ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings 2018: Mar 10: Berkeley, April 7: Los Angeles (date change!), May 12: San Diego [details]
CA Family Law Clinic: Feb 24 [details]

2018 ACSOL Conference

General News

State Department Revokes Second Passport

The State Department has revoked the passport of a second California registrant.  Similar to the first known revocation, a State Department letter dated January 22, 2018, informed the registrant that he is “not entitled to a U.S. passport that does not contain the passport endorsement required pursuant to” the International Megan’s Law (IML).  The letter also informed the registrant that he could apply for a new passport which includes the endorsement required by the IML provided that the registrant pays “all required fees”.

Unlike the first known registrant whose passport was revoked after he completed an overseas trip, the second registrant recently attempted but was unsuccessful in traveling overseas on a vacation with his wife.  The couple was given a boarding pass for a flight to a Caribbean island, however, the U.S. airline on which they had purchased roundtrip tickets refused to allow them to board the flight.  The registrant received by mail at his home address the State Department’s notice that his passport had been revoked within 30 days of his scheduled departure.

In a related story, a California registrant purchased a roundtrip ticket to South Korea in December 2017 in order to attend an important business meeting.  Although he attempted to obtain a boarding pass for his flight to that country, the U.S. airline refused to issue him a boarding pass.  The registrant subsequently requested a full refund for his roundtrip ticket, however, the airline has refused that request.  The registrant has obtained legal assistance in this matter.  He has not received a letter from the State Department regarding revocation of his passport.

Related

State Department Revokes Registrant’s Passport

Join the discussion

  1. Lake County

    It appears the government is putting the airlines in a bad situation. I would imagine that this will only help the many lawsuits that will be filed against the government and perhaps now, even the airlines.

    • Trish

      Don’t fool yourself !The Government is putting registrants in bad positions in all areas of travel and life ! This battle is just beginning like other battle fronts ! Onward soldiers !

    • Richard Diax

      Yes, the government and IML are violating the constitution. I’m surprised that they are treating these victims like worse than terrorist. Shame on them. Let’s just suit the he’ll of them and see who wins. People who go against the laws and the constitution usually in the long run lose.

      • David

        I wish it were that simple …. but it is not. If a major lawsuit is filed and lands before a biased or willfully ignorant judge, then the judge rules against you, you have now set legal precedent. Then you have achieved nothing except making any future lawsuits even harder uphill battles! S.O. lawsuits needs to be chosen very carefully, filed in the best legal jurisdictions, etc. This fight is a game of chess – it’s not a old-time cowboy movie, good guys in white hats always prevailing.

        • Tim Moore

          Fortunately, there are arguments to be won in other venues, like the one won in the SOHO debate. There are arguments to be won in the home and office and on the campaign stump. We are made organic and change happens in a chaotic, organic, not a mechanical way, and the future can go in unforseen directions. The only thing certain is that if we don’t make the arguments, things will stay the same. But if one thinks she can direct the whole show like making a movie, she is in for a surprise.

  2. Sam

    So this doesn’t limit our ability to travel right? Oooh look how not like punishment it is! (sarcasm)

    This is ridiculous

  3. Clarence

    Is it ripe now?

  4. NYLevel1

    I have questions-‘In a related story, a California registrant purchased a roundtrip ticket to South Korea in December 2017 in order to attend an important business meeting. Although he attempted to obtain a boarding pass for his flight to that country, the U.S. airline refused to issue him a boarding pass. The registrant subsequently requested a full refund for his roundtrip ticket, however, the airline has refused that request. The registrant has obtained legal assistance in this matter. He has not received a letter from the State Department regarding revocation of his passport.’

    Did he inform the CA state he was traveling and offered his flights details etc etc?
    Did he travel knowingly after he received the letter from the State Dept to turn his passport in?

    NO drama please

    • Sam

      He most likely told California or Angel Watch flagged him. It says he still hasn’t gotten a revocation letter.

      • NYLevel1

        ”The registrant received by mail at his home address the State Department’s notice that his passport had been revoked WITHIN 30 days of his scheduled departure.”

        • NPS

          “He has NOT received a letter from the State Department regarding revocation of his passport.”

          The question was about the person who attempted a trip to South Korea.

        • Sam

          Ah I see where you’re talking about now. That was for the other part where the guy was going on vacation with his wife not the part you quoted.

          The wording for this part is a bit confusing to me because it says “within 30 days of his departure” but doesn’t say really if he got it before or after he tried to fly

      • Richard Diax

        Angel watch is a fly by night agency. It should be looking out for terrorist who want to come into USA, and stop picking on people who have served their time and paid their society’s dues. Shame on this stupid agency. Let’s sue them.

    • Paul

      When you travel internationally, you are required to provide your passport number to the airline upon checking in for the flight. This builds the passenger manifest, which is submitted to TSA/Homeland Security. They, in turn, run a background check on every passenger on the manifest, looking for warrants, presence on the “no fly list”, etc. They also check the validity of passports.

      My guess here, and it’s only my guess, is that the passport was already revoked and, thus, TSA told the airline the passenger did not have a valid passport. Thus, the airline is required to decline to board the passenger.

      This is also the same process that is used when a registrant travels, and has a green notice sent. It’s also why the 21 day notification period is complete and total BS. I know from my very own personal experience that they don’t need 21 days to issue a green notice, and notify the destination country of your travel. That 24 hour period prior to departure is all the time they need to do this.

  5. Clarence

    The fact that they are not able to leave the US – as opposed to being denied entry by a sovereign foreign nation that can do as they please – seems hugely significant. This IS indeed a prohibition to leave the US, now.

    • AlexO

      I was thinking the same thing. Based on this story, it seems like people are now very directly being denied by a US company rather then a foreign nation. This seems like a significant point on right to travel.

      Then again, how’s this different than being denied a rental because you come up in a background check? It’s not the government directly preventing it, but a private party (rental/flight).

      But I see this as a good thing for our cause. Anything like this that significantly hinders our rights plays into our favor in the court room. It’s only unfortunate that until this is one day resolved, some people could be significantly hurt in the mean time.

      • TS

        @AlexO

        But if the USG is directly directing the private entity to do the boarding/boarding pass denial due to operational agreements with the USG, how can this continue and no one say it is not a USG agenda w/o due process involved?

      • Alec

        In this case, it is not the airline making the decision – it is the government telling them what to do. Anyone acting as an agent for the government loses the protection of private property; this incident is the same as the government physically preventing him from boarding.

        That argument – that travel is not prevented, even if *receipt* of traveler is denied – goes right out the window.

        In alot of ways, this could not possibly be going better.

        • AlexO

          Works for me! I’m sure Janice and other teams like here will pounce on something like this.

    • Darrin

      I agree completely. Before, it was a kind of “tongue-in-cheek” move where they wouldn’t prevent us from traveling out of the country, but instead make it unlikely that we could enter another country. Now, in opposition to the constitution, we are being prevented of leaving our own country freely. Lawsuits should soon follow, in my opinion. This is absolutely ridiculous.

  6. It doesn’t work

    The governments rational for this law is that people who commit crimes may do it again?

  7. 290 air

    Why the f… do we have to pay the fees to get a new passport if they are revoking it for no reason except they decided to pass a new law?

    • Trish

      My hubby and I paid for drivers license when he was forced to have sex offender printed on it in red letters ! A Hole, Alabama! But it’sok for the Government to F u kkkkk the people when they so choose ! Because they are doing a most important job ! At Whose expense, reputation, safety and every social inequalities you can think of has came to us ! Go to a bank to get a loan or rent a car or use I’d for any games or memberships ….sams club, ymca, golfing, check in at hotels ! AND ON AND MUTHA FUKKKKIN ON ! Oh ! He’s the gossip and Fukkinnn Target of everyone’s wrath ! But We the ex offenders must be in compliance for every Fukkkkin rule that is thrown on us day after day ! Week after week ! Month after month! Year after year ! FOR OVER 20 FUKKKKKKIN YEARS PEOPLE ! And can you guess what every A HOLE PERSON EVERYWHERE RESPONDS …..CONSEQUENCES! HE DESERVES WHAT HE GETS THE BS GOES ON AND ON ! ITS A WONDERFUL FUUUKKKINNN LIFE WITH THE PUBLICS TWISTED ! UNJUST ! SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG ! GOOD AND BAD !

      • kind of living

        @ Trish Tell like it is ! people should be sick of this nightmare by now and its stupid we have to keep living this , as well as being further entrenched with every new stupid law with out even so much as a cut off point as to how long they continue , just life , no thought about pleas we took with the court over 30 years ago , and just keep stacking more on , its a wonder they don’t make us ware coats a big with targets on the back , if I was a danger I would be doing time for dealing with real violent people that are a threat to me because of this festering registry , but no I always put my best foot foreword to peace rather than violent , and I still have went to jail just protecting my self and my wife and truck , its never enough its like they are waiting for us to get a new crime or get murdered , it is quite the tight rope we walk , every time I think about this I worry about all of us ,

      • C

        Geez, I’d bolt immediately from the state if they started printing Sex Offender on the driver license. Thank God my family left Alabama after the war, the Civil War.

        • CR

          Agree! If my state ever adds this scarlet condemnation to my license, or forces me to plant a sign in my yard to the same effect, I’ll move to another state before I have to comply.

  8. NPS

    My immediate thought…the United States has just declared a Civil Rights War.
    This time we will win.

  9. Worried in Wisconsin

    Too much missing information to know what action to take just yet…

    Did the airline deny boarding at the direction of the State Department? Were they denied boarding due to the passport being revoked, even though the person had not yet received his letter?

    Is the State Department ready to issue the new passports? Should anyone with upcoming travel plans reapply for a passport right away so that they won’t have this problem at the airport?

    Do we know of anyone actually receiving one of the new passports? If I was to apply for a new passport right now would I get one or be faced with a months-long wait?

    Would be nice to be able to get some answers. At least then I’d know what action to take to be able to continue traveling. I don’t want to travel with a marked passport, but if that’s the only way to travel then I will do it. To me it’s better to travel as a marked man than not be able to travel at all.

    • NPS

      “To me it’s better to travel as a marked man than not be able to travel at all.”

      That mentality is exactly what Chris Smith and his ilk with IML and Marked Passport legislation is counting on. Accepting this un-American practice is saying that it is okay to be marked and treated as a 2nd class citizen. (nee pariah)

      • Worried in Wisconsin

        I am NOT saying that it is okay. I am NOT saying that I will give in and stop protesting.

        I am saying that I refuse to be held captive if there is another option. I am saying that I won’t add to my restrictions in any way by allowing their stupid and arcane rules to limit what I do in my life, to the best of my abilities.

        At this point the only other option is to travel with a marked passport. I have future travel plans, and while having the mark on my passport will greatly impact the places and methods of travel, I refuse to hide in a corner and wait for things to get better.

        During the years I was on supervision I was required to ‘check in’ with local law enforcement anytime I was away from home for a night. It was a major hassle and required us to make our plans around the availability of ‘check in’ personal at the local PD. It meant dragging my significant other to police and sheriff offices all over the country. Others given that rule decided not to travel because it was too embarrassing, because they thought the requirement too onerous, or because they didn’t want the added hassle. I preferred to travel and did what was required.

        • JM of Wi.

          @ worriedinwisconsin;
          I feel the same- but already have travel plans. I have a couple weeks to decide which path to take. I hope for some clarification. One might expect that the authors of this legislation might have had a plan for it’s implementation. Usually a forth degree felony if we can’t figure it out. Wait, and a fine to help police it.

    • Trish

      Depends on the increased personal security risks as well as reputation! Remember once you are known by other places countries etc as a bad guy ! Like the internet, IT BECOMES A SERIOUSLY BAD THING ! But it is your choice ! Good day!

    • bob

      To me it is better to die fighting than being a marked man, screw the government.

  10. Davidh

    with the Korean guy that means there’s three not two cases; albeit the Korean guy seems to be the last person in the world to know about his revoked passport!

  11. PK

    This part of the story is somewhat confusing:
    “The registrant received by mail at his home address the State Department’s notice that his passport had been revoked within 30 days of his scheduled departure.” but yet he says he wasn’t allowed to board his scheduled flight, which could have been for an invalid passport. “The couple was given a boarding pass for a flight to a Caribbean island, however, the U.S. airline on which they had purchased round-trip tickets refused to allow them to board the flight.”

    So the RSO knew prior to attempting to board his flight that his Passport was going to be revoked?

  12. PK

    I’m guessing tomorrow marks the 10 day requirement that the Government must respond to the latest IML Complaint. Let’s hope for an injunction, so they can examine this mess, sooner rather than later.

  13. Paul 2 Anti Soy Boy PA

    If people are removed from registration will they get an identifier on their passport if they apply for one after they are removed?

    • Paul

      Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a clear answer to that.
      1) No one seems to be sure about those people who lived/visited/registered in states such as Florida, North Carolina, or New York; who are no longer present in those states; but who remain required to register, despite not being required to register in their current state.
      2) The wording of the law is intentionally vague. It states that one must be a covered sex offender, AND be subject to the registration scheme of ANY jurisdiction. By the wording of the law, that applies to literally everyone.

      For example, let’s say you have a conviction in a state, have completed your period of registration, and are no longer required to register where you live. Technically speaking, you are still subject to the registration scheme of numerous states; for example, Florida. Even if you’ve never been to Florida in your entire life, you’d still be subject to Florida’s registration scheme. The wording of the law is such that it’s vague enough to apply to everyone.

      So, the answer to your question is, no one really knows. And, until the State Department has run the course of revocations, I’m not sure anyone will have a clear answer.

      • AJ

        @Paul:
        Sounds like you’re making a wonderful “void for vagueness” argument. 🙂

  14. Joe123

    They need to start suing the hell out of the federal government. What a disgrace. This country is going to sh*t as long as they allow laws like this to be passed that DESTROY human basic rights. Disgusting.

  15. Agamemnon

    I know the comparison to Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes of the past has been brought up before, but these recent reports of people literally being stopped at the airport and prohibited from free travel is now a terrifying reality and is EXACTLY what had occured in the past (and were proven to be human rights violations).

  16. Registry keeps me separate from my partner

    I plan on travelling this summer to support my partner who’s showing his work at the Venice Biennial. This scares the hell out of me; I can’t afford to buy an expensive ticket and reserve hotel rooms only to be prevented from boarding. What is our game plan to counter this?

    • PK

      Private yaght? Just don’t fly!

    • Worried in Wisconsin

      I either buy a refundable ticket or flight/travel insurance which offers coverage regardless of the reason for cancellation. Added expense to be sure, but certainly less expensive than forfeiting the tickets.

      • Sam

        I got travel insurance before I left the country in case I got denied entry anywhere. Luckily haven’t had to use it more than once. But that was just because had to reschedule due to illness. Somehow ended up with a free trip

      • Anna

        Travel insurance will not cover this. We were denied entry to Jamaica in November WITH travel insurance and they are refusing to cover it.

    • AJ

      @Registry keeps me separate from my partner:
      From what many have posted on here–and which Janice touched on in the IML telcon–Italy doesn’t give a hoot about your status. Buying trip insurance can’t hurt, but from the sounds of it you should be good to go. Just be sure to tell our nosy Uncle about it 21 days ahead of time.

  17. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    Wow, unbelievable. Trump’s corrupt State Department, enforcing a law signed by Obama. Both political parties are supporting oppression.

    • PK

      Unfortunately I doubt that the State Department Officials in charge of Passports were assigned by Trump. I know you probably want to blame Trump for everything because you hate him so much, but the fact is that most State Department Employees are holdovers from the Bush and Obama Administration. This Law was all about the Democrats- I mean look at California! Besides Florida, it’s probably one of the worst states to live in as an RSO, all that They want to oppress RSO’s tooth-and-nail.

      • AJ

        I’d put LA ahead of CA. From what I recall reading, in LA even a pardon doesn’t get you out of registration. Only innocence or acquittal.

    • Roger

      GUYS, LET’S ALL DROP THE POLITICAL toxic tribal “Your side is true Satanic evil!” finger pointing that is permanently damaging this country.

      Tribalism will split our unity as registrants.

      Together we can make real change. Divided, we get buried in crushing legislation.

      We have to accept that ALL politicians benefit from beating up on us.

      Agreed?

  18. 290 air

    Does anybody know if after you have given your 21 day notice to travel to the state dept, or whoever gets it, if you cancel your trip do you have to notify them that you are no longer going to travel? Seems like if you didn’t notify them then it would create all sorts of unnecessary paperwork for the state department and also the other countries. They would be looking for you, but you would never arrive. kind of like the boy who cried wolf… or the country who cried wolf. Just wondering if we decided not to drive to Mexico if we have to hassle with paperwork telling them we canceled the trip.

  19. PK

    Based on these 2 incidents, without knowing the exact details about how these RSO’s received Certified Letters, I’m thinking that there were 2 types of triggers involved. The first being when the RSO returned from overseas and passed through Customs at the U.S. Port of Entry. My guess is he received his letter soon thereafter. The second occurred when the RSO provided 21 advance notification to his Agency.

    Any thoughts? It makes a difference in my case as to whether I should make the decision to return to the United States now or wait for the possibility of an Injunction. I certainly wouldn’t want my Passport revoked in the midst of processing my visa application.

  20. USA

    Well, this is really too bad. It’s very unfortunate that he would buy a ticket and never be informed of this. In summary, he nor anyone else would not be aware unless this website existed. If I’m not mistaken, this new legislation only affects child related offenses? What if the individual is still required to register, but their original offense was expunged? Just curious.

  21. 290 air

    I believe their timing on revoking these people’s passports was completely planned and intentional. They want to make it so painful to travel and have so many people lose money with all the hassle that we’ll all give up and not travel anymore. Since they can’t legally bar us from traveling they do the next best thing. Similar to the whole registry thing. They can’t legally lock us up for life so they put us in a virtual prison within our own homes. The only difference is we don’t get free room and board. I wouldn’t be surprised if more people get these notices right when they book a flight, but with not enough time to get a new passport. Don’t let them win. Just get a new one now and travel to Europe or Africa or any of these countries that will let us in. On the countries that aren’t known for letting RSO’s in apply for a visitor visa in advance. it looks much better if you come clean before uncle sam rats you out. And you will have much more open ears. They all know the US is incarceration nation so exploit that fact when you write your letters of explanation.

  22. Mark

    Does anyone know the airline involved? I’m traveling in April on an airline I’ve traveled before, I’ve always given my 21 day requirement, and will again, sounds like I should turn in my passport for one with an identifier

    • Tuna

      Going to bet it was a US airline, although I have no information to back that up.

  23. Paul 2 HB 631

    Boy I hate to say this but the public servants have finally brought about critical mass on this stuff Im afraid some bad things are bound to start to boil over you can only kick a million people in the ribs so many times They are going to end up with some serious problems on their hands.

  24. ml

    It seems like revoking the passport then charging us fees for a new one is illegal. We bought the original passport for a term of 10 years. In effect they have stolen property without any trial. There ought to be a suit for that just to be a pain in their ass.

  25. kari

    I was overseas when Adam Snowden was hiding in China,
    remember that the State Dept. Revoked his passport and did not contact the airlines. This is while he was on a flight from China to Russia. They knew his passport was revoked they let him board and also let him enter Russia. It was not unit he got to customs that they said your passport has been revoked. So does the Govt have the authority to tell airlines to deny the person.

    • Covered

      “So does the Govt have the authority to tell airlines to deny the person.” Before everyone goes making assumptions, consider that this may just be the airlines ripping off a person. In the Philippines, airlines require the purchase of a ticket before a Filipino can apply for a visa to Europe. These are generally non-refundable tickets because the airlines will not sell a refundable. Why? Because the airline can then sell the seat to someone who acquired a visa. They sell the seat twice. It’s an expensive game for those who can’t afford it, and the airlines have no heart.
      If a U.S. citizen has purchased a round-trip ticket, and the person gets denied entry to the foreign country, they are obligated to return the citizen on the next available flight. This could be inconvenient for the airline, but they still have plenty of time to sell the upcoming unused seat. So our whole passport issue makes a wonderful excuse to just deny the boarding pass before entering the first flight, then they can resell both legs of the ticket. Is it right? Absolutely not. But it is already being done in other countries. It the government has contacted U.S. airlines about this, then the airlines even have federal backing to rip people off.

      • Nondescript

        This was my initial thought as well.

        First off, all airlines have a contract of carriage which always includes a refusal of transport clause. They can refuse to transport anyone at anytime- not just unruly people. They can refuse a seat to women in late pregnancy, the obese, the odoriferous and particularly those that don`t have the “proper” documents.

        Airlines foreign and domestic alike overbook most of their flights anyways, so they really don`t care if they have to boot someone with a paid for ticket from their flight to let their crew, retired employees or a VIP take that seat.

  26. bob

    The Government from state to federal has made it nearly impossible to re enter society, they are just as guilty of ruining countless families, it is time to fight and inflict the same pain on all them but in a different way, but we wont as usual, enjoy the pain until you die.

    • PK

      That’s right, it’s never going to work. Make your life in another Country and forget about the USA.

  27. Passport fees increase.

    I have no idea what they’re talking about in this news article. But I know that when I got my passport three years ago, it cost about $145 for the new passport and passport card, not just $25 (or $35).

    http://fox13now.com/2018/02/05/travelers-will-soon-pay-more-to-get-a-passport/

    • Sue

      The increase fee is for the application acceptance location only, not actually the passport. So if you apply at the post office, the fee you pay to them is now $35, not $25.

      • Sue

        Also, simple renewals that have no changes in name, no loss passport declaration, and have not been expired for 5 years or more, do not have to apply in person at an acceptance agency. You will renew by mail on your own and the fee increase discussed in that article do not apply.

  28. Counting the days

    So please clarify for me, as I get so much contradicting info. (Suprise).

    When you are off the list (10 yrs) you have to petition the Feds to remove you. But they will still mark passport and send notices, even though you served your sentence, paid all fines, no other problems, and THEY took you off the registry.

    Am I reading this right? If not, please clarify. Because what is the use of going through all the mess if they will never give you your life back.

    • Janice Bellucci

      According to IML, the State Department is required to add unique identifier only to passports of those who are currently required to register.

      • Sam

        @Janice Has there been any mention about how it affects those of us who no longer live in the US but are stuck on NY, FL, TX, or WI registries?

        I haven’t received anything in the mail yet, but my out of country address is listed in the state registry in NY. I ask because the immigration laws here are pretty strict.

        Invalid travel documents first offense is 5 years in prison and if they revoke the passport while living overseas and we have no idea it happened it turns into an international thing.

        Additional note the registry doesn’t list a registering jurisdiction on the NY registry under jurisdiction

      • mike r

        Screaming equal protection argument. State and federal lengths of time on the registry differs, sometimes dramatically as in CAs lifetime.

      • New Person

        I thought the requirements were 2 parts:

        1) Convicted of a sex crime with a minor

        and

        2) Be on the registry.

        What if your case was dismissed, meaning you never were convicted, but still have to register? Do you still get the demarcation?

        • AlexO

          Yes, since you still have to register. If you’re talking about California’s 1203.4, it’s not so much as a straight dismissal but rather setting aside your guilty plea. This is a positive thing for your background check for most civilian things but less so for government things. Many government applications will still treat your original conviction as still there and I’d be highly surprised if the passport app will be any different.

        • New Person

          @AlexO,

          The IML is dependent upon the State for information.

          Here is 1203.4:

          the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. The probationer shall be informed, in his or her probation papers, of this right and privilege and his or her right, if any, to petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.

          Thus, the courts will:
          1) set aside the verdict of guilt
          AND
          2) the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant

          Hence, there is no conviction as there is no accusation or information against the defendant.


          ..
          .

          There are only 3 exceptions for disclosing one’s conviction in CA’s due to 1203.4:
          1) any questionnaire or application for public office,
          2) for licensure by any state or local agency, or
          3) for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.

          There is nothing in 1203.4 that states you need to disclose your conviction for an application for a passport.

          As a registrant, the only benefit we get from 1203.4 is that our conviction no longer exists with only those 3 exceptions. The state took away the “shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted” provision within 1203.4. By taking away the case dismissal here, renders 1203.4 that much more weaker of an immunity than every other group of former convicts who qualify for 1203.4.

          I’m a layman. The law for 1203.4 seems straight-forward to me. Accusation or information against the defendant is dismissed, along with setting the conviction of guilty aside. Also, I’m supposed to benefit from relieve from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction and no exceptions are written into law for 1203.4 that registrants need to continue to register who qualify for 1203.4. 1203.4 is a statute and an immunity program. I’d like the state to uphold that statute to the “T”.

        • NPS

          @ New Person
          I listened to the phone conference re IML. Only one caller asked about those who have an expunged record. The answer was yes, we’d still have the mark. However, no one seemed to be addressing the word “AND”. For those of us with a 1203.4, we are, legally, one without the other. Yet, all I hear is that we’ll still have the scarlet letter printed on our passports, but I truly believe no one will know that answer until a person with a 1203.4 gets their newest passport. Nor will anyone fight on our behalf. And I get it.

          I’ve come to accept what the bigger picture is. We are but a tiny minority within the RC community. In the 4-5 years I’ve been active on this site (as well as attending meetings), I’ve noticed only a handful of RCs who have an expunged record; more specifically, it’s you and me plus three other people that I am aware of. Because we are such a small number, no one is going to fight on that technicality. Rather, the battle will be to attack the IML marker as a whole, which would benefit us anyway once the lawsuit prevails. We just need to be extra patient.

          It’s to a point now that I’ve quit asking, “but what about those of us with an expunged record?” Thus, all I can do is wait another 2 years before filing the CoR and be done with this registry. I’m currently on a five-year plan to study law and take the BAR Exam. I just hope that I could be admitted into the Bar, which is why I want that CoR. And yes, I would practice in an area to help other RCs.

        • New Person

          @ NPS,

          If that’s your goal to be a lawyer, then ACSOL’s own president is your model. Can’t beat that!

          As for registrants with 1203.4 being a small community, I never thought about it. I thought there were many, many more. But if that’s the case that it’s a small, small community, then it makes not receiving all the benefits of 1203.4 very egregious. There really is no distinction between those qualify for 1203.4 and those who don’t. Especially if the IML will still mark our passports. What exactly does the 1203.4 do then if the law doesn’t do what it’s intended to do?

          1203.4 is an immunity program. I didn’t create it. You didn’t create it. It’s a state statute. But none of it is being upheld for registrants who qualify for it. And like you said, b/c we’re such a small, small group, then it’s not worth wasting time and money on such a small group.

          Please note how Prop 57 is being held to the “T” in legislative scrutiny. Why can’t the same be done with 1203.4? Nowhere within 1203.4 does it state we need to continue to register. If they state wanted the registrants to continue to register, then it should add an amendment to 1203.4 stating that b/c they have it for firearms and which crimes are not eligible. Why neglect the continuance to register?

          Again, I refer to Ca Const, Art 1, Sec 7b… equal immunity. I’d like to address this in court, as a layman. 1203.4 is a contract… a legal binding contract that I and you qualify for. It’s not being upheld. A case dismissal isn’t dismissed? Do not binding contracts matter?

        • NPS

          @New Person

          I agree with everything you’re saying. I also find your point about Prop 57 to be intriguing. If the courts are enforcing it to the “t”, then why not the same for 1203.4? Answer: no one has brought any argument before the court.

          Perhaps we should work together.

        • AJ

          @NPS:
          Answer: no one has brought any argument before the court.
          —–
          Exactly right. Courts don’t reach out or hunt for laws that aren’t being properly applied or are unconstitutional. Unless and until a citizen cries foul, incorrect/corrupt activities continue.

        • New Person

          @ NPS,

          So I was reading a new article on ACSOL about an attorney having a sex offender on her staff. His case is dismissed, but everyone knows about his conviction, apparently, as it’s stated on the newspaper.

          I. Now… on 1203.4 it states:
          ====
          the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant
          ====

          But as a registrant, that information exists after being awarded the 1203.4. The only way you’re on the registry is through a conviction. So remove the conviction or information of the case, then one cannot be on the registry as the information exists.

          The registry is about private information. You lose it. Technically, everyone loses it when they’re convicted and under custody. But you’re supposed to regain it after serving your custody to the state. That’s why there aren’t registries for murderers, burglars, DUI’s, etc…

          Well, 1203.4 specifically states the accusation or information against you no longer exists. There are no exceptions to that if you qualify for 1203.4. The registry is in direct contrary to that immunity. It still is propagating that information and accusation.

          II. Then factor in CA Const. Art 1, Sec 1.
          ====
          All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
          ====

          In alienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. That is a CA Constitutional right… inalienable right. Registration is loss of your Privacy, your private information.

          As stated before, you can lose the right to privacy when you’re under custody. We’re no longer under custody b/c that would be considered punishment.

          But how does this play into 1203.4?

          III. CA Const Art 1, Sec 7b
          ======
          (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
          ======

          Equal immunity is protected. Although one can alter it, it must affect all who benefit.

          IV. Putting it all together

          CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7b. Equal immunity.
          CA Const, Art 1, Sec 1. Inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy.
          1203.4 statute. The court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.

          Shall is an imperative action to provide an immunity to dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant. Yet the Registry will identify when you were convicted and what you were convicted with. That negates the immunity to dismiss the accusation AND information. (Or is used like the conjunction and.) This immunity was denied for the right to pursue and obtain privacy, which is protected by CA Art 1, Sec 1 and CA Art 1, Sec 7b.

          That information is still being used as an active information today statewide and federally, with the IML.

          Again, you did not write the 1203.4. I did not write the 1203.4. Yet it is a statute in CA and it is not being upheld to give any sort of immunity as my case still exists via the registry for the state and the federal to use.

          *** I don’t have a conviction, but I’m on the registry. ***

          That makes no sense b/c that means your information and accusation against you still exist when the courts were directed with the verb “shall” to dismiss the accusation and information against a defendant.

          There are three immunity components to 1203.4
          1. set aside conviction
          2. dismiss accusation or information against the defendant
          3. release from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction, provided you are not the exception as listed in 1203.4.

          Apparently, as a registrant, your conviction still stands and what you were convicted with by the registry. The evidence is provided by any time one has to register, which is a minimum of once a year. If you go to school, then you’re doing it as many times as the school police department sees fit.

          Wow. I think that’s a concrete argument that registrants aren’t receiving any benefits of the 1203.4 since your’e still registering, providing evidence that your information was exists and your conviction was not set aside. What do you think NPS? or anyone else reading?

        • NPS

          I think you what have written is very well stated.

          However, I am still concerned with PC 290.007, which states that “Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.”

          So if this was to be taken to court, there needs to be a repeal of 290.007 as it goes against the legal standard of 1203.4.

        • New Person

          @ NPS,

          Hmmm…

          1203.4 states all information is dismissed from the conviction.

          290.007 states your information isn’t dismissed for registration. (or rather that is implied.)

          There is a conflict here between these two laws.

          1203.4 program provides 3 immunities:
          1. Conviction set aside
          2. Accusation or information against the defendant is dismissed
          3. Relieved of all penalties and disabilities.

          I know there was a case going after the disability angle. With the recent cases stating that presence and residency restrictions were unconstitutional, then those items were definite disabilities.

          That’s not the angle I’m going after (but it should be included b/c the previous courts noticed no disabilities at all). The angle I’m going for are immunities 1 and 2.

          CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7b is about “equal immunity protections”.
          ===
          (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
          ===

          The state cannot pick winners or losers in granting immunities. If the immunity exists, then it is for all. The state can alter the immunities or privileges, but they cannot alter who receives them.

          290.007 is altering “who” receives immunities in 1203.4. That is unconstitutional… you know, like presence and residency restrictions constitute as “banishment”.
          ———————-
          I. Conviction set aside
          For those who qualify for 1203.4, their conviction is set aside. No one knows they were convicted of anything – except if you’re registrant. If I’m not mistaken, your conviction still stands b/c you’re classified as a current registrant. You only become a registrant after conviction. In addition, the IML uses that conviction to mark one’s passport.

          Anyone not a registrant does not have their “set aside conviction” used against them for their passport. Or how about applying for HUD? Or the requirement to inform the local PD that you are going to volunteer? Or how about job opportunities?

          There are exceptions to this rule, though
          =====
          The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.
          =====

          The registry if forcing me to disclose of my conviction each time I register, whether be it my annual, at a college, volunterring, or specific jobs. Nowhere in that exception does it state I need to abide by Megan’s Law.

          ————————–
          II. Accusation or Information dismissed
          For those who qualify for 1203.4, their accusation or information are dismissed. No one knows what you are accused of because your conviction was set aside simultaneously – except if you’re registrant. Your accusation or information is advertised that you did a sex crime. Registering annually and compliance checks are evidence that my accusation/information is being used against me after being awarded 1203.4. If you go to school, you’re also advertising as well as admitting that you were convicted and convicted with a sex crime. No other groups who qualify for 1203.4 need to advertise their conviction occurred nor what they were convicted for. Want to volunteer? Same thing. If you were convicted with a minor and the work involves minors, then you have to inform the local PD AND that organization. If you want to travel abroad, then your passports reflects your conviction and convicted of a sex crime with a minor.

          ————–
          Of course, we reach the “released from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction” immunity part. Until recently was presence and residency restrictions declared unconstitutional. Those were apparent penalties as they’re forms of banishment.

          This part of the immunity is important when used under the context of equal justice, or rather unequal justice. I’m talking about cruel and unusual punishment.


          ..
          .

          Cruel and unusual punishment.
          On the whole, if someone breaks the law, then is that someone relegated to one type of punishment or penalty? No. There are varying gradients of punishment with respect to the crime.

          Thus someone who earns a 1203.4 will not be on the same level as someone who does not earn a 1203.4 – unless you’re a registrant.

          There are registrants who do not qualify for the 1203.4, but do qualify for the certificate of rehabilitation.

          There are registrant who do not qualify for the 1203.4, but do qualify for a pardon.

          Direct from 1203.4:
          =============
          (b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

          (g) Notwithstanding the above provisions or any other provision of law, the Governor shall have the right to pardon a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.
          =============

          Just within the registrant group, there is no distinction from a registrant who earns a 1203.4 and one who does not qualify for a 1203.4. Registration has only one term – lifetime. It appears cruel and unusual that all registrants are treated the same, despite affixing different risk assessment levels as well as qualifying for an immunity program that serves no immunity distinction between the same group.

          Registration is the dissemination of information. 1203.4 dismisses the accusation or information against the defendant as well as set aside the conviction. Any registrant who qualifies and earns the 1203.4 is no different from any registrant who does not qualify. And this is even more self-evident with the passing of the IML.

          The most egregious error is the fact that 1203.4 does list which sex crimes do not qualify for the 1203.4. The state has identified and created a gradient between sex crimes. And yet those sex crimes who qualify for 1203.4 still share the same fates of a registrant that do not qualify for the 1203.4 immunity program. Why exclude any sex crime at all if the fates do not change?

          Add to the fact that CASOMB’s recidivism rates are under 1% makes the negation of 1203.4 immunities to those registrants who qualify very cruel and unusual.


          ..
          .
          Ultimately, 1203.4 and 290.007 laws conflict. 1203.4 states which sex crimes do not qualify for the immunity program. 290.007 states that those who qualify for 1203.4 do not get the immunity program. 290.007 now conflicts with CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7b, which is an equal immunity protection law. The registry admits a conviction occurred and that it was a sex crime. You are forced to admit this every time you register, whether be it for your annual, update your information for a new residency, vehicle, or employment; for college; for volunteering; for some employment; and, now, for International Megan’s Law (IML).

          Please note, the 1203.4 does remove you from ML’s website, but there are those who are not subjected to ML’s website before earning the 1203.4 and still earn the 1203.4. There is no difference between that registrant and a tier 3 registrant.

          The 1203.4 law wasn’t written by me nor you. The sex crimes exception qualifications listed in the 1203.4 law wasn’t written by me nor you. CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7b wasn’t written by me nor you. Sec 290.007 is negating the immunities of a subset who qualify for the 1203.4. Why am I continuing to disclose my conviction and type of conviction when 1203.4 states specifically they no longer exist.

          We don’t need to repeal 290.007 to earn removal from the registry. We simply need to prove 290.007 is unconstitutional to the registrants who qualified and earned 1203.4 statute via CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7b: equal immunity protections. The registry admits the conviction exists and the conviction was due to a sex crime information.

          Personal experience: As a registrant, if I am to attend a college or university, then I must register with the school’s police department. If there is no local police department, then I must register with the local city’s police department.

          So I go to the police department to register. It’s quite shameful for me as the receptionist has to call up the detective in front of other staff. I said I’ll be taking courses here and inquired what’s required of me. This school’s policy is registrants on parole (or probation) must sign-in and sign-out each time they are on campus. A registrant not on parole only needs to turn in a copy of their schedule each term. The detective asked a lot of questions and kept asking for my parole papers. I told him that I’m not on parole and my case is dismissed. Still not believe me, he required a copy of my registration papers as well as copy of my case dismissal.

          Each time I enter the school’s police department to turn in my schedule and state that I’m a 290 is degrading. My case dismissal that’s supposed to set my conviction aside as well as dismiss the accusation or information against me are not recognized with the registry. When I say I’m a 290 each time to turn in my paperwork, I’m admitting I have a conviction and that conviction was a sex crime.

          Although the frequency of reporting to the college’s PD isn’t as often as someone on parole or probation, there isn’t a distinction to the fact that I’m still reporting that I have a conviction and that conviction is a sex crime. Have, not “had”.

          Registrants on parole do not qualify for 1203.4. Once they complete their parole term, then they will register less frequently like me at the college. Yet, there is no distinction between someone who has earned a 1203.4 and someone who does not. Are there any other sets of group who qualify and earn the 1203.4 that need to report anything to anyone any longer? Do those convicted of drugs, burglary, larceny, DUI’s, assault, etc… and earn the 1203.4 need to report to anyone? Have their passport marked of their conviction that doesn’t exist?

          It’s difficult not to get depressed b/c the state is saying you can’t move on and you’re just a monster for life.

      • Counting the days

        Thx Janice, you work better than any anti anxiety or anti depressant med out there. We need to start calling you “Mama Janice” the way you look after us.

  29. Tim L

    Good point,
    Freevmarket forces would normally include competition, some may carry you despite another’s refusal. But how does it really work?.
    IML law reserves a mass visit to DC! Can it be a million? I believe so.

    The logistics immense! Overcoming P&P restrictions….busses ect.
    A devoted web site possibly?

  30. Bob

    I need a completely factual answer to this question without any speculative response please.

    Let’s say one submits his present UNMARKED passport for renewal. Will he : 1) Get a new Marked passport 2) Get a new UNMARKED passport 3) Will he get NO passport at all ?

    If you know the answer, please respond asap as this is a time related question.

    Thank you so much.

    • AlexO

      As it currently stands, if your offense was against a minor and you currently still have to register with any jurisdiction, your passport will come back with the mark. It doesn’t matter if you’re publicly listed or not.

      IML doesn’t prohibit us form having passports, they just have to be marked. So any renewal would still be approved but also marked. The only thing we can’t get according to the original released documentation is the passport card as it doesn’t have the room for the mark so they’re simply not issuing those to us.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Bob – During this his period of transition, the answer to your question is uncertain.

    • PK

      Based on the things you’ve read in this Blog, what do you think will happen Bob? An even better way to get the straight facts, is to simply call the State Department Passport Section, and tell them you’re a covered Sex Offender, then ask what kind of Passport you should expect to receive based on the IML Law.

    • AJ

      @Bob:
      Only the State Dept. can absolutely answer your questions.

      Based on events, though, it would be unreasonable to expect an unmarked passport at renewal. Getting no passport whatsoever would mean you have some other violation (sex tourism, deadbeat on child support, etc) preventing issuance. There are very few situations where State is allowed to deny a passport.

    • James

      @ Bob:

      No one knows, no one expected these cancellations to be occurring now. Most of us that follow this closely expected this to happen maybe two years or so from now.

      We were wrong, (maybe…there could be compelling specific facts in both of these passport revocations…we don’t know).

      This seems to be on a fast track now…maybe.

      I renewed my passport earlier than necessary, last year. Was it a good move? Don’t know…I assumed that eventually some Border Control agent would just “add,” a permanent stamp via a simple stamp pad kind of process when entering the county.

      Wrong, (apparently).

      But as I write this I am coming to think that this simpler and just as effective procedure isn’t being followed because they want the old passports retired, (including my new one), so that a better RDF chip with more data could be inserted…

      But who knows? It is possible…

      What is not possible is answering your question…at this time.

      Sorry.

      Best Wishes, James

  31. Bob

    I obviously did not make myself clear, so I will try it this way.

    Since January 1st, 2018, did anyone on this blog renew his/her passport w/o it being revoked ?

    If yes, did the new passport you received contain the unique identifier ?

    Thank you for your help.

    • CR

      Just read the posts, Bob. You’ve already been answered. BTW, do you think anyone is beholden to you? And knock it off with the “Thank you for your help” BS. That doesn’t excuse your sorry rude ass.

      • Terry

        Well said sir!
        I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought Bob was acting like royalty suffering the stupidity of us common folk! But let me state it another way in case I’m not being clear…try to read between the lines! Your answer is this whole thing has no answers. What is true today, in all probability, will not be true tomorrow…this is a math equation with endless variables. When someone in actual authority at State writes out all the rules, methods, and options…maybe then you’ll have some semblance of an answer. But that of course will only last until the next court ruling, or someone gets a new hair up in Congress.
        Perhaps we should all just wait until Janice’s latest suit plays itself out or results in an injunction.
        I haven’t written in a long time…so here’s some useless data that probably means nothing! I left the US almost two years ago to live in Europe. Last week I traveled from a non-Schengen country to a Schengen country and back without incident. I suppose that means my passport has not been revoked as they always scan the passport into their machines, and I’m guessing that a revoked passport would show up as non valid and result in a denial to cross. At that point, I assume my only option would be to visit to the US Embassy and get a new one with the endorsement. But then again, maybe they’re just scanning my passport to see if I have any unpaid parking fines! Who knows…top secret!!
        I’m a bit on pins and needles with this thing as I want to travel but I’m afraid I’ll get stranded. How to book hotels, or ferries, or airlines (many non-refundable), makes it kind of tough. So anxiously awaiting outcome of Janice’s thing. You go girl!!! And thanks.
        PS I’ve never seen anybody…hotel people, travel booking people, border agents…look at the endorsement section of the passport. They’re too busy or too bored to waste the time! So there’s at least that!

        • Sam

          @Terry are you stuck on one of the state registries as well? I’ve been checking back every few hours for any news on how it would affect those of us overseas. The US Embassy here is a bit of a pain to deal with as when you call there is just a machine to schedule an appointment.(this includes the emergency number).

          I’ve contacted them via email about the whole passport revocation thing and that led me in a big circle of emails and phone calls leading back to the beginning. No one knew who I was really supposed to contact and DHS just never responded.

          Seeing as my passport number is tied to my bank account, my drivers license, my visa, my job and just about everything else here this would affect me beyond the years in prison they give along with the 10,000 bucks for being in the country on invalid documentation. I guess I will find out when I go to renew my visa in a few weeks if they arrest me or not.

        • James

          I am glad to hear Terry’s story, Sam’s not so much, but, I feel fairly confidant that Sam’s renewal of his Visa will go pretty well…more than pretty well, I think he will sail without any questions at all.

          And Terry should be good as long as he stays out of Great Britain and Ireland and other known hot spots…though I have been tempted to try London, via a stop first in Amsterdam…but decided against it. I think the current state department confusion will benefit both Terry and Sam.

          I will, however, throw in one piece of advice for everyone…when talking to anyone in authority for whatever purpose, say what is necessary and say no more. More succinctly put, volunteer no added information, listen, give a concise answer, say as little as possible.

          Not too long ago I had to do my yearly registration…it was a new detective and pretty unfamiliar with the process. He didn’t ask about my current vehicle, and I asked him and he said somewhat sourly, he already had it, (which I am sure is true…But!)

          Some time passes and he calls about my 6 (!) vehicles…I call back, saying I only have one, but this was left as a message. I also sent out an email explaining I have one vehicle currently, purchased in 2016 new, License xxx, and the old car License xxx is no longer mine, it was a trade-in.

          So I get an email saying thank you very much for registering your two vehicles!!!!!! License xxx old, and License new xxx.

          I think I have it straightened out now, but maybe not.

          My mistake was saying too much, volunteering the old License xxx…sigh.

          The point is, Say politely as little as possible.

          Best Wishes & Good Luck, James

  32. Tod

    This may be a totally stupid question, but if it’s on one page in the middle of the passport, what happens if that page accidentally gets damaged or worse?
    Or maybe something sticky gets spilled on it, and two pages get stuck together.

    Or, if they do send you a letter, and somehow your old passport gets lost, will they just re-issue a new one when you reapply?

    Hopefully, someone will actually post a picture of what this stamp looks like and where is in the Book

    All my fingers and toes are crossed that Janice is successful with the injunction then we would at least have some time to travel and give the other attorneys a chance to end this ridiculous law

  33. Terry

    Sam not sure about all that. Yes I am on registry, and yes I meet the conditions for revocation. What I don’t know is that if they are aware that you are overseas (seems like it should be in some database somewhere) will they just revoke it unannounced, ie. no notification by mail or otherwise? If so, the surprise will happen at a border or on visa renewal or a residency application, something like that. Most day to day institutions will not know if your passport is valid or not. They are just photocopying the first few pages as ID.
    Those that care about the actual validity of your passport will either have you contact your embassy in their country (sounds like fun for you!), deport you back to the US, or shoot you on the spot! Probably the first one, maybe the second. Might be a good idea to go online to the US Embassy web page and contact an attorney who specializes in immigration. At least you will have a name to give the border guys so they can notify your next of kin!!
    Sorry for the gallows humor, but sometimes all you can do anymore is laugh…it’s all so pathetic!!

    • Sam

      Figured as much. Haha. I’m pretty sure the immigration department here is just going to check the date on the passport and see that it doesn’t expire for another 6 years since the processing time for renewal is about an hour or so depending who is working.

      Right now our country isn’t on super friendly terms when it comes to the US and doing anything in English so that’s a plus. Next of kin would be the wife, and she will be with me at immigration to translate, as well as it being one of the requirements 😂 if I get deported there’s nothing waiting for me back there.

      I still think it’s pretty dumb the state leaves you on with a foreign address when even the federal one just lists out of country with everything else blank. Oh well. See how.

  34. B.Wat

    @NPS: I have a 1203.4 also granted in 1991 (not that it’s done any good). Now you know of six people who have one.

  35. Mike G

    My wife and I have round trip non-refundable airline tickets to Amsterdam in the third week of March. We are to join a group on a 14 day tour of Europe, but the final payment of about $2000 is due tomorrow.
    From what I’ve seen posted, no one knows if all the passports are in process of revocation, or just select cases.
    If anyone has heard more, or has just received their letter, I’d appreciate hearing from you.
    Thanks.

    • James

      Geeze, you are in a spot Mike G….

      Still, I will give this a shot.

      I think you should pay for the tickets, (gasp).

      I think you should give your 21 day notice.

      I think you will be fine boarding the flight, (provided it is direct, no stop in London/Dublin/Manchester)

      I think upon your return, you might get the certified letter of revocation.

      Might…maybe not.

      This is my best guess at the moment having followed this closely.

      One other thing, God forbid I am wrong, your wife must be prepared to carry on, with a smile, a laugh, a promise to have a good time anyway having left you behind. Maybe she can do this, maybe she can’t…but this is a kind of important hinge on whether or not to send the final payment for the tickets tomorrow.

      Good Luck

      James

      • Mike G

        @James
        Thanks so much for insight. I think we will go ahead and do as you suggest.
        My wife and I are on different flights (long story). Her flight stops at Heathrow, but mine goes LA – Philadelphia – Amsterdam, so if my passport is still intact, I shouldn’t have a problem. I don’t know if they will scan my passport in LA or wait till I get to Philly, but I plan to post the info online to print boarding passes, so hopefully the airline will let me know if my passport is invalid before I leave home.
        Unfortunately, my return ticket is through Heathrow, but what could they do to me then? Deport me?

        And yes, my wife will begrudgingly continue without me if necessary. No chance of a smile or laugh, but she will try to have a good time.

        • AJ

          @Mike G:
          Unfortunately, my return ticket is through Heathrow, but what could they do to me then? Deport me?
          —–
          Don’t assume they’ll forward you along to your next flight. Yes, they’ll deport you…probably back to where you just came from. So if flying from Amsterdam to London, you may well get bounced back to A’dam. While not a punishment, it does throw a monkeywrench in things, as you lose the money spent on the UK-US flight, *and* have to buy a A’dam-US ticket. Were I you, I’d spend the $$ on changing it now and avoid any hassle.

    • David

      Mile G, I ditto James’s comment: I think you should go and enjoy a vacation in Europe with your wife.
      ** fingers crossed everything works out smoothly **

      • James

        I will counter AJ’s advice…to a degree.

        If you can change your current ticket to avoid London, you should.

        However, I think they will hold you in the international section of Heathrow, which is sealed off from the other sections of the airport anyhow, then send you on your way.

        This is essentially what they did with me in South Korea…at least when the let me out of jail they led me to the international sealed off section of the airport…and then I flew back to LAX.

        Of course I had a big layover, on purpose, and my error was trying to leave the airport.

        I don’t know what your layover time is Heathrow is…in case they do hassle you that you have enough time to be put on your ongoing flight.

        But this is return, so how is Angel Watch to notify LHR, (Heathrow)?

        Good Luck

        James

        • Sam

          I thinki remember you mentioning this before. I thought you’d actually booked the flight there specifically. It’s crazy that they arrested you when you tried to go out of the airport during a layover.

          Now I’m a bit scared to go back and visit my friends and family.. But then again I wouldn’t be coming from the US to not sure how it will work this time around.

          Going to go to renew my visa here in about 2 weeks. So hopefully it goes well.

    • TS

      Get a direct flight from A’dam to the USA (or go through Paris, Frankfurt, or Munich from A’dam) and save yourself the potential hassle while you certainly have a sound peace of mind. It’s a great insurance policy of what you’ll avoid and will ensure great memories from the trip all around.

      If you stay the course, good luck and may the travel be smooth because you’d certainly be an exception to noted experiences.

  36. James

    @NPS

    Make that 7…I have a pretty certified copy of mine…but, my conviction being a 288(a) means that this Entry of a Not Guilty Plea means nothing at all.

    Hummmm

    Best Wishes, James

    • David

      Mile G, be absolutely certain to carry a copy of your 21-day notification with you when you’re coming back through U.S. airpprt customs. (Having it ready and showing it to them has made it easier for me in the past when I’ve returned from Europe.) Good Luck! 👍

  37. Jm

    While this isn’t a guarantee to anyone looking to renew, I decided earlier this month to renew my passport book and also to apply for a new passport card. A few days ago I received the passport book – without a stamp. I then a few days later received a card. I am quite surprised. I am currently registered here in California for a misdemeanor 311.11(a) from 2014 and I was previously denied entry into Mexico. For obvious reasons I cannot guarantee that if you should attempt to renew you will have the same thing happen, but I’m also now concerned they may realize the mistake and look to revoke.

    • CR

      Assuming that IML applies to you (offense involving a minor and required to register), then I hope this does not happen to you, but they may realize it and revoke your passport the next time you attempt to leave or reenter the country.

    • ExpatRFSO

      Thanks for that info Jm. I am hopeful that they are going to define “offense with a child” as contact only. This makes that more likely. It seems that travel triggers the revocation. It would be very helpful to know what the offenses of the two revocations were. I will find out soon as I have two trips planned this summer.

      • AJ

        I am hopeful that they are going to define “offense with a child” as contact only.
        —–
        IML is not the most clearly-written law, that’s for sure (hmm…perhaps intentional?). From what I read, though, non-contact does indeed apply. IML Section 3(10)(B) covers “Other Offenses” and uses definitions from AWA Section 111 (5)(A), para (7). What does that part of Section 111 say?
        *****
        (7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ‘‘SPECIFIED OFFENSE
        AGAINST A MINOR’’ TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS.—The term ‘‘specified offense against a minor’’ means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
        (A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.
        (B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.
        (C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
        (D) Use in a sexual performance.
        (E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
        (F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of title 18, United States Code.
        (G) Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.
        (H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.
        (I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.
        *****
        Clauses (F) and (G), at minimum, apply even though they are non-contact. A misdemeanor CP possession is a covered offense, as the RC would be a Tier I (by being “not Tier II or Tier III”).

    • Sue

      Thanks for the info regarding your passportJm. My husband is going to apply for renewal of his passport probably his summer. We’d like to plan a trip next year, but know it all hinges on if his passport will be marked or not and we are rather anxious to see how his comes back. Part of his plea was a removal of his victim’s age from the record. While it doesn’t show in his registration (it states “unknown”), Michigan has classified him as tier 3 on his 1995 misdemeanor because of his victim’s age which was supposed to be removed. And we’ve been informed we can’t even fight his tier designation until 2020 when he’ll have been registering for 25 years. Talk about a gray area. Will it be based on his public registration or based on information obtained from the court file that was supposed to be removed. Ugh. I hate how ridiculous these laws have become and how they can retroactively apply them.

      • AJ

        @Sue:
        Some quick thoughts about what you posted…
        1) If hubby is on a public registry and his offense is one defined by AWA/IML as against a minor, the actual age, and therefore the inclusion or exclusion of it, is irrelevant. From the sounds of it, both criteria apply.
        2) MI may “secretly” be able to use the age of the victim to determine Tiers. It would probably fall under the concept of necessary internal practices and procedures of agency or the State. As long as MI keeps the information internally, and as long as there was no “purge” mandate as part of the plea deal, I don’t see how MI is violating the agreement.
        3) Who told you you cannot file suit until a certain amount of time has passed? That seems odd, to say the least. If the Tier classification is incorrect, it’s a ripe complaint yesterday, today, and tomorrow. One doesn’t actually have to wait for a confirmed harm to arrive to challenge the harm. I’d be curious to hear the legal basis for having to wait until hubby has entered the disputed time frame. Given a court case can easily take many months or years to completely resolve–especially when involving a RC–waiting until 25 years may mean no resolution until 27, 28, 30 years have elapsed.

        • Jm

          I would add, in my case I am not on the public registry. I’m not sure that would make any difference – as the Angel watch center still sent a notice to Mexico in late 2015 to deny me entry. Also @Sue depends a lot on where you’re trying to travel as to whether your husband will be denied more than whether there’s a stamp imo.

      • Sam

        Michigan when they enacted their AWA compliant law had all felony convictions classified as tier 3 with no way to petition to a lower level. It was based purely on the initial offense not the current risk. Michigan is a police state where you can have 5 different jurisdictions in a single area. Ex. Ottawa county has township, city, county, state and FBI jurisdictions with no lines inbetween.

        The only good news with them is when you move out of the state they remove you from their list.

        My thought in his case would be find a country that will give him a visa and move there and change your address to there.

        Or move to a state where his time on the registry could be credited and he can get removed.

        Either way from there just never look back.

        • PK

          “My thought in his case would be find a country that will give him a visa and move there and change your address to there- and just never look back”.

          It is simply impossible for anyone who is required to register as a Sex Offender to have an unrestricted, unregulated life, much less a completely fulfilling or accomplished career- one that is successful.

          I guess I feel fortunate? I live in one very small section of the Country where I am not required to register as a Sex Offender at all. On the other hand, I am required to register as a Sex Offender in the state of my conviction- New York. Then, in 2006, they changed the registration period from 10 years (the time-frame that was set forth in my plea agreement) to f****** Life. All for a POS Misdemeanor.

          Even though- I haven’t lived in New York, worked in New York, nor have I paid taxes in New York for over 16 years. I have barely even set foot in New York!

          This was challenged once with Doe vs. O’Donnell http://courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2011/2011_04804.htm

          I feel that this issue deserves a closer look.

          The mechanics of my registration is straightforward, and it only involves the receipt and a mail-in submission a yearly registration form. Living in any other jurisdiction would most definitely involve higher police involvement, for example, strange State Troopers showing up at your door to do compliance checks.

          I just couldn’t see myself going through all of that commotion again. So the only move I will ever make will be outside of the Country- forever this time!

          The fact of being on some List and having your information displayed on a website, will no doubt, put great restrictions on your family life and career, one that simply cannot overcome.

          Sam is correct that instead of living under those conditions, you should find a better place outside of the United States.

        • Sam

          @PK and unlike us he didn’t have the mistake of going to NY 😂😂 so he still has a chance.

  38. T

    What the State department is doing is not safe and won’t protect anyone even children under the IML, instead this is going to put lives at unnecessary great risk of being exploited and harmed in some crazy way, but they don’t really care and Chris Smith is a moron.

    • AJ

      Let’s not be killing the messenger here (yes, used for effect and purpose, given that’s a risk for a marked RC). What the State Department is doing is complying with Federal Law. Congress (not just Rep. Smith, as it took more than his one vote) is the evil here, though State gets the attacks and vitriol.

      • Registries for all! 😡

        To be clear, I don’t believe a department of the federal government can be forced to implemented a law which it believes is unconstitutional. I believe they could actually sue for an injunction while the courts decide its legality.

        • AJ

          Though “U.S. v. U.S.” is indeed possible, here I disagree. What agency or element within a Government Branch would State sue for relief? It is State implementing it, so it cannot sue State because it would be Plaintiff and Defendant, which is Unconstitutional. If anything, it would need to be Justice suing State to prevent implementation. (Also, Justice pretty much controls if/when interagency suits are initiated.) Beyond that, State isn’t harmed, so I don’t see what standing it would have. State sues Congress? No, because an entire Branch of the Government cannot be sued.

          Here’s a somewhat dry read about it, for those interested: scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1941&context=wm

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.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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 *