ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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

ACSOLGeneral News

ACSOL to Challenge Passport Identifier in Federal Court

The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) will challenge the passport identifier recently revealed by the U.S. State Department. The challenge is expected to be filed in a federal district court within the next 90 days.

“We have begun the necessary process of identifying a strategy for a successful challenge,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The strategy will include the identification of potential plaintiffs as well as both legal and financial resources. The federal district court in which the challenge will be filed has not yet been determined. That decision will be made after potential plaintiffs have been identified.”

The addition of a “unique identifier” to the passports of some registrants is one of the requirements of the International Megan’s Law (IML) which was Congress passed Congress and the President signed in February 2016. Registrants to be affected by this provision are those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor and are currently required to register as a sex offender.

The IML does not include a description of the “unique identifier” or its placement in an individual’s passport. According to a press release issued by the State Department on October 27, 2017, the following language will be added to the inside back cover of affected passports: “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212(c)(1).”

Prior to passage of the IML, no American passport has included a “unique identifier” for a U.S. citizen. The IML does not require the State Department to add such an identifier to the passports of U.S. citizens convicted of murder, robbery drunk driving or any other offense.

Join the discussion

  1. AlexO

    Thank you very much, Janice! The world needs far more people like you <3

    • Paul 2

      We need to put our money where our mouth is on this one please contribute as much as you can

  2. KM

    Janice, I’m going to file suit against IML as well. I can file in the 10th or the 6th- I assume you’ll be filing in the 9th.

    • E

      Please keep us updated about 10th or 6th! I could be a plaintiff.

    • The Facts

      In US Sup. C.f.. case Doe 2002 the 80% and 24% recidivism rate upheld the public safey regulatory purpose. I am not aware of any state in the United States with SO recidivism even close to that unless we are talking parole violations not new crime which a different green machine problem in California . Furthermore California CDCR 10 year SO study in 2009 showed about a 3.6 % new sex offense. In other words the public safety standard would not be met with a 10 year 3.6 % recidivism rate. Regulatory registration is for political retribution not public safety. Furthermore the California CASOMB put together by the State of California produced a 2016 report that even the high risk SO after 17 years pose no more risk than low risk. The high risk max out in 15 years .. but static 99 over estimates the risk and static 99R exacerbates the over estimation. The Supreme Court relied on the the dust frog anology rather require the state(s) to produce their real recidism rates. With the real SO recidivism rate being shown to be very low what state or federal court could rely on 2002 Doe precedent requiring similar. Doe relied on facts of 80% And 24% recidivism. There has been law after law devoid of the necessary public safety facts (high recidivism) used in 2002 Doe unless just relying on the holding itslef without ever even coming close the high recidivism facts underpinning the case. Therefrom no proof exist in any of the United Stated to uphold SO registration under the 2002 Doe scenario being blindly cited as if each states claims between 24 and 80% recidivism. There is also no proof that a penal code has any relation to risk. Like SONORA the tiers have nothing to do with risk
      so how could such a ACT(s) be useful for anything
      .

      • Tim Lawver

        These facts you make are why I know it is actually about the database’s convenience for domestic surveillance – electronic domestic surveillance. One type of terrorist is as good as another.

  3. Sam

    What to do if our passports are revoked prior to then and we don’t live in the country anymore? File for the new marked passport?

  4. Ron

    I live outside the USA and would be willing to be a plaintiff if you need me.
    But, I am not sure if my passport will be marked as the article mentioned;

    “Registrants to be affected by this provision are those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor and are currently required to register as a sex offender”

    Since I live outside the USA I do not register. But, my information is still on the Florida registry

    • Sam

      I’m in the same boat with the New York registry

      • PK

        @Sam “What to do if our passports are revoked prior to then and we don’t live in the country anymore? File for the new marked passport?” That would probably be your only option.

        I gave you some information earlier about a Civil Rights Attorney who is interested in seeking Plaintiffs to challenge the NY State Sex Offender Registry for those RSO’s, such as you and myself, who no longer live, work, or pay taxes in New York, but yet are forced to register in New York.

        Perhaps instead of complaining or hoping things would change you might want to consider to at least speaking with the Lawyer to get answers to the many questions you posted.

        Since I received no response from you earlier, feel free to reach out to her directly via Google:
        Kathy Manley Your welcome!

    • PK

      @Ron since you are still on the Florida Registry, you would probably still be considered an RSO, and therefore the IML Law would apply to you. It sounds like your in a similar predicament in that Florida, like New York, is forcing you to continue to Register on the Florida Sex Offender Registry, even though you don’t live, work, or pay taxes in Florida.

      You would think that the purpose of the Registry is to protect Florida Citizens from RSO’s who live in their neighborhood. But apparently, the Florida Registry, like New York, is using the Registry as a tool to punish.

      You’re Passport may not be marked initially, but surely they will snag it the second you step back into the United States.

      • AJ

        Does FL make one continue to register, or just keeps one on the books? From what I had gleaned (I give FL a wide berth), they don’t make one actively register. NY, and apparently WI, on the other hand, *do* force RCs outside their boundaries to continue to submit registration paperwork (and money?). That’s perhaps where Ron might have an argument…though I suspect he will be included and have to fight his way out.

        • Sam

          New York had me submit my picture and said to do it again in 3 years. So that they can keep it current. Other than that nothing else that I can remember off the top of my head. The paperwork they said they wouldn’t mail outside the US and that the person at the registry I talked to on the phone was incorrect. I have the emails saved in several locations just in case they want to try to reneg on me

        • E

          Wisconsin requires ONGOING registration. It’s annual paperwork they mail out, and annual $100, for anyone convicted in WI, regardless of state if residence. And the requirement is that I have to update them of ANY changes (cars, internet id, address, work/volunteer) immediately, just as if I lived there. So I live under two sets of reg rules with differing requirements all the time.

          • TXSO4Life

            @E…the reason you are doing double registrations in two states (as in NY and Florida) is because no one has brought a challenge yet in fed or state court. Once it’s brought in court, I am of the opinion that the petition will prevail. It’s unfortunate that you do not have many registrants in the same boat as yours to have chance for someone with resource to litigate. Have you contacted ACLU or human right group in your state to see if they would help? I live in the belt bible states, and every years we kept having new bills introduced on SO matter…what does it takes to break…I dont know…

            • Sam

              I contacted the lawyer PK had suggested and she had contacted me back and she said she would write a letter to the DCJS including a previous decision she had gotten in the matter of NY keeping people on the registry after they had left the state.

              If that doesn’t work we can file a lawsuit. She wasn’t sure if it would do better in state or federal court. The amount for filing and expenses in state court is not much but it equals more than my monthly salary here. She said that it would only cost a little bit more to file in federal court. I’m not sure if a multi person lawsuit would be cheaper but maybe if more people contacted her in the same situation we could all work together in this.

              If not I plan on begging my family for the money as they can get it to her easier than me transferring funds overseas.

              • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

                Was the Attorney named Kathy? Can i ask what case she has for people who left the state?

                Thank you

              • PK

                I would go in on it. I was going to pursue this last year, but did not want to go it alone.

              • Alec

                You don’t know me from Adam but I would like to help. I am not from New York but after the things I am seeing happening, i can no longer sit back and believe they won’t eventually include me in this garbage. So I’m going to fight.

                How much are we talking? I can contact Kathy directly and make arrangements provided she knows which case we are talking about.

                • Sam

                  I think possibly best to contact Kathy. If you reference NY registry and moving out of state/country I believe she will know which you are talking about.

              • AJ

                @Sam:
                I’m glad to hear of the promising direction things are going for you!

                Yes, it would be cheaper for you to have others included. It would be one lawsuit with multiple plaintiffs. Obviously Kathy, Esq., knows best which court to use. Personally, I’d like to see it done in Federal court, as it would probably carry a bit more clout as persuasive case law in other Circuits than a State court decision.

                @Alec: You’re a very kind man for stepping up to help him as you plan to do.

                • Sam

                  I appreciate any help that anyone will offer in these matters and if I had the financial ability to do so, I would.

                  No matter how you break it down we are all in the same boat, and if there are a few landmark cases in our favor we can upgrade to a yacht(figuratively speaking) and get our lives back to human.

                  Ironically through all of this I have learned a lot about government and law that they would never teach in school and I’m surprised that they don’t teach any of this stuff in health class or even sex ed.

                  You’d think that going to jail and ruining your life would be the best deterrent to teen pregnancy.

                  That being said I’m glad I had stumbled upon this site as well as other resources over the years when searching for reasons not to end it all. And I will update with any changes or events that may happen regarding my situation.

                  What helps one may help us all.

        • JM of Wi.

          We did fight the $ for registration fee’s in Wi. (and lost) several years ago.

          • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

            Well, think of the fees as being further proof of punishment in any challenge to the Registry. So it may work to your advantage if also to one’s impoverishment.

        • Biol57

          @AJ

          Florida requires that you register your state of residence and does not require that you send paperwork back to FL.

          • E

            That was my impression of FL: they don’t remove you from their list, but they don’t require ongoing updates once you leave the state. NY sounds a bit dodgy; don’t know about NY annual paperwork. Just to clarify: Wisconsin requires full-on registration: annual paperwork mailed out; if not returned in 10 days–non compliant. All updates as described above. And I have not lived there since the 90s.

            • Sam

              Okay I dug up the email that they sent me regarding my responsibilities once I moved out of NY

              “You will remain a level 2 offender in New York State until a New York State Court issues a court order to remove you from the New York State Sex Offender Registry.”

              After which I asked if I would still have to report to NY
              And they responded

              “No Mr. _______ but there is no mechanism to remove you.

              Under NYS law, you are required to notify the NYS Registry:

              · within 10 days of changing your address, adding an email address/screen name,

              · provide an updated photograph every 3 years”

        • Florida's non-active Registry

          @ AJ: I was convicted (and incarcerated) in Florida. I’m certain that I’m still on Florida’s Registry. But I moved away from Florida 15 years ago and the State of never attempted to contact me regarding updating or maintaining my Florida registration.

    • Quint

      This is my concern as well. I’m a ‘lifetime’ California registrant (level 1 after the dust settles) but I don’t live in the US anymore, and haven’t registered for a few years. In _theory_, I have to register in California, but in practice I don’t. What a mess…

      • Chester M

        I am in the same situation, living outside the US, not technically “currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction” since I do not reside in any jurisdiction with a sex offender registration program. However it would seem that they have already ignored much of the exact letter of the law. For example according to the law, a report was suppose to be submitted to congress no more than 90 days after it was enacted. That never happened. Also the law states that “the term `passport’ means a passport book or passport card.” But for simplicities sake they just ignore that and claim passport cards are different.

        The simplest thing for DHS Angel Watch to do is collect the names of everyone on all the registries and declare them as Covered Sex Offenders. How would one really determine if they are currently required to register in any jurisdiction? What if they were convicted in CA 30 years ago and recently moved to another state where they are not required to register any longer? And how would you tell the difference between that person and another one who was convicted in CA 30 years ago but moved to a state that does require them to register, but simply didn’t. Making these distinctions would be tedious and time consuming. So I think it is entirely possible they are just gonna use the list of people on the registry with no further consideration.

        • Sam

          Other definitions I have found are that covered offenders are the ones on SORNA list and the NSOR if they go by that standard I am not on the NSOR or SORNA because New York doesn’t comply with SORNA but has SORA. So just the definitions are too vague. I feel that they are just going to pull an Australia and take everyone’s passports.

  5. Grateful

    Very glad you are taking on this challenge. Thank you.

  6. SBC

    I want to be a plaintiff.

  7. mike r

    You know, I hate to be pessimistic all the time, and I commend Janice and team for all they do, but I have to note here (And I would bet money on it) that IML probably only effects a very small percentage of people out of the 100,000 on the list here in CA. I would go as far to say that 98.9% can probably give a rats $%^& about this IML issue. I mean sure, we all care, but in reality it only affects such as small amount of people I wonder if all this effort and resources are being correctly applied. Like I said, I commend everyone that helps us, “I just wish that all those resources were aimed at stopping or altering the tiered registry bill, or altering the entire scheme, not just for me either, but for a large majority of RC’s right here in CA”.
    Bash me all you guys want, I just had to get that off my chest…..Let me be sure since a lot of you seem to think that I don’t appreciate all that is being done, I do appreciate it…

    • AlexO

      This isn’t just California though. This is national. A win here means a win for everyone. And a win here would also be another layer of the registry as a whole being punitive. A win here should also make any future such markings much more difficult to pass. Some states force similar markings on peoples drivers license. Allowing IML passport markings stand means the federal government would have an easier time passing something to place such marks on our licenses. There are a lot of reasons why this law suit is a very positive one.

    • David

      mike r, I am a registered citizen who travels internationally and this IML crap DOES affect me. Because of the Angel Watch green notices that are sent to foreign countries, I have to be especially aware of what airlines I fly on, in which country I have to transfer airplanes (or where the plane temporarily lands before proceeding – on the same plane – to my intended destination), and into which countries I can and cannot fly. These add extra hindrances to my international travel arrangements and frequently makes it more complicated and more expensive to travel. In other words, it’s just another punishment added to a sentence I completed many, many years ago.

    • Gralphr

      Really? It sure doesn’t sound as if you care. From reading some of your past comments, you seem concerned about what you have to deal with, but could care less about other people problems. When people make their criminal act not as bad as another persons, all it does is cause disagreements and confusion. Last time I checked, it doesnt matter if you downloaded CP to actually had sex with a child, or raped a woman, a sex offender is a sex offender in the eyes of the law. Even when it comes to the tiered registry, it doesn’t make any sense and has to be fought. After all, someone has illegal sex with a minor and theyre a sex offender, but if the child is under aged then they’re a sexually violent predator. So in this instance, its the age of the victim and NOT what happened to them (violent or not) that makes someone a predator (which in itself, one thinks of some stalker/ repeat rapist not a single crime). The main reason why prisons are hell holes and nothing good ever happens for the inmates is because they’re too busy arguing why their crime isnt as bad as the next mans, instead of looking at the fact ALL OF THEM are inmates, so they should be working together for a common goal.

    • JM of Wi.

      I would say this is a national issue. and ACSOL receives $ from those of us outside Ca.
      I’m sending a check again today. This may affect only those of us who travel. but—
      Further consequences for acceptance of this mark, may be more states putting marks on our drivers licences etc.
      Mike r, nice work by the way on your research and lawsuit.

    • NPS

      I have to disagree with you there. It will affect more than you think. I have never travelled overseas and as much as I’d like to see Italy, Mongolia, and Russia, I’m afraid I’ll probably never be able to go because I don’t want that stigma on a passport.

      Considering that California has yet to have the Real ID, the U.S. may require us Californians to use a passport for domestic travel until CA does comply. I don’t have a passport, and I really don’t want to be forced to get one while I’m still registering for the next 2.5 years. Since passport cards will no longer be issued to registrants, I’d be force to carry the scarlet letter on an endorsement page.

      It’s also unfair to have this scarlet letter when some of us with an expunged record have a contact offense involving a minor of 17 years of age. This is completely legal in 30 U.S. states and all over the world. If anyone saw “child sex offender” it will indicate pre-pubescent child when that is far from the truth because in those other states/countries, a 17 year old is age of consent and not criminal. The passport endorsement page would suggest otherwise.

      So it goes beyond the desire to travel internationally. We’re looking at compelled speech even for domestic travel. Furthermore, as long as I’m in California, no one knows I’m on the registry because I’m unlisted. So not only would I be confined to this country, I’m confined to my own state if I want to continue living under the radar.

    • PK

      “I just wish that all those resources were aimed at stopping or altering the tiered registry bill, or altering the entire scheme, not just for me either, but for a large majority of RC’s right here in CA”. Who cares about the Tiered Registry Bill?

      Yes IML will have a direct impact on me as well, as I am married to a Mexican National. Why not just forget about the United States and live in Mexico forever? The problem with that is, I need to still come back to the United States, not only for work, but for medical issues.

    • Davidh

      @Mike R

      yeah that was a pretty dense thing to say. I wont rant about it you knew what you did when you did it! Like you say, just had to say it!!!

    • TXSO4Life

      Mike R, I think a post by Janice back in Oct of this year stating that on the upcoming November conference there may be a consideration in challenging the registry. I am not sure where that stance as is of today. Perhaps there is a shift in priority or that determination still stand. Only Janice or ACLSO team could clarify that.

  8. MatthewLL

    How about a plaintiff who has to register in his state of residence, but not in some other states? I have a court order that says I do not have to register in Alaska. I also have confirmation that I am not required to register in Texas. So, if I lived in either of these two states, I would not have that notification on my passport. However since I live in Washington State, my misdemeanor offense requires my passport be branded. I have to register here for 3 plus more years.

    Also note that Washington State driver’s license do not meet federal standards for TSA, therefore a passport is needed.

    See any legal issues here?

    • PK

      I think it would make sense for a successful Plaintiff to be a person who relies heavily on their Passport because of family or work that are overseas. An Airline Pilot, or perhaps someone who is married to a Foreign National and their family lives outside of the United States.

      • Unforgiven citizen

        That would be me , heavy on my passport, back and forth daily across our international board because of family, wife to be specific. Can’t get her visa because of AWA

        • PK

          Me too, although not daily. My family is in Mexico, and I haven’t even bothered to try to get the Visa in the U.S. because of what I have heard about AWA blocking it.

  9. Joe123

    Best news of the week, and something we have been waiting for since last week. Let’s hope the strategy to fighting this law is successful, as you know they could always point to the fact that we still have the current systems of Notices that is sent out, ‘Angel Watch’ and that it is allowed to run, while this is just an extension of the notification system. You know these people will come up with anything to keep an atrocious law on file. I’d like the criminal justice system to tell us how this is any different than being marked with a ‘J’ in Nazi Germany. A solid argument that I see right now is the same one that won a recent case: there is no individual assessment process for each person to warrant the need or ‘notification for public Global safety’ because they cannot determine that everyone with a registerable offense is a potential child trafficker or molester that will reoffend. If the person has been released from state custody then they should adhere to the same exact laws as all FREE citizens, period. Of course we can throw in the real recidivism rates, as well as the extremely low occurrence of such ‘international child sex tourism via US citizens’ as further statistical proof that this law is not warranted via the giant net that it casts. If this law prevents anyone from being admitted to countries for legitimate reasons, then it cannot and should not be on the books as it causes harm after release from state custody.

  10. Harry

    Thank you Janice and team. However, I would like to see the whole IML taken to court. The hit notice (Green) still would keep from seeing my daughter graduating from the School Doctor of Medicine in July 2018, even with an unmarked passport. Again, Thank you.

    • Harry

      P.S. I am available plaintiff.

    • PK

      You can’t challenge the IML as a whole, because there are too many moving parts. I think they tried that last time, and the challenge was much too broad. Each individual mandate should be challenged separately.

  11. Alec

    This is amazing.

    I’m not sure my case is appropriate to be a plaintiff (but if it is I will definitely let you know) – but you have every penny I can spare. I’ll be contacting you separately to see how I can help.

  12. SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

    I wonder if this is enough to be deemed “Punishment” and therefore apply apprendi v. new jersey as the age of the victim was not a element of my conviction, only of my requirement to register

  13. Timothy D A Lawver

    Count me IN!
    BTW I plead not guilty! Single count 1st degree child sex assault 1992, rock county WI. I did not waive right via plea! Actually NOT guilty! Demanded trial and found out they do not need real evidence.

    Never had a passport except maybe while in ARMY 82-89 when I was sent to Germany Holland, send TDY to England, Ireland as well. Never actually held the passport though. Maybe Army used another method..not to sure.

    Please use mailing address listed on WISOR, for contact by mail. I opt not to use email for obvious reasons. Big brother is watching!

  14. David

    Thank you, Janice.
    (I am happily sending an extra “Defeat IML!” contribution!)

  15. Matt

    What is meant by “some” in “The addition of a “unique identifier” to the passports of some registrants is one of the requirements of the International Megan’s Law (IML) which was Congress passed Congress and the President signed in February 2016. “.
    Does this mean that only hands-on, higher tier offenders will have the identifier placed on their passports?

    • hh

      Janice, what about the green notices for all registrants ? Is that being taken to court as well ?

    • CR

      I don’t think anyone will really know until the Department of Homeland Security sends the list to the State department identifying the people whose passports are to be revoked.

      Many people hope that it will not include those whose offences involved CP. But I think it’s likely that it will, because after all, the pictures viewed were of children, and they are considered victims.

      • AJ

        @CR:
        …and CP is specifically listed in the law as an offense against a minor.

  16. Bm

    How people who live not in Ca can be involved?Let us know.Сan this law effect people who already on register ?Its possible if we knew about law we would not plea.Anyway thank u from all of us

    • AlexO

      This law applies to anyone, anywhere in America. If you have to register and your offense was against a minor, this law will apply to you. If Janice wins the case, then the win will apply to everyone, everywhere since this is a Federal law and not state specific.

      • max

        Sadly this is will be a political decision. Not a judgement considering the rule of law. However i will continue to support Mrs. Belluci and her tireless efforts

      • PK

        If Janice wins what case? I’m guessing you are part of the Legal Team? You seem to have some kind of “inside information” “There are a lot of reasons why this law suit is a very positive one.”

        • AlexO

          The case this thread is about? Janice and her team are going to file a challenge to this passport identifier. I’m not sure what information I stated that makes it seem like I’m on the legal team or have inside information. A win here would be another thing that shows the governments overreach. Everything they’re doing to us who are now off paper they’re doing so because nothing is considered punishment. It’s all “regulatory”. Having things struck down like this can later be used as precedence against future similar implementation attempts, and may even help with some existing things like Florida placing a similar mark on RC’s driver’s license.

  17. steve

    This is a sneaky “Travel Ban” nothing more nothing less, and is punishment.

    From Chris Smith’s website
    “Due to International Megan’s Law, destination countries will no longer be caught unaware by sex offenders who MAY BE traveling for nefarious reasons.”

    In other words guilty before you even step off the plane.

    • T

      Why not put him in check, because if he commits a sexual crime will he be complying to the IML in which he deliberately got to passed?

  18. Robert

    Awesome! Thank you Janice and ACSOL. I will support this effort in every way I can.

    • lovewillprevail

      Everyone, please donate. I plan to do so. Even if it is $5 and that is all you can afford to give. As someone above stated, some of the issues cross over to the registry, so even if you do not travel overseas, a good outcome can possibly affect you in the long run.

      And on another note, don’t knock Mike R. He does have a point. More people are affected by the registry than those affected by IML. He was just suggesting focusing on the registry would be the greater good as it affects more people.

      And Mike, even though I am in Texas with one of the most conservative court of appeals in the country where things ruled unconstitutional elsewhere are ruled constitutional here in regards to sex offenders, I am hoping the best for you with your lawsuit.

  19. Harry

    Another issue with this passport thing and the IML is that there are RCs that live states that are off the registry that can have in-marked passport vs the ones that live in states that have life time registry must carry the mark that may have a convection older than the RCs from that do not have lifetime.

  20. Biol57

    If you are filing in the Ninth, I am happy to be one of the plaintiffs.

  21. America's Most Hated

    I’m happy to see that this will go to court. This news has been in my mind all week and it’s one more huge issue that will have a massive adverse impact on my life.

    I got pulled OFF an airplane recently in Miami trying to travel out of country because my state failed to notify the State Dept and Marshals after I had written a certified letter to them well in advance of my 21 day notification requirements. I lost $thousands in lost air tickets, hotel room, new tickets to return home, and I was left stranded at MIA international in the middle of the night crying. I don’t know if it was incompetence and laziness, or if some clerk just said, “Screw this guy. I’ll show him!”

    So travel is painful and costly and stressful enough without this new development. I can’t tell you how stressful and worrisome it is when I travel. And after being pulled off the plane in Miami when I was peacefully sleeping in my seat, I especially have PTSD that it will happen again. I have to down several $13 airport beers just to stay calm. Vacation is supposed to be relaxing, not terrifying.

    I will be following Janice’s case every step. Thank God someone is fighting for us to simply have the freedom to live a normal life.

    I haven’t contributed money in a while. I’ll do so tomorrow.

    • Need to know

      Sorry to hear you had to go through this, and first I have heard of this situation happening.

      Not to have you relive this, but can you answer the following:
      1) Did they specifically state the reason you were being pulled off the plane?
      2) How did this get resolved? Where you able to get on next flight?
      3) What state do you live in and are you required to submit advance notification?

      Does anyone else know of this occurring?

    • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

      America’s Most Hated). So, in this case, you had filed the 21 day advance notice (are you in a SORNA state?) and the Feds claim not to have received it. However, they knew that you were a Registrant about to leave the U.S. Ipso facto they were able to know that you were leaving the country without an advance notification and must have relied upon either: 1) A PNR (passenger name record) or a 2) passport scan at the gate. Since I don’t know if they are actually scanning passports yet at security before the gate having not traveled internationally in some years (their having previously just examined them, along with your boarding pass), then I assume that it was a PNR ping. This is good information for us to determine the methods of DHS/CBP et al. for ascertaining Registrant status.

      • Alec

        David,

        I traveled recently and no, they are not scanning passports at the gate (through the popular airports on the West Coast, anyway). So this means they got a PNR ping. They get the PNR’s 48 hours before departure and run them through SMART so this is likely how he was leaving.

    • TS

      @Americas Most Hated

      Did you have copies of the paperwork you sent in certified (with a received note or delivery tracking confirmation page) on your person or with you in a bag to show you did notify the appropriate entity and people within? If so, did they note that and dismiss it anyway? What was their reaction? It is important to note, in addition to the other questions here, their conduct at the time of removal and post-removal processing of you.

  22. Chris F

    This would be much more important than even the Packingham case if it gets to SCOTUS.

    We got a great quote from the Justice’s on Packingham, where they said “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court”.

    It’s time to put it before the court as this affects the lives of people and their family that are no longer under the supervision of the government…and the duration of that supervision was already determined by a judge as being all that is needed to protect the public.

    This needs to be challenged on Substantive Due Process and that it’s arbitrary government action on many different levels. Nobody had a court decide the duration someone is on the registry since it’s an arbitrary number created by legislatures. Therefore, the length of time they have such a dangerous mark on their passport is arbitrary as well, and not related to their individual circumstances and no due process way to get rid of it.

    It’s easily and Equal Protection issue, as its a national designation that applies to people differently that were in the same situations, since some states don’t require them to register for the same crime and some do. Some have different age of consent laws. It’s not apples to apples. You can even have two people in the same state with the same exact crime treated differently because one traveled to Florida and got permanently stuck on their registry.

    It probably falls under Bill of Attainder as well. It’s a devastating law aimed at an easily identifiable and politically powerless group, and there is no rational basis for it to affect those without a history or high likelihood of travelling abroad to molest children. I am sure someone can dig up quotes from those proposing and supporting the bill that admit to their real agenda of just preventing all RC’s from travelling.

    Look to Connecticut Department of Public Safety V Doe 2003 SCOTUS case to keep from making the same mistakes they did. Don’t go for Procedural Due Process unless you figured out a completely different approach. This issue is similar in that in that SCOTUS case the argument was about a public registry, and was upheld because it was just showing factual information (and didn’t claim they were dangerous) and people got their “Due Process” at the time of original trial. With IML, there isn’t just a place to look for “factual information” like a public registry, it is being branded on us and forced to be disclosed, also violating free speech by forcing us to present the government’s message that we do not agree with.

    It’s also a Separation of Powers issue. It is the job of the Judiciary to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public from those that committed a crime. The legislature is stepping on that authority by over-ruling the judiciary on the length a person should be considered dangerous and the extent restrictions are needed on that person. It’s not their job to do that, and certainly not their job to only do it to an easily identifiable and politically powerless portion of those convicted of a crime.

    Good luck Janice and Team! This could be the most important challenge of the next few years that is a big stepping stone to challenging the entire thing.

    • TS

      @Chris F

      Beautifully written, well articulated and just spot on! I am saving this and using it as foundation for arguments against this type of crap. I know this is just the tip of an iceberg because it is much deeper when you get into case law, etc (like mike r did on his filing we reviewed), but for an elevator speech, this one is perfect IMO.

    • AJ

      The arbitrariness is demonstrated quite easily: at any moment in one’s life, the terms can change due to the whim of a legislative body. Off the registry tomorrow? Not anymore, they just changed the law. Off the registry for 20, 30, 50 years? Welcome back, they just changed the law. As SCOTUS touched on in oral argument for Smith, what other collateral consequence regulation matches this? I would say the answer is “none.” (Unfortunately, the SCOTUS got sidetracked and never came back to it in argument.)

      As for the uselessness of PDP, one need look no further than the syllabus from CT DPS: “Unless respondent can show that the substantive rule of law is defective (by conflicting with the Constitution), any hearing on current dangerousness is a bootless exercise.” There is some difference between what CT DPS and IML, though. As SCOTUS pointed out in CT DPS, the State had some sort of disclaimer that no risk assessment at to dangerousness has been done, and therefore none exists or should be inferred solely due to presence on the list. Likewise, in regards to IML the Government has done no risk assessment as to dangerousness. Yet IML provides no disclaimer, either in this endorsement or with Green Notices. In fact, Green Notices explicitly and specifically claim one *is* a risk!

      With Packingham, Snyder, Cooper*, and (probably) Muniz settled, it would seem the scales of justice are tipped ever so slightly in our direction.

      *Doe v. Cooper (4th Circuit), which held that, without individualized risk assessments, a 300′ safety zone was overbroad under the First Amendment. (https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/fourth-circuit-affirms-doe-v-cooper/)

      • Lovecraft

        Unfortunately the doe v cooper just led to another premise law. Same 300 ft buffer zones and the things that were overbroad were changed to ambiguous and the parts that werent overbroad in the old law were changed to overbroad in the new bill. So in all actuality, the new law is way worse. Its funny how you get a win and it ends up making things worse in the short term. We have a lawsuit pending, which the state is trying to say our lawsuit is overbroad because it covers everything. Haha too funny, right?
        Additionally, I fully expect when the nc legislators reconvene, that they will try and craft a new social media ban. (they already said they would try) Im not sure how they could craft one that wont get an immediate injunction by the courts tbh, but we shall see.

        • AJ

          @Lovecraft:
          Thanks for the insight and info. It doesn’t surprise me the legislature is going to try again (and again, and again). They absolutely cannot imagine truth being anything other than “frightening and high,” so of course they must “fix” what the courts have “broken.” Never do they step back and go, “hmmm, we haven’t had this law, and yet nothing has happened.” Regardless, they are now on defense, and more and more will have to show the courts why it’s okay, versus RCs having to show why it’s not okay.

          Rewritten laws or not, the Cooper decision is important in contributing to the judiciary’s posture that risk assessments are an integral part of the process. This was also stated in Snyder, Muniz, and Millard. That, IMO, is the key element to use against the schemes.
          *****
          “We have a lawsuit pending, which the state is trying to say our lawsuit is overbroad because it covers everything.”
          —–
          “Your Honor, the complaint only includes those aspects of a RC’s life and rights the State is harming, abridging, or controlling.” 😉

      • TS

        @AJ

        Questions:

        Can you really attack a passport marking now with no damages to those who will have passports with them? Don’t you need some damages shown like Millard in CO shows for the three on the registry?

        I know forced government speech is unconstitutional and agree a passport marking is forced speech, just like marked DLs, but is that enough to take it on? If so, then that could in principle take on marked DLs too later in states who choose to mark them or have them marked now. Do you go with the same tactics as in Millard that Judge Matsch came to decide on, agree with and then expounded on in finding the registry is a problem? Maybe under SDP, Bill of Attainder, EPC, etc?

        Is a US Marshall/Interpol green notice lawsuit going to be needed in a separate move to get it challenged in the same or similar arguments as above?

        • Sam

          Well the damage begins with the revocation of passports on that scale as previously they had only been revoked due to owing significant amounts of money to the government or child support, have been convicted of drug smuggling, or of sex tourism.

          All of these have been put in place as to not out run the law or commit the same crime again.

          What they are trying to enact now is basically do the whole Minority Report thing on a group of people regardless if they had the intention to commit a crime or not.

          Everyone has the potential of committing a crime and with all honesty in Asian countries if you go to a bar, a large amount of the Guest relations officers that work at the bars aren’t even of legal age.

          So even if you aren’t an offender and you meet someone overseas you have a high chance that the person you slept with is underage. If they are going to mark our passports they should mark all passports of men and women because everyone has the potential of doing it

        • AJ

          @TS:
          My layman’s opinion is a big IDK. Were I a judge, I would want to know what harm has been suffered; so far, I don’t think there has been any. I see a big part of the problem in fighting IML being how the judiciary gives wide latitude to the other two branches when it comes to foreign policy, under which passports fall. The act of revocation (I think State misspoke in saying revocation; I think it actually meant “cancellation and re-issuance”) is perfectly legal and within the Government’s authority, since a passport is Government property (Page 5 of your passport, or 22 CFR 51.9, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title22-vol1/pdf/CFR-2002-title22-vol1-sec51-9.pdf).

          A Due Process claim has some good chances, thanks to Kent v Dulles*: “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. … Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad … may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/116/case.html). One will, of course, need to show deprivation based upon the endorsement itself. This is where my idea of bifurcating it from the Green Notice would come in handy. Or one could raise both in a single complaint. My fear is the courts have routinely said, “you had your due process during the court phase for the offense.” To me, this is at best disingenuous, but more like disgusting. If Due Process applies–and it does–how could it be applied to facts, events, and laws not in existence at the time of the court phase? How was my deprivation of travel subjected to Due Process when convicted? Does someone have a single-use dosage of Due Process that gets exhausted at conviction?

          {Start Rant}
          To cast the designator simply as a collateral consequence is equally disingenuous or disgusting. It boggles my mind that our society is fine with limitless collateral consequences being allowed and/or imposed, at any time the State decides, in any manner it decides–including decades after a offense. Unlike other collateral consequences, many of those foisted upon RCs lack a nexus to the offense. (I feel it could be beneficial to try to resurrect the collateral consequences discussion SCOTUS broached in Smith oral arguments. They were wary of it then, they may well be even more so now.) As Wiikpedia notes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_consequences_of_criminal_conviction#Efforts_to_include_collateral_consequences_in_sentencing_in_the_United_States), some do view collateral consequences a violating the 8th Amendment. I think the Millard judge holds such a view. Actually, I think he probably feels some are okay, but there’s a limit to them.

          That courts–including SCOTUS–feel it’s okay to allow the State unbridled power over everyone ever convicted of anything, I find quite disturbing. I cannot for one second believe the Framers felt, “if you are convicted of a crime, you are forever beholden to the whims of the State and People,” yet that’s what we have in collateral consequences. I feel they’d be particularly incensed that it’s most heavily used against the disfavored–the exact citizens they strove to protect from the State!
          {End Rant}

          I think compelled speech is a pretty good tactic and having traction. After all, if a motto on a license plate on one’s car (even a convict’s car!) is compelled speech how can this designator not be? Note that even factual speech by the Government is subject to compelled speech review (sorry I don’t have the case law URL handy, but I have previously posted it on here somewhere).

          Personally, I’d like to see AWA challenged, as it’s the keystone for everything we endure. It’s the template for State MLs, and it’s also the foundation for AWC and IML. I don’t know that AWA can be eliminated, but I do believe the lack of individualized risk assessments is a significant chink in its armor. From recollection, courts have cited that as concern in every win we’ve achieved.

          In short, to answer your questions: SDP – yes, via Kent v Dulles. BoA – doubtful. EPF – no. I see 1st, 5th, and 8th Amendment claims.

          *I find it mildly ironic that Kent v Dulles had to do with passport restrictions on communists, the same disfavored group that is the basis of the only significant Bill of Attainder case law–and which Chris F, and I, think applies.

          • TS

            @AJ

            Thank you for putting the technical, tactical and strategic legal points out there in your answers to my questions. You enlightened and affirmed thinking with these. Good reading for others here.

            Commies playing in our nation’s politics again it appears (or still?). 🤔 Would be interesting to see Kent v Dulles used in this filling and the Court’s reaction. I think, in agreement with you, this is a card you play.

          • CR

            It does not seem to me as though Kent v Dulles is applicable. Unlike as with that case, we are not being denied a passport. The US is not preventing us from leaving or reentering its borders.

            Given Angel Watch and the requirement to give 21days notice before traveling, it’s unlikely that the passport endorsement will make a material difference in whether or not we’ll be allowed to enter some other country. Many countries are denying us currently. Those that are not could do so if they wished. They are being notified about us regardless.

            • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

              I’m hoping that we could have another conference call soon regarding these issues, including the “unique passport marking” vs. the wider regime of notification which, as you point out, is being done, regardless. We shouldn’t, perhaps, assume that such a challenge will not follow the “marking” lawsuit. It certainly was the stated intention of ACSOL, i.e. to separate out the two issues into separate lawsuits. I certainly hope that that goal is still thought to be viable.

            • David

              CR, one notable difference between the passport identifier and the Angel Watch green notice is that the Angel Watch green notice probably goes to a higher-level customs border control administrator, not to the border control officer manning a booth at a foreign country’s airport . Although the higher-level administrator may crumpled up the notice and throw it in the trash bin, the Customs officer at the airport will see the unique identifier on a passport and will have the authority to immediately say, “No, right here in this moment, you are forbidden to enter the country. Period.” My point being that although it may be the policy of the country (for example, the European Schengen countries) to disregard the green notices, any individual border control officer at any given airport (who may not know that policy of disregarding green notices) may simply bar you from entering the country upon seeing the “unique identifier”.

            • AJ

              @CR:
              I agree the case of Kent v Dulles as a whole may not apply, but we don’t need the whole case in order for it to be of use. The quoted phrase from SCOTUS certainly is applicable, as it establishes a standard. SCOTUS unequivocally stated international travel cannot be deprived without Due Process. That’s an immensely useful statement when challenging Government actions such as IML and AWC. This is no different than what came out of Packingham. Packingham was a First Amendment case involving a RC, not a RC case. However, the parenthetical–which had nothing to do with the decision in the Opinion–can be used in cases to show SCOTUS’s position. (I vaguely recall seeing it in an opinion recently. Perhaps Millard?) Another example is WV Bd. of Educ. v Barnette, which was about the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, Wooley v Maynard, which was about State mottos on license plates. The statements made in the Opinion about compelled speech are much more valuable than the decision that a school cannot force a kid to stand and say the pledge or that the State cannot force a citizen to speak for the State–even on what is almost assuredly a government “document” (license plate). Sometimes, things said by SCOTUS in Opinions are more valuable than the Opinions themselves, or are at least more widely applicable. There is no one case or Opinion that will 100% apply. If there were, it’d all be resolved already! I do believe Kent, Barnett, and Maynard all will factor into any successful challenge to the designator and/or Green Notices.

              To your statement that, “[t]he US is not preventing us from leaving or reentering its borders,” I say that’s merely the extreme that occurred to give rise to Kent v Dulles. The US *is* erecting barriers to the liberty interest of freedom of travel without Due Process. Using an all or none argument, as you seem to infer, would also support residency restrictions as legal, because the Government is not preventing us from residing everywhere, just here and there. Whether partial or complete, there is still a liberty interest deprivation without Due Process.

              I agree the endorsement is minor compared to the Green Notice. I’ve said that a few times. I also think the Green Notice is much easier to attack, given its explicitly and blatantly prejudicial statement of dangerousness. Green Notices specifially say one is, “likely to repeat these crimes in other countries,” (https://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices).

              Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you more than disagree. I do, however, think you’re underestimating the power and usefulness of statements derived from SCOTUS Opinions.

              • CR

                Thanks for the insight, AJ. You are right, everything the court says in an opinion, whether expressly part of the central holding or not, shows the mind of the author of the opinion and of the concurring justices, and thus of the court, and can be useful.

                I only read the holding and reviewed the basic facts involved. I didn’t read the entire opinion of the court. I’ll do that, and see if I can find any statements in the opinion that might support our arguments.

                One thing I’d like to understand better is what satisfies “due process of the law” in cases like this.

                • AJ

                  @CR:
                  You’re welcome! Another case that may well come into play for both the designator and marked DLs is Riley v National Federation of the Blind (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/87-328). This, too, was a compelled speech case. The key phrase out of this case is: “mandating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech.
                  We therefore consider [North Carolina’s Statute] as a content-based regulation of speech.”
                  —–
                  This is the case I had in mind that established even factual speech to be subject to compelled speech scrutiny. SCOTUS outright addresses it in the Opinion: “Moreover, for First Amendment purposes, a distinction cannot be drawn between compelled statements of opinion and, as here, compelled statements of ‘fact,’ since either form of compulsion burdens protected speech.”
                  =====
                  Another fine example of a case being about one thing, but stating something else or more is Saenz v Roe (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/98-97). This case itself was about CA having different public aid benefits for long-term residents versus those recently moving from another State. However, the underlying Constitutional issue was about, “allowing citizens to move freely between states, securing the right to be treated equally in all states when visiting, and securing the rights of new citizens to be treated like long-time citizens of a state.”
                  —–
                  Lest anyone think this would be helpful to battle the patchwork of RC laws, I suspect not. Traveling or migrating RCs are treated no differently than those already living in the State.
                  =====
                  As for what exactly due process means in situations such as this, IDK. I cringe when thinking about it, as SCOTUS held in Smith that we had our Due Process during the criminal phase…which apparently means we (and anyone ever convicted of anything) are left completely exposed to any and all civil deprivations the State can muster…from that moment forth, for the rest of our lives. That is so contrary to what I believe the Framers believed, wanted, and intended.

                  • TS

                    I hope someone over at NARSOL is reading this thread on marked DLs, etc for future cases. These are great sources you mention @AJ

                  • New Person

                    A better way to see how SCOTUS decision for procedural due process is…

                    if you’re convicted of a sex crime, then you’re deemed a monster. Monsters do not have constitutional backing.

                    Monsters do not have control of their functions and need to be corralled as they are a public threat. 80% recidivism rates proves that anyone convicted of a sex crime is a Monster, thus cannot be rehabilitated nor trusted to live a normal live as they will re-offend 80% of the time.

                    ======
                    Basically, that’s how I see it. We have proof that the 80% rate was false and not from an expert. In California, the past two years, the true recidivism rates (no longer includes failure to register as a re-offense) has been below 1%.

                    Yet, the SCOTUS will not want to review their old case due to false information like most courts would do. The 2003 Smith v Doe decision classified all registrants as Monsters based upon false information. Due to fear mongering, the SCOTUS will never review their case using false information.

                    Note, one of the justices, Alito, even continued his “fear tactic” by stating registrants have a higher rate of re-offense to sex crimes. What Alito did was compare apples-to-oranges. He’s comparing a re-offense sex crime to a first-time sex crime from other groups. He’s not comparing re-offense rate to re-offense rate. He doesn’t see registrants as humans, but Monsters as he’s trying to manipulate statistics to an incorrect mathematical relationship.

                    No other crimes require registration like sex registration. No other crimes makes it a crime for your presence at a certain location and distance. No other crime forces them to de-register and re-register in another state. No other crime forces them to have a mark on their passport.

                    The best analogy here would be if someone shoplifts, then they are categorized with Ponzi schemes of stealing. Even if they were a child shoplifting, then they will always be deemed to be a Ponzi schemer. Can you imagine being banished from any job where they are around money or products to sell?

                    So in CA, if you shoplift at 18, then you’re branded for life with a life time term.

              • steve

                “Moreover, for First Amendment purposes, a distinction cannot be drawn between compelled statements of opinion and, as here, compelled statements of ‘fact,’ since either form of compulsion burdens protected speech.”

                …But because sex offenders pose a frightening and high risk of recidivism we find Riley v National Federation of the Blind not applicable…

                Somebody PLEASE address this lie or we are screwed forever.

    • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

      “I am sure someone can dig up quotes from those proposing and supporting the bill that admit to their real agenda of just preventing all RC’s from travelling.” We have it from Chris Smith himself, admitting on a video that the goal of the bill would be to prevent sex offenders from traveling.

      Here is one such piece: _____________________

      Me: “The intent of this bill was clearly to result in the immobilization of American Registrants. There is no way that Smith can deny that, even while claiming that it is a beneficially reciprocal exchange of information between state authorities.

      The following, which I transcribed from a YouTube video the address of which is at the bottom, came near the end of a much longer speech given by Rep. Chris Smith, NJ:

      “It was a group of Thai TIP officials, eight years ago, came to my office and I often meet with TIP delegations, and I asked them “If you knew a convicted pedophile was coming to Bangkok, what would you do?”

      Every single one of the twelve people who were in the room said there’s no way he would get a visa.”

      That afternoon we began drafting what is now become International Megan’s Law’ to notice countries of destination in a timely fashion, to ensure that you, and hopefully us, if we can get reciprocity going, will say “No way they’re coming here under that shroud of secrecy on the sex tourism trips to abuse our little children.”

      It won’t stop it all but it will greatly lessen the opportunity and secrecy is what enables those kinds of opportunities.

      I first got it passed in 2010 and it was killed in the United States Senate. I then got it passed last year but it was killed in the United States Senate. Hopefully this year, third times a charm, this legislation will come up.

      To its credit, the Administration has stepped up a group, of an initiative called Operation Angel Watch, wonderful, wonderful group of people who are working, we want to expand it, strengthen it, statutorially put bedrock around it, under it and expand it like I said to insure that we are noticing every country and that we also follow up what happens with the notices and also, we want them to set up their own Megan’s Law, tell us when the convicted pedophiles are comin’ to the U.S. to abuse our children.

      If we do that, we take away the possibilities and venues and that shroud of secrecy.”

      Just keep this in mind, the GAO found that 4,500 convicted pedophiles in 2008, one year alone, got passports.

      They get on planes, they travel, they go on the aircraft and hopefully will be picked up if they’re escorting someone but you can’t really understand if they’re just travelling without a victim in tow and they’re going to these destinations.

      I was in Brasilia for about a week early on working on the trafficking victims protection act strategy for them and with members of their parliament and I learned anywhere from two hundred fifty thousand to five hundred thousand child prostitutes are in Brazil. I was blown away with that number I don’t know how accurate it is but I heard it so often there must be truth to it at least to some extent.

      And unfortunately, North Americans, Europeans, Americans, Canadians travel as well as people in South America and Latin America and exploit the DAYLIGHTS out of these kids!

      So we need a Megan’s Law that is absolutely robust internationally, uh to crack down on that.

      And finally, I’ll just say this: you know, the people in this room, the NGOs that you heard from, all of us together can make a difference on this. Netanyahu again talked about the existential threat, the existential threat that Israel faces.

      To the woman and to the child, the children who are being exploited in trafficking, that is there existential threat and by the grace of God, hard work, we can stop it. Thank you.”

      Applause.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyB_Ax7mM7A&feature=youtu.be&t=1h43m19s

      • Joe

        Final HR 515 “discussion” before voice vote.
        http://video.womenagainstregistry.com/CspanHouse-Hr-515-Feb-1-2016.mp4

        Rep. Ann Wagner, R-MO, @26:15

        “A 2010 Government Accountability Report showed that in a single year at least 4500 Registered Sex Offenders received US Passports to travel internationally. This is absolutely unacceptable.”

        Tru dat!!

        • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

          Thanks, Joe! I had lost that video when my computer hard drive crashed some months ago. I was about to go looking for it on C-SPAN and the House proceedings videos. You saved me the trouble. I’ll download it.

          • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

            One Rep. Chris Smith, N.J. quote from the above House session. “For a number of predators the propensity to recommit these crimes at a later date remains. For example, a 2008 study by Oliver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk show that untreated sex offenders were reconvicted for sexual crimes at a rate of 17.7% after 3 years, 24.5% after 5 years, and 32% after 10 years. Keep in mind Mr. Speaker that these are just the rates for those who were caught again and then convicted.”
            ____

            The study cited, https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch7_treatment.html

            • Sam

              How can they base a study of an entire group of people based off such a low control amount? It’s as if they found the worst of the worst and focused primarily on them. Or just found those who had already been determined to have something actually wrong with them where they were going to commit again. The control group is too small to determine the fate of so many more who haven’t reoffended. It also doesn’t state if the reoffenses were due to the registry or if they were actually sexual in nature

      • Chris F (@David Kennerly

        Thanks David. That is exactly the information I was wanting to see and hopefully those that can challenge this use that to show cause for a Bill of Attainder challenge and also force them to go farther than just “rational basis”.

      • Lovecraft

        Always good to see pedophiles and people convicted of child sex offenses being used interchangeably. Certainly shows how intelligent he is. In fact its incredible how intelligent they can be when crafting laws, but when it comes to differentiating between pedophilia (requiring diagnosis) and anyone with a child sex offense how incompetent they seem to act.

  23. mike r

    you guys are right, I really wasn’t thinking about how many people this will help and it doesn’t really matter how many it helps it is important. I am just really frustrated with a lack of assistance from any of the orgs. I commended Janice and her team and at I least know they are one of the more thorough and articulate out of all these attorneys. I wish it best of luck..It is definitely ripe now.

    • AlexO

      No worries. I think pretty much all of us have been in that “I just want this to be over for me” place. Little by little the wall is being chipped away at and I think laws like this are actually helping us to make the point of overreach. I have a good feeling about this lawsuit.

    • PK

      How would this be considered ripe now if nobody has yet to be affected by the Passport Mark?

      I was under the impression that “ripeness” is contingent upon an effectual harm caused by an integral element of a Law.

  24. Roger

    @mike r, I’m glad you realize that trollish posts (definition: posting inflammatory comments) don’t help get registrants their freedom. Negative crap causes pain to many registrants.

    I feel HOPE when I see Janice leading a NATIONAL organization into a strategic WAR of MANY BATTLES against tyranny on a national scale, using the largest state to set positive trends for registrants nationwide.

    Presence restrictions: GONE from California! Residency restrictions: knocking them down left and right! Bad California bills: slammed! IML: fighting hard!

    Guys, let’s all DONATE our time and money (I DO!) to support ACSOL. It needs resources to expand its scope even more.

    And let’s attend the phone and live meetings or at least listen to the recordings so we keep up on the latest news and actions we can take.

    Together we are making our lives better. Not perfectly by a long shot, but better than if we hid isolated in our homes.

  25. James

    Doubling my monthly contribution even though it’s just $20. Will contribute more if and when I get my end of the year bonus. The politicians have gone too far with this non-sense and fear mongering in clear spite of evidence which refutes their “frightening and high” bullsh!t of a mantra/propaganda, all the while making RCs suffer and live in constant fear and dread of traveling just so they can stay in office. Go Janice and Team!

  26. Plaintiff Ready

    I am ready to be a plaintiff if you need one more. My wife’s in US and her family is in Vietnam and I’d like to travel there with my wife and son to see her family. Got pulled out of the line at LAX everytime upon return to California. This IML passport marking will make it worse: I don’t think I can travel there or take my family travel anywhere for vacation. I had one count of 288(c) 3 yrs probation, then got reduced to misdemeanor and dismissed 1203.4. Must register for life. This was my only thing for the past 25 years.

  27. T

    It doesn’t make sense for registrants to go through the notification process for traveling knowing that they will never be allowed to enter any country thanks to the alert notices sent out by the angel watch center and now the unique identifier on the passports of registrants which make them easy targets. Chris Smith’s speech about how registrants traveling overseas to commit sexual crime is fallacious because no one on the registry would be crazy enough to get caught doing something illegal and be punished even harsher than what he/she was being punished for the first time. There’s no way that IML will ever prevent child sex trafficking and tourism by stopping registrants from entering a foreign country, because the real criminals that are doing these things are not on the registry and haven’t got caught and our government is still focusing their attention on registered citizens in the US, because they are easy targets for there past crimes. They use phony science & statistics about the “frightening high” recidivism rate just to scare people and putting all government agencies on false alert, which is nothing more like a boy crying out wolf that isn’t there and thought this was funny, but he does it again long enough that when the real wolf came and chased the boy they all ignored him.

  28. Perplexed

    I have never understood how Florida can keep you on the Registry when you are no longer under Florida Jurisdiction or in a Probation/Parole Status. The same with States that are telling people they Must register even if they Move to another state or country. If Federal law has issues with application to a person out of the country how can State law be legal or Implied over a Individual that is outside its territory and control?. I am going to assume the fact is nobody has really challenged it? Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Thanks

    • David Kennerly's Spectral Evidence

      “I am going to assume the fact is nobody has really challenged it? ”

      I think that is safe to say. In California, we have a “law” that says that we, as Registrants, are committing a crime if we look at its Megan’s Law website to find ourselves or others who may be on it. This, like the assertions by New York, Wisconsin, Florida, etc. have clearly never been challenged in court. How could they have been and still stand? Yes, I know, “nonce”sense laws have withstood judicial scrutiny in the past but there is not really any credible, though flawed, basis for these very flagrantly silly laws.

    • AJ

      @Perplexed:
      This is a relatively unexplored (in the legal world) concept called horizontal federalism. I’m reading a paper about it (http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Erbsen_mlr.pdf), but have to admit it’s a slow read so far. It does address the need for, and possible present availability of, horizontal rights to match the horizontal federalism. Page 55 starts a discussion of this (“Individual Empowerment”):

      “Examples of horizontal rights that litigants may raise as claims or defenses include: freedom under Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause from state action discriminating on the basis of state citizenship, the right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause to travel across state borders for the purpose of resettling, the liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in avoiding personal jurisdiction in a state where the person lacks sufficient contacts, and the right under an ill-defined constellation of clauses to be free from the extraterritorial operation of state laws.”

      The last part of this snippet would seem to be of particular interest to those NY and WI RCs who do not live in the respective States. Properly framed, I believe a court would overrule NY’s and WI’s claims that they have, not just national, but global regulatory oversight of a non-citizen…not to mention the forced commerce of paying a registration fee.

      • E

        Thanks @AJ. If only I could find someone in WI to help…

        If there are any other prior residents of WI to whom this applies, let me know here and we can figure out how to connect.

  29. Sam

    PK informed me before of an attorney in New York looking to take this on. I’ve already messaged them and am awaiting response. Im not sure the ACLU would take a case like this as I’m not sure which Human Rights are being violated

    • PK

      The ACLU NY Chapter wont even talk to you, my previous Attorney already tried, for the issue we spoke about.

      • NY Level1

        Everyone should contact Norman Siegel of the NYCLU. The more documented requests he receives the more his excuses not to act will look lame.

  30. mike r

    This really is a huge step for ACSOL since they are now challenging an actual law and not just a technicality. While I would love some assistance in my case, this is a bigger step then usual. I wish them luck, this is going to be an important precedence either way..

  31. Bruce Ferrell

    Well… Now that State has implemented the law, the matter is no longer moot and the court can now look at the actuality of their actions

  32. Tod

    I have not seen anyone comment on the fact that this law is based on CONVICTION not if you have to register or not. Meaning, even if you are OFF the registry, you would still have this mark on your passport! I hope I am wrong, but when I first read IML that was one of the major components of this stupid law. I would really appreciate if someone would clarify this for me. Hopefully the the packingham case, as well as the ruling in the 10th and 6th circuits, and others, can help this fight. They say they are going to ‘revoke’ the passport, does that mean, if we travel and come back in the US, will they take it then? As far as the this case, I am in the 10th, and if any plaintiffs are needed from here, please put me on the list. Progress is being made by great attorneys who we SO much appreciate, and hopefully the ACLU will also jump in and help with all their resources. Thank you Janice and all those on board fighting for us

  33. AJ

    @E:
    You may want to reach out to the Chicago lawyers that beat up Pleasant Prairie, WI (http://fox6now.com/2017/04/18/sex-offenders-win-federal-lawsuit-against-village-of-pleasant-prairie-its-going-to-open-a-lot-of-doors/), earlier this year. From the story, their names are Adele Nicholas & Mark Weinberg. I found mention of them on another site about a conference held in 2016 (http://www.registry20.org/bios.html), which also happens to have included one Miriam Aukerman. For CA RCs, Catherine Carpenter, Professor of Law at SW Law School, was also part of the mix.

    I think RCs affected by NY’s and WI’s rules should pay attention to each other’s legal maneuvers. A Federal win in either Circuit could be used in the other; and if a win in one and a loss in the other…SCOTUS, here it comes!

    P.S. If we get to vote, I cast mine for IML being challenged in the 6th, perhaps with aid from Aukerman, Weinberg, and Nicholas. A solid legal team, for sure!

    • E

      Thanks @AJ. I reached out to Adele Nicholas about a month ago and never got a response. I will look up the colleague you mentioned. Thanks!

    • Chris F

      A solid win in the 6th, and a loss somewhere else is exactly the right formula for SCOTUS to finally make a ruling on all this IML crap. Without both a win and a loss, I’m not sure what happens. I guess a single win could unravel the entire thing because a national passport mark can’t only be removed for those in just one district.

    • Sam

      Now if there were only lawyers in WI and NY taking cases like that up to the courts. I know the cops in NYC would appreciate if they didn’t have to do all that paperwork since all their files are literally files sitting in an office downtown.

    • lovewillprevail

      Do not count on it. For example SCOTUS refused to hear anything regarding the MI case from the appeals court. So the decision did not change where it was ruled residency restrictions were ruled unconstitutional. And SCOTUS refused to hear the case where in the 5th Circuit it ruled it was ok to have residency restrictions and banish sex offenders in Texas, LA and MS.\\

      My point is, a split in the appeals courts mean nothing. Same law constitutional in one part of the country but not in another.

      • AJ

        @lovewillprevail:
        It depends on the question put to SCOTUS. The 6th was Ex Post Facto, the 5th was Procedural Due Process. Since they were different questions, in SCOTUS’s eyes they are not in conflict, even though they address the same topic. Isn’t law wonderful!?

  34. E

    @Janice
    Not that you need advice! But one wonders, once DHS/Marshalls sends the list to State Dept, and we start getting our letters of revocation, could we send a Cease and Desist letter and/or sue for an injunction immediately? Is that even a thing, or is that just Law and Order TV law? I hope we can. And then send about 10,000 press releases with the reasons for the Cease and Desist educating the media and public.

    THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU ARE DOING!

    • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

      An injunction is definitely a “thing.” An injunction was requested when Janice sued in Federal District Court in Oakland but it was denied by her Honorable Phyllis Hamilton.

  35. Sam

    I had a recent thought. How will the state department know where to send the revocation letters? When I applied for my passport that was 3-4 addresses ago. And my only listed address is overseas. Will they shoot me an email? Still waiting on a reply from ICE and DHS on regards of how to even check to see if you’re affected by this.

  36. Illinois Contact

    Not all the media coverage is negative. Just spotted this letter to the editor of the Tulsa (OK) World, signed by Darrin O. Swait, Broken Arrow (who’s that?). I like the tact that it can happen to your teenage child who can be branded for life. Focus on the danger to parents of these laws.

    The Carl Hanson stats are perhaps not helpful, but what are the “95 studies” he cites?

    HARSH LAWS

    The claims that sex offenders’ re-offense rates are frightening and high have been solidly disproven. In fact, statistics now show that re-offense rates for this group of offenders, less than 5 percent, is among the lowest of all categories.

    But who needs facts? If your child (and don’t think it can’t happen) is arrested for sexting, he or she will be on the registry. In Oklahoma, this means for life. He or she would be denied jobs, housing and so much more.

    Because of the International Megan’s Law, passports would carry an “identifier” that designates the holder as a sex offender against a minor. Imagine the difficulty trying to travel, to see the world, or go on a family vacation. Because of the Adam Walsh Act, if he or she were to ever fall in love with someone in a foreign country, a sponsorship for that person to get into the U.S. would be impossible.

    Imposing such laws is not something that we should be doing to our citizens. Restricting travel has no connection with sexting, entrapment operations, urinating in public or teenagers having sex with one another. The punishment should fit the crime.

    These laws are ridiculous and need to be stopped. Write your legislator to stop them before you or someone you know is permanently affected in a tragic way.

    Darrin O. Swait, Broken Arrow

    Editor’s note: A study by Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a meta-analysis of 95 studies involving a combined sample of 31,216 sex offenders. The average sexual recidivism rate found was 13.7 percent and the average overall recidivism rate was 36.9 percent, based on an average follow-up period of five to six years.

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/wednesday-letters-to-the-editor-for-nov/article_b5bcd379-6eac-5ef1-81d1-ab96ce633748.html

  37. 290 air

    Are they going to give us these new passports for free or are we going to have to pay for them? At $110 a pop even if there were only 100,000 people that this applied to across the US it would still be $11 million dollars. I bet we could sue for that amount.

  38. j

    Once customs swipes any passport on the computer there’s a automatic notification, i heard the computer beep while crossing into Canada back in 2009 but was *not* denied entry,in only secondary and thats it, I passed through (flown) into qudalajara 6 years ago with no problem, yes my passport was swiped but no alarm/no secondary *my opinion* is that this stamp is straight and deliberate with intentional defamation!!! (( with or without out this stamp once the passport is swiped cbp/customs are alerted on the spot…

  39. William Frost

    I have a passport just 6 months old, and was planning to travel to England to visit my great-grandfather’s grave, and a monastery in Surrey. I am a Level 2 registered S.O. in Massachusetts, and have a squeaky clean record of incarceration, therapy, recovery, and 10 years of probation completed in February 2017. I am outraged at this nonsense, and would be glad to be a plaintiff in your lawsuit if it would be helpful.

    Thanks. Frosty

    • TS

      Don’t expect to get into jolly ol’ England. They are one country RCs are not welcome into regardless of the cred you bring with you.

    • E

      Regarding the UK, indeed. I visited UK in 2010 and 2012. Then in 2015 I landed at Heathrow. When they opened the doors of the plane, the flight attendant announced “we are being met at the plane by Border protection, have your passports out.” As soon as I walked off and showed my passport they escorted me off. They spent hours talking to me. Then ultimately told me that because it was a weekend and they couldn’t get a hold of the DHS (US agents) based at Heathrow they had to err on the side of caution and deny my entry. All VERY professional and British. Fingerprinted me and photographed me. Was told by the customs officer that I could apply for a Visa next time (I’ve never tried it). Then I spent a night in a detainee hold at an offsite jail. Locked cell with one other person who had been detained for months as a refugee from Africa.

      The next morning I was driven back to the airport in a paddy wagon, escorted to the door of the plane. My passport was given to the Captain, who was allowed to give it back to me once in international airspace. It was the only time seeing the CBP agents in secondary back in the US wasn’t all that bad. They didn’t say anything about the big red X (denied entry) UK stamp. Just sent me on my way as usual.

      I travel to Schengen about 3-4 times per year on business… for now.

      • David Kennerly, Untermensch With An Attitude

        Just to be clear, you took a direct flight from the U.S. to the U.K.? You had had no other friction getting into the U.K. in 2010 and 2012? No interviews? Were those also direct flights from the U.S.? It should be noted that refusals by the U.K. predate what we believe to be the start time for the U.S. issuing notifications to non-Five Eyes Countries (the countries whose sole official language is English). I was surprised that they had said that you could file for a visa next time. I had not been aware that you could file for a visa to a country that doesn’t require them of U.S. citizens, so that is a possibility, it seems. If you can, could you say when your conviction was, how long you served in prison (the U.K. states that they make such distinctions with five years being meaningful) and if your conviction involved minors? Sorry to be so full of questions but these are things that help us to understand the policies of different countries.

        • E

          Good questions.
          The two earlier trips into the UK, at least once I was coming from Europe. I think both times, but can’t remember for sure. Neither time did The border guard even blink twice. They had zero info on me. Just stamped my passport and said welcome, like entry into Schengen countries. So coming direct from the US was the issue, and I remember thinking on the flight to London, “I wonder if this will be different.” But now that I’m thinking about it, I think I had just started to have to give the 3 week notice, as well, so I chalked it up to that.

          Re the visa. I think you kind of are getting a visa when you get your passport stamped. You just don’t need to get it ahead of time. Maybe a technicality. Yes, for entry to the UK you can apply for a visa with past criminal history if your sentence was not more than five years. They say prison on the website (I recd probation for hands on offense against a minor), but when I talked to an immigration atty she thought it would likely mean any supervision. I had more than five years probation, so she assumed my conviction would not be considered “spent.”

          For what it’s worth: I had the impression they were seriously considering letting me in, but they wanted to talk with someone from the US about it first. The fact I had a new passport without the two previous entry stamps also hurt me, they couldn’t believe I had gotten in twice before without them knowing. Ultimately, he told me, the fact that I still have to register is why he couldn’t take the chance. “When do you stop registering?” I told him, “Lifetime.” He just shook his head. I’ll bet now they have a SOP to follow when an RC shows up.

          OTHER PLACES sure don’t see registering as “just a civil consequence,” they equate it as continuing punishment/supervision.

          • PK

            “OTHER PLACES sure don’t see registering as “just a civil consequence,” they equate it as continuing punishment/supervision.” That’s exactly what it is.

            • Sam

              What had always gotten me is that if the registry was a civil consequence. How can we be rearrested for not following it? Last I knew the most civil didn’t deal in jail time just money.

              Say you get a speeding ticket. Go to court get a fine and everything. Then you don’t pay it. Yes it goes on your credit. And then they suspend your license. But you don’t go to jail for not paying the ticket.

              Or if you run up all your credit card bills, but lose your job and cannot pay them back. They can sue you. And there is a judgement against you because you owe like 100k.

              Other than debt collectors harassing you for the next 7-10years the most that will happen is that. And then it goes on your credit score.
              Will it hurt your ability to get a loan or get your taxes back? Yes. But it will not put you in jail unless you intentionally tried to scam the company.

              The registry though is spnfar from civil as everything that you might or might not do is an additional felony. Because of not fulfilling something they claim to be civil you become a repeat offender with a logger rap sheet in a criminal court.

              If the registry were actually civil would we not go to civil court?

              • Sam

                Sorry for all the spelling errors previously phone keeps auto correcting

              • CR

                Sam, it’s not uncommon for criminal penalties to be attached to civil regulatory laws. We’re not the only ones affected. It’s a general problem in this country that people can easily run afoul of laws (malum prohibitum) that no one could reasonably be expected to know are illegal, since they are not generally recognized as morally indefensible (malum in se). No mens rea (guilty mind) is required to be in violation of such regulations.

                In this case, the registrant knows he is required to take a polygraph. But the fact that he doesn’t is not because he is trying to flaunt the law. There is no mens rea. It is due to the circumstances of being homeless and jobless, a condition that is a direct result of his being placed on the registry.

                See this article for an explanation:

                http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/criminal-law-and-the-administrative-state-the-problem-criminal-regulations

                • Sam

                  I understand that. And that’s his bad for trying but in general when we get out they basically make it impossible for us to succeed and reintegrate.

                  When I first got out. They wanted me to pay 300 per month supervision fees. (court appointed gave a bill for like 3k) Lawyer fees. Treatment fees twice per week for 2.5years. Then the registration fee. Soon after I got a bill for $40,000 from the county jail where I had to live for 8 months because I couldn’t afford bail.

                  How do they expect a 19 year old who has no one on the outside that can help them with all of this to pay any of it? You’re talking 2 years worth of salary needing to be payed in less than 15days. The only reason I could pay any of it off was because my tax return and what was left of my money hidden in my grandma’s house.

                  All the money stuff was on top of the issues with neighbors and local law enforcement harassing me. Seriously the only reason I had any help after was because I made some really good friends in high school and my grandma.
                  No visited the whole time I was in becaise the process was such a hassle and it was a 2 hour drive to get to the jail. When they tried were denied visiting when they had come because you needed to make an appointment 2weeks in advance and no one told them.

                  I got one visit the entire time I was in. And it was my court appointed to tell me if I don’t take this plea I’m going away for 45years because the jury is going to be all white.

                  The legal system is just set up for you to fail.

                  • CR

                    40k for the jail? That’s nuts. Nobody should have to pay for being in jail.

                    • Sam

                      Private jails through Michigan. Ottawa county jail is owned by three judges and the land that it’s on is owned by another judge.

        • AJ

          “the countries whose sole official language is English”
          —–
          This is neither true nor the basis for how FVEY came to be. The US has no official language, and Canada has two. The genesis of FVEY has more to do with the Atlantic Charter and post-WWII plans. But yes, FVEY is comprised of the UK and four of its predominantly English-speaking, Caucasoid/Europid (Sorry, RSA. Sorry ROI.) “children.”

          • David Kennerly, Exiled From FaceBook

            Well, this was my attempt to distinguish the 5 Eyes from countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, India, the Phillippines who have more than one official language and that includes English. Yes, of course Canada has two. The better way to explain who Five Eyes is, I guess, to simply list them every time. Here they are: U.S., United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

  40. SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

    “If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.”

    Can this be changed to “If a broad ban on [travel via IML/SORNA/State Registration Laws] can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the [freedom of movement/right to travel/right to privacy/right to second chance/pay your debt to society/4th, 5th, and 6th admentments] guarantees nothing.”

  41. Rob

    “Registrants to be affected by this provision are those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor and are currently required to register as a sex offender”

    Does anyone know how this will affect former registrants passports who know longer have to register as a sex offender? It says registrants, does that include former? The statement also says “and”. To me It doesn’t sound like it includes former registrants as they would have wrote “or” instead?

  42. Andrew

    I renewed my passport about 6 months ago. It contains no such markings of any kind and appears identical to my previous one. It’s good for ten years. I am not on parole or any supervision other than being a registrant. If I intend to travel out of the country, am I obligated by law to notify law enforcement authorities? and will they make me change my passport if this law is finalized?

    • AlexO

      Some states have their own laws on this. But Federally, you’re technically required to give a 21 day notice for traveling out of the country if you’re registered. You’re supervision status doesn’t matter.

      What we’ve seen so far regarding the passport is that they’ll be sending everyone that will be affected by this a notice that their passport is no longer valid. It doesn’t matter if you’re traveling or not. If you have a valid passport and are subject to this, you’ll get a notice.

      • PK

        I don’t think that’s accurate. What I have seen is that any New Passport’s issued will receive the Mark.

        • AlexO

          Multiple articles have stated with quotes from people at the DOJ (or whatever agency is doing this) that they’ll be canceling existing passports and will send out notices to those people who are affected.

          • PK

            It’s the State Department, and I wouldn’t rely so much on newspaper articles to provide factual information.

            Whenever someone receives such a notice- then we’ll know for sure.

          • Mark

            If a letter makes it to my usmail requesting any kind of a turn in or re-apply…. it will go right to the trash ! My passport is still great for a ID for banks etc !!

    • America's Most Hated

      Andrew, yes to travel internationally you have to notify the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction where you reside at least 21 days in advance. Here, the sheriff’s office and state patrol like to argue that it’s the other agency’s resposibility.

      The government makes it a felony for me to make even an honest mistake when trying to navigate all the registry rules, yet when the agencies responsible refuse to let you follow the law, there’s no punishment for them whatsoever. I should video record every interaction with the government to save in case they ever claim I haven’t complied. I already save receipts in case they conveniently lose my paperwork.

      It CAN happen. This summer, I notified the sheriff’s office by certified mail of my intent to travel abroad 6 weeks in advance. I also filled out the travel form with the state driver license office. I get on the plane in Miami and the CBP pulled me off the plane because the local governments
      didn’t notify the feds. It cost me a ton of money, but I was worried sick they would charge me for a crime. But I still had my receipts in case they alleged I never notified them of my travel. So keep your receipts, everyone!

      I’m going to travel overseas again in the spring. I’m going to revert to the method of notification I used the first time I had to go through the process. I wrote certified letters to the Sheriff, the state SOR office, the US State Department, Homeland Security Investigations, and the US Marshals. That should pretty much ensure that at least one incompetent agency can make note of my intent to travel.

      • PK

        It sounds like you live in a SORNA compliant State.

        • PK

          I’m thinking it may not make a difference, as they would probably pull anyone off an outbound flight who has not provided 21 day advance notice.

          • PK

            On the advice of my Attorney, I actually sent a Certified Letter to the NY SOR, even though when I called and spoke to a representative, she had no clue at all about International Travel Notification. She kept trying to explain that I need to give 5 days notice and provide the receiving jurisdiction that I am there. I don’t think she really understood that I was talking about International not National, moreover she told me that NY is in fact a SORNA Compliant State, which it is not. Man- they really are clueless.

  43. mike r

    I do not believe that a plausable argument attacking the gun laws has ever occurred. I think the arbitrary and familial protection along with the separation of powers arguments, just to name a few, if argued correctly could be successful, same issues, a judge would have to find a nexus with your offense and/or some kind of proclivities for violence. This might be a little harder since there is empirical evidence and a true “frightening and high” recidivism rate for violent offenders, therefore cementing a rational basis for that group. But, this is a big but, a judge has to determine if you are a member of that class of offenders and base their decisions on a individualized bases. I will be going for this next, I just didn’t want the issue in my current case.

  44. annonymous

    The sad issue of all this is nothing is consistent. Some people never have issues and others do!. I have been on vacation with no issues when the Country was notified but yet turned away when they didnt!. I have seen reporting even after the trips occurred. Systems go online and off with computers. I was told you have the Notifications and sometimes a alert goes with the flight manifest. Some places run the passenger list before the plane even lands. So many variables seem to depend on if you will get in a country or not (Sometimes its simply the Immigration Officer ignoring or not seeing the alert) . The additional wording I believe is to catch and correct the problems with the current system. I suggest anybody that has had travel issues do a FOIA request to actually see what prevented entry and on what authority.

    • steve

      I tried that and got no response However, I requested what the government would be sending out if I traveled.

  45. PK

    I know that the “ripeness factor” was an issue with the previous challenge to IML.

    I was under the impression that a Law is ripe when someone has been affected by it in an adverse way. If they’re just now starting the process of changing Passports to include the Mark, still nobody has yet to be affected by the inclusion of the Mark on their Passport.

    Could someone clue me in on when conditions are such that a new Law has become ripe?

  46. mike r

    Tim Lawyer…If you are an actual attorney, please take a look at general comments for Nov. and let me know what you think…Also, if Janice, Chance, or any other individuals or organizations wishes to comment, I would greatly appreciate their input…..Thank you…This is happening and I would love some support………..

  47. mike r

    PK, as long as there is an imminent harm, and the action is codified and properly enacted, I am under the impression that it can be challenged and is in fact ripe. You do not have to actually be harmed before you can sue….

    • PK

      @miker I spoke with Kathy she explained the difference between “ripeness” and “standing”. Ripeness indicates that a particular Law has been put “into process”, whereas “standing” indicates that people have actually been affected by a Law.

    • AJ

      You do not have to actually be harmed before you can sue….
      —–
      Yes, it’s called a preenforcement challenge. It allows one to sue prospectively. Such cases even make it to SCOTUS now and again (I’m reading one right now that I believe may be a compelled speech case.)

  48. mike r

    AJ, you did see what posted in general comments right? Stay tuned because we might need to do some more collaboration before the 20th of next month. I will let you guys know as soon as I get their reply brief which should be real soon now….I am sure the AG has something up her malicious sleeves…..I am really surprised at how fast this ball is rolling in my case..Dec. 20th…..

    • James

      A quick note to you, Mike re December 20…

      I read your brief and was quite impressed…I have for the longest time wanted to write to you about how to handle yourself before the Court on the 20th…

      First, you were correct and effective in pointing out your Pro Se status…I think this worked in your favor in a written context…so good on you.

      However, standing before the Court and arguing, I would advise you to drop your “Aw Shucks, I’m only a Pro Se,” kind of persona…this would just give the Court an excuse to dismiss you and your many valid arguments.

      You have gotten as far as you have though hard work…not because you are a Pro Se…you have every right to stand an argue as effectively as you can, and without apology, the points you wish to make.

      Look at your notes, think, pause before speaking, insofar as possible look the judge in the face…but listen also to what the judge says or asks of you…listen to the Government’s attorney also…if need be, respond to what he says because you listened to him…so you know what to respond to.

      Don’t be embarrassed to be there, you belong in that room as much as anyone else or anyone there…speak your truth calmly, but speak it.

      If you do that you well be fine…win or lose, because you put your best foot forward and you did your best. There is never any shame in this.

      Good Luck,

      Best Wishes, James

      PS: Of course, don’t be belligerent either…lol…relax, enjoy…

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I’m unclear to what item in General Comments you’re referring. (I still have a hard time following your comments to things, brother, as you’re still making most of them OPs, not replies.)

      I second James’ thoughts and advice. I also think you should have *in hand* the CASOMB data showing the 0.6% recidivism rate for repeat sex offenses. The State likes to blur the issue by citing a higher recidivism, however if the ML data is to prevent more sex offenses, then *all* other offenses someone on ML does are completely irrelevant. To use data of parole violations, or burglaries, or whatever completely clouds the issue and recidivism rates.
      Also, be sure to have a legal pad to write thoughts and comments about opposing counsel’s claims and statements. You absolutely *will not* remember everything–even if you were a seasoned trial attorney. Notes are your friend and, aside from getting too buried in them and missing something, you typically cannot achieve an overabundance of notes.

      Yes, that the State only wants to dismiss “some” of the claims, and isn’t calling for outright dismissal is a good sign. I picked through the copy of your suit to see which claims they may want to attack.

      First Claim: CA may try to dispute the liberty interest of reputation. If so, it’s something to attack in State court.
      Second Claim: CA may try to paint this as another CT DPS situation of Procedural Due Process. This is a death sentence for this claim, if so. Perhaps quoting SCOTUS that a PDP claim is, “a bootless exercise” without Substantive Due Process, and you explicitly include SDP with PDP. As well, you may want to bolster the off-supervision aspect by quoting the Packingham parenthetical.
      Third Claim: CA may say citing other States’ statutes is irrelevant and something which CA can neither control nor influence. As well, they will probably say it’s your commission of a crime that is causing such, not anything they’ve done. Perhaps having an example of the pains and disabilities you would suffer to complete some sort of intrastate vacation would be helpful. I can’t give specific suggestions, as I don’t know what CA and municipal laws there are, nor their notification requirements. I would then contrast it with what SCOTUS said in Smith, which is that there was no burden–merely an annual, mail/phone-in notification process. I’d definitely address the lack of available information as to where safety zones are (if CA has them). In fact, I would perhaps make a trip to a couple sheriff’s offices nearby to ask for any information depicting where the safety zones are, and if they cannot provide them try to find out who can. IOW, make an effort to establish the impossibility of ascertaining their boundaries.
      Fourth Claim: I would be ready with the data showing you are an equal or lower risk than even the general population. I would maybe be ready with the Millard (CO) case when it comes to arguing collateral consequences. I’d also highlight that the State’s *own data* debunks the legislative statement.
      Fifth Claim: CA may try to kill this claim by either trying to roll this into Second Claim, or by saying you were given SDP at during your criminal court phases and these are merely regulatory collateral consequences. Having a list of the court cases (and the USSG brief from Snyder) where judges have shown concern about no individualized risk assessment would be good. Off the top of my head, that would be Snyder, Cooper, Muniz and Millard–be sure to check for yourself!
      Sixth Claim: Have Millard handy! It would be wise to try to “rewrite” the Millard Opinion as it applies to you. IOW, show what disabilities and harms you have likewise suffered.
      Seventh Claim: I don’t think they will try to get this one bounced. It’s the “hot topic” out in Judicial Land, especially with Snyder standing…and the USSG brief. I do think it would be good to try to find what the laws would look like for you were they still those in effect when you committed your offense or were sentenced. Then you can show how disabilities and penalties have been heaped upon you since.
      Eighth Claim: I can see this one as being in their crosshairs. The separation of powers argument is a deep one, and I’m not even going to venture into thoughts there. The Bill of Attainder can probably best be shown by comparing what you suffer to what the communists and CSA soldiers did in the (few) BoA cases SCOTUS has heard. It will be a tough–though not impossible–argument.
      Ninth Claim: I believe they will try to bounce this one too. I’ve not ever been a fan of this argument, so don’t have anything constructive to offer.

      All in all, I think you have some decent arguments. Will the State get some of the claims dismissed? Almost assuredly. But…big deal. That will just mean the remaining claims have some strength behind them! In a perverse way, they will be showing you where you need to focus your energies.

      Good on ya, mike r.

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 *