ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

FAC Files UN Human Rights Complaint over International Megan’s Law

The Florida Action Committee today has submitted a complaint to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on behalf of our members and registrants in the State of Florida who are now subject to the new requirements of the International Megan’s Law.

If you are interested in filing a complaint on your own behalf, please contact info@floridaactioncommittee.org to request instructions. FAC Statement

Join the discussion

  1. Roger

    Awesome….Go FAC !!…

  2. David H

    I actually believe this will be the only way to make change. Our system of justice and politics has become too polluted with a baseless foundation of law built upon one myth upon another. The political and judicial costs are just too high in the US to go backwards. We need to take it to the UN and they have given us the angle we needed: International travel! Now we need a world voice to tell us what country policies will be for us!

    I’ll be doing a complaint myself and I encourage others to do so as well…

  3. USA

    I can recall taking a Business Law Course. This is a Human Rights Violation

  4. Craig

    So is this just for the people in Florida?

  5. Eric Knight

    Unfortunately, legal action pursued through non-US courts are generally worthless. They may hold some value in promotion, but it seems such an awfully expensive proposition to obtain something that can’t be used as a citation in a US Court. I’m not dissing FAC’s action, per se, but it would seem to make more sense to try to work the court system within Florida, or the federal circuit court, than trhough an international tribunal.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      I think it is a good strategy. A ruling against the US Government in an international Court would bolster individuals seeking asylum and citizenship internationally.

    • Lake County

      I agree with Eric, I don’t think the U.S. ever really listens to the U.N. But perhaps it would help with seeking asylum in another country due to a human right violation?

    • Mike

      So you’re saying it’s just as effective as writing to you reps in Congress?

      • David H

        no Mike it’s not the same as writing to your rep. Because as we know that is guaranteed useless!

    • steve

      True but if this action causes other countries to not adhere to IML it’s worth it.

    • David H

      I disagree with Eric; The US has a reputation to uphold, as they go around the world calling out other nations on human rights- and look what they are doing in their own back yard! China is a frequent critic of ours regarding our high prison population.

      The US in I think 2010 or 2008 Presidential elections had UN monitors stationed on US soil because we cant seem to let people into poll stations to vote!

      We have become a third world nation! My hope is that we get condemnation from the UN for this and for countries to develop immigration and travel policies for RC’s of other countries so that it’s not an expensive all for nothing crap shot as to where one can travel.

    • Timmr

      The US signed a treaty to protect human rights. It is bound by the US Constitution to adhere to its treaties. The US is wrong whether anyone enforces it or not. You break a contract, it is still illegal whether someone arrests you or not. By the way, the US can’t afford to be known to the world as a country that breaks its treaties. They can do it for awhile, until other countries get the drift that the US word is worthless.

      • Eric Knight

        That is already starting to happen with TPA and the Iran deal.

        But back to point: International courts have NO BEARING on US sovereignity. And i have never been a fan of the UN, which is a crony club for dictators to act like they are duly elected representatives in any case.

        Pertinent (RE: US-based) court action is tough. Florida is an incredibly oppresive state for registered citizens, so it would make sense to start suing there like Janice does here. The template is ready to follow for any decent attorney worth his or her salt.

        But going outside this country to find legal relief is not only shortsighted, but could be detrimental to our own efforts in engaging a pissed-off citizenry, especially when Trump is president.

        • David Kennerly

          I largely agree with your assessment of the U.N. but not with the advisability of using it’s conventions to challenge U.S. policy. We absolutely should use every tool available to us if, for no other reason, than to draw global attention to a pervasive system of injustice in the U.S.

          This has proven to be a successful strategy for human rights issues and we should not think the U.S., its citizens or its lawmakers, immune from the unwelcome attention it brings to them.

          I would argue that the incarceration rate of the U.S. has finally prompted the attention of lawmakers precisely because of the ignominy that has been heaped upon our reputation in the world.

          We need to seriously consider all measures which can successfully propagate our message and the U.N. is one such tool for doing so.

  6. Timmr

    Through Angle Watch and IML, the United States has infected the whole world with its obsession for punishing former sex crimes offenders. This is an appropriate venue to have our petitions addressed. It is a complement to the efforts within US courts. You put pressure from both ends to weaken the middle.

  7. Stephen

    Any action is better than no action.

    • Timmr

      Well said, and we need to look for alternate avenues to our goals wherever we can find them, especially when the US system is infected with prejudice.

  8. citizen of the world

    This could really help people visiting or wanting to move abroad, like me! I care more about the world than this f***ed up country, and it seems from reports that the rest of the world thinks this government and their stance toward “human rights” is pathetic.

  9. David H

    I ran across this put out by Interpol: resolution AG2014-RES-02.

    Regardless of how much we file lawsuits, the way I see it the problem is not going away, as stated in the Resolution: “ENCOURAGES member countries, within the limits of their national regulatory frameworks, to develop notification-sharing and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders to ensure better protection of children from convicted offenders; ”

    The issue I see from the side of the US is it’s implementation. Whereas they International community seems to take care of the humanity sides of those subject to these needs, with: “TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the right of child sex offenders to travel freely should be balanced with the right of children worldwide to protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse”

    AND

    ” RECOGNIZING that any notifications and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders must comply with national and international standards regarding the privacy of individuals and protection of fundamental rights.”

    Notification is not going away. I can only hope and pray it’s done humanly. I personally feel this IML lawsuit must be a list of criteria the government must be burdened with by implementation of this global scheme. The trouble for us in the US is that we already got off on a bad step with our punishing laws and so implementing from here an IML global scheme they will go about it in the cowboy way they have been doing: passport identifiers. Whats more, I believe this lawsuit is an opportunity to ask that due-process be performed before any notifications can occur ( a process not statutory in nature to assess one’s risk level). The latter ensures only proper notices are sent; furthermore, this individual assessment should have been done from the beginning! If they cry, “we dont have the resources” then my answer is stop making the whole damn country a bunch of sex offenders!!

    I feel this lawsuit is an opportunity:

    1) recognize global travel notification is not going away

    2) to implement IML in a humane manner

    3) to develop long-over due processes to individually make risk assessment of RC’s.

    4) to call upon the global community to maintain travel data by country so that traveling is not a gamble.

    The ICPO-INTERPOL General Assembly, meeting in Monaco from 3 to 7 November 2014, at its 83rd session:
    NOTING that individuals with a sexual interest in children often travel to other countries, particularly developing countries, in order to sexually abuse and exploit children

    AG-2014-RES-02

    Subject: Improving International Notifications and Information Sharing Regarding Travelling Child Sex Offenders by Using INTERPOL’s Green Notices.

    NOTING that individuals with a sexual interest in children often travel to other countries, particularly developing countries, in order to sexually abuse and exploit children,

    RECOGNIZING that transnational child sex offending is a global phenomenon, and can only be prevented through the efforts of both origin and destination countries,

    CONSIDERING the importance of making accurate and timely information about the travel of convicted child sex offenders available to border-control and protection agencies in destination countries,

    ACKNOWLEDGING that a number of INTERPOL member countries already have systems or practices in place for travel notifications, and for sharing information about child sex offenders whose travel originates in their countries,

    RECOGNIZING that any notifications and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders must comply with national and international standards regarding the privacy of individuals and protection of fundamental rights,

    TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the right of child sex offenders to travel freely should be balanced with the right of children worldwide to protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse,

    CONVINCED that INTERPOL can play a major role in facilitating the sharing of timely information between countries regarding travelling child sex offenders, providing notifications regarding the travel of such offenders, and promoting the transnational investigation and prosecution of offenses against children,

    ENCOURAGES member countries, within the limits of their national regulatory frameworks, to develop notification-sharing and information-sharing measures regarding travelling child sex offenders to ensure better protection of children from convicted offenders;

    Resolution No. 2 AG-2014-RES-02
    Page 2/2

    FURTHER ENCOURAGES member countries to work together through INTERPOL on the establishment of a global system for notification and information sharing on travelling child sex offenders, which makes information instantly available while being transparent, accessible, and fair;

    URGES member countries to extend the INTERPOL I-24/7 secure global communications network to border and specialized police authorities and to seek the publication of green notices and diffusions in order to notify destination countries about travelling child sex offenders in a timely and systematic manner and encourage the regular sharing of appropriate information regarding such offenders.

    Approved

    • Joe

      That is a good find. The original is here (#2)

      http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/Events/2014/83rd-INTERPOL-General-Assembly/83rd-INTERPOL-General-Assembly-Resolutions

      It should, once again, be noted that in the entire document (it is also lacking a date – talk about pedestrian) there is NO, ZERO nexus between those required to register as sex offender who are traveling internationally, and cases of child sexual abuse. None.

      Registrants travel internationally. International travelers abuse children. Okay…..??

      Why is it that showing some correlation or, heaven forbid causality, is not remotely required when making these laws? How can you fight something like this?

    • Timmr

      “ensure better protection of children from convicted offenders”
      I know this country, trending towards being a totalitarian empire, frames solutions in terms of absolutes, but how much better can you get than less than 1% re-offense rate and an almost negligible cross over from domestic registrant to sex tourist or trafficker?
      How about taking the money and effort and using it for educational and social programs geared to the 95% who are not (yet) on the registry, before they commit new sex crimes?
      How about ending the main cause of sexual and other crimes against women and children: poverty and war?
      I’m sorry, but the approach they are focusing all these resources on is the wrong one. The pots they are watching are not the ones that will boil.

  10. Concerned Citizen

    I was wondering if anyone had put together statistics on attempted suicide rates of RSO and their family members. Someone had commented on a post on an article that they received 24 calls in a six month period at a suicide hotline they worked at from family members of RSO’s who cannot bear the punishment of this list. I think these statistics need to be compiled and assembled as proof of the effects of this debilitating punishment because it is punishment. Not a civil obligation.

    • Friend of RSOL

      Concerned Citizen – I agree that this data this is extremely important. This information needs to be gathered to make a case that this is punishment – and not just any punishment, but extreme punishment – banishment and public shaming.

      Sometimes I wonder if that is the aim of all these laws….

      One of the things that has helped me dig out is taking action and having this site as a resource.

      • Concerned Citizen

        I think they seek to silence these issues by making it very difficult for all of you to find each other, organize and fight back. By telling a RSO that they may not look to see it they are on the Megan’s Website seems like it should be illegal. An RSO should have the right to know if they have been placed there by error and if the information is incorrect. I’m so shocked at what I have learned these past couple of weeks since reading the article in the New Yorker. I hate injustice. This is not the America I wish to live in.

  11. David H

    I dont see how comments 1 and 2 have to do with the INTERPOL Resolution. wake up!!!! see the writing on the wall. it ain’t going away! deal with it!!! i myself will join this lawsuit, if necessary, in pursuit of what I see are the objectives

  12. Timmr

    David H, help me out here. I assume comments 1 and 2 refer to the comments made by Joe and myself. I think they are relevant to a complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission. The fact that we are not international traffickers is a valid complaint against the Interpol’s actions. What is your point exactly?

    • David H

      My point is that a negotiated settlement with the federal government is our best bet at the IML lawsuit–to carry out our compliance of the International law with dignity and respect for our privacy as the INTERPOL Resolution called out for–we are not going to, nor should we, be taking on the world community about this–they are going to continue doing this, like it or not! what’s important is how we are treated by our government(s): making travel information known to us; by not sending incorrect notifications abroad; a process where we receive the due process of a risk assessment; no passport identifiers, etc

      Our best time to do this is at the time of this IML lawsuit, while we have the government at the table and before this goes any further

      • PK

        No- I resent that comment, and I feel that any type of “negotiation” should not be considered, as I am not a Child Sex Trafficker or Sex Tourist as this Law implies.

        “what’s important is how we are treated by our government(s): making travel information known to us; by not sending incorrect notifications abroad; a process where we receive the due process of a risk assessment; no passport identifiers, etc”

        Really, it seems like you’re just rambling-on and “hoping and wishing” that somehow an RSO would be treated fairly by the US Government. THEY DON’T CARE! Sorry to say, I don’t think I would want you as my Lawyer.

      • Timm

        Has the government reached out for a settlement? If not, this is premature. From what I see, they are proceeding to win not negotiate and so admit CARSOL has some valid concerns.

      • Timmr

        Oops, left out the “r”. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your position. I was thinking you meant that the FAC should be including the Interpol resolution and not just the IML in the complaint. Still think CARSOL has to win the arguments first, and see what the judge says, before trying to negotiate.

        • David H

          I agree Timmer and no harm in attempting, but as I dont see a flood of other lawsuits regarding this matter, we shouldn’t let the opportunity go by in the end; if we can’t stop this madness globally, then I prefer a system based on the principles stated in the INTERPOL Resolution–that’s what I’m really saying; dont leave this lawsuit without at least having achieved that!!

  13. Timmr

    Article 2 (of the Interpol constitution) states that its role is:

    “To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    To establish and develop all institutions likely to contribute effectively to the prevention and suppression of ordinary law crimes.”

    Interpol hardly “represents the whole world.” It is an information sharing service of member police organizations and isn’t supposed to arrest people on its own. It was once headquartered in Nazi Germany, and most of the member nations bailed out for duration of the Nazis regime. More recently, Interpol violated its ban on political involvement, and was put on notice by civil societies for giving political dissidents,refugees and legitimate asylum seekers red notices. A quick Wikipedia (OK it is Wikipedia, I haven’t verified it beyond that) search gives many other examples of Interpol controversies. They are not without oversight by human rights organizations and other international civil societies. They themselves appear to recognize their need for improvement by setting up a Working Group on the Processing of Information to hear recommendations of civil society as regards the reform of the international investigation system. Maybe that is the place to negotiate a more humane and just notification system.

    • David Kennerly

      INTERPOL is dominated by its American and larger European member states. As such, it is not terribly interested in becoming “more humane or fair”. It is seen as playing a vital part in The Five Eyes’ mission to permanently marginalize and ground sex offenders. The guy who plays a particularly large role in this, Irishman Mick Moran of Interpol, is as invested in this project as anyone could possibly be. He attends all of the international conferences where the social entrepreneurs get together to wage their war against sex offenders and now “trafficking”. This includes ECPAT, the U.N., sex crimes prosecutors, feminist theoreticians, evangelicals and all of the rest.

      The international conference circuit is the crucial phenomenon where our futures are architected and diminished. “Model legislation” is marketed to all of the benighted smaller third-world governments at the many far-flung conferences as a path to foreign aid and modernity.

      These are people on the ultimate power and ego trip, being feted and wined and dined at the most exotic locales and congratulated for their keen insights and strategies. Nothing about them responds to our message. They are fully inoculated against reason or justice and intoxicated by their power and influence.

      What we have to do is to reveal their ideas and analysis as morally and intellectually bankrupt to the rest of the world. The social entrepreneurs, as they decamp from one conference to the next, rubbing elbows with their peripatetic and mutually-congratulatory social circle which serves only to reinforce their deeply incestuous views, will fight us every step of the way. We can’t expect them to be reasonable or to offer us a seat at their highly-privileged table.

      • James

        +1

        x infinity

      • David H

        David K I can and agree with everything you and Timmer say; I am not a defeatist; but we cant even win this sex-offender stuff in one US State of the country; and the Fed. government has turned into the two-ton-gorilla, how can we possibly win at the global table??

        We better start planning on getting an International human rights team and attorney if we believe we can change the international community–this is a Hugh leap whereas we have been unsuccessful in large part here in the US.

        The US contributes the largest share of the funding for the UN and has perhaps the greatest influence to sway direction.To do that in our favor would require new data in our case law and new judgements resulting from these data. I just believe we must negotiate a foundation one case at a time! and in this matter I believe the tenets that Interpol have expressed is a good foundation for a foundation. That should be the foundation we have at home here but we dont!

        At no time in history even with the most liberal of Presidents, FDR, have we been a truly compassionate people–look we turned a blind-eye to the Jews in the 30’s, as did the rest of the world; shall we demand our own State some where in the world?? Imagine the conversations going on between the Jews during Nazi Germany as they manipulated laws to make the Jew sub human and societal prey! Yes I believe we have achieved this status and it’s happening again via us–it’s that serious for us…

        • David Kennerly

          We have to crawl before we can walk. I hate to use that metaphor as imagery for where we are but that is essentially the stage of our development. Our lawsuit is a starting point for a larger mobilization that goes beyond challenging IML.

          I have had an inquiry from a journalist recently speculating upon this very possibility, surprised, apparently, that we seem to be getting some traction in the wake of the IML passage and openly wondering if it could be leading to a momentum more broadly challenging.

          I think we’re on to something and, apparently, others outside of our beleaguered realm are, too. We need to capitalize on this as much as possible and take this mobilization as far as we can and then go further.

          We must resist our self-defeating impulses, nurtured by years of relentless degradation and ever-lower expectations for our futures. We must consider that all witch hunts eventually come to an end and dare to imagine that eventuality and, more importantly, act in furtherance of that goal without succumbing to feelings of self-defeat.

          We must look to natural allies, some of whom may not yet realize that they may be allies, and coalesce to join a larger struggle for liberty from tyrannical government.

          We should consider how the U.S. is a model for much of the world, in ways both good and, more contemporaneously, bad. I think it entirely likely that the model for battling the global unreason we now find ourselves pitted against will itself emerge from the U.S. and that other organizations, in other countries, will form, as they have already begun to do, with an energized and successful RSOL as their model.

          We should take some inspiration from, oddly enough, our current election cycle from which a disenchanted electorate is feeling more alienated, with the big-two authoritarian political parties providing their illusion of choice, than ever before.

          There is a wave of profound discontent sweeping across our country and beyond which we can, with skill and practice, ride to a better destination, provided we recognize it as the opportunity that it presents.

        • Robert

          David H.
          I think what you missing here is the fact that this international notification stuff has been in the works for a number of years now. You are assuming that there increasing interest by other countries to follow the US. This thing has run its peak already.
          As David Kennerly points out there are some influence peddlers such Mick Moran still trying to sell an international database of registrants and always keeping the fear of sex offenders at the forefront of their campaign because they have built a career on it. Other countries have not lined up in numbers to drink the kool aid.

          While countries have agreed to receive sex offender notifications from the US, almost no countries have agreed to reciprocate with giving the US info on their own citizens convicted of sex crimes.

          Recent DHS ICE brief to Congress shows this: “In FY2013 alone, over 1,700 Angel Watch leads have been sent to 100 countries around the globe as a pre-emptive notification to foreign law enforcement in the fight to stop child sex tourism. At this point in time, only the United States and Australia share this type of information with foreign law enforcement partners.”

          Another elite worth mentioning here is Ernie Allen – who retired from NCMEC in 2012 to try and stand up his wet dream of an International Center for Missing Exploited Children. The International version of NCMEC relied heavily on countries sharing sex offender convictions and data in order to build an international registry database. Unfortunately his efforts to go global with his ICMEC failed rather miserably when he met with other countries to stand up operations. He blamed the failure on Edward Snowden and promptly retired from ICMEC realizing it was not the gold mine he anticipated.
          The story was posted on CA RSOL:

          https://all4consolaws.org/2014/11/green-notice-interpols-paedophile-tracking-system-compromised-by-privacy-concerns-following-edward-snowden-spying-revelations/

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/green-notice-interpols-paedophile-tracking-system-compromised-by-privacy-concerns-following-edward-9850170.html

          NCMEC is registered as a charity but receives direct funding and grants every year from DOJ and DHS, it does not survive on donations. Following the money, in FY 2014, of a 43 million dollar budget, about 35 million came from taxpayers in government grants and direct funding. Here is a link that pretty accurately describes Ernie Allen’s ability to bilk millions over time from the public by exploiting the children’s safety programs.

          http://www.demos.org/blog/8/6/13/using-childrens-welfare-charity-turn-profit

          If you follow the money, most of the global madness you cite originates right here in the good ole USA. The biggest difference we can make is to attack it here at the source as Janice and CA RSOL has done.

        • David H

          Hi Robert:

          Thank you for taking the time to assemble that information for my education. I found it extremely helpful; and many thanks to David Keenerly for his past posts.

          just to make clear why I believe what I do. Please dont confuse what I’m saying as giving up and walking away from our absolute desires by “negotiating”. I’m only looking at process, and when I say “negotiate” I just mean to state the elements of our reasoning before the court to consider them and to rule as to why or why not in our favor based upon our elements.

          Janice in our last conference call on the 14th intimated largely what I said: the judge would likely appease the parties by maintaining the status quo: meaning the notification portion of the lawsuit will be denied, while we must wait and see about the identifier.

          I then merely did some research and found the Interpol Resolution which gave me a sense as to what the International community’s headset is, and it appears to me they are not going to stop notification; yet they called out to do so ( in the Resolution) in an humane manner balancing our rights and needs for being discrete and compassionate as possible as to the problem at hand. And I merely believe that the Resolution points should be codified within (or at least a subsequent argument for those points)to the injunction to stop notification in the event the judge must weigh various elements in denying our motion. In other words giving the judge a reason we want her to consider ( and getting into case law) and can argue against via what the world community has stated its implementation be. rather a denial based upon a reason to deny that we cant argue or our argument lack any foundation; whereas, the INTERPOL Resolution is good foundation or facts and for the court to ponder and weigh.

          Right now we are not being treated humanely, as we have no information as to where we can travel; we have no due process as to whether a notifier should be sent out on anyone of us; importantly now the US wants an identifier (which was not considered in the initial Bill, but amended by the Senate–never having debate). I just want the court to consider the data and to find that the government must give us a hearing before including us in a subset of those being notified on and that it be their responsibility to maintain a database on which countries will be hostile toward us; and perhaps define a process in which they will stop notification.

          Thank you, and good luck and many blessings to us all!

        • Timmr

          Actually, I read the resolution differently. they assume the dangerous nature of registered citizens and therefore place the rights of some child theoretically in danger by a generic group above the right to individual due process. Not balanced, meaning equal, but above. The fact that they use the phrase “child sex offenders”, instead of people under suspicion of committing sex tourism or sex trafficking is the key. Anyway, that is how I read it.

        • Timmr

          Robert, I see, then it is important other countries know how much keeping a registry costs and how little good it does, and the harm it does. Not all countries have millions of tax payer dollars to throw out on chasing windmills.
          I never thought of this before, but could the attempts of the US to foster registries in other countries be a means to infiltrate other countries security systems and monitor foreign citizens? Wouldn’t all it take was for someone to be labeled “child sex offender” and bingo, they are monitored by the world police service.

        • David H

          timmr

          I have always thought that the electronic means with which they are developing for us, along with the laws they are creating to make it all legal was part of that larger scheme to control and to monitor everyone–big corporations and government would love to know everything about you; they already know much about you by way of data mining the Internet

        • Timmr

          I think it all boils down to the change in our economic system over the years. The way we used to do agriculture, it employed a lot of people. Before we shipped off manufacturing jobs, we employed maybe not so many people as agriculture, but still, a lot. Now we have machines and oil based fertilizer and pesticides to do the work of growing our food with far fewer hands. We have cheap labor placed somewhere else to manufacture the goods. The so called service economy left over results in both parents being stressed out all the time and worried over whether someone, mainly the government taking their money, or a roving sex offender taking away their kids — going to take what they have spent way too much of their lives earning. Meanwhile, the government creates jobs in the only political correct way it can, by creating a panic with identifiable enemy and funneling money into the military/prison complex to fight it. Still there is a whole segment of the population that needs to be left out of this scheme or it won’t work. Everyone can’t sell houses or build web pages, or drive around making sure the others behave, therefore the left outs become the ones who have darker skin, have some distinguishing otherness, like being trans or muslim, or now more likely, to have committed one of the many sex offenses on the books. Now this segmentation keeps the few jobs in one class and that class happy enough, and the other it does not matter if they die, so much less to divide the resources between; or they could end up in prison, which feeds more government supported politically correct type of jobs in security related fields.

        • David Kennerly

          Great post, Robert! Do you have a link for the following?

          “In FY2013 alone, over 1,700 Angel Watch leads have been sent to 100 countries around the globe as a pre-emptive notification to foreign law enforcement in the fight to stop child sex tourism. At this point in time, only the United States and Australia share this type of information with foreign law enforcement partners.”

          Thanks!

        • David H

          David I’ve seen that data some where too but cant remember right now; it’s incorrect, however, to say only Australia and the US are the only two countries that have a notification system. I’ve got a St. John’s law Review study that looks at the effectiveness of five countries programs: Germany, Sweden, Japan, Australia, and of course the US!

          If I knew how to post it I would..

  14. anonymously

    David H said “David K I can and agree with everything you and Timmer say; I am not a defeatist; but we cant even win this sex-offender stuff in one US State of the country; and the Fed. government has turned into the two-ton-gorilla, how can we possibly win at the global table??”

    I’d like to chime in, if I may. This kind of reminds me of the opposite of Trumps strategy for cutting deals. Instead of making the most demands up front, we would be giving away most of everything before it even gets started.

    “We better start planning on getting an International human rights team and attorney if we believe we can change the international community–this is a Hugh leap whereas we have been unsuccessful in large part here in the US.”

    Most of the world does not buy into all this registry stuff, though. The change of mindset needs to happen at the source of the hysteria and with those closeby who do buy into the hysteria. It will be hard talking over the loud hypocrites like Bill O’Reilly, who had a sex scandal with one of his adult interns himself or John Walsh , unconvicted child rapist and SORNA creator who instead of conviction and registration in New York, gets a street named after him. Then, there’s the show Law and Order:SVU, where every registrant is portrayed as the worst of the worst and registry add-ons are falsley portrayed as being productive, where 2 of the shows writers have been convicted of child sex offenses, and that show has been on for over 20 years. The US is the main place for an education effort, as well as Australia who seems to have taken some of the worst aspects of our criminal justice system.

    “The US contributes the largest share of the funding for the UN and has perhaps the greatest influence to sway direction.”

    At one time, that was true. Back when Clinton was President, he fired Boutros Boutros Ghali from the UN. I don’t know exactly when things changed, but it’s different now. The US is not the dominant world player we were. If we still controlled the UN, there wouldn’t be all this anti-Israel stuff coming out of the UN. Russia and China currently control the UN, and they ,like the US, have veto power.

    “To do that in our favor would require new data in our case law and new judgements resulting from these data. I just believe we must negotiate a foundation one case at a time! and in this matter I believe the tenets that Interpol have expressed is a good foundation for a foundation.”

    I’m liking the UN more than Interpol. Interpol is complicit in this denial of leaving the country for US citizens. They seem more like North Korea to condone this. North Korea doesn’t let its citizens leave and also doesn’t let them speak freely ( kind of reminds me of Kelly’s attack on the 1st Amendment ). The UN has a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as Timmr pointed out, a freedom of movement article. I think the tenets of the UN are a better foundation. If Interpol had this, they wouldn’t be part of the unannounced policy of slander and resulting denial of travel.

    ” That should be the foundation we have at home here but we dont!”

    That Interpol resolution was not very reassuring and should not be used as a foundation. The UN declarations, on the other hand…

    “At no time in history even with the most liberal of Presidents, FDR, have we been a truly compassionate people–look we turned a blind-eye to the Jews in the 30’s, as did the rest of the world”

    I don’t think there is any nation at anytime in history that was 100% compassionate. But nations can strive for that by making improvements. And many have. The US improved on its treatment of vets in ww2, where it treated ww1 vets very badly. Of course, regression occurred in how we treated our Vietnam vets. Also, in the early 60’s, a lot was still wrong, but progress was made. Obviously, still a lot wrong in how non-whites were treated, but the 60’s were better than the 50’s, which were better than the 40’s. Progress was being made, whereas with all these new faceBook funded pet project anti-registrant Megan’s law add-ons, we are going backwards. It hasn’t always been this way and doesn’t have to be like this.

    “; shall we demand our own State some where in the world??”

    True about the Jews in the 30’s. The U.S took in some, but not enough. To stay within the US, I think if California ever breaks up into 6 smaller states, there might be room for our own state. Or possibly part of Vermont as I have heard of a Vermont seccessionist movement. Vermont seems like a decent state.

    • David H

      seems the more I tried to clarify what I meant by my original post seems the more people misunderstood what my intent was/is hehe and I’m being parsed word by word..

      I’ll try one more time, but briefly. I’m simply coming from a logical process perspective, based upon what is probably a very narrow understanding of the law.

      As originally stated, I’m following on what Janice said in our last conference call that the notification part of IML will likely stand. Then I went out to research why this would be. As fate would have it, I ran across the Interpol thing. And while everyone appears to have an impression of Interpol–I dont, only knowing of them by things I’ve read or seen on TV.

      That being said, when I read the Resolution, knowing Europeans differ from Americans on their human right’s views, I took the language at its face value–it sounded like a fair and rational product: if you wanted to take away from it a ray of hope from the resolution, you’d have to believe that there are organizations that are truly working this global problem and that they thought enough about adding language that at least made reference to us as human beings; Maybe I’m just used to being defiled and hated so much and used to laws that treat me as if I’m not a person when then I saw what appeared a thoughtful recognition for who I am, I saw a framework to build from.

      So I took what they’ve publicly made a resolution of, speaking for the world ( and if I have to bet what the other nations are leaning toward) and tried applying this rational to our lawsuit. I never suggested we go away and give up! I tried to argue that our lawsuit should include the points of the Interpol Resolution to serve as a foundation as for our recognition as a human being and in fairness to us; something case law in this country does not contain–we’re a target for every joke of legislation any sociopath who some how got into office could dream of.

      Picture, if you will, the judge making a ruling on our complaint. We would want the judge to rule on the elements of our argument which would include as it does an argument for data, etc. but I’m stating that we should be designing the argument around certain other factors because as intimated by Janice we likely will not prevail on the notification thingy. That due process (give me a hearing and let’s discuss why i should get notification) and fairness along with recognition that we are human beings and citizens of this country and that our government while working with the global community to solve this problem of sex-tourism needs to make sure that in the world’s belief that WE as a subset of the problem get treated with respect and dignity. And that travel become known to us and it stop being a guessing game about where we can go–our government must advocate for us just as it would any other citizen.

      I just want these points to come up in the arguments and to have a judge touch upon them so that they become case law for the betterment of the way the laws view us now.

      This is what I was saying I hope it’s more clear now–I’m on the same side here as everyone and I very appreciative of what Janice et. al. is doing and the support of everyone here, as we travel together on this journey

    • David H

      Anomalously this is why I argued American versus European they think different on what human rights are. The more I think about it the righter I believe I am!!!:

      https://all4consolaws.org/2016/03/uk-hundreds-of-rapists-and-child-abusers-taken-off-sex-offenders-register/#comment-147381

      ” Theresa May brought in these new rules through gritted teeth after the Supreme Court declared that, with no right of review, requiring sex offenders to register their address with police and inform them of travel plans was disproportionate and incompatible with the right to privacy.

      In 2012, when the rules came into force, the Home Office said police had to conduct a “robust review” and be “satisfied that it is not necessary, for the purpose of protecting the public from the risk of sexual harm”, for a sex offender to continue to register.”

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 *

.