A Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed on February 19 asking the U.S. District Court to stop implementation of International Megan’s Law (formerly HR 515 and now Public Law 114-119). If granted, the motion would temporarily prohibit the federal government from both adding a conspicuous, unique identifier to the passports of registrants and notifying foreign countries of registrants’ plans to travel internationally.
Six declarations were Included with the Motion, including declarations from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), Dr. Tom Tobin of Sharper Future and criminal defense attorney Alex Landon. The declarations of by ATSA and Dr. Tobin included statements that International Megan’s Law will not halt child sex trafficking and could result in significant harm to hundreds of thousands of registrants.
“We are grateful for the support of ATSA in our efforts to stop implementation of International Megan’s Law,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. ATSA is an international organization dedicated to preventing sexual abuse through research, evidence-based practice, public policy and community strategies that lead to the effective assessment, treatment, and management of individuals who have sexually abused or are at risk to abuse.
A hearing date of March 30 was requested when the motion was filed. The federal government’s response to the motion is currently due on March 4, however, both dates could be postponed if the government requests a delay.
Related
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Interesting question in an unrelated case – Justice Thomas asked his first question in 10 years from the bench in a case about domestic violence and gun ownership – asking whether a misdemeanor conviction of any other law “suspends a constitutional right.” I can’t find the transcript right now, but wouldn’t one argue that a misdemeanor SO offense suspends many right?
food for thought
If I could make a suggestion to Janice and the team for whatever it’s worth.
I think that when people log into this site there could be a more prominent Banner that is asking for donations. There could be a letter accompany it which contains information that states the specifics as to why you are being asked to donate, the seriousness of the law, what IML entails, the expected costs and a statement that the money you donate is going directly to fund the fight against IML, not say a new couch for someones office. People might be hesitant if its there first time to the website and don’t even no about IML.
Also many people who visit this site are not from California and they need to see how this impacts every registrant and how CARSOL is more then just California.
When i was first logging into this site I was a little confused about what this site actually was used for but I’m glad i found it.
I know Janice and everyone else are fighting battles other then IML and there could be another link to donate money for the general law fund.
Having been on this site awhile now, I know Janice could be making more money doing something else and also represent a different clientele that come with a lot fewer headaches and the fierce opposition RSO ‘s elicit from the public.
It can’t be easy standing up for so many people who so few stand up for.
I can’t imagine another lawyer running a site like this with so much compassion, empathy and dedication, truly remarkable.
From the bottom of my heart I am thankful for what Janice, others on this site and the fellow RSO organizations’s that don’t get the credit they deserve, its a thankless job but i thank you.
Donation update: Today we received two significant donations — one for $5,000 and one for $10,000 — for the IML lawsuit! This brings our total to about $21,000. There is still plenty of time to make a donation before the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is heard on March 30. Regardless of what happens that day, the case will continue in order to challenge that law.
After about a month I received this letter from my senator Angus King an independent.
Dear Rob,
As you may be aware, H.R. 515, International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders, was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2016, after passing the House by voice vote on January 26, 2105, and the Senate by unanimous consent on December 17, 2015. With respect to your concerns about Section 240 of the law, which authorized unique passport identifiers for certain sex offenders covered by the law, it is important to recognize that holding a U.S. passport is not a right but a privilege—for example, anyone who is incarcerated cannot be issued a passport nor can anyone who owes in excess of $2,500 in child support. I think the use of an identifier, in lieu of an outright prohibition on holding a passport, is reasonable.
Please feel free to contact me on other matter before the Senate in the future.
Clearly know one understands the implications and the basic facts.
I found these tidbits interesting.
He says “certain sex offenders” will have the unique identifier which is false as all will have it.
He also doesn’t understand that it is more then a unique identifier, it is preventing people from traveling outside the U.S
He mentions being incarcerated and owing child support. But fails to see how almost all sex offenders are not incarcerated or under probation anymore
SCOTUS frequently referred to IML in an argument this morning. Here is the full transcript. It’s 65 pages long, but numerous references to IML exist here.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-5238_6khn.pdf
All I Want to do is have a nice vacation with my family I’m not there to look at Children , I’m there to vacation like I used to be able to do when I got off parole. I used to take a cruise to Mexico twice a year for 10 years after I got off parole, the only reason I did that is because it was easy and inexpensive and I can afford to take my whole family but now I can’t even get on the cruise-ship. So how could I have done this for 10 years after parole but now I can’t and they don’t think that’s an extra punishment? Hello! They are punishing me yet again .
I’m still confused about an aspect of International Megan’s Law.
I read in Reply Brief of Petitioner (Nichols) page 10:
“8 U.S.C. § 2250 now includes a criminal provision punishing sex offenders who are required to register under SORNA, who fail to provide departure notification of intended foreign travel, and who travel or attempt to travel to a foreign country.”
I’m registered in NY which is NOT a SORNA State.
Despite the fact that I don’t live or work in NY (as stated previously)
Does this mean that IML does not apply to me?
I sent my story via the contact page, as a general message.. haven’t heard back from anyone as of yet but i am willing to contribute. I hope someone was able to read my story..
Well all I’m doing is visiting another state. The State I’m going to says I have 10 days. As far as the awa goes it doesn’t say how many days I have.so therefore I assume I follow state laws as far as interstate travel.
The awa clearly makes no sense. Does anyone agree? I guess if a lawyer could explain it like I’m a 2 year old.
John doe Utah who do I send the itinerary too? Is this all I would have to do?
But is California an AWA-compliant State? Are all States?
Also does it not matter I’m no longer required to register in my home state? I’m not on probation or parole.
Perhaps CARSOL’s challenge to the International Megan’s Law can be crafted in such a way that if successful, could be used as stepping stone for challenging Megan’s Law? If the high courts acknowledge that there are constitutional issues with the International Megan’s Law…perhaps the same apply to Megan’s Law? Perhaps get the media on board with raising public awareness of how these laws strip American citizens of rights they should have thanks to the constitution, bill of rights, etc. No single subset of American citizens (whether you are a 290, a politician/public servant convicted of extortion or taking bribes, a murderer, drug dealer, investment scammer, whatever) should be singled out and stripped of these rights. 290 restrictions alone prove how RSO’s have become political punching bags.
I know…wishful thinking. My guess, the courts will be extremely careful (even more so than normal) about what and what they don’t say so as to NOT jeopardize the legality of Megan’s Law. After all…we know how much money is made (government jobs, treatment providers, etc) on the backs of registered folk.
John doe Utah sorry one more question do I report it or send it? To the police then in my home state? Will this cover me? Thanks so much for the help too!
That’s a problem too is that I don’t know what level I would be.
So to my understanding even though I don’t have to register and I’m off parole/probation If I just travel out of state to another state for longer than 7 days I have a federal obligation to register afterward in my homestate? Or the state I’m visiting? And I must provide itinerary to my home state prior to traveling. Do I just determine my tier level myself? And then just figure out on my own if I register every 90days,6 months or once a year? There has to be many people in violation of this. I have never been even told of this requirement. But to clear things up I am know just trying to determine if I have to register in the state I am vacationing in even though they said no I have 10 days or if I have to within 3 days of return have to register in my home state? Thank You all! You are very imformative.
Whenever IML makes it to a SCOTUS hearing, maybe Chief Justice John Roberts will take a broad view and again realize (much like he commented in the recent SO case) that: 1. no non-attorney layperson could possibly be expected to understand all the various, multifaceted nuanced requirements of these laws, and 2: the attendent punishments are much too severe.
2) The attendant punishments are much too severe. And 3) unfairly applied. This is going off on a tangent, but what is the status of the petition to have the State of California update its registry entries? How long has it been? Three years? Any process? As registrants, we have five days to update information on our end or face prison. The reasoning behind this goes that it is necessary so the public has accurate information about former sex offenders, so that they can “take appropriate actions to protect themselves.” But the State has shown that giving the public accurate information to assess the dangerous level of former offenders is not that important, due to its criminal disregard for updating it in a timely manner. This leaves the intent of the registry to not be to have accurate information, but to provide a trip stone so they will that much easier fall into prison.
Frank im in the same state of limbo as u i no longer have to register.seems like all of this pertains to people that are still on the registary i am so confused.i am afraid to travel for fear of being put back on the registsry im my home state. I wish i could get some clairifaction on this.
Yesterday was our first hearing date wasn’t it. The government needed to respond??
I see that the govt did indeed submit their response to the injunction request on Friday. If there is someone with a Pacer subscription that could post it here, that might be good.
JohnDoeUtah
March 1, 2016 at 11:28 pm
It is a strict liability offense. It does not matter if your state has a system in place for you to report your travel plans, federal law puts it on the offender to comply, and has no mention of state law or policies.
You would be incorrect. The IML does not require that you inform your states. If you read today’s arguments before the Supreme Court Court, regarding the guy they prosecuted for not telling them he was leaving the U.S. and going to the Philipines, the US Attorney is arguing that IML has no requirement for state action and that the offender has to tell the United States only.
You have a separate duty under federal law to register once you travel across state lines. That’s why once you travel in interstate commerce, even if your ten years is up under state law, you are required to register in the State you move to for the length of time and period required by the AWA from that point on.
Your state convictions fall under the AWA, pursuant to Sec. 111(1), (5)(A)(i) and (ii), and (6). Those sections are the ones that are meant to capture state convictions. Notice (6) define a criminal offense as stated in (1) as any state offense, among others. Notice that (5)(A)(iii) and (iv) regard federal and military offenses separately. Also read the Guidelines, where the U.S. Attorney is saying all sex offender have a state and federal duty to register.
John doe utah… it say a state does not have to have a thing in place for you to register under sorna. So as I said before I’m going to Hawaii for 9 days. This is what I’m going to do is provide an itinerary to my home state and try to voluntary register and then I’m going to hawaii and I will try to voluntary register there. Then when I return to minnesota I will attempt to register again. Should cover me right? What happens if they won’t let me register? I still don’t understand the steps I guess to travel interstate. The guy at sorna told me to provide my current residence police a I ternary and that’s it said I should be fine. I feel as if though somewhere along the lines I have a duty under federal to register. Both states tell me no. Are they not obligated to tell me I have a duty to register under federal law becouse there not sorna compliant? I assumed the guy at sorna has an obligation to inform me that I would have to register but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I feel as if he’s just not including somthing. Can you clear this up for me please? Thank You
Here’s a copy of the government’s memorandum in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction which was filed on March 4:
https://www.womenagainstregistry.org/resources/pdf/IML/30-main.pdf
This was the Government’s opening monologue:
“The IML continues the notifications already provided through ICE HSI’s Operation Angel Watch, which seeks to prevent child sex trafficking or tourism by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents abroad by identifying registered sex offenders whose travel plans, along with other factors, suggest intent to engage in child sex tourism or child sex trafficking in other countries.”
Could someone please explain how Sexting or Attempted Sodomy could be construed, into Child Sex Trafficking or Sex Tourism?
He continues:
“Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not shown a certainly impending injury traceable to the IML provisions they seek to challenge”
Really? No Harm? I couldn’t enter into Mexico, into a place where I HAD A JOB to go to, I couldn’t go to my be job because I was DENIED ENTRY INTO MEXICO.
Not for Child Sex Trafficking. Not for Child Sex Tourism— but for Misdemeanor Attempted Sodomy.