nuggets to be found in it. The no-fly list parallels what IML does in a number of ways.

              • Civil rights first

                Well I never attempted to do a redress with the department of homeland security when I was denied entry into Thailand but I’m sure they wouldn’t of gave me a copy of the notice they sent telling Thailand that a convicted sex offender was traveling to Thailand and that I would commit similar crimes there.
                “The court also found that the government’s inclusion of our clients on the No-Fly List smeared them as suspected terrorists and altered their ability to lawfully board planes, resulting in injury to another constitutionally-protected right: freedom from reputational harm.”
                Well aren’t they doing the same to RSO’s? By sending notices to foreign countries that we are traveling to commit sex crimes or engage in sex tourism or human trafficking smearing our reputation especially if never arrested, charged or convicted of human trafficking which is what IML intent is…. just spitballing here

                • AJ

                  @CR 1st
                  I wholly agree that we’re given the equivalent of “No Fly List” handling. Unfortunately, we have the extra detail of a conviction, whereas many NFL people have no record. That said, a conviction doesn’t automatically tip a set of facts into reasonable suspicion. Absent my conviction, would my travel be handled equally? Absolutely not. Sending out Interpol notices on every single RC traveler cannot meet reasonable suspicion criteria, as they are generated en masse and without any specific analysis of me or my travel itinerary ( It’s in this vein that I again find Kennedy’s “troubling” statement in Packingham of interest (, document page 8). Like in Packingham, I think SCOTUS will say the Gov’t must show a compelling interest in why *every* RC is flagged in travel. It’s akin to having a checkpoint and only stopping the cars that are on a “DUI list,” the police have, while letting all the others go without a second look.

                  IMHO, the days of legislatures being able to willy-nilly toss out restrictions on RCs is over. They’re actually going to have to do their job, truly finding (i.e. discovering through research) what specific laws need to be enacted, if any. I think the courts, at least the objective ones, are starting to hold the legislatures’ feet to the fire. I believe SCOTUS is of similar mind, and honestly wonder if they may swing around on the effect of even a simple Smith-like scheme.

                  BTW, skimming over Packingham again, I just realized the Opinion never mentions Smith, and only Alito, in his concurring opinion, mentions CT DPS or McKune v Lile. Hmmm…foreshadowing my omission? One can hope!

    • JM of Wi.

      My thoughts are other countries can do whatever they please. The tempo of our international travel restrictions have increased dramatically. Even if we kill IML the damage done is not disappearing anytime soon. The longer it and Angel Watch are being implemented, the more doors are closing.

      • ml

        Angel Watch has done us in. We are in their data base now and even if the Angel Watch notifications are no longer sent, if you have been turned back, you will not be getting in. I hate living in the country.
        Check that I hate being alive in this country as there is no life.

        • Lake County

          That is why no one should travel to another country until the IML is stopped. Once another country gets the notification, you will be listed forever as a SO by that country, you will be in their computers for life even if IML or Angel Watch is stopped. I would love to travel, but I’m going to wait until notifications to other countries has stopped. Even if the destination country lets you in now, they might change their policies later to not allow us in. Hopefully it wont take too many years.

          • AJ

            @Lake County
            My thoughts exactly. The less of a paper trail I make with my travels (and in life, honestly) the better. The last thing I want to do is create a file for myself with Interpol, Europol, or “whomeverpol.” I’m laying low until IML and Angel Watch are angels themselves (i.e. dead). Or…until I permanently leave behind this sinking-ship of a nation (give me maybe 10 years and I’m there!).

  6. John

    Found this intresting this guy got deported from Belize and the judge says because he wasent in usa he didnt pose a threat to us children. It says something about the wording of the law ? Trying my hardest to be with my ph gf even harder to get her to understand how difficult it’s going to be. She is headed to Hong Kong im not sure if I can get in there yet:/

    • AJ

      This is a fairly old story and case, actually. The 10th ruled on this case back in 2011,
      so his skipping parole for Belize was obviously some time before that. ( What’s interesting is he was deported not for his offense, but for lacking proper immigration documents in Belize. That he skipped parole and failed to give “exit notice” to UT seem to have been icing on the cake.

      Good thing we have IML to fix that whole threat perspective, too….

    • Civil rights first

      I’ve had no issue with Hong Kong but that was a year ago that i last went there and that was only because IML got me blacklisted from my girlfriends country and i went into Hong Kong during my layover on the way back to the US. Good luck. I’m not going to attempt any more international travel until IML has been beaten. But that still won’t get me off the blacklist in Thailand…

    • concerned registrant

      Yes, you can get into HK. I just returned from being there for a month with my wife.

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. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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
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.  

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

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