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)

ACSOLCaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Silver Linings to the Dark Cloud of the International Megan’s Law

International Megan’s Law is a terrible law.  Its notification provisions trap registrants in a country that continues to punish them and its passport provisions expose them to significant risk of harm due to the addition of a “Scarlet letter”.

Having said that, however, there is a silver lining to that dark cloud — our community came together and we acted in concert for the first time.  We did this by attempting to prevent the International Megan’s Law from being passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Hundreds of people throughout the nation came together and sent messages to elected officials in letters and E-mails as well as phone calls and tweets.  And although our efforts to change the votes of elected officials were ultimately unsuccessful, we succeeded in establishing a unified message that was shared with the public via worldwide media coverage.

Our message was published in newspapers across the nation including the Monterey Herald, the Washington Post, and Al Jezeera America.  And we earned the support of the Los Angeles Times in a strongly worded editorial that described the bill as “vindictive” and “wisely rejected numerous times in the past”.

And after the bill became law and a legal challenge was filed in court, the media continues to spread our message in newspaper articles as well as television and radio reports which refer to us as registrants and a civil rights movement instead of sex offenders.  Their messages are being read and heard by the public, the very public we need to educate.

There is another silver lining to the dark cloud of the International Megan’s Law  — it is possible that our legal challenge to this unconstitutional law will end in the U.S. Supreme Court.  If it does, we may have the opportunity to overturn the Court’s Smith v. Doe decision, which erroneously determined that registration is not punishment, but merely an administrative requirement.

This is not a time for despair.  Instead, it is a time for us to recognize that we are now unified and that with a lot of hard work, we shall overcome.  We shall overcome the ignorance and prejudice that exist today and once again live in peace and harmony knowing that the inalienable rights provided by the Constitution are indeed available to all.

Read all of Janice’s Journal

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    I appreciate your optimism even though this is yet another layer to the fight for truth and justice. I’m really surprised the main stream media is coming out in support of our opposition to this horrendous piece of legislation. The way this whole thing went down was nothing less than slimy.

    • David

      Q, yes, it was slimy. But it was also flat out COWARDLY the Congress, the Senate and the President moved this legislation forward!

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      “Slimy” is too abstract a word I coin a new word “Sovietness rule”.

      According to Lenin, the author of these quotations on, soviet rule.

      “is nothing else than the organized form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” A code of rules governing elections to the soviets was framed in March 1918, but the following classes were disqualified to vote: “Those who employ others for profit; those who live on incomes not derived from their own work — interest on capital, industrial enterprises or landed property; private business men, agents, middlemen; monks and priests of all denominations; ex-employees of the old police services and members of the Romanov dynasty; lunatics and CRIMINALS.” [1]

      1. Klein, Henri F. (1920). “Soviet”. In Rines, George Edwin. Encyclopedia Americana.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_(council)

    • Jonathan Merritt

      Another silver lining is the fact that since that Court decision in 2003, Supreme Court Justices that are more liberal in their thinking have been appointed.
      Justice Scalia was another Conservative Judge that has passed away last week and President Obama has vowed to appoint a new Justice. If this happens, The Supreme Court will be,I believe and Janice can correct me if I am wrong, Stacked in our favor should or when Janice takes it back to them for a rehearing with all the mountains of evidence collected since then that proves to any reasonable thinking person that the registry in its present form is nothing short of public death to many who are on it.

      • Timmmy

        You mean like that “liberal thinking” Sotomayor who decided it was okay to indefinitely civilly confine sex offenders?

      • Timmr

        Interesting findings from this blog: http://sexcrimes.typepad.com/sex_crimes/2009/05/sotomayors-criminal-law-record.html
        “Average judge 7.16% of criminal appeals were decided in favor of the defendant
        Average judge appointed by a GOP President 7.23%
        Average judge appointed by a Dem President 7.11%
        Average judge with prosecutor experience Exp 6.17%
        Sotomayor 7.27% (55 cases)”

      • David H

        Dont think Obama appoints necessarily liberal judges, to his credit he’s thinking more broadly than that. However, he has recently lost my positive view of him by signing HR 515

        • Timmmy

          It took you that long?

          Doubting Since 2007.

        • Jonathan Merritt

          There are many people who indeed need to be civilly committed until they demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated.

      • Frank

        Obama is the most Liberal person we’ve had in office since Jimmy Carter. He signed this POS legislation we are debating now. Maybe a Judge who really follows the rule of the “Constitution” will give us a better chance.

        • David H

          Dont expect anyone to be “Liberal” on this topic!

        • Timmr

          That’s for sure. The closest anyone in power comes to being liberal on criminal matters is advocating for shortening the sentences for certain low level “non-violent” drug offenses and decriminalizing marijuana. Yay. According to Michelle Alexander and others studying this matter, that is not going to solve the prison overpopulation. Certainly no one is now going to reduce punishment for any “sex offenses” no matter how low level. They are increasing that.
          As a 60’s type liberal the current efforts to reduce the prison population induces in me a big yawn.

  2. Terry

    Thank you Janice for all your effort and your suit has teeth, so I’m hopeful. I don’t necessarily trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing here, but maybe Kennedy would be the swing vote that would be needed, as in gay marriage.
    Either Obama is a totally hypocritical piece of pooh, or he’s a very cool constitutionalist who knew exactly what would happen if he signed the bill…that the resulting lawsuits would finally put a stop to this and other legislation like it, including the registry itself. So let the courts decide! I’d like to think the latter…but I’m afraid it might be the pooh!

    • David H

      I think it’s the “pooh” on Obama— to believe otherwise would be to place trust in a broken court system that has already proven itself capable and ready to sign off on anything SO

      • Jonathan Merritt

        This way no Politicians fingerprints will be on the undoing of Megans Law.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      And don’t expect Hillary to be any less supportive of that bill AND MORE. Unfortunately, a LOT of this push against registrants has come from the women’s movement — they fully support it, and so does Hillary. Gee, if it was under her husband’s administration and Janet Reno as attorney general that the federal government started this nationwide BS.

      • Jonathan Merritt

        I believe a Senator or a Governor from Ohio started Megans Law and he was a Democrat.

        • David Kennerly

          Here is who sponsored or co-sponsored the federal version of Megan’s Law, passed in both houses and signed by President Clinton in 1996:

          Sponsor: Richard Zimmer, New Jersey, Republican
          27 cosponsors (23R, 4D) (show)
          Deal, Nathan [R-GA9]
          (joined Jul 27, 1995)
          Dunn, Jennifer [R-WA8]
          (joined Jul 27, 1995)
          Fox, Jon [R-PA13]
          (joined Aug 4, 1995)
          Molinari, Susan [R-NY13]
          (joined Sep 6, 1995)
          Ney, Robert “Bob” [R-OH18]
          (joined Sep 6, 1995)
          Stockman, Steve [R-TX9]
          (joined Sep 6, 1995)
          Kelly, Sue [R-NY19]
          (joined Sep 7, 1995)
          Bereuter, Douglas “Doug” [R-NE1]
          (joined Sep 8, 1995)
          LoBiondo, Frank [R-NJ2]
          (joined Sep 8, 1995)
          Luther, William [D-MN6]
          (joined Sep 8, 1995)
          Gutknecht, Gilbert “Gil” [R-MN1]
          (joined Sep 12, 1995)
          Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA16]
          (joined Sep 12, 1995)
          Livingston, Robert [R-LA1]
          (joined Sep 14, 1995)
          Vucanovich, Barbara [R-NV2]
          (joined Sep 14, 1995)
          Foley, Mark [R-FL16]
          (joined Sep 19, 1995)
          Hastings, Doc [R-WA4]
          (joined Sep 19, 1995)
          Ballenger, Cass [R-NC10]
          (joined Sep 25, 1995)
          Geren, Preston “Pete” [D-TX12]
          (joined Sep 27, 1995)
          Bliley, Tom [R-VA7]
          (joined Oct 11, 1995)
          Hoke, Martin [R-OH10]
          (joined Oct 17, 1995)
          Walsh, James “Jim” [R-NY25]
          (joined Oct 17, 1995)
          English, Philip “Phil” [R-PA21]
          (joined Nov 20, 1995)
          Solomon, Gerald [R-NY22]
          (joined Feb 16, 1996)
          Pryce, Deborah [R-OH15]
          (joined Feb 28, 1996)
          McIntosh, David [R-IN2]
          (joined Apr 15, 1996)
          Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX18]
          (joined Apr 24, 1996)
          Ramstad, James “Jim” [R-MN3]
          (joined May 6, 1996)

          https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h149

      • David H

        Anonymous Janet Reno as I recall wasn’t actually a fan of these laws–she I recall told Clinton that”these people have rights too”

        • Timmmy

          Like those in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho when she was Attorney General?

  3. BIGMEAT

    Great article. So, does this only affect those convicted of child related offenses?

    • Jason

      Officially, the law only applies to child related offenses.

      However, I believe I’ve read anecdotes of people with non-child offenses getting turned away at foreign borders, so something fishy is going on there.

      Also, the Hail Mary shot that the Supreme Court will rule on Ex Post Facto grounds could theoretically apply to the entire registry. (we can dream at least)

      • Rob

        Jason sorry but your information is incorrect. This law does not apply to only people convicted of child related offenses, but it applies to every registered sex offender, period. Chris smith believes that any sex offender has committed child related offense and is dangerous. I myself was turned away from entering the dominican republic with a misdemeanor crime. Yes this law and even on the ICE website state they are only notifying countries of child sex offenders, but in there eyes every sex offenders is the same…..
        Janice is right there is a silver lining and it brought us together as a group. I have been registered for 9 years and have never talked to another registered citizen. I live my life trying to be anonymous and fit in and hope no more laws happen against me. I haven’t testified at local towns hearing on resident restrictions because of fear of people recognizing me. Now I want to help and make a difference and for the first time I feel more empowered. The fact is if this law didn’t pass we would still have the green notices being sent, so i was’t going to travel anyways. A tleast not we are fighting this unjust practice.

        • Jonathan Merritt

          OK Rob so now you see that peter denying Jesus tactic didn’t work out so great. Are you ready now to stand up and be counted among other registrants and make a difference?

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Don’t mix up what has been going on with this law; this law is not that law. What has been going on has affected ALL registrants, no matter how minor an offense, even misdemeanor indecent exposure. This bill — well, it only specifically identifies the most serious offenders as subject to it — but there is language in it that might need interpretation about whether it applies to all registrants as far as notice while traveling is concerned.

        I read the bill a while back and did not see anything in it about a mark on the passport, but everyone seems to think that is in there. If it is, I wonder if that is ALL registrants or only those for the most serious offenses about whom a notice will be sent. Gee, with such a mark, it hardly matters whether they send an advance notice, as even if they don’t, there it is on the passport!

        I even find it very offensive that non-registrants will have their background so scrutinized just to get a passport. If you’re a citizen, if you’re not on parole, if there is no arrest warrant out on you, that is all that should matter, no further background check should be required. Well, OK, I suppose if you are on the terrorist watch list maybe some more checking would be in order, that is an actual danger to a plane, but not other than that, including not a general criminal background check to see if you are or should be a registrant.

        I oppose this new law no matter what. But I still would like something definitive about whether the notice part applies to all registrants or just to the most serious offenses specifically listed in the law. And whether the notice to the locale applies to all registrants every time you travel. I guess this now will be used as even a checkpoint when you apply to investigate whether you are in full compliance with registration. Gee, they will be contacting your state to get your records, so automatically you will get reviewed. We don’t need ever more checkpoints, annual registration is already too much.

        • Jonathan Merritt

          Why does everyone in law enforcement seem to think that the risk of reoffending goes up as the age of the victim goes down? I do believe that statistics show that offenders who had victims 13 to 16 and were not related were a greater risk to reoffend than someone who’s victim was a family member and between 4 and 10. Why you might ask?
          Its really simple. The lower the age of the victim the greater the shame and remorse while those with teen victims feel as though they were the victims themselves.

        • Timmr

          I think it is the same reason that they believe any sex crime is more likely to be repeated that any other crime. The jail house reasoning is that if you are depraved enough to do it once, you are lacking any sort of sense of morals or sense of consequences. In other words, they think a person like that must be a sociopath.
          They fail to see that anyone can do anything, just about, under the right combination of circumstances. That failure is actually the most dangerous assumption to have. Realizing how we handled those circumstances and internalizing those consequences is how we learn. The data shows, by low re-offense rates, of almost all the types of criminals, save one, we are the best at learning from our mistakes.

  4. Timmr

    It feels like 2000 feet of mountain to go — straight up an icy cliff. Especially hard when you missed the goal we set for this leg of the journey, are battered and breathless. Now is the time to sit down and take a rest, look back and down, and see that we are about 5000 feet above where we started. Leave the rest of the climb for tomorrow.
    Let’s give ourselves, and especially the ones who organized this, great praise for moving things forward. We have Janice potentially going before the SCOTUS. Imagine that? I didn’t think that opportunity would have arrived for years, if ever. We have respected nationwide news outlets like the Los Angeles Times voicing a supremely unpopular opinion agreeing with us. I don’t think those things would have happened without all of our support. I know that the rest is uncertain and potentially dark.
    I don’t know about you, but my nerves have been on edge, worrying about what people are going to do, what I should do next or lamenting what I might have done or said. In a little while, I am going to sit back and toast the beautiful sunset in praise of CaRSOL, TAG, RSOL, the plaintiffs and all those who wrote letters, sent emails, made calls and donated funds. Cheers!

    And Mr. President… go suck on your legacy.

  5. LJ

    I would like to thank Janice and all those who stood up. I would also like to thank Janice for looking into my parole conditions. I have for a long time been contemplating an organization to open facilities to help the disenfranchised to reestablish their lives. Veterans, homeless, parolees and of course RSO’s. Not something funded by te state or feds. A place that gives shelter and job traini.g, transitional housing and employment and eventually helps its clients to gain their own employmentvoff site and then purchase their own homes. Finally it is coming together. I think that a place where people are also suffering find hope among RSO’s and learn we are not the monsters we have been portrayed to be, is one way to give people first hand education on the facts and they will feel compelled to share that knowledge with others. I am starting with one site. I know someone who is starting one in Missouri as well. If we spread this concept throughout the country how many lives can be positively impacted? Couple that with the legal efforts and maybe we can actually change tis country for the better. But we must be vigilant and courageous, because we will be strictly scrutinized. There is hope.

    • t

      Good luck on your endeavors. How about forming a company that produces a service or product and directly training and employing these RC’s.

      • LJ

        That is exactly the idea. Get people trained, employed, housed, fed and self sufficient all in a tranquil environment. Everyone has their own unit, not a bed in a room with three or four other people.

    • Mike Darling

      It would also be really helpful to have a contact for legal services that actually help, instead of those who target RSO’s with a false promises of hope. Identifying those who get paid for services they know they cannot provide (governor’s pardons, removal from Megan’s list, etc.). There is a big cottage industry focused on removing money from those who admit their wrongs, have paid the price and now only want to be a legitimate citizen again.

    • mdd

      I agree, if we all could just donate $20.00 a month (a couple days without Starbucks) we could make sure Janice has the funding needed for these fights. I have stepped up and am now making a monthly donation. We all need to get off the bench and step into the game. I know we all want to just hide in the shadows to protect our lives and families, but we are the politically correct whipping posts. Only confronting this issue head on will help us. Today it is national travel, how long until it is interstate travel?

    • Jonathan Merritt

      I wish you all the best in your project hope you held many people.
      I do what I can to help any RSO with information on becoming a commercial driver and where they can get hired.
      If you know anyone who is interested in that field of work, have them get in touch with me.

  6. ch

    I think that another silver lining would be that since they have been doing most of this for the last several years, by using this new law to seek an injunction to halt what this law describes, should also halt the previously undocumented activity that has been happening for the last several years. But after the injunction, if it happens, who will test the waters to see if the practice of notifying destinations of a “suspect sex trafficker” has really ended? If it is still happening then that is thousands down the drain for airfare, etc. Most of us that might want to travel, would most likely be on a tight budget due to the high cost to us of the public registry (lack of good employment).

    • PK

      That kind of touches on an important point. Since it is fact that our government had already been sending notifications to foreign governments for years, how could an injunction issued by the Court force Angel Watch to cease operations? And what would be the remedies if Angel Watch continued despite an injunction?

      • Harry

        Sue for contempt? These agencies that are sending these notices out are doing it without authority. I believe this why it was important for IML to be put in place, is to give formally in what they have doing. Without this authority a good lawyer can sink these rogue agencies.

      • mdd

        It would also be very helpful to identify those legal firms who target RSO’s and give false promises of removal from Megan’s list and Governors Pardons. There is a large industry out their focused on ripping off those who have already paid a huge price for their error and just want to be legitimate citizens again. A list of reputable legal firms would save many from more humiliation and further loss.

        • Jonathan Merritt

          There is such a weasel in Sumter SC who sent out letters to to everyone on the list here offering them help in getting off the registry.
          50 consult fee of course. Wonder how many he lined up a day for a 30 minute talk only to tell them they have a small chance.

    • David H

      it’s pretty much irrelevant to us as they already possess the database (I mean the foreign government)

      • PK

        Mexico is a perfect example of that. Once you’ve been denied entry, you’re in their database.

  7. CJ

    My roommate and I are both on the registry, and he was not informed of this new law being passed two days ago by his therapy team or his probation department as he left to go attend his his sister’s wedding in Mexico.
    Imagine the shock and horror of being pulled out of line in customs and being told he was on a “Scarlet Letter List” and shipped right back on the plane to the U.S. where he was detained yet again for trying to enter the country he is from.
    While most of us acknowledge the harm we have caused, we all strive for change in our lives and this governmental over-reaction has caused more damage to his family.
    I applaud all of you for taking a stand and I will personally continue the fight for change so that we can have productive lives as the rest of society does.
    I am saddened by this law but hopeful that something good can come of it for all of society.

    • PK

      Hi CJ there is actually a Thread that deals with issues traveling to Mexico:

      californiarsol.org/2014/02/international-travel-mexico

      You mentioned that your roommate was detained trying to return to the United States?

      Could you elaborate on that thread I mentioned?

      It would be helpful for everyone to know for example if they confiscated his passport upon his return to the states. Also, did the authorities in Mexico provide your roommate any documentation or information as to why he would not be allowed in? Had he tried to fly into Mexico previously?

      The more information you could provide would be helpful for everyone else who is trying to get into Mexico, and come back.

    • Timmmy

      He can tell them to F Off. Due process..Passing a law don’t make it legal

    • Anonymous Nobody

      CJ, that is NOT because of this new law. That is because of the practice the Obama Administration started more than two years ago, apparently using the Patriot Act as justification to do this to registrants. All registrants have been getting turned back at all borders ever since, so everyone in the threads reports — not just Mexico. Even the most minor of offenders whose convictions might have been 20-30-40-50-60 years ago.

      With Obama already doing that as an executive action rather than a law requiring him to do it, to have thought he would veto this lesser bill was ridiculous.

    • Jonathan Merritt

      A Mexican that is undeportable!
      What a concept!

  8. Paul

    So, if the injunction goes through, does that mean that the Angel Watch Center will be shut down? Will the government, at any level, NOT be allowed to send advanced notice to destination countries?

  9. E.S.

    I give thanks and prayers to all of us who came together and worked for our cause. In a few short years we have made incredible progress. In my state, every bill in 2015 that sought to make a registrant’s life even more intolerable was killed due to our legislative efforts. In the past these bills would have simply sailed on through. We will eventually have the same successes with the U.S. Legislature. Let’s move on Forward. We all appreciate you Janice. I may be moving to California in the near future and if so, I will be right there with you.

  10. Terrance

    Well..some good news for us SO’s, although in a morbid kind of way:

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

    Antonio Scalia was found dead today. One of SO’s greatest enemy’s on the supreme court. With Obama still in office, that means a more liberal judge will take his place, hopefully, swinging the court in our favor.

    My condolences to his family / friends, sucks when you have a loved one die. However, I won’t be shedding any tears.

    • Timmmy

      Not sure how that is “good” news. It is conservative judges who tend to uphold the US Constitution. I took my issue to one of the most conservative courts in the country, and they decided with me on my Constitutional issue. Though in their writing you could tell they did not want to. Ha dot include their own personal options in the decision. Unprofessional.

      • Jonathan Merritt

        I learned from an rsol conference that it was justice Roberts who on one hand said gay people had the right to get married and then twisted himself into a pretzel and said that the registry was not punishment.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Obama is NOT going to name a liberal judge — he never has. There is not a single liberal on SCOTUS, the media just stupidly insists that if you are not a right winger, you are a liberal. NO, there are only right wingers and moderates on the court.

      Second, Obama just signed this law — did you think he would seek out a justice to overturn it?! And neither will Hillary, she, and the women’s movement generally, is one of the stronger supporters of this and more against registrants. SCOTUS is NOT going to be changed in a way helpful to registrants, no chance whatsoever.

      You might as well get used to that idea, and look for other strategies than to wait on SCOTUS. If your strategy is to look for a more receptive SCOTUS, you are wasting time accomplishing nothing. SCOTUS will be no better for us going forward than it has been so far.

      As I said above. Obama has been doing worse than this law on his own initiative for more than two years. The Obama Administration apparently uses an interpretation of the Patriot Act as justification to do this and to all registrants. This bill simply avoids any legal challenge to skewing the Patriot Act for this, gives it its own law to do it.

      All registrants have been getting turned back at all borders ever since the Obama Administration started this more nearly 2 1/2 years ago, so everyone in the threads reports — not just Mexico. Even the most minor of offenders whose convictions might have been 20-30-40-50-60 years ago.

      • David Kennerly

        Right. This isn’t a ‘right vs. left’ issue; it is an authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian issue. Guess what? The Republicans and Democrats are BOTH ‘authoritarian’!

        • Jonathan Merritt

          Power attracts the corruptible!
          Under a democratic President the powerful become wealthy
          and under a conservative government the wealthy become powerful.
          One is skinning from the ankle up and the other from the ear down!

      • Jonathan Merritt

        Because of the attack in Ottowa Canada last year,, I can no longer work on army bases for my employer. Before Ottowa, I was only shut out of Air Force bases. This only applies to persons on the registry and any other felony over ten years gets a pass.
        So can someone explain what the terrorist attack in Ottowa has to do with a person on the registry? this means that an ex bank robber,Murderer, can work on the military bases but not someone who is on the registry even if it was for peeing in the woods.
        This can not be just or legal.

        • Timmr

          Same with Uber. You can have committed murder and after seven years it is not an automatic exclusion from hiring, but not so with registrants. Read the Washington Post article on the Uber shootings today. The shooter didn’t even have a criminal record, let alone a sex crime, yet the writer of the article on the safety or lack thereof concerning Uber’s drivers made a big point of crediting Uber for excluding all registrants as drivers. The driver/shooter had obvious anger issues, which didn’t trigger any red flags, even though one passenger had previously called 911 about his behavior. But this country can look back 20 years into a crystal ball and see that someone streaked in front of a group of cheerleaders or something like that, and therefore they are a worst danger than someone who is presently taking out his anger on the job. This country just doesn’t get it.

  11. USA

    I’ve read the law very carefully. The law only applies to child related offenders.
    “The passport identifier is only for those who have been found guilty of a sex crime involving a child and have been deemed dangerous enough to be listed on a public sex offender registry,” Smith said.

    • Timmr

      Not so, they may still send out a notice for anyone on the registry. Even so, it is rather cold, callous and cynical to think only of yourself and not to care for those who had a child related offense, some decades ago with no re-offense, and no human trafficking involved, and ignore the burden this places on families of those said.

    • Craig

      The passport identifier is only for those who have been found guilty of a sex crime involving a child and have been deemed dangerous enough to be listed on a public sex offender registry,” Smith said.

      Deemed to be dangerous to be listed on a public registry, lol that includes most anyone whether a danger or not. It really does not matter how it is done, it is wrong for anyone to have it placed on their passport.

  12. Mike Smith

    Could anyone tell me what the marking on ones passport would look like? I just received my new passport and I don’t see anything in the way of a stamp, mark or alteration of any sort. I sent my application in last Friday, for expedited service, and received it today. I have never attempted to travel out of the country for the past ten years (since being off parole) as I have worried about trying to take a cruise to Europe and being turned away at the gangway, or going skiing in Canada and being put back on the plane. Am I living in reality or an overblown start of fear?

    • Rob

      Mike The bill was just signed a couple of days ago. It will take some time for the state department to design the identifier and implement it, there is no timetable for this, it could be next week or next year.
      Your passport does not have the stamp/mark/whatever they will use on it. I doubt they would go ahead while there is a lawsuit taking place but they could .Your fears are not overblown, you WILL be denied entry into many countries. You will more then likely be prevented from going on a cruise, have you read the threads on travel here? I suggest you do. You could be let into Europe though as they seem to be much much more open about personal freedoms and seem to not be turning away RSO’s. That said I wouldn’t go to England and flying into Europe might be easier then taking a cruise as the cruise ship itself might deny you.

      USA- This law applies to everyone who has to register as a sex offender, every crime no matter what it was. It does not only apply to child sex offenders, which there is no definition for.

    • Joe

      Probably look something like this.

      https://i.imgsafe.org/4ecafc4.jpg

      The color scheme works, right out of the box 🙂

    • Jonathan Merritt

      If you have any kind of felony, or even some misdemeaners involving pot possesion years ago,
      Your not getting into Canada. Sorry

  13. Victoria

    I’d be interested in Janice’s opinion about Scalia’s death. Was he good or bad for 290’s?

  14. New Person

    Janice and all in the law suit, Thank You very much! I believe I see the silver lining you’re expressing.

    “In trying to prevent the thing they want prevented, the government just opened the floodgates in legal documentation.”

    On the surface, the lawsuit is against the Passport Identifier. But directly related to the Passport Identifier is the sex offender registry. Without the registry, then there is no one available for the Passport Identifier.

    In the lawsuit, it listed the deaths as a result of the registry. That alone stopped the pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for those registrants. It revealed a mortal consequence because of the registry. The consequence is an unintended mortal punishment that the government enacted. All the names listed are facts. Those deaths serve as a parallel to the possible consequence to the registry as does the reference to WWII identifiers.

    Although there are four John Doe in the lawsuit, I will focus on one – John Doe 3. John Doe 3 had received a Certificate of Rehabilitation as well as had his case expunged. Thus John Doe is no longer a convicted sex offender and was relieved to registration in any jurisdiction. Doe 3 is restored his full rights as a citizen. Doe travels around the world to do his business as a citizen with fully restored rights.

    The identifier passed put the Congress and President’s signature on a binding bill to trample upon Doe’s fully restored rights as a Citizen of the United States of America as the bill is written. This bill will negatively affect Doe 3’s commerce as a citizen whose rights were fully restored. But it should speak volumes that the contract with the Judicial Law of California to be adhered to nationally in respect to John Doe 3 has been reneged. This is “ex post facto”, a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences before the enactment of the law.

    That exposes punishment in a checkmate move because it reveals the US Government will be hindering John Doe 3’s commerce as a citizen with fully restored rights as declared by the State of California. And because Doe 3’s commerce is affected by the US Government, similarly, Doe 1 shares the same punishment for the right of commerce. Doe 1 is still a registrant. Hence, if punishment exists for Doe 3 (a fully restored citizen), then it must still be punishment for Doe 1 (a registrant) because it affects commerce. Otherwise, it will pose an equal protection case if Doe 3 is relieved and Doe 1 is not as the US Government is now picking winners and losers in commerce. Again, a check mate move.

    John Doe 2 is interesting as one of the possible reasons for travel, besides commerce, is for spiritual reasons. This implies the US Government is willing to prevent Doe 2 from travelling for religious reasons. Very interesting as one of the components the US was founded was for freedom of religion.

    John Doe 4 is multifaceted as it revealed the state of Hawaii reneged on his original terms, but nonetheless he would still have to have an identifier for being involved with a minor. Now married with foreigner who is unable to visit due to visa problems, the US Government will be an accomplice to denying his right to travel in his right in pursuit of happiness, separating him from his wife. The US Government has made the US a larger prison for Doe 4 as he is prevented from venturing out of the US due to the identifier as well as sharing of information to other governments. Although Doe 4 served probation time, many of us have served behind bars and separated from our loved ones. We served our time, get out from behind bars, and want to be around our families. Yet in Doe 4’s case, the US Government is essentially imprisoning him from his own wife. Yikes!

    The identifier is an extension of registration. The plaintiffs show how the identifier will have irreparable harm to each respective plaintiff. Once the identifier has been deemed unconstitutional as well as “Ex Post Facto”, then it will lay siege against the registration as a whole. The registration has already caused deaths, as documented in the lawsuit. The identifier is an extension of that logic.

    I haven’t even talked about equal protection amongst other convicts with identifiers or registration.

    In short, when this bill was passed and signed by the President of the US, they knowingly acknowledge to disregard California State Law of fully restoring the rights of a citizen as well as declare that one of its residents is no longer a sex offender convict. Then the parallel here is Frank Lindsay.

    While the passing of the bill left a mark, it might because it left a mark that Janice and all now have proof as well as standing in their lawsuit. I commend Janice and the four plaintiffs. I commend all of you on this website. If it were not for all of you, I would not have a glimmer of hope.

  15. Kevin

    One thing I don’t understand is how the plaintiffs will counter when it is brought up that the US is not restricting travel at all. No one is being prevented from leaving the US. It is the destination country that is denying entry – something the US has no control over. Furthermore, one can always argue that the Green Notices are nothing more than a collateral consequence of a sex offense conviction. In essence, the notices are akin to your local law enforcement agency sending out notifications to a community that a sex offender is moving in – a process that goes on in many locals in the US.

    I’m sure Janice knows exactly how to counter these arguments, but for the life of me I don’t have a clue what they would be.

    • Mike

      This could be countered by showing how this law has the effect of preventing travel which is similar to how the South used literacy tests and the poll tax to prevent African Americans from voting. The stated purpose is for one thing but the effect is for another. The law also singles out persons on the registry as many others more dangerous are not harmed, ie convictions for drug dealing, aggravated assault etc.
      As far as the notices, the green notice that is sent means that the person is likely to commit an offense again and this is done without any facts in evidence.
      We have nothing to lose by going forward and pursuing this case vigorously.

      • Timmr

        In 2003, the court weighed heavily the government intent and downplayed the effects. They could do this by using the argument that the re-offense rate was “frightening and High”, backing it up by one (we know now) flawed study and creating a sense of emergency. Cessation of constitutional protections is always the unfortunate result of a perceived emergency.
        The government can use the sense of urgency or emergency argument to justify the law, but I can’t see the government winning this argument now based on the facts. not only is the problem hyped up, but there is no evidence that RC’s traveling is the source of the problem.
        Just musing here, but there are a lot of high paid government lawyers working right now on a new argument. I am confident Janice and team are analyzing all the possible arguments they may throw out. That is why I have backed them with a donation.

        • Janice Bellucci

          Thank you for your support, Timmr, both financial and otherwise! We need more people like you in order to defeat the International Megan’s Law.

    • NPS

      That’s a very good point. I think the issue should (and I’m sure Janice and co. are address this) tackle the green notice. It’s inflammatory (libelous) and a denial of due process. What I don’t understand is why should a foreign country be notified that I’m a visiting registrant when my neighbors don’t receive a notification about my living in their neighborhood. If a person is not on the public registry, that means there isn’t a notification. So why notify a foreign entity. The same goes for people who have an expungement, certificate of rehabilitation or (in other states) have fallen of the registry. It makes no sense.

      Now, I’m not saying that those who are on a public registry should have a green noticed sent. That would be a violation of due process and therefore should not be sent. But the explanations above could cover those questions the defendants in this case might bring up.

    • David Kennerly

      I believe, though I am also no lawyer, that the INTENT of the law will come into play in a court challenge. The intent of the law is clearly to keep Registrants from travel and explicitly stated by Chris Smith on the floor of the House multiple times. I transcribed his victory speech recently from a video available on YouTube and posted it on this forum in which he makes plain his intention to restrict Registrants (or “convicted pedophile’s” as he has put it numerously) ability to travel and which I post below, again

      Also, his dreadful cosponsor Ann Wagner has said in her speeches that “sex offenders having passports is UNACCEPTABLE”. These are examples of the motivations going into the bill and which give lie to their stated, and contradictory, assertions for the intentions of the law.
      ——————————–
      Chris Smith:
      “It was a group of Thai TIP officials, eight years ago, came to my office and I often meet with TIP delegations, and I asked them “If you knew a convicted pedophile was coming to Bangkok, what would you do?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Applause.

      • Concerned Citizen

        The intention of the law is to close the loophole that enabled registrants to escape having to register by moving overseas. Registration is a punishment, and this loop hole was allowing registrants to escape their punishment. But since registration is not legally punishment they had to carefully craft a law and ascribe to it an alternate plausible intention, namely reducing sex trafficking.

      • Timmr

        David, I do hope they prove the real intent behind the facade. If you want to know what they intended, look at what they say. I’d like to go back and see some of the testimony for laws from Megan’s Law to today, and see what people said to justify those laws. See how much was concern for public safety and how much purely revenge. Anyone know how to find those archives?

        • steve

          It’s all 100% revenge. Stats grossly inflated, mis-leading facts about recidivism. I think it’s key to differnatiate pedophiles from first time offenders.The public was made to believe If you’re on the registry you are a pedophile. And yes true pedophiles most likely do have a lot of victims and have a mental disorder but those are few and far between.

        • Jonathan Merritt

          And it was my understanding that Civil Commitment in States like the one I reside in (South Carolina) were intended for actual sexually violent predators and pedohiles. The very fact that a registrant was never selected for an evaluation and a civil court proceeding should illustrate that such persons are not pedophiles or sexual predators.

        • Janice Bellucci

          According to mental health professionals, it’s important to distinguish between the terms “pedophile” and “child molester”. The term “pedophile” is a mental health diagnosis, not a crime and there are individuals who are pedophiles who have never harmed a child. A “child molester” is someone who has harmed a child and may or may not be a pedophile.

  16. Dray

    Steve, not all pedophiles have a lot of victims, and they two have the same low reoffense rate. So if anyone that has not reoffened for 20 years they should get off registry as well .

  17. Terry

    Not being an attorney by profession, what exact legal arguments will be used (involving prior rulings and precedents) and which specific Latin words apply!, I cannot say. Janice knows these things and can argue appropriately.
    But like most people, I can develop thought experiments, analogies, similes, etc. Mike gave the example of “literacy tests” as laws that sort of made sense on their face, but were used for an entirely different and diabolical purpose. Meagan’s Law makes sense to many people as a way for the police to keep tabs on dangerous predators. But as with many laws, the real world application is a horror! If the concentration of effort was to track Level III violent and repeat offenders, you’d be hard pressed to argue against that. But this law, as we know, has morphed into an extreme broad generalization of anyone convicted (or not) of any crime that could, in any sense, be sexual in nature. Like branding an inattentive driver who hits and kills a traffic cop and a guy who executes an officer sitting in his squad car, both “Cop Killers!” Maybe technically true, but pretty damn misleading, don’t you think?!
    And for the courts to rule that being on a sex registry is not punishment but simply regulatory is like the gravity defense…”sure I shoved him when we were standing on the roof, but I didn’t kill him – gravity and the hard concrete did!” The US doesn’t deny travel to anyone – that’s for the other countries to determine. “We only tell customs that an evil monster who will rape and kill their women and children is about to cross their border…what they do with that information is entirely up to them!”
    Anytime all offenses of any kind are lumped into one broad category, all offenders are then presumed to be the worst of the worst. Regulations, purposed too often for hidden agendas, are guilty most of the time of gross over generalization. This is the inherent unfairness that even the law itself does not permit. A death by other than suicide or accident, will result in charges ranging from involuntary manslaughter to first degree murder. To not adjudicate without looking at the circumstances and calling all cases first degree murder would be insane. But that is exactly what Megan’s Law and passport stamping does.
    Having read Janice’s suit, I believe she addresses these issues very well, and I for one, will be sending her money to help the cause.
    Sorry for the long rant!

    • Jonathan Merritt

      We have become a demonized class of individuals by society that has been spoon fed every conceivable lie and who swallows it readily since they already hate and condemn us.
      The word pedophile is such a term that upstanding and bigoted self righteous love to hear pass their lips as these types were always too upstanding and politically correct to use the N word.
      Now they have a group that they can love to hate and feel good about it because its so socially acceptable. So long as this registry exists, We will be the N****rs!!

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you for your kind words and your financial support, Terry!

  18. Joe Shmo

    Janice—in your response to the Defendants you specifically (and accurately) state that this lawsuit and motion for PI is not about the SO registry in general but only about the IML and its provisions. If the case is decided in your favor (especially on the ex post facto and due process claims), will that statement preclude the decision from being used to support a new suit against registries in general?

  19. Hari Bol!

    This is the first I am hearing of this law. Can someone provide a reference to the law?

    I recently obtained a passport and traveled to the Middle East and India without any obstructions, questions, or otherwise. Previously traveled to Australia, Singapore, and Britain. Upon return to the US, I used the automated kiosk for re-entry and, unlike many others in line, did not get a big “X” on my receipt and was able to walk right through.

    Have they started enforcing this law?

    • James

      Wow a positive experience with this….we all have to be a little careful putting self restraining fences around ourselves.

      But we need good stories like this.

      Some links for you

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/515/text

      http://ojp.gov/smart/index.htm

      Thanks for the positive travel report…but are you a Registrant? Why would your experience be so different than others? This is not criticism…this is analysis…to help others.

      Congratulations and Best Wishes,James

      • HariBol!

        Yes, I am a registrant. Have been since 2001 for a misdemeanor 647.6(f)- lewd or lascivious act with a minor. I am not in the public registry due to the DOJ exemption, but I suspect this law does not care so much about that nuance.

        With respect to the below comment, nothing suspicious, just my experience. I traveled for 3 weeks during February and March of this year. I just returned.

        Anyway, I hope my positive travel experience might lower the anxiety of others who are planning international travel.

        • LK

          If you’re going to make stuff up, please make sure you know that 647.6 is not lewd lascivious w/ minor. Does the (f) stand for April Fools Day? Looks like the trolls are here.

        • Joe

          @HariBol! – I too am confused about your account. How a registerable sex offense conviction – even a misdemeanor, even from 50 years ago – does not lead to the kiosk spitting out a marked receipt and result in secondary inspection upon returning to the US is contrary to everything I have heard.

          And you must be talking about 647.6 – Annoy and Molest a child under 18 – which is eligible for exclusion from the web site but registerable nevertheless, and NOT to be confused with L&L Conduct with a child. One would think that anyone convicted of a mere 647.6 would know the difference

        • PK

          Joe, I would think being subjected to Secondary Immigration Inspection would be the least of our worries. They suck and they always will suck, who cares about that?

          I’m just miffed on how he succeeded in traveling to the UK, Australia, and Singapore. That’s really the bigger issue.

        • Joe

          My point is that a person not subject to Secondary Inspection by US Customs / Immigration is (most likely / 100%?) NOT required to register as a sex offender.

          Such a person may travel wherever they please without notification, including the UK, Australia, and Singapore. That is how he ‘succeeded’. But that is only what I am surmising from the information presented.

        • PK

          Secondary Immigration Inspections and International Travel Notifications are 2 different things entirely. One has no affect on the other.

        • PK

          I was also convicted of a Misdemeanor in 2001 in New York. However I AM on the Registry.

          I’m wondering if it is the case that you’re not on the Registry, was a benefit for you to travel without disruptions.

        • James

          Dear HariBol!

          Thanks for the response…I suspect that…well, PK has it right, the Misdemeanor aspect saved you…and a very good attorney.

          I am glad that this worked out for you…I found an extremely inexpensive flight from the west coast to Sweden last night…like under $500 rt…I am thinking, if I can find the time, to just jump on a flight to see what happens.

          I know I can’t go to Latin America or Asia….but I still think Europe is good; being a history buff this is nice….lol

          Thanks for the feedback…should I, or may I ask, what is a DOJ exemption? Were you on federal land or something?

          Good luck,

          Best Wishes, James

        • PK

          James,

          Have you heard any travel reports about Sweden?

          Please do report back here or with Paul Rigney about the outcome of your journey, as that would be helpful for everyone.

        • James

          PK…no, I haven’t heard anything positive regarding Sweden, but as I have noted, I did travel Europe extensively in 2014….I was looking for a flight to Paris, maybe Rome and stumbled on this Stockholm flight at a ridiculously low fare…

          I doubt if I will take the flight, it will be early May regardless. In any case, I will of course report back any experience, good or bad.

          I was reading the Gov’s Response to the March 30 Hearing…and I got a sense that I maybe will be good all this year…after this, not so much.

          I was too busy to travel in 2015…as I am now, but I think I had better start making time…2016 may be my last good year to travel.

          We will see, but I will keep this good group of people informed on how it goes.

          Best Wishes, James

        • HariBol!

          Hi James,

          I have heard nothing about travel to Sweden as my focus was on Dubai and India. For Dubai, I obtained a visa directly at the Dubai International Airport. It was good for 30 days. For India, I obtained an e-Visa, also good for a single entry into India and also good for 30 days.

          Despite some of the nonsensical rhetoric written in response to my travel (not yours, of course, James as you seem quite positive and rational), the fact remains is that I was not flagged or questioned in any non-standard way for re-entry to the United States. That is simply a fact. I am unclear why anyone would find it productive or useful to negate a factual experience with contrived logic to the contrary.

          Regardless, and to be clear, I am an RSO and I do not appear on the public registries due to the DOJ exemption for certain offenses, for which mine falls under.

          Is ICE fully aware of my history when I go through customs? Of course they are. All other suppositions are speculative.

          I am quite sure that many people have had difficulties traveling internationally. I am just not one of them. I felt it important to relay that so that those who are considering travel should pursue it and have their own experiences to report.

          My account is a firsthand account. It is not what we often see in these forums of hearsay.

          I must admit that I was quite nervous about the whole trip but it was uneventful with respect to the authorities. When I went in to announce my travel plans, they actually changed my address to Dubai, U.A.E. and changed it back when I returned. No detailed questioning about who I would stay with, no requests for addresses, contacts, or otherwise.

          As a point of information I had an excellent vacation, experienced a lot of awesome and oft overwhelming sights and sounds in India. Loved it.

          For others making arguments against the case for traveling, if you wish your life to be governed by fear and that prohibits you from attempting travel, then that is your dharma. Pursue it and stay comfortably nestled in your home town wherever that is and enjoy the fruits of your paralysis. Fear mongering has no place here. There are important and relevant legal battles that must be fought with vigilance and the type of hype being promoted by some is not helpful.

          @James-enjoy your travels!

        • James

          Dear HariBol!

          Thanks for the very complete responses. Everyone’s situation is different, and it would be nice if they treated us like the individuals we are.

          Personally, I think I am a little too paranoid on the travel issue…this is why the Sweden trip looked interesting…a flight for $442 rt from the West Coast looked great even if they turned me around…and it would be a means of testing my situation.

          I think I will do Europe first…but India would be….as you discovered, very interesting!

          I think I would apply for a visa first again to see what happens.

          FWIW, I did go get Certified Copies of my court paperwork….surprisingly, I did not even remember that I got a withdrawal of plea and dismissal of the case back in the 1990’s.

          For those individuals with less serious offenses…(not me)….carrying around what you were convicted of may be helpful.

          They may deport me, but I am going to document it pretty well…and force them to do likewise.

          Nothing ventured, nothing gained…this world is not for the timid…so I am going to give it a shot.

          Thanks for the positive report.

          And good luck in all the things you do in this life.

          Best Wishes, James

        • Joe

          By “registry” do you mean the Megans Law website? A conviction for 647.6 will land you on the registry, but can easily be excluded from the public web site.

          Customs / Immigration has everyone’s entire criminal record at their disposal. It is not driven by who is listed on the Megan’s Law website.

          It is my understanding that a current requirement to register as a sex offender will always lead to being flagged for secondary inspection by ICE/CBP.

        • HariBol!

          Hi Joe,

          I am not on Megan’s law website. I am an RSO, however.
          As I mentioned in an above response, yes ICE does have our entire criminal histories at their immediate disposal.

          I used the automated kiosk for re-entry. I was not flagged and when passing through immigration only asked where I traveled, the purpose of my trip. where I work, and, I assume, because I work in medical research, asked what I researched. That’s it.

    • PK

      That seems suspicious. Are you an RSO?

      You mentioned that you previously traveled to Australia, Singapore, and Britain.

      When did you travel to those countries?

  20. Terry

    A little help?
    Sorry to ask for info that everyone on this site appears to know, but…
    What is the public registry, I guess as opposed to being an RSO? And a DOJ exemption? How does that work? Also, what is 647.6? Federal or State and where do you find it?
    I agree that on return to USA, a little extra hassle is small potatoes, unless you only allowed one hour for your connecting flight. Being denied entry to your travel destination and sent back at the cost of maybe thousands…well.
    Maybe US Marshal’s sent HariBol’s info to Dubai and India, but given that it occurred in 2001 and was a misdemeanor, those countries allowed him through. That would be great to know because it means countries are receiving more info than just “registered sex offender is travelling to your country with likely intent to commit crimes” sort of notice that we have heard about. Any first hand info of travel success or failure will enlighten us all.
    For my part, I traveled to Ecuador in 2013…no problem. Tried to travel to Colombia in 2015 and customs pulled up Angel Watch on the screen, and sent me home.
    Thinking Europe now, so any experiences other than those already mentioned would be most appreciated.

    • HariBol!

      I am uncertain whether or not the local agency forwarded any information at all to Dubai or India. My pass through Dubai customs lasted all of about 30 seconds. India took slightly longer, but, then again, everything in India takes a bit longer. The fact that I got an advanced e-visa did speed up the process considerably and actually passed through faster than Indian nationals as I was only one of about 5 people in the e-visa line.

      Just speculation, but perhaps UAE and India are not yet on-board with Angel Watch or any other type of electronic checks for such things while other countries, such as Columbia, are. UAE cares a great deal more about things like drugs, prescription or otherwise. IF you are planning a trip there for any reason, check the banned substances list before going through screening-it is very extensive-no antidepressants, pain-killers, many sleep aids, etc…

      I will be planning a trip to Jamaica next year to visit a friend and will provide an update at that time. Seems like this site could be a great forum for reporting first-hand experiences from RSO travelers.

      Let’s hope the litigation going through the courts helps put an end to this.

      • Timmr

        We may not know the reasons you were not denied entry to Dubai or India until you see the correspondence between the various agencies involved. Same with everyone else. Whatever algorithm or dart throwing they use is not revealed. It is just speculation, but maybe your medical research had a deciding factor. I do not have the money to gamble on taking a trip to India or Spain, both of which countries I would like to see, and to be turned back and lose my savings. Excuse my ignorance, but I do not know what an e-visa is, I only traveled internationally one time a long time ago, but it sounds like it would be some type of approval to enter a country, without taking a leap of faith?

        • PK

          He’s not on the Registry- that’s how. However he stated that he was convicted of a sex offense.

        • James

          Dear Timmr, just for your general information, Spain is very cool…I was quite surprised since I was prepared to not like the place. No entry problems in 2014. I lived there for a couple of weeks…very nice.

          One way or another I am going to get out of here this year….and I’ll let you know how it goes…but, even with all this terrorism problem, I honestly think you would be good.

          I am less sure about India since you have to get a visa, e-visa, an internet application.

          We will see.

          (I do know that you can get a visa to Brazil, and still be deported upon arrival….damn!)

          Best Wishes, James

        • PK

          “One way or another I am going to get out of here this year”

          High Fives !!

        • Timmr

          Thank you James. You know this law makes me want to travel now, when before it was just a passing thought.

        • Frank

          My wife and I planned to do a little travel in our golden years. Learning right here about “Angel Watch” and the rest of the crap this country is doing to our family, no travel in our near future.

          They have incarcerated my entire family. Soon we will be restricted to our State. Then our County. Then our City. “If we can save just one child”

  21. alex

    so im confused. if im not on the website and just renew my passport do i have that special mark on it or not

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 *

.