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.
Thank you for the update. I’ve been waiting anxiously.
So have i wish i knew where i could view the pres conferance
Attorney: Sex Offender Passport Marker Would Be Dangerous
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/passport-mark-sex-offenders-law-challenged-court-38022381
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
Definitely got to get these Federal Screwballs off our case. This Senator has to go. I am, oh so very angry, with my government.
“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.
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?
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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/
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
” 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!!
“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”.
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???
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?
“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.
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
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.