Government Files Motion to Dismiss IML Lawsuit [updated with Opposition to Motion to Dismiss]

The federal government filed a Motion to Dismiss the IML lawsuit this week. The government’s motion is based upon allegations that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing and that the challenge to the addition of a unique identifier to passports is not yet ripe.

“The government’s Motion to Dismiss the IML lawsuit must be taken seriously,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “The motion, however, is not based upon legal precedent but instead upon wishful thinking.”
In its motion, the government argues that plaintiffs lack standing because “they do not face a certain impending injury”.

“This argument ignores the reality that all individuals to whom the IML applies will face significant risk of physical harm as well as be denied their constitutional rights both due to notifications sent to foreign nations as well as passport identifiers,” stated Bellucci.

The government also continues to argue in its motion that the issue of adding a conspicuous unique identifier to passports is not ripe because the government has not yet decided what symbol will be added to the passports or the placement of that symbol.

“Regardless of the symbol or its placement, the passport identifier will falsely identify individuals as people who have engaged in or are likely to engage in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism,” stated Bellucci.

The response to the Motion to Dismiss is due no later than May 2 and the government has an opportunity to respond to the reply no later than May 9. Oral arguments on the motion are scheduled for June 22 in the U.S. District Court, Northern District, Oakland.

Motion to Dismiss (Defendant / US Government)

Motion to Dismiss – Opposition (Plaintiff/ John Does 1-4)

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Does having to file your brief against the governments attempt at dismissal actually a good thing or does this usually always happen in a government case(trying to dismiss)
By having to refute the governments claims does this further educate the judge who seemed to frankly not be aware of the secret angel watch operation and her perceived notion that this has been a legal notification system?

After reading this I came to two conclusions. We all could never have asked for a better and more qualified person to fights for us and If the judge rules against us, their was nothing that could have been done to change her mind as it was already made up to favor the government.

I’m just blown away by the amount of the legal expertise and effort that is needed to challenge one of these rulings. No wonder Sex offender laws are passed and are not challenged successfully or at all.
Even with this excellent rebuttal and original injunction effort the judge could still rule against us. If a judge cannot see the injustice in IML then when could they?

I took away from this brief is that Ripeness shouldn’t have been applied and she showed precedents to back that up, that relying on cases that represent the Sex offender registry are inappropriate for use in IML and that this unfavorable minority group is being punished and assumed guilty of a potential future crime.
I actually laughed when I read the part about the “wedgies” because that right their showed just how ridiculous it is to use the registry to assume everyone is a danger to engage is child sex tourism abroad.

Why would there be a urinal in the women’s bathrooms and why would a girl be using one?
In the women’s bathroom their are stalls and privacy, who cares who is in the next stall especially if they identify as a women, have made the steps to become a women etc. Transgender people just want to go to the bathroom like everyone else and get the heck out…
Fear of transgender people is an irrational fear just like how on halloween sex offenders are snatching up children with candy.
Their is a women in North Carolina I just read about who had every surgery where she is actually a women now, yet cannot use a women’s bathroom because her birth certificate says otherwise, doesn’t make sense.

Transgender people haven’t committed any crime by just being transgender and we have committed a crime. While we have paid our debts to society, a transgender person shouldn’t be discriminated against as they have done nothing wrong. If any group needs protections they do.
I think the government protecting them is a great thing. I also think ex convicts should have more rights and protections.

I agree with you that we do not have our priorities straight as a society for the most part, climate change and using up of our natural resources are going to create major problems in the future and yet we keep our heads in the sand. Wall street is holding our businesses hostage and is much to powerful and the growing wealth disparity in this country is significant.

USA/Rob, I think it’s better to not prioritize the 2 worthy goals of not criminalizing normal behavior for both registrants and transgendered people, noting both groups are not mutually exclusive. Recognition that they are both worthy goals is the highest priority. Transgendereds cannot change who they know they are from birth, just as registrants cannot change their past criminal records regardless of how reformed they are. Both classes need to be allowed to live out their lives not harming others and not having their normal behaviors criminalized or scrutinized. Both classes are immutable classes, not being able to change their status. If N.Carolina and a few other states get their way in their attacks on transgendered people, just going to the bathroom could be considered a sex crime of indecent exposure perhaps. Historically, it was the charge of “buggering” used against gays to criminalize the act of sodomy, but now in Russia it is considered a crime to simply openly display or promote being gay, which seems open to interpretation what that actually means. It sounds to me like this could criminalize transgendered people showing any affection to anyone. This makes normal living and being who you are an active crime. What some consider a crime may change over time in different parts of the world, while continuing in the current direction in yet other parts of the world. For this reason, it’s best for influential countries like us in the US not to impose our ‘Chris Smith’-like evangelically kooky mindset on other countries such as Uganda to have laws against LBGT’s and then when our SCOTUS decides that gayness is not a crime, ( 2003 Lawrence v Texas striking down anti-sodomy laws ), the persecutions of gays in the countries we spread our ‘Chris Smith’-like hate to such as Uganda persist with their increasingly harsh anti-gay laws. Evangelicals in the US actually were responsible for spreading these anti-gay laws to Uganda. Chris Smith claims the UN Declaration on Human Rights does not apply to gays, by the way. We can’t have it both ways. Some in the US spread anti-gay hate, such as Chris Smith. If the US were serious about protecting LBGT’s, it would be nice to not also try to set up registries in countries that also have laws criminalizing normal behavior for LBGT people that regard them as criminals. By advocating for foreign countries to report their sex offenders to the US trying to enter the US, those countries will effectively have to start some kind of registration. It is not unfathomable in these countries that currently criminalize LBGT normal behavior or other countries Chris Smith could spread his anti-abortion and anti-gay message to, registries that punish would include LBGT’s.

Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I don’t personally believe transgenders should be allowed to use whatever restroom they desire. I could simply put a dress on and do whatever I like! That’s my personal opinion and I’m entitled to my views. People can call me hateful/narrow minded/racist or discriminatory! Although, don’t my values or opinion count? Just because I believe in something you don’t doesn’t mean a thing. People missed the mark!
I’m shocked the Federal Government would take such an interest in a cross dresser or transgender being able to use whatever bathroom they want? Can you imagine a man with a beard wearing a dress using the same restroom as your little girl? I would personally have an issue. That’s my belief. You can come back and call me names and write a book in response, but that’s my view! We have people homeless/jobless/non employable/constantly harassed and whole families suffering because of the registration process. Yet, the government is more concerned about a transgender or cross dressers rights to use whatever bathroom they want? I’m concerned about registered citizens being jobless and killed by vigilantes. I don’t know where this world is coming to.

Well, I might recommend reading the definition of transgender NPS! You clearly failed to read the definition. Prohibiting a registrant from International Travel, living in certain areas, visiting parks, visiting beaches, visiting libraries, attending sporting events, visiting certain restaurants and etc etc isn’t on the same level as prohibiting a cross dresser from using whatever urinal they want. If we allow this, I could put a dress on and demand I use the same showers as females within 24 Hr Fitness or a local HS! You guys are nuts. I also recommend reading the Constitution. I bet you haven’t. Everyone has rights. Legally speaking, a male transgender wanting to be a woman still has a penis? You guys need to wake up.

Well, I support USA. Cross dressers are legally defined as transgenders. Transgenders combines a whole blanket of individuals. As a parent, I don’t believe in allowing them to use whatever restroom they want. I have rights as well. I also concur with states prohibiting this. What’s next? I live on SF and my bearded neighbor wears women’s attire daily. Should we allow him to use the same restroom as my young daughter? No way!!! As noted, USA wasn’t addressing of arguing for transgender rights, but rather disturbed that we have much bigger problems. We have economic issues, homelessness, trade issues, wars taking place and Nuclear threats! Yet, the Federal Givernment is becoming involved in this issue. What about addressing the murders of registered citizens? Arsonists setting fire to offenders homes? Or, the constant threat families feel by their husbands or wives names and addresses posted online. I’m dumbfounded you would argue about views rather than realizing he is supporting our cause and shocked by how little is being done by the government. You should be ashamed at yourselves. He supports registered citizens and you both believe HS is attacking you! Stay off this site. Your embarrassing

Not to be peevish but there is an epidemic abroad, the misspelling of “their” or “there” or, for that matter “they’re”. They have three distinct, non-interchangeable meanings. With a minimum of effort, one can be proficient in their correct employment.

T-H-E-I-R: Denotes possession. It belongs to them. “It is THEIR car.”
T-H-E-R-E: A place. “It’s over THERE.”
T-H-E-Y-‘-R-E: The contraction of the two words “they” and “are”. “They’re nothing but cross-dressing transsexuals lying in wait for our vulnerable, sexless children!”

Use them correctly and reap the benefits of proper usage which, though dwindling, still imparts a degree of credibility.

I believe trangenders know early on in their lives that they were born into the wrong gender and eventually become the gender they feel is right for them. So, yes, they should be able to use the bathroom that corresponds with their belief of gender. Nobody will sit at the bathrooms asking for IDs. Cross Dressers are different. They are still a man or a woman but choose to dress as the opposite sex. Please, don’t blow this out of proportion. Transgenders are not out to get children, they just want to be recognized as the person they feel they are.

I stop reading comments on this topic only to return and see that we have gone so far astray from the original topic.
Okay, while I won’t say who I am or where I live to protect myself, I will say that I am a post-operative male to female transsexual. I am also a registered citizen and have been for more than 10 years.

A few clarifications. Transgender is a blanket term that covers a spectrum of people from cross dressers to post- op M2F and FM. Surgery is not a requirement to be transgender. To those of you who have been supportive on replies to USA and/or TMZ, thank you.

I knew I was different when I was four years old. I hated using men’s rooms since day one. It felt intrinsically wrong to be in the men’s room.

In regards to random people just putting on a dress and walking into a bathroom- it’s bloody f’ing unlikely. All of the trans people that I know just want to pee in peace. Not all trans people look awesome, many take years to become comfortable with themselves and some just will always look like a man in a dress. Testosterone is probably the greatest poison that can affect a human body and that makes irreversible changes physically and mentally. For the record, I pass (meaning I look like a woman easily). I sure as heck won’t go into the men’s room, it would have to be an emergency for me to do so.

Drag queens are not normally considered trans people, however some do choose to live more fully as women than most. Mos of the drag queens that I have met are gay guys that like to perform.

Anyway, the HB2 law in NC is blanket discrimination. There are a number of Dillon’s Rule states that want to get around the restrictions by changing laws. These states are doing this because of registrants and because of Janice’s success. Well, it is bleeding over into laws about trans people.

I have been far happier and a more productive member of society since I transitioned. Needless to say, I suffered the same persecution from other registered citizens in my SO therapy group as well as from the therapist as the closed minded people that come up with these stupid laws.

USA, it’s a free country (or was). Open your eyes and let go of the anger and hatred. Live and let your higher power/God of your understanding enrich your life. Otherwise you are a hypocrite, but that being said, I wish you peace and prosperity in all things.

By the way, Janice rocks! CARSOL is awesome. Texas Voices is another awesome group. Can we stay on topic? Sorry for rambling.

Happy, Joyous and Free writes “Anyway, the HB2 law in NC is blanket discrimination. There are a number of Dillon’s Rule states that want to get around the restrictions by changing laws. These states are doing this because of registrants and because of Janice’s success. Well, it is bleeding over into laws about trans people.”

They are not doing this because of Janice’s success. If anything, Janice’s successes would make them think twice. They are doing this because of the laws that have stood thus far that unconstitutionally punish registrants and that encourage mean-spirited attacks on those that can be scapegoated. The scare tactic for HB2 is that the transgendered people will molest or expose themselves to little girls in the Women’s restrooms. Using such a similar attack on transgenders as has been already used to implement anti-registrants laws points to a congruency of thought. With an under 1% re-offense rate and after many years, a risk level equal to that of the general population, restricting registrants from normal activities is unwarranted just as HB2 is unwarranted as no evidence has been shown transgendered people pose a risk to society. Success in fighting for registrant rights does not inspire using the same tactics to pass laws against transgenders. The IML and HB2 are so similar. Imagine the danger a registrant would be in in a foreign country like Uganda or any of the multitude of countries that have made homosexuality a crime, where he is flagged as a registrant by our government and especially if he was convicted of a crime described with the word ‘sodomy’. The registrant and family would be marked for violence, imprisonment probably from a false charge, or death. This is similar to a transgendered person being forced to use a Men’s restroom and be outted as a transgender, which could result in violence, imprisonment on a false charge or death. As in Nazi Germany, it started with sex deviants/offenders and persecution spread to other groups who were criminalized and persecuted. For this very reason, it is an imperative for all of society to fight anti-registrant scapegoating laws because these sadistic laws, as in Nazi Germany, spread to other unforseen groups with a steady pace of increasingly harsh add-on punishments that culminate in concentration camps and mass murder.

“I have been far happier and a more productive member of society since I transitioned. Needless to say, I suffered the same persecution from other registered citizens in my SO therapy group as well as from the therapist as the closed minded people that come up with these stupid laws.”

Those in that group were newly convicted and I would think after many years of similar persecution their perspective would improve on not wanting unfair suffering reaped upon anyone. I wonder if you experienced hostility from any registrants who have been off parole for many years. As a largely anecdotal indication of ‘long-time registrant’ support for transgender rights, look at the high percentage of those commenting here that support those rights. Aside from 2 people here, I would say it’s unanimous.

Anyway I was hoping we could get back to the topic of this thread being the Motion to Dismiss International Megan’s Law.

I’m not trying to be rebarbative, but does anyone know if the government actually responded to Janice’s Reply for Opposition? I read that they had a deadline of May 9th.

So today is May 14. It has been 96 days since President Obama enacted HR 515 into law on February 8.

I copy and paste from Section 9 of HR 515:

(b) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General shall jointly submit a report to, and shall consult with, the appropriate congressional committees on the process developed under subsection (a), which shall include a description of the proposed process and a timeline and plan for implementation of that process, and shall identify the resources required to effectively implement that process.

(c) ‘‘APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES’’ DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’means— (1) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; (2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; (3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; (4) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; (5) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; (6) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives; (7) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and (8) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

Wondering if this document was submitted to the above mentioned committees. Wondering if this document is available to the public. Assuming the US government does not violate its own laws when the safety of children is at stake.

As attorney for the plaintiffs in this case, I requested a copy of the report the day after it was due in Congress. I have not yet received the report, but will continue to ask for it until I have received it. The report will be added to the website soon thereafter.

This far down the list, I’m afraid my comment will only be lost. But here we go:

It occurs to me, the approach on this lawsuit is overlooking the end run being done around us. This bill calls for the feds to negotiate with other countries – negotiations going on NOW — to enter treaties to require this information be collected and sent. Once those are singed, we are dead in the water, our country will no longer have the option to do anything less and will will not be able to change our mind about it without the permission of the other countries around the world.

That is the MOST dangerous thing in this bill, making international treaties that will make it so everything about registration as well as international travel will be locked in by international treaties, and make the challenges become impossibly complicated and long running and time consuming. The government will be required to do it because of international law, forget domestic law. International law has a way of trumping domestic law often.

The complications this brings to our efforts are horrendous and mean the feds aren’t particularly concerned about this lawsuit as long as the negotiating and signing of the international treaties continues unabated — and it is continuing, it is NOT being challenged here. Those treaties are their big priority, so we will never be able to challenge registration itself much less its affect on international travel, not without renegotiating a lot of international treaties, which is not going to happen and would require the permission of other countries to do so!

We need an immediate, separate lawsuit by lawyers involved in international law to seek a court order barring those negotiations, or at least the signing of any treaty. And that will be a MAJOR fight, that will be a battle of balance of power about whether the court even can block the executive from signing a treaty. And the legislative branch has already ordered the executive to do so. The court will give great deference to the executive to do this, this will be a major fight.

These international treaties are the REAL priority in that bill. The rest is merely desirable – and the rest is being used to divert attention from the real priority so the real priority can proceed unfettered, because it will lock in the rest and, for all intents and purposes, beyond challenge.

If we don’t stop the international treaties from being signed, we have lost the entire fight at every level. I don’t know about any background in international law by any of our lawyers, but this is a major point that seems to have been overlooked, probably because they are not specialists in international law.

When can we expect any movement in the lawsuit? Does anyone have an idea?

They are so coy. Only REGISTERED SEX offenders will have their passport stamped (people required to register in any jurisdiction). Phew. I live in Washington State. We level-1s get released from the registry automatically at 15 years (until the next ex post facto change), and can petition at 10 years. But wait! Even after I am no longer REGISTERED I will still be registrible (heh) in many jurisdictions. Florida, for instance. Maybe CA if I stay too long.

So there will always somewhere we would have to register. (Go Dems! We need moderate and progressive SCOTUS appointments.)

Listen, I offended late in life. Over 50. So I will be over 70 by the time I can finally put this behind me. I will be able to say (and not everyone gets to) that I have paid for my one and only crime.

There are rumblings all across the US. Banishment laws tumbling. Steady drip drip drip of scientific evidence coming out. Conservatives starting to worry about costs – and their football captain sons getting caught up in this never ending cycle. (Colorado, anyone?

This dark part of our history will change. Because it has to.

“Oral arguments on the motion are scheduled for June 22 in the U.S. District Court, Northern District, Oakland”

I was wondering if there was any news about the Lawsuit and the Motion to Dismiss the challenge against IML ?

Does anybody know what happened on June 22nd?

Is there still another hearing at the end of July?

I’m sure this information from a recent Marshall Report has been processed in our side of the motions, but it still seems incredible to me that it’s obvious that the State Department itself doesn’t believe it’s necessary or warranted to comply with the new law. Maybe that’s why they in fact have not (within the deadline imposed by the law). I know Janice has been asking the opposing counsel about this, but apparently to no avail. Maybe, the IML law will just go away because of the State Department’s lack of enforcement.

“In a rebuttal printed as an appendix in the report, the State Department noted that there was no evidence anyone on that list [registered sex offenders who have passports] had traveled in order to commit a sex crime, and that it already has the authority to deny passports to people convicted of sex tourism involving minors and those whose probation or parole terms forbid them from traveling.

“We think the report is very misleading,” the State Department wrote. “Starting with the title, ‘Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders,’ we are concerned that it conveys more ‘shock value’ than factual accuracy.”

But, as has been pointed out, the new law is somewhat superfluous since the Angel Watch notices already being sent are doing the job effectively.

Once again, I ask if anyone has had any recent experience with cruise ship denials. Royal Caribbean and Carnival have been mentioned as no-nos, but what about Cunard, for example, which is owned by Carnival? There’s a subtle difference between Homeland Security sending a notice, which they can easily do in a 21-day advance state, but probably not in a non-SORNA-compliant three-day state (like Illinois). In that case, the cruise line would have to check all passengers with reservations against all state registries — sounds like they wouldn’t be able to do that.

Janice – I’m sending another contribution tonight — and I encourage everyone else to do so. This doesn’t happen free.