ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings 2019 [details]
Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

ACSOLGeneral News

State Department Files Motion to Dismiss IML Lawsuit (Updated)

UPDATE 06/07: The date of the IML hearing has been changed from June 25 to July 9 at the government’s request.

The State Department today filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit which challenges the International Megan’s Law (IML) on procedural grounds. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for June 25 in Los Angeles.

In its motion, the State Department asserts that its final rule issued in September 2016 is consistent with the IML and that its press release issued in October 2017 that included the language of the unique identifier to be added to the passports of some registrants was a website update, not a regulation. In addition, the State Department asserts that it already had authority to deny passport cards to registrants prior to passage of the IML.

“The State Department motion does not change our position that the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it issued a final rule implementing the IML without first requesting public comment,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci. “In addition, we continue to believe that the State Department completely lacks authority to deny passports cards to registrants.”

The IML lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District, of California on January 11, 2018. The agency’s response was initially due in March 2018, however, the agency requested and obtained a three-week extension for that response. Today was the deadline for the agency’s response.

Join the discussion

  1. AO (AlexO)

    I’m thinking that the fact that they asked for an extension and then waited until literally the last day to file their motion, they’re not confident in their stance. They just can’t roll over as it would look bad.

    • Lake County

      Asking for extensions is very common, if not expected. Most attorneys wait until the last day to file anything. I wouldn’t read anything into it. Very few people submit work any sooner than they have to, especially if they are backlogged.

    • Edie

      The Feds keep asking for extensions at the last minute with my son’s Habeas Corpus appeal, yet our legal team advises not to get hopeful over this. They’re common.

  2. USA

    I have an interesting question. I first admit this law isn’t good! I do understand (correct me) the government stamps the passport with a seal and I would think calls ahead or contacts the individuals foreign destination when traveling? What about non child related offenders?

    • Mike G

      @USA

      If the offense that required registration did not involve a Minor, IML does not apply, and there should be no notifications.

      Keep in mind that some countries restrict entry of persons convicted of ANY crime (i.e. Canada). Some countries have access to US Department of Justice records, and most countries can access INTERPOL.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        It should be kept in mind that INTERPOL’s bylaws clearly states that information diffused about any individual is entirely at the discretion of their country of citizenship such that any government can keep their own citizens’ criminal records private, if they choose. Sadly, our own country want’s to trumpet our status worldwide.

  3. TG

    I’m wondering whether anyone is going to challenge the unconstitutionality of IML. Does anyone here know?

    • Mike G

      It was challenged right after it was signed, but the challenge was unsuccessful.

      • TG

        The judge rejected the challenge because she said we didn’t know what the passports would look like yet. Now that we know, isn’t it time to challenge the constitutionalality of it?

        • PK

          “The judge rejected the challenge because she said we didn’t know what the passports would look like yet. Now that we know …”

          No we don’t know.

          Some Passports have a written endorsement on the last page, and some Passports have no endorsement or visible identifier at all.

          It would be very helpful to know– What do the new Passports look like?

        • Jm

          I believe we do know what they look like. You can google it. They show a picture of it on the endorsements page. Those that don’t have that aren’t marked.

  4. Tim Moore

    If tweets from the president are considered executive action, why not a press conferences be an issuing of a regulations?

    • Eric Knight

      Actually, only Executive Actions are considered Executive Actions. Tweets are considered twit-fodder no matter who spouts them out.

  5. PK

    “the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it issued a final rule implementing the IML without first requesting public comment”

    I wonder what their response was to that in their Motion to Dismiss.

  6. Tuna

    Would love to see the text of their motion, must be laughable. “Not a regulation, but a website update”. Are they taking the piss?

  7. ptd

    As I had posted in general comments, I got my passport and it does not have that identifier. It makes me wonder if I’ll be able to travel. But, I would like to say that the State Dept. Has no leg to stand on as this law is clearly a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments. With Justice Got such on the bench, I think he would rule in our favor.

    • Mike G

      @ptd

      Did your offense involve a Minor? If not, your passport is not in jeapordy.

      If it did involve a Minor, you fell through the cracks or hit the Lotto. Use it till you lose it!

      Meanwhile, it is obvious to all of us that IML as well as most Sex Offender laws are unconstitutional, especially when applied retroactively, but no one cares since we are all “scum of the earth”.

      It is very difficult to get a case all the way to the Supreme Court; can take years.

      • Jm

        I was able to renew my passport and successfully apply and receive a new passport card recently here in 2018. My offense was CP which is considered an offense against a minor. I have not attempted to use them yet however… but no unique identifiers.

        • Anon

          ” My offense was CP which is considered an offense against a minor.”

          Actually, that’s not an accurate statement. Possession, no. Production, yes.

        • AJ

          @Anon:
          Possession, no. Production, yes.
          —–
          You are incorrect, and Jm is correct. See: 34 USC 20911(7)(G).

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20911

        • Coleen

          My husband’s passport didn’t have an unique identifiers either, however, he was at his registration time and mentioned that we were going to Cabo with my company. When we got the the airport in Cabo, they pulled him in and sent him back to the United States. My guess is that the police department gave them a heads up. So, you may be okay is you don’t inform the authorities that you are traveling, however, I don’t know if it is a requirement to do so.

        • PK

          @Colleen

          The 21 Day Advanced Notice Requirement is the most unfeasible, dumbest part of this entire IML.

          What if an RSO has a family emergency overseas like a death in the family?
          The have to to wait 21 days before they can leave, just so they can give 21 days advance notice?

          What if the flight gets cancelled, or you need to delay your flight by a couple of days?
          You can’t because there’s no way to amend the 21 advance notice and that would be a violation?

          What if you are in Holland and you want to walk across the bridge to Germany for the day?
          You can’t because Germany wasn’t on the itinerary of the 21 advance notice, and you could be brought up on charges?

          I just can’t see how this can be enforced or prosecuted successfully.

        • TS

          @PK

          The intent of the SORNA 2011 Amendment which feeds into IML is for a 21 day advance notice as you know; HOWEVER, after reading further into the actual law, there is a little leeway in the wording, as I read it, that you could give less than that for such an emergency as you noted.

          I think as has been noted here before, you have to give the best intended travel itinerary with 21 days advance notice. Sometimes, that is not possible when an emergency or things beyond your control, e.g. flight issue, happen.

          As for going on a day trip to Germany from Holland by foot, if you are not staying in Germany, I don’t think (aka IMO), it is going to matter. I have not traveled there and don’t know if passports are checked at the border or, if so, how they are checked. Maybe someone else here who may know could enlighten us.

      • JW

        But what is the definition of “minor”?

        Esquivel-Quintana v Sessions 2017 held that the generic definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16 (at least in context of statutory rape offenses).

        California PC 647.6 criminalizes child molestation against victims under 18, while Georgia 16-6-4 criminalizes under 16. California’s 647.6 does not require any actual touching or even specific lewd conduct, while most other states require something overt and tangible. The same exact activity that requires registration in California is often not even a crime in other states.

        If Justice requires IML passport notification for California registrants guilty of 647.6 against a victim 16-18 wouldn’t that be an equal protection issue?

        • Jason

          JW I actually spoke with the Attorney that represented the case. He stated it was for immigration and does nothing for age of consent laws. I’m in the same boat as you.

        • JW

          Jason – yes Esquival was an immigration case but I think the legal arguments would be similar. Federal regulations should apply equally to all citizens regardless of their state.

        • Debo

          Don’t see the equal protection issue here The feds are only applying this law to people convicted of a crime. Just because one state decides to not prosecute a person for something at different ages is moot. Its what the feds do once the person is convicted is what matters with the equal application.

        • AJ

          @JW:
          IML/AWA specifically defines a minor to be someone under 18, so the generic term from Esquivel-Quintana v Sessions neither matters nor applies. The Feds can overcome the disparity among the States regarding age of consent because 1) those are State laws and 2) they can filter criminal/court records to find all cases where the victim was under 18. That one escapes an age of consent charge at the State level has no bearing on Federal law.

        • JW

          AJ

          The criminal cases where a victim is 16-18 is only in some states. Identical actions are a crime in California but not a crime in Georgia for instance. The IML is not being applied equally to all citizens. Some who perform crime A are required to have the SO stamp on their passport based only on the state of conviction. Those who committed the identical crime in other states are not.

          It is common to challenge registration requirements in one state for crimes committed in another on equal protection grounds (this is not a registrable crime here in this state – other citizens of this state are not required to register here for the same actions).

        • AJ

          @JW:
          Identical actions are a crime in California but not a crime in Georgia for instance.
          —–
          So? State laws have ZERO bearing on Federal laws. What is or isn’t a crime within any given State(s) is of no matter regarding federal law.

          Likewise, what is a crime in one state, or even misdemeanor versus felony, and not in another is also of no consequence. Each State is a sovereign entity, vested with the police power to enact laws as it sees fit, so long as said laws comply with its own constitution and the US Constitution.
          For years WI had a drinking age of 18, while MN was 19 and IL was 21. Was that an Equal Protection issue? No, it was not. It was each (sovereign) State enacting its laws as it saw fit, comporting to both its own constitution and the Federal Constitution. It’s only when federal law came along mandating 21 as the age that everyone lined up.

          To be even more precise, the States *chose* to follow that law, they were not obligated to do so. They could have exercised their 10th Amendment rights, supported by many SCOTUS rulings, and told the Feds “screw you.” In return, the Feds use Congress’ “power of the purse” to “encourage” (using SCOTUS parlance) the States to comply.

          This is also true of SORNA. States are choosing to follow it in order to avoid reduction in funding. But no State is obligated to follow SORNA, because of the 10th Amendment and case law. For a primer, see the seminal case New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-543). Or, google “anti-commandeering”
          =====
          It is common to challenge registration requirements in one state for crimes committed in another on equal protection grounds
          —–
          Again, so? First, I dispute your “common” allegation. Second, how many of these “common” challenges have been successful? None of which I’m aware, but please provide some Opinions showing otherwise. People have “challenged” the laws as punitive—commonly done so, even–yet they remain non-punitive.

        • JW

          Federal laws often require interpretation of state laws to determine if they meet requirements of federal law. SCOTUS set the categorical approach in Taylor v US to determine if state crimes met federal definitions (in this case for federal sentencing enhancements – whether a state’s “burglary” crime was equal to the federal “burglary” definition).

          In regards to SORNA, yes each state is free to set its own standards on what qualifies as a sex offense. California may one day decide people who wear MAGA hats while jaywalking are to be placed in the registry. The question is whether one found guilty in California is required to register in other states under either SORNA or the other state’s statutes.

          Other states would generally only require registration if California’s crime was equivalent to a crime that state requires registration for. For example Owens v Urbina (Georgia 2014) held that a felony crime in Alabama did not meet Georgia’s requirement to register (the same crime was a misdemeanor in Georgia, and Georgia’s registry exempts misdemeanors). In State v Hall (New Mexico 2011) defendant Hall appealed his NM requirement to register for California’s 647.6 conviction because it did not meet the NM requirements to register. Hendricks v Jones (Oklahoma 2013) is another case where one state (OK) determined a California sex crime did not qualify for registration requirements in its state.

          This is something I think we all know – each state defines sex offenses differently. When these cases are brought up in state courts they are often decided on equal protection grounds (i.e. in Owens v Urbina, it was held that because other GA residents are not required to register for the same actions that constituted Alabama’s felony, Urbina was not required to register in GA).

          My point is SORNA/IML attempts to hodgepodge all these different state crimes and roll them into a federal statute. And without defining precisely what is “sexual abuse of a minor” it creates equal protection issues. California’s 647.6 criminalizes actions that I don’t believe any other state does with its absence of touching or lewd intent required to convict. People who commit the same “offenses” in other states are not even charged with crimes. Again, fine for California to convict for thought crimes, but to roll 647.6 into SORNA/IML makes one convicted unequal to residents of other states.

          SCOTUS and various circuit courts have already been addressing these different state definitions of sexual abuse of a minor in immigration cases Esquivel-Quintana v Sessions and US v Pallares Galan are two cases that specifically determine California’s 647.6 is problematic with federal statutes. While these cases apply to INA specifically and not SORNA/IML, I believe they set some legal groundwork that can be applied here.

        • New Person

          @AJ,

          The use of marijuana is illegal federally. Some individual states allow for recreational use, but if they work for the government, then they cannot use it as it would be a violation. The lack of prohibition only is maintained within the that particular state.

          The IML is constructed differently. While the IML states minor is under 18 years old, they are pulling convictions from each individual state (and non-convictions). Some states have the age of consent set at 16 years of age. So the IML pool is not consistent like say ruling marijuana is legal, but states can do what they say. Once out of that state or on federal grounds, the federal rule applies. The IML is pulling convictions out of the state and into a federal listing, which designates people convicted involving a minor. Yet, it’s already well established that states have different definitions of a minor.

          Since the IML is now federal, then all states must abide that the legal age of consent is 18 years old. And since the registry can be retroactive, then all persons with a hint of involvement with a minor must also go on the registry – this must include John Walsh.

          The best way to destroy a law is to implement it 100%. A federal law cannot have varying laws about one law. All men are created equal. Women and African descent Americans finally are able to vote. Are all minors created equal? Why is a 16 year old not a minor in Nevada, but is a minor in California when looked upon a federal law? Sure, states have their own laws, but the IML is federal.

        • TS

          @New Person

          Here, here is something for you to think on regarding minor, 18, and IML:

          Colorado law (2-4-401(6)) defines a minor as a person who has not attained the age of 21, except as otherwise provided in the express language of another statute. The age of majority is the age when young people are considered adults for most matters.

          What Is the Age of Consent in Colorado?
          In Colorado, the age of consent for sexual activity is 17 years old. Like many other states, where a minor is concerned, the age difference between the two parties becomes a big focus.

          Are There Any Exceptions?
          Close-in-age: In Colorado, a person who is under 15 can legally consent to have sex with someone who is no more than 4 years older.

          Additionally, a person under 17 can legally consent to sex with a person who is no more than 10 years older. This is quite a liberal age difference, particularly when compared to other states. Under this law, an individual who is 24 could legally have sex with a 15 year old, provided it is consensual.

          So, how should anyone who’s a 18, 19, or 20 year old minor, by CO law, be considered when it comes to being a victim of a sex offense and have International Megan’s Law with SORNA thrown in? Does the perpetrator get a charge where it includes a minor victim or are they an adult victim because they’re 18, 19, or 20? (I don’t know for this particular example specifically)

          If you go with International Megan’s Laws thinking, which gets their minor definition from the Adam Walsh Act, under 18 is it for being a minor when it comes to that law. Being a victim of a sex offense at 18 or above means you’re an adult.

          Just wanted to provide you an opposite perspective to the Nevada vs California age of consent and the minor definition.

        • New Person

          @TS,

          The IML is a federal law. It usurps all laws and all must abide.

          For example, Jim Crow laws were legal in one state until the Feds said that those employing Jim Crow laws had to comply with federal laws. Separate is not equal.

          Well, the IML stated what a minor is. This is me stating “separate is not equal”. Separate rules for one set of convicts is equal to a different set of rules of another set of convicts just by geography?

          The federal court must respect state laws with one exception, state laws cannot supersede federal law. There’s the underground Angel Watch program that pulled registries from individual states. It’s simply reporting individual states’ registries illegally. But the IML is now a federal statute. It is stating that anyone under 18 is a minor and cannot consent for the nation. Therefore all states who have ages of consent lower than 18 years of age are in violation of the IML.

          The IML wasn’t ambiguous in detailing who is a minor. Want a bad law to fail, then uphold it 100%.

    • T

      The IML is very discriminate against registrants with convictions involving minors, and people just get foolish ideas of wanting to prevent international crimes against minors by keeping us on radar with these mandatory notifications and exploitation, to make everyone think it’s working to keep everyone safe.

    • Anon

      The fact that you renewed after IML passed doesn’t matter. The revocation seems to be being triggered by a 21 day notification of travel to Angel Watch. Recently a registrant renewed (after IML, expecting a scarlet letter and got a regular PP) and got a revocation letter via registered mail upon return to the USA demanding surrender and instructions to apply for a new PP at cost even though he’d just renewed at full price a couple months prior.

      • PK

        @Anon
        “The revocation seems to be being triggered by a 21 day notification of travel to Angel Watch.”

        “Recently a registrant … got a revocation letter via registered mail upon return to the USA demanding surrender”

        Which is it?
        21 day advance notice?
        return to the USA?

        • TS

          @PK

          Could be both the notice and the travel.

          Thought: Travel notice puts them on notice to do the letter which is then processed over the meantime (it’s the USG) but not finished and sent until return trip has been completed. Timing makes sense.

          Sure, someone could just fill in the blanks with the traveler’s details on a template letter post-travel then send it too that quickly. Is it that efficient?

        • PK

          @TS
          That now raises the question about this Certification Letter.

          Is the Passport revocation completed upon the signature of the Certified Letter, or has the revocation already occurred and they’re just sending the Certified Letter to collect the already revoked Passport.

        • TS

          @PK

          As was previously noted here, they can deactivate the passport within the system from afar. So, IMO, I speculate the electronic revocation is completed upon signature of the letter with the deactivation from afar. The letter is just simply notifying them that they need to return it immediately for the physical part, obviously.

  8. T

    I wonder what they are filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for? As much as I hate the IML and wish it was declared unconstitutional, and cruel & unusual punishment, but what violations took place and what was done that got the IML to pass?

    • T

      I apologize, what I meant to say is that as much as we hate the IML, and wish it was declared unconstitutional, and a cruel & unusual punishment what violations were done that got IML to passed?

      • David

        @ T: If you scroll down a little bit, just below this “Comments” section, you will see a Search box. Type in the search term “IML”. You will be able to read previous articles and postings which can provide lots of information about IML, its origin, previous legal actions, etc.
        Hope that helps!

  9. Timothy D.A. Lawver

    U.S. GOvt moves protect foreign nationals from Americans. Sound familiar?

    Where in God’s name was that role defined in the constitution?

    IS THIS BIZZARO WORLD ?

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      And in protecting foreigners, it encumbers those Americas with restrictions imposed by almost no other other country and limits their opportunities. Yes, in the “land of opportunity.”

    • Mike G

      Re: Why IML?

      My understanding is that the DHS or ICE or State Department thought that if the US were nice enough to tell other countries when our “dangerous child predators” were headed to their countries, that they would reciprocate by telling the US when their “dangerous child predators” were coming here, so the US and other countries would all be so much safer. #ignoretheconstitutionbutsavethechildren

  10. Mike

    As someone who is looking to travel abroad one day, I am hoping this motion is deined and Janice and her team are able to take down this rediculous law.

    …on a side note, I will be finishing my MBA next summer and will be looking for some job opportunities…any ideas? I’m not opposed to moving to a new state or even to a new country. Any guideance is much appreciated!

    • goodluc

      Your best bet is to go to a state like Washington State where the limit anyone can use a background check against you is 10 years (with exceptions for certain jobs of course) .. Aside from that, California might be a good choice. I think both Nevada and California are the only 2 states where the registry can not be included in any back ground check.

      How long ago were you convicted?

      • Mike

        Only 3 years since conviction.

        I have looked into moving to California, but I just want to make sure it’s a good move.

      • PK

        Yes but your on the Registry for Life correct?

        • Mike

          I am only on the registry for another 7 years.

        • PK

          @Mike
          Depending on which state you move to, you could add another 20 years.

      • Jm

        I’ve actually seen that in California a background check cannot use a conviction older than 7 years. I’m trying to figure out if that means once it’s been more than that if I’ll be able to get another job? I am not listed on the public registry.. does anyone have any experience with this?

        • goodluc

          If it has only been 3 years, your conviction will come up on every back ground check in every state…

  11. USA

    Interesting. I have an expunged/non child offense. I’ve visited Canada several times, but I’ve avoided this since I was under the impression everyone is/was banned?

  12. AJ

    Here’s State’s Motion to Dismiss: https://ufile.io/79604

    I haven’t read it yet. It’s only 33 pages (including “junk pages” at the beginning), so it shouldn’t take too long.

    • TS

      @AJ, et al,

      Here are a few highlights from the decision – grab a beverage and some snacks –

      We (USG) don’t have to because we have the exemption and exception on our side is the big take away I read in this motion:

      “However, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The challenged amendment incorporates the IML’s requirement that any passport issued to covered sex offenders, who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor, must contain a unique identifier indicating that the bearer is a covered sex offender. Because the amendment merely conforms the Department’s regulation to the IML’s mandate, it qualifies as an interpretive rule exempt from notice and comment procedures. Alternatively, even if the amendment is viewed as a legislative rule, notice and comment was unnecessary, within the meaning of the APA’s ( Administrative Procedure Act), “good cause” exception, given the Department’s obligations under the IML.”

      Here is the answer to why you list all destinations you are visiting if you are unfortunately eligible for the IML identifier (or endorsement as they say):

      “The IML also attempts to close a loophole through which an offender might circumvent notification procedures: specifically, where an offender might seemingly comply with IML requirements by providing notice of travel to one country, and might appear on a flight manifest as traveling to that country, but might then travel from that first destination country to a second destination country without disclosure to U.S. authorities. In order to prevent offenders whose offenses involved a child victim “‘from thwarting I[ML] notification procedures by country hopping to an alternative destination not previously disclosed,’” the IML includes a requirement that the passports of such offenders contain a unique identifier “that would allow such individuals to be identified once they arrive at their true destination.” Doe, 2016 WL 5339804, at *4–5 (quoting 162 Cong. Reg. H390 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 2016) (statement of Rep. Smith)).

      Last thing any RC needs is to be quietly traveling through a not notified Five Eye country (e.g. UK) and having trouble finding the RC somewhere along the way when then afterward they are made an example of back in the USA.

      This here tells who is covered by IML for the identifier (or endorsement) (note there are two reasons – 1) includes a minor and 2) have to register)

      “The IML’s passport identifier provisions divide responsibility for implementing their requirements. First, the IML delegates sole responsibility for identifying who qualifies as a “covered sex offender” for purposes of the passport identifier provisions to the Angel Watch Center. Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are “currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction” qualify as covered sex offenders for purposes of this provision. See IML § 8(a) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 212b(c)). The Angel Watch Center is the entity that determines who meets those criteria and “provide[s] a written determination to the Department of State regarding the status of an individual as a covered sex offender . . . when appropriate.” IML § 4(e)(5); see also 22 U.S.C. § 212b(a). The Angel Watch Center is also charged with providing a written determination that an individual is no longer subject to the passport identifier requirements if such an individual reapplies for a new passport when the individual “is no longer required to register as a covered sex offender.” 22 U.S.C. § 212b(b)(2).

      Second, the IML imposes certain requirements on the Secretary of State. See IML § 8(a) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 212b). The IML directs the Secretary “not [to] issue a passport to a covered sex offender unless the passport contains a unique identifier,” and further states that the Secretary “may revoke a passport previously issued without such an identifier of a covered sex offender.” 22 U.S.C. § 212b(b)(1). The IML also authorizes the Secretary to “reissue a passport that does not include a unique identifier” when an individual reapplies for a passport and the Angel Watch Center has provided a written determination that the individual is no longer required to register as a covered sex offender. Id. § 212b(b)(2).

      If you are eligible for the identifier, able to get off the registry and no longer need to register, then you are able to reapply and receive a regular passport.

      The rest is cherry picking of cases that show they have standing with precedent, blah blah blah

      • AJ

        @TS:
        Thanks for your post. I read the Brief this morning, and had mixed thoughts on it. I think they make some valid points regarding the FAM and such, but that doesn’t mean it’s gospel and over. I also found they conflate, obfuscate and straw-man-argue a number of things.

        Example:
        *****
        With respect to keeping track of registrants who travel internationally, SORNA directed the Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Homeland Security to “establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are required to register.” 42 U.S.C. § 16928.
        *****
        The cited law (now 34 USC 20930), titled “Registration of sex offenders entering the United States”, has NOTHING to do with US RCs traveling overseas or using their passports. It’s about foreign RCs entering the US and jurisdictions (read: states, territories, and tribal lands). We’re *already* registered. Hello!?

  13. USA

    Congrats Mike. I obtained my MBA some years ago. Your conviction will unfortunately hinder you? Expunged? I went into the banking industry (not in branch/headquarters). I cleared the background check (expunged). You could do operations/certain finance jobs and possibly LA County. Like most people, see what states are more lenient. Some states only require a certain amount of time to register! Good luck

    • Mike

      I have looked into international business as it is my goal to work abroad one day, but still not sure if that’s possible. I live in the northeast and the state I’m in is lenient, but that doesn’t gaurentee a job. I have talked with some close friends (who know about my situation) and they have suggested moving to a new state, but I’m not sure that it will help much. California seems like a state where I could possibly start fresh…but one never knows.

  14. mike r

    Well JW if I can stay in the game with my suit I am directly challenging the equal protection as you have stated so we will see what happens. I read the Motion to dismiss and it seems pretty solid. Janice and team are very talented and I am sure they will give they gov. a good fight. I really hope they succeed as they have in many other instances but I think it is going to be a tough fight. These gov attorneys are powerful and have endless resources and manipulate everything every chance they get. It is really disgusting because the courts and even the justice department was created as a buffer between the legislative and executive branches and only have three jobs, to be a mediator during a trial (which they were supposed to protect the constitution) and to sentence people and to protect people’s constitutional rights and liberty interest but has become just another arm of their branches.

  15. mike r

    By the way USA I took what you said to heart my friend and you were kind of right. I will try to tone my ego down and be a little more humble I just am fighting the gov. and am trying to keep my confidence level up but I was kind of losing focus on the real issues of getting us and myself relief instead of ego building. Thanks for speaking your mind and even though I do not always agree with you I respect the fact that you always speak up like you did.
    With that being said I wish Janice and everyone best wishes in this suit and appreciate the fact that we do not have to worry about those damn residency issues it takes a lot off of my mind which in turn helps me concentrate on learning the Fed rules of the court, which is extensive and to be honest pretty overwhelming. Nonetheless I will give it my best shot and effort.

    • steve (@mike r)

      Mike, very big of you to come to this self realization. Honestly, 100% of my pushback to you was your ego which you are addressing. To be fair I’m not perfect either. Even though you and I have sparred it doesn’t mean I don’t root for your success.

      Steve

  16. David

    Just FYI, here’s a new NARSOL post regarding the author’s passport being revoked. (State Department letter attached to post.) https://narsol.org/2018/04/passport-revoked/

  17. David

    The “required to register in any jurisdiction” component is confusing and problematic. Take me, for example: I currently live in CA, but was convicted in FL (so I’ll be on FL’s registry for eternity). So if CA’s pending “Tiered Registry” enables me to get off the CA Registry, what then? It’s confusing because I would still be listed on FL’s Registry (with an ancient photo, a long-ago FL adress and now-defunct driver’s license #, etc). But, although I appear on FL’s registry, I am not “required” to register in FL: FL does not send me any registration paperwork and I’ve never been required to submit anything to that State since I left nearly 20 years ago. So clearly, living in CA, I am no longer “REQUIRED to register” in the FL. Similarly, when the IML says “required to register in any jurisdiction”… well, New York and CA are jurisdictions in which virtually anyone convicted of a sexual offense is required to register for life. So, John Doe who lives in NJ and was able to get off the NJ registry, is still “required to register in any [NY, CA, FL] jurisdiction”. Mr. Doe may never have set foot in NY, CA or FL, but those States nonetheless exist as jurisdictions in which he is required to register should he ever visit them for their mandated reporting number of days.

    The IML should clearly distinguish state “are required to register in the State in which they reside”, not “any jurisdiction”. “Any jurisdiction” is too vague and imprecise.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      That is the red flag for me as well. I am a military offender. I live in Utah. Utah took me off their list after 10 years (non-AWA complaint state), but the AWA directly applies to me as a federal offender regardless of travel. AWA states I am to register for 25 years (2031).

      Would the US be a “jurisdiction” even though I am not on any registry, yet still required to register under federal law?

      • MatthewLL

        You raise a good point. When a local jurisdiction no longer requires you to register, how do you comply with federal law? The SMART office issued a dispatch Feb 2016 that states:

        “The SMART Office is not authorized to collect or receive notifications of international travel from anyone, including individual offenders, attorneys, or registration officials. If an offender wishes to make a notification of international travel pursuant to IML’s statutory requirements, that offender must report it to his or her registration agency.”

        So how do you make travel notification when you local jurisdiction does not require registration?

        This to me is an equal protection argument, that your international travel notification and waiting period requirement is dependent on whether you are required to register in your state. If I move to Alaska or Texas, I do not have to register. In Washington State I do. So, whether I get an IML stamp on my passport depends on in which state I reside.

        Here is the link to the bulletin: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ8Lypst3aAhUP2WMKHRv2Ao4QFgg8MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smart.gov%2Fpdfs%2Fresources%2FSMART%2520Dispatch-International%2520Megans%2520Law.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1snfWz_Jdz5GSHZ4qO6-Qa

      • Chris F

        As far as I’ve seen, registration is controlled by the states, so if no state has you on their registration then you don’t meet the criteria for IML unless you move or visit another state that requires you to register.

    • Sam

      This has been one of my biggest fears as I’m stuck on the NY one but don’t even live in the country anymore. They have me report any change to them still and if I don’t it’s a felony warrant. And the National registry just has my name and says out of country without any information at all. If NY would let go I wouldn’t be on the fed one anymore at all. NY has universal jurisdiction due to the lack of wording, even on people who’s cases didn’t originate in NY. The only case I know where someone has successfully been removed was Roe. But when the lawyer sent the registry people my petition they ignored it completely and didn’t even respond.

      Recently my bank also asked me to fill out a w9 as American citizens are required to pay taxes in any income earned overseas even if they no longer live in the US. Luckily I make well below the 100k threshold, but I’m still required to file taxes since I make more than 4k per year. The country seriously is like an ex who stalks you after you’ve moved on.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        Sam, sorry but I’m still waiting to hear back from Bill Dobbs. I’ve asked him twice, now. Hopefully, he will answer.

  18. Frank

    I live in California.
    I applied for Uber and was denied.
    Background check showed that I was registered, and that my conviction date was 1986 for an offense in 1985.

    So, yes California background check will show registration status.
    And yes, California background goes way back in history.

    • mike r @ help

      Well Frank I do not know why your background check showed your conviction because they are statutorily barred from further than 7 years back. Are you sure it was found on your background check and not solely from your registration profile???

      California’s seven-year background limit law prohibits background checks for convictions older than seven years. See, Civil Code § 1786.18.

      • Relief

        @Mike R- The 7 year law is correct. However, a criminal background check will show 7 years of annual registration updates. The “original” offense may likely not show, but the process of re-registering each year does show up and is “lawful” information as planned and orchestrated by DOJ, etc.
        I am not certain if this applies to those not publicly listed, but I would guess it does by the act of annual updating.

        • Jm

          This is exactly what I’ve been trying to determine. Seems that the act of annual registration shouldn’t act like a new conviction annually. If that’s the case that needs tobe challenged constitutionally imo. I still have a few years before my 7th year since conviction – but if that turns out to be true I will personally try to challenge this.

    • PK

      Unbelievable. For an offense almost 40 years ago.
      There is absolutely no getting ahead in the United States for anyone EVER convicted of ANY sex offense.

      • Janice Bellucci

        @PK – Although many registrants suffer due to the registry, some registrants have discovered how to succeed. Three of those registrants will speak at the ACSOL conference on both June 15 and 16 in Los Angeles. Hope you and others will join us there.

        • Counting the days

          I for one would like to see the stats of the “success” rate post conviction.
          It could be categorized by age, marital status, education, and region of country. Even odds that young, married, college educated in urban areas do best.
          They have family support (financial & emotional), job opportunities, and a life possible after off the list.
          P.K., you are right, though. There is most likely little chance to succeed or prosper in this country.

        • goodluc

          Thank you Janice. You bring up a good point. I was convicted when I was 18 years old in 1996 and am now 42. I have been fortunate ( or lucky) to work for fortune 500 companies for the past 20 years and have had a solid career in addition to running an at home business that has generated an additional 100K per year income at the same time. While I loathe being on registry, I look back at it now and see how instinctively it helped me try out new things and ways to make money where I don’t think I would have ever tried if I never had the ” sex offender registry gun” pointed to my head since the age of 18.

          I wish everyone the best, just make your own path and don’t ever give up. Just keep trying and trying until something positive happens for you .

        • Facts should matter

          @JB

          I wouldn’t be interested in hearing what those 3 have to say. Their stories would not impress or inspire me. The fact that they’ve capitulated through conformity – by moving on – I find that exceedingly dismissive and indifferent in terms of fighting the registry.

        • Tim Moore

          To say one can win while one is a registrant is to say a slave can win freedom in a slave state. One can leave the plantation, but the slavery remains. Eventually the plantation finds you, as it found Frederick Douglas and he had to escape to England and then go back and fight it. We can’t hope to win as long as there is a registry. Forget England as a means of escape now. We can persevere in spite of it, though, but many are unable.

        • kind of living

          @ Tim Moore @ Facts Should Matter . I agree with both of you . thousands and thousands of us are old and disabled poor and have long since paid for our crimes and are one step from being homeless , many of us were already homeless and here we are still under the gun , don’t get me wrong I thank god for everyday I have with the people I love and its great that some have managed to do quite well for them selfs . the fact remains most of us have been slaves to this registry that is still growing and each day killing our spirts . it is still hard to find a good place to live , and not even close to enough money to buy a home , yet we keep plugging along paying rent to people that could care less if we are being bullied by other renters , we don’t want to be nice and neatly swept under the carpet as the band plays on for the ones that made it doing so well . while the rest of us live this life as a whipping post right along with our familys . I am proud of the fact that even living this life that is forced on us we still carry on with a very meager income and eat unhealthy foods as it is all we can afford , and its hard for everyone now days that are poor , and 20 times harder for the RC and I take pride in the fact that we can still muster enough strength just to get by from day to day . my family are country folks that have no ground to break , we don’t even have a yard so we are stuck being consumers of poisons like tap water and bad produce and packaged trash to eat . yet we still love each other and care about all people in need . we are humans with a heart and spirt that cares about all wounded and suppressed , we are good kind people that still feel a connection to mother earth and that all things have energy and all live matters , and I “think” those that steal the energy from those that are suffering are the true monsters in my circle .

        • pgm111

          Janice, it seems that the act of annual registration is defeating the seven year limit for background checks. We are all fucked!!!!! Can we mount a legal challenge?

      • RC CA cool

        I am one of the few that succeed.
        Rule # 1 Don’t worry about what other people think about you.
        Rule #2 Focus on what YOU can do. Don’t worry about what you can not do.
        Rule # # Never give up! Keep going.

        • Counting the days

          Please give the macro parameters of your post conviction offense.
          1. Did you have to leave job?
          2. Did you have family / friend support?
          3. Have you lost housing?
          I know each case is unique, and that we all must bear the burden of our mistakes.
          I for one can no longer practice my occupation or see my family while still living in U.S.
          Success for me will be leaving. I would rather die a free man than live as a prisoner.

        • NPS

          I, too, have succeeded. There have been some setbacks, but I’ve immediately bounced back. I completely concur with your rules.

          Per Counting the Days’ macro parameters
          1. Did you have to leave job? YES, but I found another one in the same field. However, I’m switching careers, I am back in university for a graduate certificate, and I’ve already been offered employment in the new field.
          2. Did you have family / friend support? 100% from all family and friends. They were there before, during, and after conviction.
          3. Have you lost housing? No. I was never denied housing either. I’ve since bought a house of my own.

          Other factors:
          4. My case is expunged.
          5. Never have been publicly listed.
          6. I’m a woman.

        • JohnDoeUtah

          Per Counting Days:

          1. Did you have to leave job? Yes, with a Bad Conduct Discharge. But found work with a military contractor after my release.

          2. Did you have family / friend support? Yes, while I do not have any family beside my “victim” and our kids, in Utah, the family back home does support me as well.

          3. Have you lost housing? My house foreclosed while incarcerated. I have been denied housing before, but was always able to find it. I have since bought a new home and several rental properties.

          Within a month of my release I had a job, within 6 six months I had a job in my old field. Within 3 years I had beaten Child Protective Service in Court as was given full parental rights to the son that resulted from my crime. Within 4 years I completed my degree in Electrical Engineering while working full time and supporting my family. I bought a home within 10 years, and to my surprise that same month I was removed from the registry. I have now been accepted into a Masters program and will begin in the fall (same line of work).

          There have been setbacks, there has been many hard days with the system fighting back, but I made it through. My ex-wife once sent in an “anonymous” tip regarding the rape and murder of a young girl in Nevada (I hadn’t been there since before my incarceration). That was fun, but it wasn’t me so it worked out. Fighting for rights to my son, and the ability to be a family and together was the hardest, but I prevailed. The constant worry has likely taken years off my life, but I am doing all I can to set an example for my children.

        • Freddy

          I am another who succeeded.

          2 main factors:

          I owned my home free and clear

          I have a foreign spouse from country that has a low cost of living and doesn’t have a registry and I got out before IML. I get my new, non-American passport later this year!

    • NPS

      At that last RC support group meeting, one person said that he is an Uber driver and that he passed the background check before getting the job.

      I also had a job that required a background check, and I passed, and I thought for sure my registration status would come up. It didn’t. Although, I have a 17b and 1203.4 and I’m not nor have ever been publicly listed. I ended up quitting the job by choice, though. I was just too tired when I was already working another job and going to grad school.

      • New Person

        It depends on the type of background check.

        If a job uses livescan, then it will all show.

    • goodluc

      Fran – UBER background checks are different since you are customer facing in that job. They run your info through the national registry. They are exempt for any state employment laws limiting criminal history details in their hiring practices

  19. Decade

    Thank you JW for your insightful post on April 29.

  20. robert

    Mine was an offense on the internet, no real victim just a officer i was talking to was pretending to be 14 i believe . I am a level 1 in NJ and havent tried to renew my passport, but i have found out i am blocked from traveling back to the philippines already, will i have problems going to other places as well??

    • David

      @ Robert, it completely depends on where you wish to travel. For example, I have had no problem traveling to the Schengen Agreement European countries (i.e., the European Union countries such as France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, etc.).

      • Tone

        @david I am planning to travel to the countries you mentioned. do you have an identifier in your passport? Did you give a 21 day notice?

        Thanks a bunch for any help you can give. I’m so nervous about traveling internationally.

        • David

          @ Tone: To answer your questions: No, I do not currently have an identifier on my passport. … not yet. But, yes, my conviction makes it likely that I will have my current passport revoked and be required to get the new unique identifier passport. I have traveled to Europe twice in recent years with no problems entering Europe with my current passport (despite Angel Watch “green notices” probably being sent to France and Sweden – my countries of entry – prior to my arrival). The first time I went, I had an hours-long layover in Sweden before continuing on to France. The second time, I flew directly into France from the U.S. I encountered no problems or questions or delays when entering or leaving either Sweden or France…. and no problems while traveling around within Europe. With regard to your flights, be certain that you do NOT have a stopover or plane change in a “hostile” country such as Canada, Great Britain, Turkey, any Arab or African country, etc. which might not let you off the plane, refuse you entry & send you right back to the U.S. It is much wiser to fly direct to your destination country or do your plane change/layover within a Schengen and/or Scandinavian country. On arrival back in the U.S. after my trips, yes, I had to go through “secondary” customs inspection at the U.S. airports. They did a standard luggage search, nothing too invasive, just poked around my clothes, glanced at my toiletries, and asked the usual “Are you bringing in any food or agricultural products?”. Returning from the 1st trip, I was asked to step aside for “secondary”. A senior CBP agent asked me if the address on my passport was correct and how long I had lived there….. and that was it. Nothing more. No other questions. “You’re free to go.” This most recent time returning, same minimal luggage search and was led to a “secondary” waiting room this time (plastic chairs, ‘looked just like the DMV), an agent took my passport, stepped into an office, and returned in about 3 minutes, handing back my passport and saying, “Okay, you can go.” That was it. And I have never even been asked if I have a cell/smart phone or any other electronic devices, so my phone has never neen requested or searched. An extra suggestion: be polite and respectful (and be pleasant and as innocuous as possible) and be certain to have with you a copy of the advance travel notification you submit 21-days prior to your travels. I submit mine via email, so I also keep with me a copy of the receiving administrator’s email confirming receipt.
          FYI, I don’t know what information the CBP has immediate access to on their computers, but if the information is useful to you, my offense & felony conviction were 20 years ago involving a (“consenting”) teenager and I have had no arrests or police involvement since then. So that might be why I haven’t been hassled. Or maybe I’ve just been lucky. In any case, good luck & safe travels, Tone!! 👍☺

        • E

          @Tone. Do you have the identifier in your passport? So far we’ve only heard second hand of one person traveling with the ID (JM of WI’s friend), who had no issue in Amsterdam . If you travel with the ID please report back.

          I was just in Europe. 20 days after my return I got the revocation letter.

        • PK

          @David

          ” Returning from the 1st trip, I was asked to step aside for “secondary”. A senior CBP agent asked me if the address on my passport was correct and how long I had lived there….. and that was it. Nothing more. No other questions.”

          Since when are addresses printed on Passports? I have never noticed my address on my Passport.

        • PK

          @David

          Did you ever receive the revocation letter regarding your Passport?

        • David

          @ PK: Well, the CBP specifically asked about my address. Maybe he had a printout he was looking at. Clearly he knew why I was being pulled aside and must have read some documentation regarding it. I don’t recall. In any case, he asked a couple simple questions. He did not ask anything about my offense. However, the agent who originally asked me just step aside for secondary did ask if I had ever been arrested. I said yes, I had, 20 years ago. (I think that is a trick question in which they attempt to get you to say “No”, in which case you could be charged with lying to a federal agent, so don’t fall for their trick if they ask.)

        • AJ

          @David:
          However, the agent who originally asked me just step aside for secondary did ask if I had ever been arrested. I said yes, I had, 20 years ago. (I think that is a trick question in which they attempt to get you to say “No”, in which case you could be charged with lying to a federal agent, so don’t fall for their trick if they ask.)
          —–
          Or if feeling bold, ask how that’s relevant to the task at hand and your lawful reentry as a US citizen. They have reasonable suspicion based your being a RC, but they do not have probable cause, so they shouldn’t be able to do anything to you besides rifle through your stuff and let you repack it. (That always seemed to be an adult version of primary-school bully tactics.) And they can only delay you so long without said probable cause.

        • PK

          @AJ

          They always piss me off by asking nonsensical embarrassing questions like that. It takes a bit of effort on my part to maintain decorum. After all, maybe if I say something to get them mad, they will keep my passport right?

        • tone

          @david Thank you sooo much for your info! It really helps!

          @E I am awaiting my renewed passport, so I am expecting to have an identifier. I will definitely report back with my experiences! Thanks so much for all of your assistance!

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        My response, always, when asked by CBP if I “had ever been arrested” was to say, “I guess you already know the answer to that.” We definitely do not want to fall into their trap of “false reporting” to a government agent. On the other hand, you can refuse to answer. That’s how I played it. Over the years in being continuously questioned in Secondary, I became far less willing to answer all of their questions. A good technique is to ask them if you’re required to answer the question or simply to tell them that you don’t believe that you are required to answer the question. Let’s stop making it easy for them to make our lives crap.

  21. cool CA RC

    1. Did you have to leave job? I had to depend on SSA
    2. Did you have family / friend support? only Dad.
    3. Have you lost housing? yes. a rock was thrown at my window. Forcing me to move.

    I found new friends who don’t care about my past.

  22. Counting the days

    NPS…

    Expunged misdomeanor offense and never listed?
    Family support and a woman?
    Please! Doesn’t even come close to qualifying!
    Men don’t judge women the same as women judge men. Most laws are geared towards men’s offenses due to the fact that women are a bigger voting block. Proof…..
    1.A female teacher has sex with a student; WOW what a licky student!
    2. A man makes a verbal pass at a 17 yr old woman that looks older; What a dangerous sex pervert!

    • David

      @ Counting the Days: Male-male offenses also get special media attention and highlighted prosecution.

    • NPS

      “Men don’t judge women the same as women judge men. Most laws are geared towards men’s offenses due to the fact that women are a bigger voting block. Proof…..”

      Excuse me? Have you EVER spoken to a woman on the registry? Do you even know the issues we go through? You have no idea. Men DO in fact judge women, and not only that, they EXPLOIT women on the registry. I can’t tell you how many times I have been sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by men who know I’m on the registry (because I disclose it to people who want to be a part of my life whether as friends or a potential lover). In their minds, they think, “you’re fair game.” It’s like we’re some how asking for it. What’s worse, how can a woman on the registry make a police report for sexual assault? Our very status already makes our word unreliable. So don’t think for a second that women have it somehow easier. We don’t.

      There was one other woman RC on this board, and the moment she outed herself as a female, one person (and I won’t say who because he regularly comments) he condemned her strictly because she is female. I have yet to see her post since. Men not only judge us, but they do so harshly.

      Of the 5 years I’ve been reading CARSOL/ACSOL, I’ve only read ONE article on female registrants, and in that article, it spoke of women who have been subject to sexual harassment and assault.

      And don’t forget, women are still subjected to those RC laws that are geared toward men. PROOF!

      • Tim Moore

        Can you tell who is a woman and who is a man commenting on this site without self disclosure? I can’t. I assume there are women RC’s, trans RC’s men RC’s commenting here. One is what believes one is and that is not what one’s biology would always determine, but we all suffer from what people see us as. Anyway, I am always interested in your posts, and your perspective. We’re seeing more and more women entering the criminal justice system, so we are going to hear more angles on reality.
        Interesting side note. A great proportion of people advocating for RC’s are women.

        • NPS

          Yes, most of the time I can. My educational background is in Literature, Writing, Language and Lingusitics. Communication can vary between cultures and gender; it is dependent on factors such as vocabulary, voice (with respect to writing style), sentence structure, and rhythm.

      • Happy, joyous and free

        Hi NPS. I agree with you 100%. You are not alone here. I do not post often here, as I am not in CA, but you are correct about how a large number of men see women registrants.

      • Darrin

        Women’s suffering under this witch hunt is no less terrible, and that they are also victimized behind this insanity that so many use to take horribly undue advantage is no less tragic, and we must reject that abuse and embrace them as the fellow sufferers they are.

  23. mike r

    I agree, NPS and the others that are not on the publicly available hit list can not compare at all. Although I have been able to get a frigging ten dollar an hour job (50 year old man used to making 50 or more an hour before this) before I went back to college it does not look good for those here in Cali on the list. Thing is Cali has a background limit law but it doesn’t cover the registry and 290 even states that any employer can deny employment on the “person at risk” theory…It can be done for sure and no none should ever give up or in, reality is a bitc&%^%. Hey goodluc how about passing that internet business idea around and let others jump aboard??? I know myself for one would love to bring home 100 grand/year at this point. A matter of fact how about any one that has any solid ideas to help a registrant get a paycheck from whatever source throw it out there….

    • Facts should matter

      Society pretty much discards anyone 50+ be it employers or mass media demographic {18-49). Unless they are already established financially. Ageism is a real thing, too. Businesses tend to shy away from the 50+ crowd because they’re afraid of potential future health problems and they quickly discredit them. Compound that with being on the registry and you have a recipe for playing life on hard mode. When I was made to register at age 38, I pretty much knew my best days were behind me.

      • PK

        You have to ask yourself then if your 50+, if it’s really worth going through such a grand expense to try to get off the registry? It aint like you’re going to get a job at Microsoft.

        I registered at 36 for a Misdemeanor, and I was doing fine and well in the corporate world for 10 years after that. Even worked at the Pentagon. Had a nice corporate apartment, and I traveled everywhere. Things started to become impossible at around 2007.

        “[being +50] Compounded that with being on the registry and you have a recipe for playing life on hard mode.”- in the United States.

    • goodluc

      mike r– bit confused here…What are you being told when your are being declined work based on your background check? How old is your conviction?

      California and Nevada are TWO states specifically that exclude registry checks when back ground companies are doing checks. They WILL NOT and CAN NOT provide any information pulled from the California registry database and provide that info to the companies they doing checks for unless it involves specific fields. Exceptions are if actual conviction information is provided to them if the conviction or prison release date was less than 7 years:

      “California employers usually may not use information from the Registry to refuse to hire, fire, or demote an employee or potential employee.

      Section 290.46 expressly prohibits employers from using Registry information for employment purposes, except as otherwise provided by statute or to “protect a person at risk.”
      Misuse of Registry information exposes employers to potential litigation and damages, fines, and attorneys’ fees.”

      Also.. my business is not an “idea”; it is an actual business.. I wish I could bring people on board, but it does not operate in a manner where I can hire others.. The only reason it is technically a business is because I do a large enough volume of sales that I have to pay taxes on it… .otherwise it is a supplement to my normal 9 to 5.

      • Gralphr

        Nevada companies can and some will find out. I had a company there that considered me the best thing since slice bread, but they found out about the registry (not the conviction itself) and still barred me from employment when they even picked me for the job and paid me to come out in train. Only weeks later after the check did they deny me. Yes, you legally dont have to report things older than 7 years, but they didn’t care and even asked me why didn’t I tell them in the beginning.

      • David

        @ goodluc: Like age or any other type of employment descrimination, the company isn’t going to tell the candidate directly “Oh, we Googled your name and didn’t like what we saw on the Megan’s List website.” No, at best, they’ll simply say, “Thank you for your time, but we found a candidate that we feel is a better match for the position. Nonetheless, we’d like to keep your application on file and contact you if a similar position becomes available.” So you can’t really claim discrimination, nor would you be likely to sue them, just in case they are sincere and actually might call back with a job. Besides, 1. it would be very difficult to prove such discrimination, and 2. you would have great difficulty finding a lawyer to represent you – if for no other reason than there would be no “up side” for them in taking on such a suit, it’s unlikely that plaintiff (i.e., you) would win any money to help pay him/her, and it would be near impossible to find a sympathetic jury or judge for such a lawsuit.

  24. mike r

    That “person at risk” is unconstitutionally vague…Your opinion on what “person at risk” means as compared to Joe blows interpretation of those words may be on complete opposite ends. That is what I am saying. There is no absolute description of what or who a “person at risk” is. Anyone can use that as an excuse to deny employment. And what you stated about the background checks, you are absolutely right, CA limits background checks to 7 years but it kind of does not matter when all you do is google my name and my status and profile pops up. Kind of nullifies the 7 year limit law. I do not know what would happen if I did a background check on myself, I really doubt if my conviction would show but I could be wrong. As far as you online business I was considering looking into buying over seas and selling here. I hear that it can be very profitable and if you have details on how someone could do that or how someone can do your business I was saying please share, it is not like the whole country is going to be jumping on your niche but it could help many on the list. I know you do not know these people but anything that can help even one person (like they say:if it saves one child”) on the list get ahead than I say post some details…..I would love to make a hundred grand a year while going to college.

    • New Person

      “person at risk” is vague.

      That’s all an institution needs to say to be cleared of breaking any laws. No other sets of convicts gets this treatment, especially after 7 years past the conviction or earning the 1203.4.

    • David

      Agreed. That certainly sounds vague and, I would think, could be challenged on Constitutional grounds with a good chance of success.

  25. 290 air

    Anybody ever considered taking up IML with Interpol? Maybe you couldn’t get the “identifier” removed, but they do have a constitution and maybe they honor it more than our country does with ours?

    “Article 11.

    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
    (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

    Article 12.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

  26. TR

    I wonder what gave representative Smith the speculation that “sex offenders” are traveling overseas to commit criminal act against minors and if so, what source of evidence did he had of this, and is it credible evidence?

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      He’s hooked-in to the whole ECPAT/”Anti-Sex Trafficking” and fear-mongering industry which involves jetting around the world going to government-sponsored fantasy conferences to scare the bejeezus out of the local autocrats and their anointed about Western pedophiles or, failing that, dangling foreign aid in front of their eyes to induce them into enacting boilerplate model criminal legislation drafted by a peculiar non-governmental amalgam of gender feminists and the religiously intolerant. Smith is a kind of fundamentalist Mel Gibson/Domino’s Pizza type of Catholic which requires being endlessly obsessive about other people’s sex lives and ensuring that pregnancies go to term. Smith now enjoys celebrity status in this movement that was built on lies and larceny in which government and NGO’s redirect the world’s attention to fairy tales and blood libels. We don’t hear about his anti-semitism or homophobia or opposition to birth control so much as they’re not a winning strategy today. In this respect, he knows what sells to his constituency and that’s all-pedophiles, all the time. Everyone can get behind that. Oh, and to answer your question: no, it’s not credible evidence. It never was.

      • Tim Moore

        He covers his very far right agenda by supporting so called progressive policies like anti-sex trafficking. I like that, Dominos Pizza Catholic, you come up with some good ones. He’s a far cry from a Father Romero or Dorothy Day.

  27. AJ

    Suppose I live in a State where I’ve completed my registration term for an offense against a minor, am off my State’s registry, and have a valid, unmarked passport. I now travel–not move, just travel–to CA and remain there long enough to have to register. Under IML, I am now subject to the marked passport requirements…until I return to my home state and CA de-registers me. Thus even if I never relocate to CA, I’m still ensnared by IML simply through exercising my right to freedom of interstate travel.

    I’m punished not for moving to a State with a longer registration period, I’m punished just for visiting one. And this doesn’t even address the argument that those convicted in CA can never enjoy the freedom I have back in my home State, off the registry.

    1) Does IML have a chilling effect on my liberties of domestic (don’t wanna move to CA!) and international (don’t want a marked PP!) travel?*
    2) Does IML violate the equal protection via the 5th Amdt? “Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area,” the Court has said, “is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975)) See also: Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 100 (1976) (“The federal sovereign, like the States, must govern impartially. The concept of equal justice under law is served by the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as well as by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”)

    *I also wonder if this argument could be used against a State (LA, FL, NY) where I can never get off the registry, thus consigning me to lifetime IML registration. This would certainly chill my desire to exercise freedom of travel and leave my home State.

    I’ll gladly take some feedback and thoughts on this. What to do with the info, I have no idea. I just don’t see how IML isn’t a 5th Amendment violation. This is what happens when a Federal law rests upon State laws for its implementation.

    • CR

      AJ, your hypothetical is similar to the situation of gay and lesbian people who wanted to marry someone of the same sex prior to SCOTUS deciding Obergefell v Hodges, 2015. Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2004, and in 19 states by mid 2013, and in 35 states (mostly through SCOTUS denial of cert petitions from states that lost at the Federal appeals level) leading up to the final decision in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015.

      Valid same-sex marriages performed in states where it had become legal were not recognized in states where it was forbidden, whether by statute or constitutional amendment, or both. So married same-sex couples were routinely denied rights in some sates that they enjoyed in others. It made domestic travel and permanent relocation to certain states a matter of concern for many same-sex couples, especially in matters pertaining to hospitalization, death, and parenting.

      Obergefell v Hodges was decided on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. The right to marriage was deemed a fundamental liberty that the 14th Amendement protected.

      Are there any recognized fundamental liberties that your hypothetical implicates?

      One other thing, since registration has been deemed to be civil and not punitive, I don’t think a claim that we’re punished for moving to a state with a longer registration period will hold water.

      • AJ

        @CR:
        Unfortunately, I think this is the path things will have to go for RCs. Other than Brown v. Bd of Education, major SCOTUS reversals have come through appealing a decision by State Courts of Last Resort (Lawrence v. TX; Loving v. VA; Skinner v. OK). I think only when “enough” State SCs have ruled registration as punitive will SCOTUS accept a challenge to a State SC saying it’s not. I still feel that had Muniz been ruled the other way by PASC, SCOTUS may have accepted it. But as long as the State courts and Circuit CoAs are solving the issue, SCOTUS won’t take a case.
        =====
        Are there any recognized fundamental liberties that your hypothetical implicates?
        —–
        Yes, my fundamental liberty of freedom to travel suffers a chilling effect. Some support for SCOTUS concern about chilling can be found in US v. Jackson (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/570/case.html) at 582:
        *****
        Whatever might be said of Congress’ objectives, they cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 364 U. S. 488-489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental”, rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary, and therefore excessive.
        *****
        IOW, they don’t have to take away one’s rights to violate the Constitution, they merely have to make it so one is reluctant to exercise one’s rights. Saenz v. Roe (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/489/case.html) was another example, and relied on Jackson.

    • TS

      @AJ

      Under your hypothetical premise above, I’d agree with your assessment IML is a 5th Amendment violation.

      However, if off the registry in your state, then you’re off the registry in your state and should not have to worry about other state requirements because you met your state requirements. That’s my argument. I see your Fed/State line drawn and understand the quandary.

      • AJ

        @TS:
        if off the registry in your state, then you’re off the registry in your state and should not have to worry about other state requirements because you met your state requirements.
        —–
        Not every State operates that way. I know of at least one State*, possibly a couple, that have their own rules and don’t give a crap about what another State says regarding your registration. If your crime fits an equivalent of one in their State, you have to register, even if off registration in your home State.

        *MS gives no credit for time on another State’s registry. See: MS Statute 45-33-47(2)(a) (http://state.sor.dps.ms.gov/so_law.html#SECT453347): “Registration in any other jurisdiction does not reduce the minimum time requirement for maintaining registration in Mississippi.”

        • Debo

          Fortunately theses state laws are unconstitutional and will go down in flames. I believe one of the heads at NARSOL posted a case where this was challenged and won, he stated that if you finish your time in original state then no other state can force you to reg. I wish I could remember where it was posted and the name of the case.

        • TS

          @AJ

          Given it is Mississippi, they need the money from registrants; therefore, it does not surprise me they give no credit where credit is due. (No, it is not a making idea, of course, just an administrative cost to be borne by the people where taxes have already paid for the time & material of the registry)

          Not that is not a statement against the fine people of Mississippi, just the government there and their thinking.

        • TS

          *not a “money” making idea, of course…

          sorry about leaving that word out…

    • New Person

      @ AJ,

      Since the IML is now federal, then they just created a massive problem – every state has a different rules to be on the registry along with different ages of consent.

      I do recall one federal case where they decided the federal age of consent was 16 years of age. In many other states, it’s 17 years old or 18 years old for legal consent.

      So not only is after conviction a problem, but the process of getting a conviction is a problem now as there isn’t equality on who gets on the registry.

      If the IML is considered a federal program, which taking away one’s passport is such, then the IML must be put under federal scrutiny and not have varying distinctions on convictions or legal ages of consent. If one state says 16 years old is a legal age of consent, then only in those states are minors under the age of 16. But in other states, say California, the age of consent is 18. Then a minor is under 18 years of age. That’s a two year difference on who’s a minor.

      The IML standardizes the legal age, or it must. And if it’s 16 years old, then all state laws would have to reflect that in all the laws such as the legal age to drink is 21 years old. But at 16 years old, then any statutory crime involving a so-called minor at the age of 16 to 18 is no longer is crime.

      • TS

        For purposes of IML and AWA, minor is under 18.

      • And ....

        @ New Person,
        And if the Feds were to decide that 18 is the official age of consent in the United States, then there are instantly many, many, many (unconvicted) sex offenders in the U.S. (And a “sex offense involving a minor”, at that!)

      • CR

        Unless I am mistaken, the IML doesn’t specify what the age of consent is, or otherwise define who is to be considered a minor and who is not. It is not a law that prohibits specific behavior and attaches criminal penalties to it. It is an administrative law that applies to a category of people convicted of a class of offenses under state laws. The states determine who fits the category.

        The way I see it, neither the Supremacy clause nor the 10th Amendment come into play because the IML doesn’t seek to override state laws nor impose any uniformity on them. There is no conflict. States are allowed to define who is a minor and what the age of consent is as they wish. The IML relies on the state’s determination of who has committed a sexual offense involving a minor.

        • TS

          @CR, et al

          HR 515, IML, does define what a minor is in the law specifically (https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ119/PLAW-114publ119.htm). In fact, took language straight from AWA. See link above for Section 3, subsection (7) Minor – The term “minor” means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years. This bill/law also refers to AWA (2006) for many definitions which are applicable under IML.

          In AWA (SORNA) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/4472/text (section 111, subsection (14)), it defines a minor as not attained the age of 18 years.

          AWA (SORNA) 2006 waterfalls into IML in many areas by design which is why IML references AWA many times. Use the wheel that has already been defined.

          There is much confusion obviously about consent age and when an offense against a minor is applicable. As far as IML and AWA are concerned, a convicted sex offense against a minor (under 18) falls under AWA and IML applicability

          Remember, the consent laws were created long before IML and AWA and should be cleaned up to be redefined for applicability (either through a possible court challenge or the legislative process). The consent laws were also passed when times in this country were different, e.g. see John and Reve Walsh dating before she was able “to give” consent.

          To top this all off, it was the US AG 2011 SORNA Amendment Guidance (https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/SORNAFinalSuppGuidelines01_11_11.pdf, pg 1, column 3 of your Federal Register PDF if you are following along at home) that put the 21 day advance travel notice into effect for those who are required to follow AWA because their US entity is SORNA compliant, not IML. IML made it federally applicable across the country because not every US entity is SORNA compliant. (Whether your entity is going to know what to do with a SORNA compliant travel notification is completely different discussion.)

        • CR

          @New Person, I stand corrected. @TS, Thank you for the thorough walk through of the law.

          So in some states, one can legally have sex with someone the IML defines as a minor without violating the law. Because the state has a lower age for a minor or for age of consent. Such a person would not be subject to IML since he wouldn’t be convicted of any crime.

          That same sex act between the same two people in another state with a different definition of minor would be a violation of law, and could result in a conviction, subjecting the “offender” to the IML.

          I think that is what New Person was getting at.

          Yeah, that seems wrong.

        • TS

          @CR – You are welcome.

          It does not seem right, but states rights as @AJ says.

          @New Person – age of consent can vary depending on what the situation is, e.g. immigration, sex offense, etc.

          I believe you are referring to is this case: Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_us_592edaede4b017b267edff12)

          “A major underpinning for the Court’s decision is the federal law found at 18 U.S.C. 2243 which sets the federal age of consent at age 16. (This same federal law sets no minimum age of consent when the parties are married which endorses and encourages child marriage as a means to escape federal criminal rape charges).”

          Read the entire article (even if it is HuffPo) because it addresses the age of consent issue for various situations and the topic as discussed here.

        • JW

          I believe the issue is IML/AMA don’t define what “sexual abuse of a minor” is. AMA lists several specific actions, but includes the catch-all: “Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense
          against a minor. ”

          So does California PC 647.6 qualify as sexual abuse of a minor per AMA? Recall that a conviction for 647.6 does not require a sexual action, but only a sexual motivation.

          Esquivel-Quintana v Sessions held that 647.6 does not meet the definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” found in INA (Immigration and Nationality Act). In Esquival, the Gov’t argued sexual abuse of a minor “includes any conduct that is illegal, involves sexual activity, and is directed at
          a person younger than 18”. To my untrained eye that looks identical in meaning to the definition in AWA. In Esquival, SCOTUS specifically held that 647.6 does not meet the definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” defined by INA. I see little sunlight between the definition in AWA.

        • New Person

          @TS,

          States have rights, but you just stated that the IML defines minor as under 18.

          Now, people in states who’s legal age of consent is 18 years old will query why other states have a legal age of 16 years old. Therein lies the inequity of standards.

          What isn’t a conviction in one state is a conviction in another state. For example, California and Nevada are neighboring states. Depending on which side of the border you are on, you are either abiding by the law or you are breaking the law. California’s legal age of consent is 18. Nevada’s age of consent is 16.

          Remember, the IML is acquiring the list being fed to them by each state. Each state is setting the legal age of consent, not the IML. Now, if the IML is taking that stance that the legal age of consent is 18 years old, then there should be far more people who have broken the law. But the law can’t work that way and upcharge. Remember, the IML is taking away your federal passport, but the IML is being supplied the registry through individual state registries.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          TS, “New Person,” et al: States DO NOT have rights; people do. States have powers which can be revoked by the people. It’s not a mere quibble, it is foundational. If states had rights then that would be stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. It is not. Instead, it says this: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          A good piece on this topic can be found here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/states-do-not-have-rights-people-do
          “The 10th Amendment nowhere provides for any rights of the states. Rather, it delegates powers, the ability to do things, to the states. And there are two conditions on the delegation of any powers to the state: that they are not articulated in the Constitution to the federal government and that they are not reserved by the people themselves. What’s more, the 10th Amendment comes after the 9th Amendment, which also has very specific, and noticeably distinct wording:

          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”” You should read the rest of the article. It really puts federal vs. states vs. the individual into perspective.

        • TS

          @New Person

          IML has nothing to do with age of consent. If an offense fits under AWA SORNA, it could fit under IML if applicable by the two part test discussed here previously, e.g. convicted and with a minor.

          I see what you’re trying to show, but IML works only by those that give it what’s required.

          The quandary that you pose has always been a quandary between those that traverse state lines and will be. What is illegal in one state is not always illegal in another. I have no answers for the gray area to which you mention. Your quandary is a valid one.

        • TS

          @David K

          Thank you for the Wash Examiner article on rights v power, states v fed v people. Very interesting and informative. As I go forward, I’ll keep that in mind.

  28. NY won't let go

    Any new updates on this? I haven’t had time to go through the site recently due to work and every time I come back on there are a few hundred more comments.

    So not really sure to check for updates. As for me, still living overseas. Can’t get a response from NY to take me off short of a lawsuit. And still no letter saying my passport is revoked.

    Not traveling much because I need to save pages and don’t want to chance renewing.

  29. Chicago guy

    I’m wondering…you guys have been talking about other states forcing you to register if your done in your home state…What about the other way around if u are a lifer, then if u move to a state with more lax so laws would you then get bumped on their catorization and maybe only have a 10 year regrestry? Or is that just wishful thinking

    • Chicago guy

      Also any updates on the iml case or are we all waiting for the court date

      • PK

        @Chicago

        I think the Oral Arguments are scheduled for June 25th. I’m not sure what the plan is after that.

        I too am curious to find out about the specific court and Judge in the case.

      • NY won't let go

        To be brief, if you don’t live in a state that keeps you in for life even after you no longer live there ie NY, Wisconsin, Florida, one person said recently Texas put them back on. Then you can move out of the country and be removed from the registry so long as you live in a country without a registry.

        The nsor you stay on as long as you are registered inside the US from what I can tell as mine shows blanks other than my name and the words out of country and was told that the only reason I still show up is because NY refuses to remove me.

        • Chicago guy

          Ok then does anyone know what countries if you move to them so not req you to register

        • goodluc

          Texas will keep you on even if you leave the country. Your online information will just say : “Out of country” or “Out of State”

          Someone will need to provide your death certificate to get off. Believe it or not, I have seen registrants status that says “deceased”

          so even death does not automatically get you off the list unless someone goes through the process for you. Obviously, some entity is making money some how off the number of registrants added to the states registry. There no other logical sense for any of this

        • NY won't let go

          @Chicago

          There’s no definite list but look more third world/ eastern block. Depending on the conviction it may not have been a crime in certain European countries. You’d have to give up the whole getting paid in US dollars and getting a visa unless you get lucky and marry a local. But depending on the country to get a spouse visa usually requires a federal background check from the US.

          If you’re mixed you could try country of your parents origin. A few countries have a birthright clause that doesn’t require a background check for a visa.

          Before you move out of the country you have to report to the feds that you’re leaving otherwise they can put out a warrant and bring you back if they have an extradition treaty with the US.

          I read that if you marry a Brazilian that they won’t extradite but not sure if you can get into Brazil with a record anymore.

        • lovewillprevail

          NY Won’t let go…

          Your comment on Brasil… Brasil passed a law where if one is on a registry, that person will not be allowed to obtain a visa to get into the country. Or if one is able to obtain a visa, due to the US Interpool notice, you will be rejected at the airport in Brasil. And I have already looked into the marrying a lady from Brasil (my girlfriend is from there) and that will not work either.

        • SwedenDoesn'tSeemToCare

          Anyone seriously thinking of emigrating to escape the United States’ tyrannical oppression should seriously consider Sweden. I can find no requirement that you submit a police record to obtain a work permit. And, while they do have a “good conduct” clause, it seems they only care about your conduct while in Sweden.

    • James

      Sorry, that’s just wishful thinking…the Law expressly forbids this kind of forum shopping…if this were possible, say, Minnesota has a hard 10 year registration cap, everyone, and I mean everyone, Ten years plus a day would be moving to Minnesota…even me that hates the cold of deep winter.

      On the other hand, I have had a thought tonight that I may expand on…(they’re never going to let us off the Federal IML requirements, and even if they change for me under a CA tiered system in 2022 or so…they will pass an amendment that somehow still locks me away from free international travel)…and so why not face some additional registration requirements…say the US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico? Both are pretty restrictive, I think 48 hrs to register upon arrival…so heck with it…just register and be damned with it.

      These places plus Hawaii should keep me in Snorkeling/Diving heaven…

      I will think on this….

      Best Wishes, James

      • Chicago guy

        Yeah I figured as much puerto Rico is 10days to register… their law are very lax there

  30. Anonymous Nobody

    Notice in the request, they have suggested or even opened a more significant avenue to challenge the entire law: Obama’s regulatory imposition of efforts to thwart travel by registrants. Obama’s action can be challenged the same as Trump’s actions on immigration, and so far, those challenges have been successful, as a smokescreen based on wrongful intent and purposes. Taking such regulations and turning them into law, as this law has done, does not make it any less based on wrongful intent and purposes.

    And this is registrant’s basic opposition anyway — so why hold back from raising the issue, as those challenging the immigration regulations have done and prevailed with?

    At every turn, this group keeps doing the minor tweak and leaving the whole and allies horror in place, on this, on the tiers that are not even tiers are just renamed CORs (and actually makes the registration time for some offenses longer than they were! And is now building a huge bureaucracy that will make it impossible to ever end registration, that bureaucracy will be an army against us), etc.

    A weak offense is not a good offense.

  31. Counting the days

    If a complete moron like some mexican gang member can get into the U.S. and live for yrs, any intelligent person should be able to “sneek” into a country and live/work.

    • PK

      Part of your plan should include having the majority of your suitcases Fedexed to you at your final destination. Carry only a backpack with the essentials, and start walking. Im being very general here. Then it’s a series of busses, until you finally get to where you want to be. I would definitely suggest training, and doing a lot of walking. If you really want out, there is a way.

      • Lake County

        Sending your belonging through any carrier will create a paper trail right to the delivery destination. You would have to have the sender and receiver name not be your own name or of any person the police might think you are with.

        Here is an article about how the USPS tracks our mail:
        http://www.newsweek.com/postal-service-photographs-every-piece-mail-us-shares-agencies-request-it-280614

        I’m not sure why anyone would need this service, but if you want to see the photos of your mail that the post office has, here’s a link to their free service:
        https://informeddelivery.usps.com/box/pages/intro/start.action

        If you don’t ever want to be found, do not allow anyone to send you mail through any carrier.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Lake, the short answer is that it usually works. All mailed, FedEx’d, UPS’d packages and everything that crosses U.S. borders is subject to being inspected by U.S. Customs but the reality is that, at least for the present time, they don’t correlate travelers to packages sent to those travelers, even if sent by the travelers, themselves, to themselves. The paper trail doesn’t really matter. There’s nothing they can do after the fact if they didn’t intercept the package before delivering it. You’re not really circumventing a Customs inspection since your package is still, itself, subject to Customs inspection. And if it is inspected, provided that it is entirely legal, then your package will then be free to go on its way. But what the traveler is saving is the hassle of an even-more-protracted secondary inspection of himself at Customs. For me, that made it always worth it. And you’re not breaking any laws by doing it, either.

      • Lake County

        David Kennerly:
        You missed my point. You’re right, if going on a trip, mailing your items each way is a great idea. But that’s not what we were talking about, I think. My comment was related to “Counting the days and PK’s” post. My issue was not about if you would receive your package. I was responding to the issue of someone leaving the U.S. and sneaking into another country without getting found by the U.S. for not registering and becoming an illegal immigrant to the country you “sneak” into.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Thanks, Lake for the clarification. Yes, entering illegally and bypassing Immigration is now fraught with peril as I believe that it constitutes a felony which, as we can guess, is being prosecuted pretty vigorously. Given PK’s situation, though it may have still been the best of bad choices. Our borders are becoming the perimeter of a giant prison that keeps people in as much as people out.

        • PK

          “the issue of someone leaving the U.S. and sneaking into another country without getting found by the U.S. for not registering and becoming an illegal immigrant to the country you “sneak” into.”

          1. The U.S. wouldn’t be looking for you in a different Country. However, depending upon the State for which you are registered, you could be required to provide written notice. The mechanics of doing that are up for debate.
          2. Most countries don’t require an RSO in the U.S. to then register in their Country. Most other countries don’t even have registries.
          3. Becoming an illegal immigrant within the country you enter into could be a problem for that country’s immigration agency.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          I see that I still didn’t manage to read your post 🙂 Well, In PK’s case, I believe, he left a foreign country to surreptitiously enter into the U.S. temporarily with the intent of then leaving again, I would guess, also surreptitiously to return to his foreign home which does not have a registration system. Possibly, that foreign country will not realize that he ever left their jurisdiction and will remain undisturbed and probably largely indifferent, anyway.

        • PK

          @David Kennerly

          No nothing surreptitious like that.

  32. courage!!

    any update on this? (bump)

  33. Mike G

    I think I heard that the hearing is now scheduled for June 25th.

  34. ⛥ IML Hearing is June 25th ⛥

    ⛥⛥⛥ The hearing for ACSOL’s IML lawsuit is currently scheduled for June 25th in Federal Court in Los Angeles, California. ⛥⛥⛥

    • Janice Bellucci

      The date of the IML hearing has been changed from June 25 to July 9 at the government’s request.

  35. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    Countries are certainly capable of using the RFID chip to scan your passport in a way in which it does not seem to the traveler to be being scanned, that’s true and something we need to keep in mind when we think, and report back here, that they’re not scanning them.

    “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been authorized to create an Angel Watch Center to expand efforts to alert foreign law enforcement partners about the intended travel by convicted registered child sex offenders from the United States to their countries, following the signature of International Megan’s Law by the President on Monday. (written in 2016)

    “ICE’s Operation Angel Watch plays a crucial role in the global fight against child sex tourism. Under this unique and innovative initiative, we are able to send actionable information to our law enforcement partners around the globe so that they can assess the situation and respond appropriately, whether that is to deny an individual entry into their country, or to monitor that individual’s travel for potential danger to children,” said ICE Director Sarah R. Saldaña. “The creation of a formalized and expanded Angel Watch Center further enhances our efforts to protect children around the world.”
    Initially created in 2007 by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Operation Angel Watch is managed by the Child Exploitation Investigations Unit of the ICE Cyber Crimes Center and is a joint effort with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Marshals Service.

    Operation Angel Watch targets individuals who have been previously convicted of sexual crimes against a child and who may pose a potential new threat: traveling overseas for the purpose of sexually abusing or exploiting minors, a crime known as “child sex tourism.”

    • JoshB

      “Operation Angel Watch targets individuals who have been previously convicted of sexual crimes against a child and who may pose a potential new threat”

      It’s for anyone and everyone– who was ever convicted of a sex offense of a child, even including a person who is 17 years old and just weeks away from their 18th birthday. Did I mention that the 17 year old can lie about their age, and YOU will still be liable for seeking out “this victim” in order to “victimize” that person.

  36. Steveo

    From Le Miserables. Jean Valjeans’ conversation with the Bishop after he had to present a yellow passport showing that he was a criminal.

    VJ-Do you have food?

    B- Come in.

    VJ-Look, I’m a convict. My name is Jean
    Valjean. I’ve served 19 years’ hard labor.
    They let me out four days ago. I’m on
    parole. I have to go to Dijon to report
    Monday, or they’ll send me back to
    prison. Here’s my passport. I can’t read,
    but I know what it says. “He’s dangerous.

    B- Monsieur, you’re welcome to eat with
    us as my guest.

    VJ-I’m a convict. You saw my passport. I
    know who you are. You’re gonna let me
    inside your house?

    MDE. GILOT(Housekeeper) -What crime
    did you commit?

    VJ-Maybe I killed someone. How do you
    know I’m not going to murder you?

    B-How do you know I’m not going to
    murder you?

    VJ-A joke?

    B-I suppose we’ll have to trust each
    other.

    • David

      🤔 Okay, Steveo, you lost me there. 😕

    • James

      I Like it Stevo, I like it plenty….Nice find by you.

      Le Miserables indeed!

      Best Wishes, James

    • E

      @steveo. What an amazing scene! And—an example of a marked passport. Shaming punishment of the 18th c.

  37. PK

    So is everybody getting ready for the oral arguments coming up in 1 week?

    I remember the previous IML Challenge when the oral arguments were open to the public, and many of the RSOs from this group, actually went to the courthouse.

    I haven’t heard of any instances where RSOs are making plans to attend, in order to hear the oral arguments, this time around.

    Janice is the public invited to the hearing? Would there be audio or transcripts available afterwards?

    • David

      @ PK: The July 9th Hearing is only on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, not on the full arguments of the lawsuit. The Motion to Dismiss is a standard response from respondents, but must be decided before the suit can move forward.
      The judge might decide on the Motion prior to next Monday’s Hearing and, therefore, might choose to cancel the Hearing. In light of this, it seems unlikely that any public comments will be entertained at the Hearing.

    • David

      🏛 Monday’s Hearing on the government’s “Motion to Dismiss” has been canceled by the judge. In lieu of a Hearing, the judge will make a decision based upon the briefs that have been submitted. 🏛

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • 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 or other website issues 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 *