ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


General News

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)

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.
  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
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We need to keep the donations coming. We can’t let these out of contol with no bases of fact laws implemented into our judicional system. History has shown us if you keep repressing a minority group long enough they will rise up and fight!, it’s our time enough is enough…
These laws are past on emotions and political pandering. One size fits all logic has to stop.

It may be a personal preference, but rather than the “one size fits all” argument, I prefer “the punishment should fit the crime.”

I prefer if you did your Time and paper , then your done , I don’t care what the said crime is , I think leave no RC behind” and there family’s set free as well ,

Absolutely, kelnothiding. And accordingly, I would think there could be a due process argument putting the onus on the feds to prove that anyone they do this to actually is a significant danger going forward. And the standard for that should not be because they did something in the past, but because of significant, real evidence they will do so going forward, not just some assertions that one size fits all, they all will do it. Instead, they should have to cite what it is going on right now about this individual that says he/she will do it.

And as we now have evidence to show, only about, what, 2.5% of sex offenders actually reoffend, as opposed to the assertions that nearly all do. And that is within five years, the time most likely. I expect if you looked at it at 7 years, you would find an even lower percentage, and at 10 years even lower. That time frame is also an assertive argument on behalf of registrants. They can’t just be doing this crap to someone whose offense was five years ago, or seven years ago, or 10 years ago.

I also note another attack along those lines to 290 itself. The courts have ruled that it is not for them to review the governments assertions about the need for 290 being because of high recidivism. But that ruling was before the state and feds came out with the studies showing such a very low recidivism rate. Now, it would seem to me that to show the state – which is one entity, not several — is talking out of both sides of its mouth, in the state’s studies saying very low recidivism but the justification the state gives for 290 being that registrants are high reoffenders, would force the court to review the assertion, and the court would have to side with the formal, scientific study over the empty assertions. No one has brought this argument to have that issue revisited.

Which again raises the issue of the tiers. How can we be citing that by the five-year mark, nearly no one recidivates, and so we should make the shortest registration time 10 years? That is conflicting logic. If the assertion is that nearly no one recidivates after five years (and maybe even after two years if you check that time frame), then you can’t argue for one day longer than that for the tiers! This push for a minimum of 10 years is nonsense. In fact, fives years used to be the standard for not worrying about recidivism for any sort of offense.

This is the biggest problem in the media and society right now when people are against abolishing the registry, the word “punishment” always seems to come up. How is it that everyone who supports the registry considers it a punishment, yet the Supreme Court was able to declare it constitutional on the grounds that it was “non-punitive?” It’s also interesting that the phrase “non-punitive” is nowhere to be found in the constitution especially when referring to bills of attainder, ex post facto, and due process. This registry is only the first of our oligarchy slowly stripping away all of our rights. Muslims and Mexicans will come next followed by who knows who else. Get ready for the fall of Western society!

“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.”

Aren’t these the arguments the Judge made to deny the Preliminary Injunction?

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

I’m guessing this will go before the same Judge?

I’m also wondering if it would have made sense to have a Class Action Lawsuit, to include a much larger group of RSO’s, instead of just 7 Plaintiffs?

Question- If this case were to get dismissed, could it then be re-filed in a different jurisdiction?

It really sucks living in the United States, you know that?

The Government’s Motion to Dismiss Page 21:

“The international notifications at issue are provided to destination countries through existing international law enforcement channels and contain only factual information regarding the criminal history of U.S. persons traveling to those countries.”

Not True.

The International Notification can contain NON-FACTUAL INFORMATION.
As was my case when the “Factual Information” was in reality “Non-Factual Information”
regarding my conviction.

Janice- I have the Notification (letter in writing) from the Mexican Government.
It states that I was convicted of “Sexual Assault”. This is “Non-Factual Information”
I was convicted of “Attempted Sexual Criminal Act”. This is “Factual Information” (that was not included in the International Notification).

I would “think” that this Notification that I possess could be helpful.

Regardless of getting the conviction wrong or not–the non factual and no basis of all information being sent is that RC’s are likely to reoffend–getting rid of that gets rid of their abuse of Interpol notices.

Just because they’ve been doing something behind closed doors ( sending of notices) doesn’t mitigate our argument, it bolsters it because now we know their is a one to one correlation of being deported and banned due to these notices.

good god why dont they go pick on suspected terrorists or something people really should be afraid of–they’ve beat us to death!

PK, from my very layman’s understanding of fidicuary duty and ethics, (and forgive me to those involved if I’m overstepping boundaries here): Assuming Janice even has the time to read all the comments on this site, she cannot, under the capacity of legal council to clients on a particular case, solicit and/or accept your help via comments on this website. If you have something that you believe to be of value to the cause–and from a layman’s perspective I’m certainly fascinated by what you have managed to obtain–you have to contact HER DIRECTLY. She’s not hard to find.

The same goes for anyone else who might read this who has also offered to get involved. If you haven’t contacted her or someone within CARSOL (or even RSOL itself) directly, you’re wasting your time and energy.

Well that’s hasn’t always been the case. I told Janice about the information I have and it was disregarded.

I would agree it is better argument,
the punishment should fit the crime.

The affixation of annotating a unique identifier on a passport will not merely just deface the document, but surely cause harm to the expat or traveler at hand. Social security numbers at one given time indicated a persons race, but were eliminated when discrimination laws and affirmative action remedies became necessary. It was intended to prevent cyclic discriminative practices such as employment, housing and educational stereotyping. Their are former offenders who posses merchant marine passport-like credential whom have all passed stringent standards by homeland security to obtain such documents by passing a standardize background check and would invoke absurdity if a unique indentifier was affixed to such a document. These individuals travel worldwide on government contracted and commercially owned freight ships. The government devised its own policies on what constitutes rehabilitation and the propensity of further criminal risk of all applicants. The process is sound and reasonable as such laws should be emulated and caculated in other areas involving criminal risk assessments. The governance of such policies contradict the core and meaning of human rights initiatives versus the war of human trafficking. Both plights deserve equal attention but should not borrow from the pool of ex convicts whom have paid their debt to society. The IML is clearly a politically infused agenda, modeled after unproven edicts and bias data. This tool is the deep end probable and possible future criminality. No offender who has not been convicted of such designated crimes, should be categorized as a potential violator of small lists of offenses that occur abroad.

The affixation of annotating a unique identifier on a passport will not merely just deface the document, but surely cause harm to the expat or traveler at hand. Social security numbers at one given time indicated a persons race, but were eliminated when discrimination laws and affirmative action remedies became necessary. It was intended to prevent cyclic discriminative practices such as employment, housing and educational stereotyping. Their are former offenders that posses merchant marine passport-like credentials, whom have all passed stringent standards by homeland security to obtain such documents by passing a standardize background check. This would invoke absurdity if a unique indentifier was affixed to such a document as well. These individuals travel worldwide on government contracted and commercially owned freight ships. The government devised its own policies on what constitutes rehabilitation and the propensity of further criminal risk of all applicants. The process is sound and reasonable and such procedures should be emulated and caculated in other areas involving criminal risk assessments. The governance of such policies as the IML, contradict the core and meaning of human rights initiatives versus the war of human trafficking. Both plights deserve equal attention but should not borrow from the pool of ex convicts whom have paid their debt to society. The IML is clearly a politically infused agenda, modeled after unproven edicts and bias data. This tool is on the deep end practical politics of what is probable and possible indicator of future criminality. No offender who has not been convicted of such designated crimes, should be categorized as a potential violator of small lists of offenses that occur abroad. The overreach of this policy is audacious and infringing on individual rights at best. The mere act and gist of an offender being required to submit 21-day advance notice of travel plans acts as a form of detention and restriction of free movement to one heart content. For such policies to rely on imperative implementation it seems to dually hide under the cloak of supposed “administrative” procedure rather than punitive gesturing, which if not adhered to turns into punitive regardless of its civil administrative intent. Trickery and word-play at its finest

“a unique identifier on a passport will not merely just deface the document, but surely cause harm to the expat or traveler at hand”

It’s not just alleged harm that could come to the Traveler.

The Passport is used as an ID for everything, especially here in Mexico. The 2 most important instances that I can think of is when a foreigner applies for a job, or needs to exchange dollars for pesos. In fact, I get a little stressed when the people at the Bank take my passport in the back to make copies. My Passport is priceless to me and I guard it at all costs.

So when they mark the passport an RSO should expect widespread harassment, weird looks from the bank teller, and discrimination.

The government in their latest motion to dismiss still has a gap in their logic. They said that registrants travel, and then they next say that there is child sex tourism and child sex trafficking. But again, they do not and can not make the connection of registrants to this behavior. And unsurprisingly they don’t, given the low reoffense rates.

anonymously, I believe they presented two cases as their bases in the GOA report to support the need for this. they came up with two of 4300 passports issued to RC’s.

Yeah they want to view us collectively as the same. Geez how can they be so obsessed with this.

We are not an homogeneous group of people, my life I’m certain is as every bit different than yours.. When they can begin the wholesale correlation of us as being a homogeneous group then and only then does the government have standing!!

Not to mention the fact that anyone convicted of sex crimes committed abroad has their passport revoked. So why mark passports of people not associated with such crimes when the people who perpetrated those crimes can’t even obtain passports anymore?

Pk- how is your progress going with your Visa?

Things are moving along. But unlike some people, Lawyers included, I don’t think it’s always a good idea to be posting details on this Blog. Loose lips sink ships.

Understand good luck it’s possible. Unlike the US, Mexico cares about keeping families together.

I would love to file a motion to dismiss the US government.

But on the downside…just think of all the criminals who would suddenly be jobless and out on the streets looking for victims. It would be far too dangerous…but wait, we could make a list!

Yes, a list of former politicians and it could show their addresses and photos so we could keep an eye on them for the rest of their lives and keep them away from children!

LOL I hate to laugh at this but it was funny.. but yet so true. Somewhat of a good idea too.

The reason the government already notifies foreign governments of the travel of sex offenders is the same reason they give for the IML. They assume all sex offenders are travelling for the purpose of child sex tourism.

Oh Really?

I assume all our government officials are currupte so we should mark there passports as assumetion is fact, this is just so frustratin what happen to rational thought.

In it’s entirety, IML is baseless harassment. It violates human, civil, and constitutional rights. It is libellous and defamatory. It is an insult. It is so ripe it stinks! A unique identifier and some accusatory statements regarding the intention of travel for those who choose to travel to foreign countries to commit atrocities of war would be better served. We should not be “exporting” our imperialism problems to other countries.

Is it libel?

That would be interesting to have explained in full detail. The government is dictating that all registrants and those involved with minors will, in fact, indulge in child sex-trafficking as well as re-offend for a sex crime. That is the intent here as there is no due process.

As a registrant, there are a multitude of statistics that support registrants have the lowest re-offense rate. And since we’re doing this in California, the CASOMB has actually revealed less than 1% re-offense rate in its most recent report.

Maybe that means that all registrants already have standing in this libel case vs the US government? Registrants can’t be high re-offenders and have ample statistics they are the lowest re-offenders at the same time. One of these is wrong. Facts are facts, unless they’re false facts that are “frightening and high”.

Is it libel?

Probably not. If it is a simple recitation of the charges for which one was convicted (a statement of fact, in other words) then no. If, however, there is additional defamatory language that makes claims against the traveler and which are unsupported by the facts, then, I would say (as a non-lawyer), it is libel.

IML gives them immunity against civil suits, even libel.

Wasn’t the right to travel abroad already covered in Kent v. Dulles by the US Supreme Court in 1958?

If adding a mark on a passport without due process to show that they are engaging in illegal activity is what they are doing, then that is effectively denying travel which is a violation of the constitution. No country will see the mark and be expected to spend time and money to figure out if the marked person is a threat or not. If our own country won’t do that first, they definitely won’t.

“U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”

Am I understanding something incorrectly?

There is considerable case law and judicial or scholarly opinion that supports international travel.

Some examples:

Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) Arthur Goldberg, writing for the majority: “since freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to rights of free speech and association, we believe that appellants in this case should not be required to assume the burden of demonstrating that Congress could not have written a statute constitutionally prohibiting their travel.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Black expressed his opinion that the whole act, including Section 6, was a Bill of Attainder. He held it appropriate “to point out that the Framers thought that the best way to promote the internal security of our people is to protect their First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly, and that we cannot take away the liberty of groups whose views most people detest without jeopardizing the liberty of all others whose views, though popular today, may themselves be detested tomorrow.”

Justice Douglas, also concurring, opined that “Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged,” citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353. “War may be the occasion for serious curtailment of liberty. Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 65 S.Ct. 208, 89 L.Ed. 243. And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e.g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment.” “We cannot exercise and enjoy citizenship in world perspective without the right to travel abroad; and I see no constitutional way to curb it unless, as I said, there is the power to detain.”

“Justice Douglas considered freedom of movement “at home and abroad” to be: the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful—knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, just as when curfew or home detention is placed on a person.345

“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.”

From Jeffrey Kahn: “This problem is resolved by considering travel, both domestic and international, to be part of the “bundle of sticks” of citizenship that deserves protection on its own merits, not as a contingent protection for other rights or benefits. Thus, I do not argue that protection for the right to travel outside the United States comes from the substantive due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. Nor does it arise from the concomitant benefits it provides for other constitutional interests. Rather, I argue that it is part of the essence of what it means to be a citizen of the United States, a category of rights holders implicit throughout the U.S. Constitution and explicitly identified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “

“There is something deeply unsettling about the idea that Congress’s power to regulate American citizens abroad is constrained only by whether or not they open their wallets.” This in regards to the U.S. Protect Act, a law that enables U.S. Citizens to be prosecuted for illicit sex acts committed outside of the U.S. in U.S. courts under U.S. laws and justified under the dubious application of “The Commerce Clause”. “…encroach upon the sovereignty of foreign nations but also effectively transform the U.S. Government into INTERPOL by recognizing in Congress a “plenary [global] police power “that is inconsistent with the limitations of the Constitution. Allowing Congress to legislate on any matter so long as the statute contains a jurisdictional component linking the regulated behavior to foreign commerce establishes a dangerous precedent that Congress could abuse to exercise plenary police power not only internationally but also domestically.” “U.S. Interpol- The Far-Reaching Consequences of United States v. Pendleton” by Carmelo Tringali.

Yes, it is a right, and any curtailment requires due process of law. The government, with regard to sex offender laws have argued that due process has been satisfied: 1) as Congress passed the law under the rules; and, 2) your criminal trial and conviction satisfied your due process to be labeled a sexual offender.

Actually your #1 is incorrect I believe they suspended the rules in order to sneak this law through.

Which is allowed by the rules. Keep up.

No it’s not allowed. This Law was passed by Congress under Suspension of the Rules which meant that there was no discussion or debate regarding the particulars of the Bill at the point. That was never the purpose of passing laws under the Suspension of the Rules. In other words, this Law was “sneaked-in” underhandedly without due process. You keep up Lawyer.

If they had enough votes to suspend the rules, and did so, then it is perfectly legal. There is no requirement within the Rules of Congress that says the matter at hand “must” be non-controversial or bipartisan.

You find the Rule of the House of Representatives that says they can’t suspend the rules for a controversial bill and I’ll cede my position; but, you won’t find one.

I’m confused JohnDoeUtah who’s side are you on? some of your recent comments make me wonder.

And the legislators are not judges. They can not try you even for an actual act on your part. They are judging us all on assumed, potential acts, imagined acts based on allegories of potential harmfulness, “thruthiness” manufactured by the media’s myth machine. Due process has to mean more in the founding documents than doing a process on us.

That’s what due process of law is, the process. All it really means is that they can’t do something without following the process, or break the process to get what they want.

Problem is, they built a workaround into the process – which is legal. The Courts have time and time again refused to tell Congress “how” it must do its business, or dictate what must be in the rules of parliamentary procedure.

Also, the Courts have usually sighed away from contradicting “Congressional findings of fact.” These “facts” need not be backed up by any actual evidence, by the way; but, once Congress establishes the fact (i.e., high recidivism) it is nonetheless a fact; and, the Courts have not forced the idea on Congress that its facts be factual and supported by evidence.

This is the reality. I’m not on their side, but this is the way of things in the United States.

I disagree (not with you, but the leaders), due process is meant to be fair process. That is what the legal dictionaries I looked at confirmed and coming all the way from the Magna Carta to be judged by one’s peers. It is not just any process on the books.
You may be right, though, the US does not view it this way. As long as they follow the rules, they can dispense of larger principles of fairness. And besides, the real clincher is when they say we have forgone all our rights when we committed a sex crime. How can one erode such stone headed prejudice?

I have purchased four domains for this cause and have donated their use to Janice., .info, .net, .org. They all have been pointed to this site. It’s not much but every little bit helps Janice.

You should promote those domains.

Phil, to be able to explain the opposition’s side does not mean endorsement.

John Doe Utah, Thank-you for explaining due process and how things really are. Here’s another one: A lot of people are pretty sore that Obama approved IML. However, what if he VETOED it ??

Enter the probability of the Veto Override: Overrides start in the House. So 2/3 of the 434 members gotta say yes to the override. That equals 289 members saying yes. But that also means to PREVENT the override, Obama has to convince 146 Democrats to vote ” no” !

So how’s he gonna do that ? And what would the consequences be to those 146 ? And to the Democratic Party as a whole ?

As far as the 146–I expect them to govern as they were elected to do–standing behind the principles and constitution of this country

hey janice do you know what the process would be to go to the gulf Coast buy a boat and leave the country? I’m seriously considering that and would like to know what kind of conciquinces would there be

Mike, do you really want to open Janice up to liability issues by asking her to answer a question like that in a public forum? I recommend calling your county Bar Association and asking for a referral to an attorney who deals with international emigration. A half-hour of advise over the phone is usually between $50 and $100. The attorney may not completely solve your problem, but at least the information you receive would give you a rough idea of the issues, and most importantly it would be in confidence.

I was wondering if anyone has seen the Response for the Motion to Dismiss that was submitted on or before May 2nd?

The response to the government’s Motion to Dismiss is available on the link above right below the motion. If you click on the link, you will be able to read the response.

Very interesting how society thinks. We have nuclear threats, immigration problems, financial issues and trade deficits that are ruining this country. Yet, we have an uproar over transgenders having the right to use whatever restroom they want? Nobody cares if a male with a penis is using the urinal next to your young daughter/wife or sister? We have the Federal Givernment threatening lawsuits, celebrities cancelling shows and companies even leaving these states? I personally don’t think it’s Appropriate as a parent! Doesn’t my opinion count? Can’t I agree to disagree? Yet, we have people who have long ago paid their debt to society homeless, jobless, posted online with home addresses, harassed and even murdered along with family members? So, I ask. What’s most important?

You might maybe want to wonder why your young daughter, wife or sister is standing by the urinal being used by the “male with a penis”. (Those last three words are redundant, but, whatever.) The same biases that cause you to think something isn’t appropriate as a parent are why people who’ve paid their debts to society long ago are still listed on a website: Different parents who think something isn’t appropriate. Until we ALL learn to let go of our moral judgment, get off our own high-horse, and see people as PEOPLE and allow others to live their lives freely as long as they aren’t hurting others, then we’re part of the problem, just from a different side of the same coin.

Holeeee mother-freaking smackdown. The Plaintiff’s opposition to motion to dismiss is one of the most masterful pieces of schooling I’ve ever read. Absolutely Brilliant.

Janice, if you read this: Kudos to you and your team. I am in awe of the minds that put that together. I can’t even fathom the amount of work and time that had to have gone into researching case law and poring over so many rulings to get to the heart of each one.

You are awesome. Thank you for continuing this fight at your own time and expense even when, unlike most of the rest of us, you don’t have a personal reason to do it.

Oh wow!

Not only does Janice and team refute the MTD, but implicates that the judge was completely incorrect to “kick the case further down the road” by saying the case brought up wasn’t ripe b/c no actual harm was done. This made me chuckle heartily.

Thank you so much, Janice and team!

” I can’t even fathom the amount of work and time that had to have gone into researching case law and poring over so many rulings to get to the heart of each one.”

Her motions are always a great read! I have to check this out!

What’s even more amazing is that she did all that work in less than 1 week’s time.

Ann, you don’t even make sense! This has nothing to do with morals. Duh. This has to do with how society and the government views things. They are now giving more importance to transgenders than people who have long ago paid their debt to society. If we continue to not think out of the box, things won’t change. Duh

It does make sense if you stop to think about it from someone else’s perspective instead of your own. In the same way registrants were trying to quietly live their lives in peace before more restriction after restriction got heaped upon them, so trans people have been using the bathrooms of their choice and quietly minding their own business. The same wrong-thinking morality-based outrage that drives presence and residency restrictions is also driving the bathroom laws — an attempt to force people who are different, or who you don’t understand, or who you’re afraid of to stay away from you and yours. The dynamics are identical. People are willing to defend trans individuals because they see an injustice being waged against innocent people. They don’t jump to the same defense of registrants because registrants are not, in their minds, innocent. Stand up for the rights of others to live freely without persecution for simply being who they are and in the end you stand up for your own. Refrain from singling out others who give you the ick factor and you cease to support the same system that feels ick about you. Whether you agree with the belief/ stance/ lifestyle is irrelevant.


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.


I agree with you.
I’m not sure if you read what I wrote. Please don’t put me in the category of someone who is against LGBT rights, you do not have to tell me that they need protections.

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.

What you fail to understand is the distinct difference between a crossdresser and a transgendered person. Two completely different terms and different persons. It’s kind of like saying all registrants are pedophiles and using the terms interchangeably. It’s one thing to have an informed opinion and it’s a whole other to have a biased opinion (such as yours).


You ask why the federal government took interest in this case? Because the state of North Carolina is violating the United States Constitution

And they’re going to lose this case because a federal appeals court has already ruled a similar case that said a transgender Virginia high school student has the right to use bathrooms that match his new identity. Fact is, North Carolina’s GOP governor is just showboating for Christian right voters in the next election. The question you really should be asking is why’s the governor dictating the laws of local communities in his state?

Transgender is more than playing dress up. It’s about individual feelings & identity. It may be hard for heterosexual males like ourselves to grasp that concept, but who are we to judge. I do have compassion & sympathy for transgender people who want nothing but justice. And yes USA, you’re entitled to your beliefs. But I just find it ironic that you express them on a board full of people (maybe yourself included) who are part of a government registry made up of individuals deemed by society as possessing some kind of sexual “deviancy” So you’re definitely not coming at this from a level of moral superiority. Think of it this way…..transgender people only want the same societal acceptance & constitutional protections that folks on this forum push for everday

Just look at it from the another perspective. If you identified as a female in all respects and were forced to use a toilet around a bunch of men, how would you feel? I don’t doubt they want a safe and clean place to do their duty, just like the rest of us. There is no data that shows otherwise. With the murder rate and social stigmatization of transgender people being so high, I imagine it is very important that society accepts the way they see themselves. That’s what I want as a registered citizen, or rather not as a registered citizen. A citizen of humanity. To be accepted for what I am, not somebody’s boogeyman, someone’s circus act. I did one bad thing among many good things. Surprised they don’t ban us from public restrooms. That is next if you turn your back.

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.

I don’t need to read the definition. I personally know and am friends with people who are transgendered. Both male to female and female to male. If they didn’t tell you they are, you would never know it. Transgender people identify with and live as that specific gender. Cross dressers are straight men, like yourself, who PRIVATELY wear women’s clothing and undergarments as a sexual stimulus. But let’s not let facts get in the way of your warped sense of perception.


A common theme from your responses is calling other people “nuts” when you disagree with them.
You sound exactly like someones who is closed minded when they should be open minded. I also know someone who is transgender and there not playing dress up, this is their life. The pain, humiliation and alienation of family is not something someone chooses to do for fun!
You think its nuts for a transgender person to use a different bathroom but most people in society thinks its nuts to allow sex offenders to live next to a school, not register etc. Yes there will be some perv who takes advantage of these bathroom laws but 99% won’t. Its just like us, there will be a person who molests a child living next to a school but almost all will not. You should be able to see it is not fair to lump everyone together and brand them., which is what you are doing by saying some perv will dress up like a woman.
You clearly do not know people who are transgender so you are going by fear which is what most people do against sex offenders.
And you wonder why society treats sex offenders the way they do? You are doing it to another group.

Transgendered people have been using the bathroom they are most comfortable for years. I’ve never seen a problem with this. Everyone is worrying about nothing. Can anyone here cite statistics that shows them to be a danger to children? I would be more nervous if a person who looked like a female walked into a men’s room with me just because they were actually born a man (I wouldn’t know they were actually a man in many cases). Many life long transgendered people look and act exactly like the sex they identify with. So I guess you people that don’t want transgendered people in the bathroom they look appropriate to enter would be comfortable with a born woman entering a bathroom with your daughter if she looked exactly like a man?

You’re nuts, taking a shower in a dress, lol. Or would they fail to notice if you took it off? And why would you want to sneak in the women’s shower?

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

New user name, USA? sheesh.

I think USA has lost all credibility here. Or TMZ. Whatever you want to be called. Fear mongering and prejudice doesn’t belong here.

Where do you get your information? Coming from someone who is a member of this site I would expect you to be more understanding and tolerant. Cross dressers are NOT considered transgender. Transgender/transsexual persons can not identify with their assigned (physical)sexual identity. They will go through hormone treatments, breast removal, even penile reconstruction surgery to correct this issue.

These people pose no issue when using restrooms that match their gender identity. They are not perverts dressing to sneak up on your children. They are not drag queens, cross dressers, or any other term you may want to assign to them.

Considering we are all wearing a label that does not fit us as humans and we come to this forum for support and understanding I am totally surprised and disappointed at your comments.

The issue that is being overlooked here is the role of government in enforcing entry to restrooms, both private and public, through the force of law.

I say that we DON’T want government nor laws enforcing what are, essentially, cultural conventions, particularly those with religious (and thus, puritanical) origins, not to mention no actual victims.

This doesn’t require me to have a position on transsexualism but one upon government and its unwelcome intrusion into the lives of its citizens. I don’t have to support concepts of gender fluidity or dysphoria to find laws which make claims upon my, or other’s, freedom to be oppressive and unwarranted.

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.

Might as well explain: “Your” and “You’re” while you are at it, David.

While my sentence structure is not always perfect, we can all benefit from a
little grammar education at times.
Especially, when we are communicating such extremely important information about our lives.

When we are asking attorney’s to represent our cause, it does indeed help that we can communicate with them in an intelligent manner. It will give us all a better chance with the life that has been stripped from us.

Thank you David Kennerlyu. We’re getting off topic, but the improper use of those words is very annoying.

As you have noted, I managed to misspell my own last name 🙂 so I’m not coming at this topic from a position of perfection, by any means.

I’m always grateful to have an editor to chide me for my own grammatical missteps and I offer my critiques in the same hope of improving the writing and effectiveness of others.

Thank you!

I might add, “It’s” only means “it is”. “Its” means it belongs to “it”. We must have grown up in an age when it was important to agonize about getting your point across precisely, before we let stupid computers write for us and the internet think for us.

It’s easy to miss punctuation marks in online forums. I do it all the time. Most people know the difference between their, there, they’re. However, when you’re (notice I added the punctuation mark) typing fast, we tend to get lazy and not check our work.
The main thing is to get the gist of what someone writes
…….so I think you should chill out a little

I’m from Alabama so we say “owerdare” (over there) so you forgot to add that one into your discussion.

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.

The whole thing has already been blown out of proportion. If Target hadn’t made a statement, all would be okay. Transgenders have been using the restroom they associate with already. People are not lining up to be ‘transgender’ to visit restrooms. Seriously. And think of this, a straight guy who needs to see someone’s little girl means they have to dress/act the part (meaning, why not avoid the dressing up and just go in). I would have to think that would be rare and if it happens, that’s another level of crazy and those people should be dealt with. The issue of anyone walking into the wrong restroom, for whatever reason, has always been around. And to lighten the mood, it would be funny if we got to a point of checking genitals. Maybe former TSA agents could volunteer.

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.

My thinking on the transgender/restroom issue goes like this: The Federal government is the biggest obstacle to the quality of life for RC’s. The reason for all of the regulations/laws which can result in prison is ostensibly for the protection of young people. At the same time, the Federal government is the biggest proponent for unregulated use of restrooms. While taking advantage of being allowed to use whichever restroom that you want under the guise of being transgendered, could result in some nefarious people taking advantage of the law, the risk is totally ignored by this administration. Personally, I believe in the live and let live motto, but the actions of the Federal government with regard to protecting the public seem to be at odds.
They seem to be hell bent on allowing people to self identify whichever restroom they choose to use and at the same time ignore mountains of data with regard to the draconian treatment of RC’s.

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.

True, but why not post an article on it specifically. Fears of despised groups and the consequential laws resulting have certain traits in common and we can learn from the discussion and other groups’ efforts to combat them.
If one can’t expand ones tolerance of the “trangender” how can we expect the public to expand its tolerance of the “sex offender”.

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.

For what its worth, I am applying for a new passport Monday, expedited. I’ll let people here know how it goes. ($170 and I have to surrender my old passport for which I have great fondness)

Best Wishes, James

They’ll give you your old passport back, albeit with a paper-punched hole all the way through it.

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.

Thank you for the update Janice. Sad how they can make statements “Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act”, but no one as to follow that requirement. Just like Megan’s Law website was required to be updated a long time ago, but still not done. I bet it will take many months for you to get a response, if at all.

Of course you did…. you are the best!

Thank you!

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.

Anonymous Nobody, I think you overstate the international agreements component of the law. The U.S. government may be able to get other English-speaking countries and poorer dependent countries to enter into agreements or commitments. But the establishment of actual treaties between sovereign nations occurs at a level that is far above and beyond the machinations of this law. Furthermore, many European countries are unlikely to sign on to America’s sex offender hysteria. (Though, yes, the IML is a serious threat to our freedom and our County’s Constitution.)

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

From Janice, May 10: “the hearing on the government’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for July 27 in Oakland. We have learned the proper process for requesting permission for a “demonstration” in the plaza in front of the courthouse and have plenty of time to request and obtain that permission. Hope you will join us on July 27 in Oakland. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. “

This demonstration on July 27, will you have it even if they reschedule?

In case you didn’t know, July 27 is the date that AWA was signed by our dumbest president ever back in 2006, and we al know that 10 year anniversaries are big news. Personally, I’d like to come join any protest but it is a three day bus ride and I want to be sure that it isn’t cancelled or changed after I invest in the ticket and hotel and stuff.

Some are also investing effort and money into contacting people in the area. It better be set soon, hearing or no, anniversary of “what me worry” A. Newman look a like president signing Adam Walsh bill or not — or it is more than one bus or plane ticket, hotel room fare, vacation or sick leave or tank of gas lost.

I’m curious if a demonstration will affect the outcome of the case in a negative way? Secondly, I’m wondering how many people would actually show up to the demonstration? July 27th is so far away, I can see this case taking 5+ years to resolve.

To answer your first question, I don’t see how our demonstration could possibly compromise our case before the courts. Indeed, filling the courtroom with supporters could do nothing but help our efforts. Arguably, it is because we have never had public demonstrations, or displayed any organized gumption, of any kind, for that matter, that we now have to challenge these terrible laws.

As for how many people that might show up, I have no idea but a disappointing result will not be for a lack of effort on our parts. It all comes down to how many are willing to make the effort to stand up for their own rights. The advance notice of July 27 is a Godsend, in my opinion, giving us more time to prepare.

Every time a mile stone for us goes unattended–without a voice of outrage, they win!

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.

I agree with your assessment totally Pam !!

“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?

Yes, it’s still on for July 27th at 9:00a.m. at the Oakland Federal Courthouse. We’re hoping to have a large turnout for the hearing and the subsequent rally in the plaza immediately outside. We have obtained a permit for this.

This hearing is to hear the government’s motion-to-dismiss.

I have read a lot about the rally and demonstration, but thanks for bringing me up-to-speed about the status of the case.

I’m guessing it’s probably going to be like last time, where the Judge will take weeks to announce her decision.

It’s very unlikely that the Judge will issue an opinion from the bench. We will hear about it later which means that we won’t know, at the time of the demonstration, what her ruling will be.

If she rules in favor of the dismissal, then we will probably be able to guess, as we did the last time, based upon her querulous and peevish lines of questioning.

If she does, our fight will not be over; we will re-file.

The demonstration promises to be historic, if we can get lots of attendees. This is very important and I do hope that many here will get to the protest if at all possible. Its success will not rest upon the ruling but upon the unity of Registrants, and those who support them, to come together, finally, in a concerted effort to denounce injustice. This will get attention. It may even mark a turning point.

We desperately need a Stonewall moment. It is within our power to deliver it, if we so choose.

Agree. The only thing certain to weaken the chain of public perception is to have registrants speak out and be physically present. That is what people won’t expect, for us to be open and courageous, it will wake them up, and that is what will make the needed impact to get people to think twice and look at the evidence.

The hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss was postponed until July 27.

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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x