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 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.”
“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.
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
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.
Pk- how is your progress going with your Visa?
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!
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.
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.
Wasn’t the right to travel abroad already covered in Kent v. Dulles by the US Supreme Court in 1958?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles
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?
I have purchased four domains for this cause and have donated their use to Janice. Internationalmeganslaw.com, .info, .net, .org. They all have been pointed to this site. It’s not much but every little bit helps Janice.
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 ?
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
I was wondering if anyone has seen the Response for the Motion to Dismiss that was submitted on or before May 2nd?
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?
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!
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