A hearing will be held on March 30 during which a decision is expected by a federal judge regarding whether to grant a Preliminary Injunction that would stop implementation of all or part of the International Megan’s Law (IML). Judge Phyllis Hamilton will preside over that hearing in Courtroom 3 at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m., however, three additional matters are also on the judge’s schedule that morning. A press conference will be held immediately after the hearing.
“The IML has two basic provisions — notification and identifiers — that must be stopped before the physical safety of registrants and those with whom they travel are put at significant risk,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.
The IML’s notification provision allows the federal government to notify foreign governments when a registrant plans to visit or move there. The identifiers provision requires the federal government to add a “conspicuous unique identifier” to registrants’ passports.
“Families will be torn apart if the IML is implemented,” stated Bellucci. “In addition, registrants will be financially harmed because they will be unable to conduct business overseas.”
Congress passed the IML on February 1 and the President signed the bill into law on February 8. A lawsuit challenging the IML was filed on February 9 and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed on February 19. The federal government responded to the motion on March 4 and a reply to that response was filed on March 11. Declarations used in the case have been sealed in order to protect the identities of the plaintiffs.
Related
- Complaint – CONFORMED – Feb 2016
- Complaint – Amend 1 – CONFORMED
- PI – Motion – CONFORMED
- PI – Reply – CONFORMED
- PI – Response – 4 Mar 2016
I must admit after the governments response I felt a bit crushed. I saw how they basically did a dump of case law to basically hope anything would attach and to wear down its opposition because of lack of infinite resources!
But after seeing what Janice did to the government’s March 4th; I feel back in the saddle. It’s as if she had her own unlimited resources; citation after citation she tore apart, firing back with more of her own or supporting further the one’s she used. I am so impressed and hopeful now!!
Thank you, Janice–you’re first rate!
“The truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God”, is this what court is all about? It looks like the Government is trying to bail out lies with a strainer and even a blind person can see this. I hope the judge has some sight. Great work Janice and team.
Whoa… did the Defendants actually write this in their response?
”
A preliminary injunction would also be inappropriate because Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships and public interest weigh decidedly against an injunction.
”
Is this just me or does this sound like a similar reason that allowed the US government to create Japanese Internment camps on US soil?
.
Also, the Defendants wrote this:
”
In addition, Plaintiffs’ assertion of possible physical injury is speculative.
”
I really like how Janice and team retorted with John Doe #7 and that it will kill him upon landing upon a particular country. But on a local level, Frank would like to counter this “possible physical injury is speculative”.
Great job to Janice and team. It really seemed like the US Govt is trying to scare the Plantiffs with a plethora of cases as well as not specifying empirical evidence.
You guys are all courageous!
I want to be john doe #,8.
I want to be on this.
I haven’t looked at every John doe in this case, apologies.
I’m wondering Is there a John Doe in this lawsuit that hasn’t committed a crime against a minor? I only say that because it seems the government is construing a minor as also a child, even though a child can drive or fly a deadly weapon at age 15. Since the government is notifying countries for all sex offenders wouldn’t a john doe that subsequent crime was against an adult that forces them to register basically make a fallacy out of the governments response and the IML law?
Also the government is notifying countries that A RSO is a danger to commit a crime, yet in some countries they are notifying there crime wasn’t even a crime in that country. For example Mexico’s age of consent varies from 12-15, there are many RSO’s who do not fall into those categories.
I also would love to be a John Doe in this case and would fly out if so needed.
I’m confused about the number of Does; when I first read this I thought there were only four Doe’s
I was doing research yesterday and found that there is a world-wide effort to come to terms with sex-tourism; you may want to google the Protect Act. there I found a St. John’s Law Review study that compares the effectiveness of four countries efforts on this matter. The US is not only the only country, they just decided they were the one’s with the suspects to link it to, us: Japan, Germany, Australia, Sweden were the other countries being compared. And they set the age of a child globally at 13 years, Rob. And as usual good ole US of A has the harshest punishment! and unlike Australia, who uses a video link on the foreign side to take testimony by victims during trial, the US in all of its grandeur appears to have a penchant for drama by bringing victims here to testify.
Well there are many interesting things to read I recommend doing so. And dont expect the UN or the world to be sympathetic to us if they have been convinced we are indeed a large subset of the problem! that’s another reason we need a win here. If the world begins to see us as the US does then there will be no where for us on this planet to go!
I am utterly shocked at how the government passes this law off as a minor burden, all justifiable because con-gress said it was a worthwhile cause (with zero evidence to support it’s assertions). I cannot see how the courts cannot view this as unlawful restraint. How can the forbidding of travel unless you report it 21 days in advance not be a restraint on freedom of movement?
Suspected or even convicted terrorists who are u.s. citizens but on the no-fly list can travel anywhere they want in the world TODAY – as long as they don’t get on a domestic flight to do it. They can walk into Mexico or take a freighter to France. Hundreds of thousands of Americans now cannot do that. And as Janice hammers home, there is no nexus, no correlation between being a registrant and travelling to commit trafficking. How can this stand?
There are two things going on here that are unprecedented and unequivocally unconstitutional: 1. Having to provide 21 day advance notice of your travel, and 2. having to carry the government’s message on your passport. In the end, I am hopeful but not as confident the practice of ‘sharing information’ will be found unconstitutional, but if #s 1 and 2 are considered constitutional, then the Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. At any rate, I am so proud of our cause for getting behind Janice and seeing the effort she has put forward on this. I know we are in the right, which will make it that much more painful and tragic if we do not prevail. Let’s dig deep and help keep her and her team going. This is a stellar legal team, and I am so thankful they are on the side of liberty and our Constitution.
I pray for the day when I can write a reply as articulately as the one presented by Janice. Just reminds me that I have a loooonnng way to go 🙂
When I first read the response to Janice’s Complaint, I did a quick scan and thought “this Judge really has her head up her …”. She is throwing out random prejudicial responses that don’t make sense and don’t actually answer in any reasonable way the specific complaints. Then, when I got to the bottom, I realized it was the rebuttal from the other side! My bad! So it’s just what you’d expect their side to say. If this is their best shot, rejoice my fellow punishees! Janice is going to give them a big boy spanking! Truly their nonsense doesn’t hold any water and they’re throwing everything they can at the wall, hoping something sticks. They have been lazy and they will pay for it.
Bottom line, the gross over generalization of the term “sex offender” as an equivalent for predator/sex trafficker/high risk child molester will be the law’s undoing. Why not just say all adult males are likely to be travelling to commit a crime so let’s put that on their passport. Or how about all Congressmen are corrupt, and they are likely travelling to solicit bribes, and thus will infect the countries they visit! Stamp their passports accordingly. Actually, that might be a good idea!
I’m a retired guy with modest means, but I recently sent Janice a hundsky. Sorry it couldn’t be more…she deserves it! Please help her (and all of us) in this fight.
Hopefully the liberal 9th circuit agrees with the plaintifs and the Appeals court does as well (because they will def appeal). Then the Supreme Court would have little incentive to hear further appeal unless someone else in another circuit sues and there is a circuit split.
It’s here and we’ll need that marked passport:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/03/14/as-u-s-passports-for-domestic-flights-loom-irs-can-now-revoke-passports/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix#7d3c2b2c34c3
” Now, there is a reprieve until January 22, 2018. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has issued a statement that, until then, residents of all states can continue to use their state driver’s license for domestic air travel. But by Oct. 1, 2020, every air traveler will need a Real-ID-compliant license, or another acceptable form of federal ID for domestic travel. The Real ID Act created a national standard for state-issued IDs. Some states initially refused to comply, fearing that the federal government would make a national database of citizens. “
Man that is scary and utterly b.s its like having the mark of the beast. The govt. Has gone crazy if u dont have a passport u cant fly domesticly thats just plain wrong and enfringes on the rights of all citzens not just registered citzens something needs to be done to curb the corrupt u.s. goverment.
Historically speaking it does not look good. The US Government blocked a lot of people from traveling in the 60’s and 70s for political reasons and the courts ruled in there favor most of the time. There is a lot of case law that exists that lets them control passports etc. It is amazing that you need papers in the land of the free that let you come and go.
I am curious if there can be a legal challenge made for Post-Facto? It would be nice to see this law not applied to 800,000 people. It could be argued then that the majority of people on the registry are not effected by it and therefor a useless law.
******* Possible Article to Help Alert *******
“…According to the 2001 report titled ‘The sexual exploitation of children in the United States Canada and Mexico” one of the only reports of its kind and endorsed by the DOJ stated that 96% of child sexual exploitation was non commercial related and is committed by a perpetrator in a position of trust such as a teacher, priest, coach, doctor, cop, relative or friend. …” seen on: http://mimesislaw.com
Thought this might be of interests – SMART’s Feb. 2016 newsletter on IML. The way they word this, sounds like RC need for advance notification will continue to be determined by the state. Maybe that is just my wishful interpretation.
http://ojp.gov/smart/pdfs/IML-Dispatch-2016.pdf
Thank you for carrying this suit. However, I would like to point out that the most obvious things are not necessarily the only very significant things. Even without this notice or mark on the passport, what remains of this bill is intense scrutiny of ALL registrants any time they want to travel, and intense notification of their state and their locality about their travel, when, where, etc., pretty much making it little different from wearing an ankle monitor with all your movements scrutinized. Yes, this will be done to ALL registrants, not only those for whom the notice will be sent. They are setting up a major checkpoint (and power bureaucracy) of all registrants, what they do, where they go, who they travel and associate with, etc.
All that automatically comes with intense scrutiny of the registrant, the record in particular, looking for any excuse to nail them for anything, setting them up for harassment and embarrassment at Customs. This bill requires the Feds to notify the state and the locale where the registrant registers about the travel, and who knows what other details will go with it. And having collected that record, you can rest assured, it will be sent to the receiving country, even though that notice might not go with it.
This bill also requires the US to seek to establish treaties around the world requiring this, and that will go a long way to trump this lawsuit if you don’t recognize that the notice and mark are not the only critical things in this law.
That record will get you rejected just as fast as any mark on the passport! You are getting diverted from the real problem. The mark on the passport is irrelevant if the record is sent even without that mark.
To get the mark taken off the passport and think you have accomplished something significant is naive, I;m sorry to say. You miss the point, which is exactly what the promoters of that bill;want you to miss. Yes, that notice they have been sending is far and away beyond anything in the record, even far and away beyond anything to do with fact or truth.
But the intense scrutiny, the notice to the locale and state, the sending of the record even without a mark on the passport — these are every bit as significant as the notice being sent. Please come to realize that and stop emphasizing the fight only against the notice and mark,or we will be left with a half win that oppresses us further.
I also note, this total package, and with them decidedly already have knowledge of the results of all registrants being rejected at borders nearly everywhere, makes for a strong argument that the intention and design is to violate the Constitution by barring travel. Knowing that doing this will prevent all travel beyond the border, as they know from them doing it for nearly three years already, and then doing this anyway means they know they are blocking all travel outside the country by registrants, and that is not allowed under the Constitution.
“At a Jan. 27 hearing, Smith (R-4th Dist.) said that he did not consider same-sex marriage to be a fundamental human right, as defined by the United Nations or various treaties.”
So Chris Smith does acknowledge that UN Human Rights are important or else he wouldn’t have mentioned them here.
Publicly identifying RSO’s jeopardizes their and their family’s safety. All you have to do is show the comments written by the public regarding the beating of Jared Fogel in prison. The venomous hatred demonstrated in those comments for RSO’s in the public forums shows the clear jeopardy RSO’s face…
Not a major point, but why does the government mis-state that SOR began in the late 80’s when it began in California in 1947. I wouldn’t expect them to mention the less than a decade earlier Nazi Germany registration where they got it from.
1) Figure how much money I as an RSO/RC spend on my last vacation.
2) Knowing that the last vacation might be my last vacation outside the USA.
3) Donate that amount of money to californiarsol to help Janice and her team fight the IML!
4) if I don’t donate I may never travel outside USA again.
I spend about $300 in Mexico so I will donate $300.00
I received a change.org petition about 2 lesbian women who were arrested in Kuwait because they had a LEGAL Tabacco product. However they are still being held and it appears it’s because of their lifestyle as gay women in a Muslim country. So yes proof that having and indentifier and notification of travel to some countries will put us in danger
“I am begging the US Government to do what it can to get my daughter and her partner out of jail and back to the States. They have clearly been targeted by the Kuwaiti government for their lifestyle, and could spend half their lives in prison for it.’
So, for any of you that feel ok saying, who may be going to the Injunction hearing on Wednesday?
Do we have a sense of how many people will be attending Wednesday’s Court Hearing in Oakland?
Janice will be speaking to the press immediately following it, as I understand.
We will have camera gear for recording that event and which may also be used for a documentary about IML and, I hope, we can rally as many people as possible to make a stand against it.
No one who doesn’t want to appear on camera should worry as any footage used will only be used with their consent. You can request to have your features blurred, as well, if you choose.
Anyone willing to be interviewed can also choose to do so anonymously.
I would like to get a sense of how many may be considering attending. Thank you.
Fantastic i wish i could attend but im not in calli but my heart ann payers are with u all.good luck janice ill be praying for you and a victory.
Go Janice.
“Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you.
Put them on the defensive and don’t ever apologize for anything.”
Harry S. Truman