ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Oct 19 – Los Angeles, Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

CaliforniaGeneral News

International Megan’s Law Injunction – No decision yet

2:30pm -This if from FAC as Janice speaks with media and others: — We just heard from those in the courtroom that today’s hearing for an injunction temporarily preventing the implementation of the International Megan’s Law (IML) is complete. Janice did a stellar job.

The judge in the case did not make a decision at the end of the hearing. Presumably she will take some time, digest, investigate the law and then issue an order in the very near future. Can take days, can take weeks, unlikely more.

We will keep you apprised as soon as we hear of the outcome.

So what’s next?

Today wasn’t the actual fight. This is just one of the battles along the way. We were seeking preliminary and temporary relief that would be in effect until the full court proceedings can be decided on. The full court proceeding will still come.

— More soon.

Join the discussion

  1. TG

    Thank you for the update. I’ve been waiting anxiously.

    • Rob

      Me too, I’ve been thinking about this date ever since Janice filed the injunction. I’’m nervously waiting the outcome, I probably shouldn’t let hope creep into my mindset but losing hope is not something i’m wiling to do.
      No matter the outcome today, thank you Janice and your team for all the hard work they have done. You guys have done your part and it’s now up to the judge too be able to look at the issue critically and past the data dump of false information the government submitted.
      No matter what happens the fight is not over today.

  2. T

    So have i wish i knew where i could view the pres conferance

  3. Lake County

    Attorney: Sex Offender Passport Marker Would Be Dangerous

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/passport-mark-sex-offenders-law-challenged-court-38022381

  4. James

    This is not unusual (waiting for a difficult ruling)…and this is a long fight; there may be many strange twists and turns along the way…but it is not a fight that we choose, this has been imposed on us…Registration was once simple, now it is cruel….and we have no choice except to actively and honestly take our just fight public.

    And continue to contribute to CARSOL of course….lol

    Be Good, James

  5. The Travelor

    Definitely got to get these Federal Screwballs off our case. This Senator has to go. I am, oh so very angry, with my government.

  6. Tuna

    “U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton questioned who besides border agents would see the passport and whether the marker would imply the person had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism.”

    In many countries, when you check into a hotel, or change money somewhere, or any number of other transactions, they ask for, and make, a copy of your passport photo page.

    • PK

      That’s especially true when you try to exchange money at a bank.

      They ALWAYS ask to see your Passport.

    • Joe

      I was just going to say the same thing. In a foreign country you have to use your passport for everything. Hotel, rental car, boarding a train or plane, age id for seniors, internet cafe in some countries, general identification. Try and show them your California Drivers License they will just laugh at you. Drivers licenses are for driving. Nothing else. Of course, several US States mark their registrants’ drivers licenses with big red letters “SEX OFFENDER”. Turns cashing a check, buying a six pack of beer or renting a video into a whole new adventure.

      Makes me wonder if the good judge has ever been outside the good ole US of A. Kind of like GWB who reportedly had been outside the US (beyond Mexico) just 3 times prior to becoming president. Pretty shaky for a guy of privilege with a dad who had a private 747 for 4 years.

    • Tuna

      After I posted the above, I was wondering if she possibly asked the question not because she was skeptical or didnt know the answer, but to elicit a response and get that into the record. Having said that, I thought Janice had covered these types of showing the passport issues in the actual lawsuit and motion itself already, and the judge would have supposedly read it already.

      • David H

        That’s what’s scary weight is given to questions asked and then answered; that’s where their focus will be in their ruling–on those questions and the judges interpretation. She is building her ruling

  7. PK

    It was my understanding that the Preliminary Injunction part of this, was only executed with motions and briefs by the Attorneys.

    If the Injunction was only based on those written arguments, all of that information was available weeks ago. However, I’m not sure if there was more information that was added today that needs to be considered prior to a decision.

    Were there actual oral arguments as well?

  8. steve

    I wish they would have printed Janice’s response to these questions. Would like to have seen questions to the other Attorney.

    “Hamilton also questioned whether the notification provision is new or something federal officials have already been doing. Kathryn Wyer, an attorney for the Department of Justice, said federal agencies notified other countries about registered sex offenders’ travels even before the new law.”

    “If it’s going to be the same, where’s the imminent harm to your clients if what they’re going to do is the same as what they have been doing,”

    U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton questioned who besides border agents would see the passport and whether the marker would imply the person had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism.

    “I’m not sure how you make that leap, that that’s what the message is,” the judge said. “Where does that come from?”

    • PK

      “I’m not sure how you make that leap, that that’s what the message is,” the judge said. “Where does that come from?”

      What did she mean by that?

      • PK

        Was the Judge asking this question of Janice or the Government?

      • David H

        i gathered she meant making the leap from identifier to sex tourist–which is nonsense to even ask; well maybe she needs an answer for her conclusion instead of her making the inference she asks the question

    • Rob

      “ where is the imminent harm if it’s something that has been going on” Is this a joke? This has been going on in secret and no one knows if they are going to be let into a country. The harm is my country telling the country i’m traveling to that i’m a child rapist looking to engage in child sex tourism. The harm is people are being denied entry into countries and me specifically I lost out on thousands for my my vacation and the emotional harm it caused me is hard to put a price tag on.
      This guy needs a swift kick in the a$$.

    • PK

      Steve, me too. Or at least someone who was at the hearing could say a few words, to let us other poor *********** know how things went down. You know, the same people who post on here 10 to 15 times a day, and are very opinionated. What happened??

    • curiouser

      From what I’ve seen, the entirety of the news coverage on this comes from Associated Press, and other outlets just picked it up and ran with it as written. Naturally, the story author used a not-so-subtle technique of quoting the judge asking a “hard question” to Plaintiff’s counsel, and then failing to write the RESPONSE. This has the neat effect of leaving the reader thinking the attorney was caught flummoxed, speechless, and without any semblance of an articulate answer. “Ah HAH!” screams hate-law proponents. “That judge really crushed that attorney!” Show of hands everyone: Anyone here really think Janice Bellucci would have been struck silent by that searing, altogether unexpected query from the bench (sarcasm) ? Other than the half-second it took for her to process the sheer stupidity of the question? I thought not.

  9. Mike

    Does the judge not understand that our government is telling other countries, that travelling registrants are “likely to commit a crime” in their country? That this statement is speculation with no factual foundation?
    It is indeed upsetting that the image of the Lady of Justice is balancing the scales of justice when in reality, judges move heaven and earth to reaffirm government action. Fairness and logic seem to be casualties of the current system.

  10. Jonathan Merritt

    When the Supreme Court made that ruling back in 2003, They ruled that the registry was not punishment. They did not rule that the States and Counties and cities could create new burdons,fees,living restrictions ect and it would not be punishment because they were doing it to persons who were on a registry. They never implied that the states could do what ever the Hell they wished to us to get their jollies and get their faces in the papers.

    • Tuna

      That is an excellent point. In spite of that ruling that the registries themselves are not punishment, it does not mean that any and all subsequent laws can be passed and flow under the guise of the registry. When is there an end to endless piling on. Roberts isn’t going to stop it.

  11. Lake County

    I watched all the SF Bay Area TV News Stations at 5pm and the only interview I had seen was with Robert Curtis by KPIX channel 5. Robert, you did a great job speaking up for us with the 15 seconds or so of it that was shown. I was surprised they didn’t show any interviews with Janice.

    • David Kennerly

      He must have been too good because the station later excised his interview from subsequent broadcasts as well as from their web video. I watched their 11pm newscast and they didn’t include any video from the courthouse but relied upon the “journalist” in the studio to give a typically distorted account of the law and the court hearing.

  12. Mike

    I think you guys should also get Miles Feinstein esq in the battle. He has represented many Sex offenders, including me and his experience and knowledge in this area would be very helpful in this area. He is very unbiased and has the ability to augment this legal team. http://www.feinsteincriminallaw.com/

  13. Mike

    The notices should have been challenged in the beginning as well. What is the harm? Well I had been living in Mexico and when I returned via plan last year, I was met at the airport and sent back even though I told them I had my vehicle, my equipment and a whole house full of furniture and appliances, plates, etc. It was worth maybe $15.000 to $17.000 that I had to walk away from. Is that not harm? I got my vehicle back and some of my equipment but that cost me about $2000. So what is the harm? If I am Mexico and I get a notice that says that a person entering the country is likely to commit a sex offense, I would not let them enter either. What is the harm? How is that legal to make that allegation with no evidence?

    • PK

      US Customs actually sent a false notification about my conviction to Mexico.

      They sent them a notification that I was convicted of “Sexual Assault” which is a complete and utter falsehood.

      Luckily I was able to get the document that reflects that false notification from Migracion Nacional de Mexico.

      You should have gotten married to a Mexican, that could have saved you.

      • Mike

        Well my girlfriend and I talked about getting married, but she said there was no need. If I would have had any idea that being married to a Mexican national would have made a difference, I would have pushed the matter.
        Did you hire an attorney in Mexico or in the USA? I have been in contact with Mexican attorneys but they do not seem to know what is going on and still expensive.

        • PK

          I found a good one who is dealing with this very issue.

          An RSO who is married is being denied his Residente Temporal Visa.

          He has 2 cases going on in the Federal Court of Mexico and Administratively through INM.

          He told me to wait a few more months until these cases are resolved in Mexico.

        • Mike

          I hope that if successful, you can share with me what route that you went. Good Luck

        • PK

          @Mike hit me up via email.

          If you contact the Moderator via “Contact” and provide your email, I’m pretty sure they will pass it along.

        • Stressed out

          Mike and PK, if you don’t mind my asking, did either of your convictions involve a minor? I ask because my wife and I are planning to travel to MX in May and I’m very concerned about being turned away at the border.

          My conviction was in 2000 in VA, but I live in CA and am required to register. There was no minor involved, but I am a ROS.

          Any idea whether I stand a chance of getting in okay? It looks to me like most of the people who have been turned away do have convictions with minors.

          Thanks

        • PK

          For me it was someone was 16 just 2 months shy of 17 legal, and who lied about their age. So the answer is yes “it” was a minor.

          It’s anyone who is on any type of “list” will be turned away, not just those with convictions against minors.

          I would strongly advise you contact Paul Rigney of RTAG

  14. Tuna

    After thinking about these questions the Judge asked for a few hours, unless she’s playing purposefully dumb, I think she either hasn’t read Janice’s submissions, or she is completely naive about international travel.

    • David Kennerly

      I think she’s being willfully obtuse. Pretending to not understand and to finding our objections unfathomable. I don’t find this terribly encouraging on the injunction front but I hope to be proven wrong. Still, and regardless of the injunction, the bigger picture is overturning the law, itself. That judge won’t be able to so easily feign incredulity as this damned woman is doing.

      • PK

        Overturning the law itself could take years.

        Could you cite an example of how she can’t fathom our objections?

        • David Kennerly

          Her querulousness in asking several of her questions in which she evinced an overall lack of concern for both the rights of Registrants and a lack of imagination in considering how this law could create for them hardships.

          She was ostentatiously puzzled that anyone would consider a designation on a passport as anything other than administrative expedience without unreasonable consequence for the bearer.

          “U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton questioned who besides border agents would see the passport and whether the marker would imply the person had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism.”I’m not sure how you make that leap, that that’s what the message is,” the judge said. “Where does that come from?””

          She’s not considering that those border agents (in all countries, not just the U.S.) might pose a security threat to the passport bearer or that such a marking will impose a liberty burden upon him. Nor is she considering how the weight of such a term as “child sex offender” being applied to a traveller could adversely affect that traveller. This is what I mean by “willfully obtuse” since she certainly does know how that can be but is adopting a superficial incredulity to accommodate the law.

          In general, this is what we are up against, as all of you know. Just such a superficial incredulity that allows all manner of injustice to be meted out to Registrants. We’ve all seen this very cynical, very cruel willingness to accommodate the worst injustices and most profound degradations of our citizenship, all concealed beneath a mocking incredulity and a callous indifference.

          It is not only a kind of mass delusion that has taken hold, root-and-branch, throughout our society, but also a kind of mass-dishonesty which has come to be acceptable, even virtuous and even when adopted by judges.

          It’s a dishonesty that says “Let’s all pretend that what we’re doing is reasonable, morally acceptable and advances society’s legitimate goals, no matter what the consequences are for this degraded subclass of citizens or the utter lack of any evidence to support what we are doing to them.”

          Here’s another example of her mendacity, even though she was disabused of the notion that current practice of notification is legitimated by any previous U.S. law:

          “Hamilton also questioned whether the notification provision is new or something federal officials have already been doing. Kathryn Wyer, an attorney for the Department of Justice, said federal agencies notified other countries about registered sex offenders’ travels even before the new law.

          “If it’s going to be the same, where’s the imminent harm to your clients if what they’re going to do is the same as what they have been doing,” Hamilton asked Bellucci.”

        • PK

          “Hamilton also questioned whether the notification provision is new or something federal officials have already been doing.”

          Did she even bother to read the complaint at all?

          Man- I just don’t know what to say.

          I guess that’s why everyone who attended the hearing yesterday has remained sort-of quiet.

          So the Judge said she needed a few hours to consider her decision. It’s now been over 24 hours.

        • Tuna

          Great info, thanks. But what were Janice’s responses to the two questions the Judge asked that were cited in the press though. I think that is also what people would like to know.

      • BA

        I would agree with kennerly, she is being obtuse, judges are not well versed in international sex crime law nor sex offender so called international restrictions. She is not prepared and and will seek other counsel on this matter of legislation. The most important thing is they now know we are not laying down on these new added punishments. We need the FAMILIES to protest this. This really effects the American registered family in so many ways, and is not a singular punishment.”The pursuit of happiness” needs to be known to all news affiliates!!!

  15. Ryu

    I hope everything goes well with the hearing afterwards. my cats turned 8 today.I hoping someday I can adopt kids of my kids of my own but my brother being a registrant is one of biggest hurdle.

  16. anonymously

    Things have seemed to notabley changed in the last 1-2 years and are still changing as we speak, and more and more countries denying registrants entry with prison-like confinement deportation-style returns to the US. The situation is getting worse by the day. Not exactly an “in-place” system. The government claims the system has been in place for 5 years and I think I have seen a claim of 9 years. So they are saying the system is in place for that long, when only 1-2 years ago reported change have been made. But then , when speaking of adding the unique identifier, just because they haven’t supposedly technically planned the identifier inclusion on the passport, all of a sudden the program is totally not in place. Looks like a double standard.

  17. Rob

    Maybe the judge after the hearing decided to actually go back home and read the case. Sounds likes she read Janice’s argument’s in the car on the way to work….

    How was the turnout at the courthouse?

    Is this a very long time to hear about an injunction?

    • Rob

      Bueller?

    • David Kennerly

      I counted about 23 people in the courtroom apart from the judge, Janice and that horrid DOJ woman.

    • Timmr

      Not good enough. Not good enough to blame anyone, we all have our obligations, but if that courtroom were filled with 230 Registrants, their family and supporters, instead of 23, I am sure it would have made an impression in the judge’s mind in at least the seriousness of the harm the law would do to us. Next court case, whenever that is, let us try to swing getting more people to show up. I would have thought there would have been more people from the Bay area.
      Oh well, so it goes. Nonetheless, it was worth the 1300 mile round trip to see two great things California has, CARSOL lead by Janice Belucci in action and the giant California redwoods. May they both stand tall and defiant against the odds for a long time.

      • ma.concerned.citizen

        I would love to have been there. But, being 3,000 miles away made it a bit difficult to make the trip. My donations will have to do for now.

        I would love to read a transcript from the hearing…

  18. Jakub

    Is it possible and advisable to submit statements to the judge? Or does any communication only go through Janice? Sorry if this is a stupid question. I am thinking of writing the judge a statement about the harm this will do to RSO.

    • PK

      Jakub, contacting the Judge probably wouldn’t be advisable.

      Anyway this case and preliminary injunction only deal with the 7 Plaintiffs and you aren’t one of them.

      I think Janice’s motions said everything that needed to be said.

      • David Kennerly

        From what I could understand, the judge is only going to consider the four original plaintiffs for the injunction since she seems to think that the chronology of filing the motion of injunction did not include the additional plaintiffs. It’s hard for me to say with any certainty as I had a really hard time hearing the proceeding. The audio system was turned down quite low and I was in the back row. I’m hoping more information about this hearing will become available.

  19. David H

    ” U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton questioned who besides border agents would see the passport and whether the marker would imply the person had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism.

    “I’m not sure how you make that leap, that that’s what the message is,” the judge said. “Where does that come from?'”

    Hello!! the word sex offender seems to naturally conjure up all kinds of images to the public; this whole law itself is to notify of possible impending risk. The real question is how wouldn’t one make that leap!!

    • New Person

      I’m lost here. Isn’t is it the government’s responsibility to provide a “clear and convincing evidence” for pushing this law? Everything about the IML is based upon assertions without empirical support.

      Now, the only empirical support that the IML can make would be to point to Smith vs Doe with the recidivism rate being “high and frightening” – to which we all know now was a farce of a statistic that had no reference nor support from a psychological journal.

      This is crazy b/c all these new rules and laws are expounded from that thought of “high and frightening” stat of recidivism cited in the Smith vs Doe case.

      • David Kennerly

        As Judge Alex Kozinsky and other civil libertarians, including George Will just the other day in a fabulous panel discussion with Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason Magazine have pointed out, growing, and extreme, judicial and Supreme Court deference to government authority and laws is deeply corrosive of liberty. [see the video here: http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/03/16/george-will-authoritarian-moment ]

        We should be extremely disturbed by Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to The Supremes, by the way. Another former prosecutor with an abiding disdain for liberty and yet another reason to think of Obama as one of the worst fascists to occupy the White House.

  20. PK

    “I’m not sure how you make that leap, that that’s what the message is,” the judge said. “Where does that come from?”

    How would some Border Agent in a Foreign Country make the leap?

    It’s not that much of a stretch at all, when in fact the Customs and Border Patrol sends out factually incorrect and FALSE NOTICES about Registrants stating that those RSO’s are “likely to commit Child Sex Trafficking”

    Do you think that CBP WOULD NOT do something like that?

    I have the document right HERE which PROVES that they sent out a blatant lie about my conviction which was included in the Notification.

    They told Mexico that I was convicted of “Sexual Assault”. WHEN in fact I WAS NOT convicted of “Sexual Assault”. I wasn’t convicted of anything close to Sexual Assault.

    I mean, do you call that some kind of “mix up” ?

    The US Government will send out those Notices about Impending RSO travel, and they’re going to say whatever they want period. “Ah yea he was convicted of Rape, and he’s likely to commit the same offense again in your Country, do not let him in”.

  21. Justice Advocate Washington State

    IML is Wrong Wrong Wrong! Never Quit the Fight for Justice!

    Around we go in circles repeating the obvious… in our own frustration and futility… as Janice Bellucci has gone to heroic lengths to bring the fight through a flawed justice system.

    According to legal definitions, a ‘sex offender’ is anyone who commits a criminal act that involves sex. The broad term varies by legal interpretation and jurisdiction. All labeled ‘sex offenders’ are presumed by the public to be guilty of the most extreme sex crimes, and are treated as such… whether it is for a first time possession of child pornography charge with a no contact offense, an 18 yr old who made love with a 16 yr old decades ago and who are now married with children… or at the opposite extreme of very lethal international child exploitation, child molestation, or child rape. A wide net is cast to insure cleansing and purity of the citizenry… one size fits all.

    Just how competent is U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton that who reasoned… who besides border agents would see the passport and whether the marker would imply the person had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism? The judge is ignoring the danger the scarlet mark on the passport accompanied by a warning by the US government to beware of this traveler would pose at the boarder, and doesn’t understand that passports must be shown at hotels, train station, exchange banks, etc. etc. Judges judge without full knowledge of what they are judging?

    IML defines all 843,260 RSO’s as individuals who travel for the sole reason of child exploitation… But it is legislators such as House Rep. Chris Smith who are either wanting to look good to get more votes, or simply acting as ostriches with heads buried in the sand not understanding what they are doing… devaluing so many American lives. Why is it not more obvious as to this violation of the Bill of Rights?

    It is the hope of many that anger at IML injustice will lead to some strong steps towards bringing down further injustices of the dreaded registry that has incapacitated so many without just cause.

    What can we do to bring clarity and balance to American justice???

  22. Mike

    I found the judge’s comments indicative of a vast lack of understanding as to the danger that a mark on a passport could cause. I find the notifications with the green notices even more problematic and troubling. If is an extreme stretch to say to anyone without some evidence to the contrary that the person travelling is likely to commit a crime in your country. How can such speculation be legal? I am asking, how is a speculative statement like that legal?

    • PK

      Mike,

      Don’t expect a thoughtful answer.

      I’ve been asking since yesterday, what the hell happened in court yesterday.

      None of the regular blog contributors have much to say except that the judge was incredulous.

      • Mike

        It is extremely frustrating. It looks like we got a bad judge, at least her words so far indicate so. It is as we have been sheep for so long. Of course most have no money and Federal court is expensive and most try to keep their head down. However, the level of ignoring facts and data is staggering.
        Has there been any Federal challenges to the notifications? The fact that our government can send out a notice that indicates that a traveler is likely to commit a crime, and a sex crime at that in a foreign country with no basis in fact belies logic. Can the government make any unsubstantiated statement that they desire with impunity? I think so.

      • David Kennerly

        Well, PK, for myself, I had trouble hearing the proceedings plus, I got there quite late and near its end and had to sit in the last row so as not to disrupt the hearing in progress. My car had DIED on the freeway just before crossing the Bay Bridge to Oakland. I managed to COAST off of the last exit before the bridge and into a gas station using only gravity. I got it running again but I don’t know what the problem was. I had to drive for more than a half-hour on SF streets to make sure it was working well enough to commit to driving across a seven mile long bridge with no shoulders.

        • PK

          Thank you Mr. Kennerly,

          I would have been there as well, but I’m a little far.

          I’m not sure if everyone else is keeping quiet because they’re too upset or angry to talk, or perhaps they have more patience than I.

  23. MarkSF

    “What can we do to bring clarity and balance to American justice???”

    In general, whenever we have any opportunity to do so, always bring our A+ game of facts, context, and presentation….especially now in the federal court level.

    • New Person

      I want the government to provide “clear and convincing evidence” of what the law is intending to do. Where is this empirical support?

      Also, the angel watch program… maybe it wasn’t brought to light before, but I thought someone said that it wasn’t a government faction – I could be mistake. The angel watch program itself could also be a violation, but was never brought to light. Isn’t that what happened to one of the John Doe’s? And this he was returned from the Philippines?

      But the judge looks at this request and thinks the worst – not thinking registrants are people, but rather second class citizens who do not deserve the same rights as American. I paid my dues. My case is dismissed, but the government will never let me become a full citizen again and be free. In cali, it’s lifetime registration. So I’ll never get to become a full citizen ever.

  24. Mike r

    man I really wish that janice would have challenged the justification for these laws since everyone one of them are stemming from the court being deceived by false statistics and unscrupulous legislators this would have been a perfect opportunity to force the Court to justify these laws in light of the overwhelming facts and statistical data.this is the core issue that could bring the entire reasoning to the forefront and create a record of the actual facts on the record.the Court would have a hard time justifying this entire area of law that has been implemented based on deception and false facts.I mean don’t get me wrong i definitely appreciate everything janice and all the others and have actually donated to the cause I’m just saying we have to challenge the Court with actual facts that they use to justify the law

    • PK

      “the Court would have a hard time justifying this entire area of law that has been implemented based on deception and false facts”

      That’s not how cases are won. You are not supposed to bring on a case that is too broad.

      In fact the Law Firm in DC that was thinking about enjoining in this case, only wanted to challenge the passport provision and nothing else.

      Unfortunately these SO issues need to be taken on in small pieces.

  25. Steve

    Everyone needs to relax. This was only a hearing for an injunction. This was not the big stage that is coming. The only thing relevant were the facts to claim an injunction . Don’t worry…yet.

  26. Mike

    Can anyone tell me, is whats being fought “only the passport marker” or is it the whole IML thing.

    I’m trying to understand if Janice is trying to stop the notification to other counties or just the marker on the passport… I’m finally in a position to be able and travel and not I have to assume I’ll waste all efforts.

    Thanks

    • James

      I would pick my destinations with care…much of South America and Asia have been demonstrated to being more or less off limits. There is no report of anyone that is honestly on a list, an actual RSO, being granted permission to enter. (I would love to be proved wrong on this)

      Most of Continental Europe seems Okay, and I personally had no trouble with England in 2014 either.

      YMMV.

      Best Wishes, James

  27. anonymously

    The Government side is making some logical jumps. If Registrants have been denied entry for trhe last 1 to 2 years, which is the time that the defacto secretly-started implementation of the denials of entry for registrants to foreign countries, they have been admitted entry before that unrestricted and there was virtually no registrants convicted/arrested for the crimes of international child sex tourism and none arrested for international child sesx trafficking. If the goverenment is not implying that regsitrants have participated in these crimes, when they surely had the chance, then this law is not needed. ,To say this law is needed implies that registrants when given the chance will engage in these 2 crimes. Since registrants have not been shown to engage in these crimes, the Government has made a logical jump that I don’t see any justification for.

    Another logical jump I see is the Government saying that plaintiffs 2,3 and 4 do not have any plans to travel so they have no standing. How does the Government know their plans? It appears they do have plans to travel. Logically, it makes sense that one would make plans to travel first, then get the passport next. Not having a passport yet does not mean there are no travel plans. What the government is saying is like saying that when 2 ppl get married, they first usually get the marriage license before a proposal or plan to get married. And lastly, not to mention the hostile conditions in the US due to Kelly contributing funding for attacks on registrants rights in itself is reason to have “plans” to leave.

  28. anonymously

    To say that a program being in place is all thats needed for it to pass muster is so mean-spirited when peoples right are on the line. If the program was not contemptuously started with no warning to the registrant-targets of Chris Smith a year or so ago, it would then have given registrants a chance to know what is going on. Some unannounced secretly-initiated program being claimed to be in place for 5 years, when by all accounts it’s really been in p[lace around 1 year and constantly being expanded with new countries adding denials is not a pogram in place. It’s finally known what is going on to a greater extent and this is now the first attempt to take it to court. I hope the Governement side is not saying that there is no basis for a challenge to these laws because they were in place secretly for a year. When Nazi’s brought Jews to the Concentration camps via trains and did not reveal they were going to death camps, the program had been in place for a while before the victims caught on to this. But surely, the fact that the program was “in place” does not mean it would stand constitutionally if it hypothetically occurred in America. In America, we operate under the US Constititution, which provides for more protection than the 5th Weimar Constitution , which Nazi Germany operated under.

  29. anonymously

    To say that a program being in place is all thats needed for it to pass muster is so mean-spirited when peoples rights are on the line. If the program was not contemptuously started with no warning to the registrant-targets of Chris Smith a year or so ago, it would then have given registrants a chance to know what is going on. Some unannounced secretly-initiated process being claimed to be in place for 5 years, when by all accounts it’s really been in place around 1 year and constantly being expanded with new countries adding denials is not a program in place. The process of notification is not the totslity of the entire program or experience. The notification process/program is not the entire program. Getting assualted or denied entrance is also part of the program. The government requires the traveler to always have their passport, so the program does not end once the notification is made. The program is the entire experience. What happens in the foreign country as a result of the notification is part of the program and that surely is not “in place”. Some form of injury, damage or even death is likely, It’s finally known what is going on to a greater extent about the process and this is now the first attempt to take it to court. I hope the Governement side is not saying that there is no basis for a challenge to these laws because they were in place secretly for a year. When Nazi’s brought Jews to the Concentration camps via trains and did not reveal they were going to death camps, that program had been in place for a while before the victims caught on to this. But surely, the fact that the program was “in place” does not mean it would stand constitutionally if it hypothetically occurred in America. In America, we operate under the US Constititution, which provides for more protection than the 5th Weimar Constitution , which Nazi Germany operated under. I would venture to say that the US had some similar authoritarian impulses as Nazi Germany, but it was the US Constitution that prevented death camps like that in the US, thus far. I know the US has had some bad policies upheld, and then only many years later, corrected. I am not saying that US has always been perfect. Looking at 4 bad decisions of the US to illustrate this…Korematsu, where the SCOTUS upheld Japanese Internment camps. Only until the past fews years, under the Obama Administration has the Justice Department issued an opinion contrary to Korematsu. Also, Plessy V Ferguson, upholding racial segregation and Dred Scott case forcing an escaped slave to return to the South to be a slave again under the Fugitive Slave Act, after he already escaped the South. Then of course, Smith v Doe which got its little foot in the door posing as a Price Club membership and now has registrants subject to Nazi-like laws.

  30. CHESTER

    Does everyone know Mike Tyson is a registered sex offender? Janice should reach out to Tyson. Tyson can use his Illuminati connections to change laws!! Like Obama said “Yes We Can!” Obama would not stand for IML because he believes in us and we need to write to him and tell him what Congress passed without him knowing!! Back to Tyson: He is a multi billionaire, so with his support he can use his billions of dollars to fund sex offender rights. Tyson made billions from boxing and invested it all into his Tyson Food Company! Tyson is the most popular and best athelete and celebrity of all time…. so he can be the posterboy and put a friendly/reputable face for our cause. Plus guess what! Tyson knows Allen Dershawitz…. the smartest legel beagle of HARBARD LAW SCHOOL who kept Mike out of prison!! STAY POSITIVE!! Its whats keeping me alive at this point!! I live in a tent in downtown LA, I can’t find housing, I work part time as a janitor and I’m single and lonely as no woman wants a sex offender!! BUT ITS OK..

    • MS

      I don’t believe Mike Tyson has anything to do with Tyson Foods Inc. Tyson Foods Inc was founded in 1935 by John W. Tyson…long before Mike Tyson was even born.

      Mike Tyson certainly made a lot of money in his hey day but my guess is he spent it all just as fast as he earned it. I would be surprised if his net worth is more than a million or two. He filed bankruptcy about a decade ago. Sadly…I’m guessing Mike Tyson couldn’t afford to donate a whole lot of money to CARSOL even if he wanted to. Do a google search for Mike Tyson net worth.

      Now if he owned Tyson Foods…he would be wealthy and able to donate. Too bad he doesn’t.

      • D

        I think based on the name that the post above yours was a troll just trying to make fun of registered citizens.

    • kelnothiding

      good thinking out side the box! even if he most likely don’t really want his face in that light ,it would be great to see many people that are actors step up for not just our rights , but everyones rights , because what is happening to us will be used on everyone at some point , I don’t see how it would heart to see if some these actors even know about the RSOL , and how big the fight really is ,

  31. Stephen

    judging by what Castro had to say about Obama and America’s government, I’d say it’s a safe bet we could live in Cuba.

  32. I can't wait to die

    i wounder how much the US gives in aid to other to support this BS

  33. Citizen of the world

    The famous line,” a government for the people, bye the people”, no longer has meaning. All branches act in their own best political interest with no regard for public views or public interest. We now officially have two Americas, one that we live in, one that they want to push on the rest of the world. I hope I see the day when we take this country back, but I don’t hold out much hope. The public is spineless and stupid, and our government knows and uses this. We are no longer the greatest nation. We are second rate and the bully on the block is about to get his lunch handed to him by a smarter and nor determined foe. Our arogance is going to be our downfall.

  34. JJ

    It’s kind of funny how Donald Trump wants to build a wall to keep all immigrants out at the cost of Mexico, Obama was said to be a reasonable rational man with exceptional logical knowledge (no disrespect) but Obama commented on Trumps statement “this is just one more example of something that is not thought through and is a primary put forward for polotical consumption” in that case Mr Obama why was the (IML) signed sooooo quick? to me your signature was signed with very-very
    little knowledge and research of a hot topic that what seams to be a underground topic of the registration community, now things are on hold and being researched about this mark and notification, the Philippines or the UK or whatever country may
    be or seam to have a higher rate for sex tourism, the individual that are looking
    for (ban that particular group of people) and if he or she is so dangerous revoke that passport from any kind of travel, the Government is up in our business
    regardless if we like it or not (kind of like a evil secret santa) just
    because “example” -random number- 100 people were caught in some kind of over seas sex tourism, now look at the 500 thousand that have actually travelled for and to family, not to mention business, even if a registrant has sent his child abroad to further his education and graduated, how would the registrant be able to attend any type of ceramony? how do individuals expect to move forward “just because” 5 percent actually got caught doing negative activities, the states and the Government
    is looking at that other 95 percent the same as that 5 percent, this registration is growning like a wild fire and it’s out of control!! and i’m not speaking about the individuals *the laws* yes there are some pretty sick twisted people but as every one knows, there are many-many-many individuals that have “not” committed another sex related offence in the last 10 years, the last 15 years, the last 20 years, and i’m sure 25 and beyond, and yes they have there own families, travelled abroad, have a job, raised and are continuing to raise there very own children, every day i read soooo much negativity about new bills that say no! new laws that say you can’t, where’s a bill or law that is actually going to help?

  35. Timmr

    Keep and eye on the Panama Papers. That is where one will most likely find traffickers and tourists of ill repute, not in the registry.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.