Janice’s Journal: IML – Court Denies Request for Preliminary Injunction

Today the dragon won.  That is, the federal government was given permission to continue its implementation of the International Megan’s Law (IML).

The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California denied our Motion for Preliminary Injunction which attempted to stop the government’s addition of a Scarlet letter to the passports of American citizens as well the government’s notifications to foreign countries that citizens intend to travel there.

The court’s denial was based, in part, upon the legal concept of ripeness.  That is, whether the issue was ready (or ripe) for judicial review.

The court declared it was not.  Why?  Because the federal government has not yet determined the appearance or placement of a “conspicuous unique identifier” on a passport.  In making this declaration, the court avoided the broader issue of whether any identifier placed on any part of a passport could pass constitutional muster.

The court’s denial was also based, in part, upon the legal concept of standing.  That is, whether the plaintiffs in the case have identified a “certainly impending” future injury caused by the IML.

The court declared they have not.  Why?  Because any injury that plaintiffs suffered could not be traceable to the IML.  In making this declaration, the court failed to consider the harm already done to plaintiffs in this case as well as to thousands of others including the inability to live with one’s spouse, assist an elderly parent or conduct lawful business overseas.

Although today’s decision was not unexpected, it is disappointing.  It is one more decision in which a court ignores empirical evidence and relies instead upon myths.

The big picture is this.  Today the dragon won.  Tomorrow we fight again.  Our challenge to the IML will continue.

Decision

Read all of Janice’s Journal

Related Media articles

Judge won’t block passport marker law involving sex crimes  –  ABC News

Too Soon to Fight Sex Offender Passport Mark (Courthouse News)

Judge tosses out challenge to sex offender passport law (SF Chronicle)

 

 

Related posts

Subscribe
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.  
 

193 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I have read the entire Ellman article, and I still don’t understand why Janice and the other advocates you read about in the blogs are scratching around the edges (challenging the IML, residency restrictions, etc), when the entire system is clearly based on bogus facts. Why isn’t registration itself challenged? It seems quite evident that it’s completely indefensible.

You can read the article here. Click on Open PDF in Browser at the top.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429

Facts really do take a long time to sink in,especially when they are based in a type of religiosity to the orthodox view, and when the powerful have invested much capital in the existing theory and would lose much of their authority if shown to be wrong.
Such, after 200 years of Copernicus presenting his evidence that the planets revolved around the sun, Galileo was forced to recant his support of the heliocentric cosmos.
Humans still think that they believe are the center of the Universe and therefore truth emanates from them. We have had decades of the myth of the roving sex offender danger and its solution, the sex offender registry, and the myth became very compelling because it reinforced the myth of the sacredness of innocence and childhood. Who knows how many more years to untangle the myth from the fact and still convince people you are not overturning their most sacred beliefs. When all is said and done, falsehoods are not going to protect children, but for the same reasons people would not want to see the Sun made the center of the Universe, they will have a hard time accepting that facts are even relevant to the discussion — indeed, at present, even questioning the registry and the punitive model is heresy. It would be a step in the right direction to get those in power to admit that it is not simply a matter of believing in children or not, many of us even have children we believe in and want to be safe, and move on to at least discuss what is known.

Thank you Janice for bring actual facts to our justice system. The truth will set us free, and hopefully will stop these unscrupulous politician rallying the momb, spreading more lies and hysteria for their own selfserve attempts for votes. Education is how this will be won and then our media will be force to report facts not lies, and only then society will stop buying the hype. My dream is one-day society will stop lumping us all into one category not just a pack of rabid animals they need to put down.
All we’re asking for is true justice to be served as every US Citizen deserves.
My grandfather always said, “You keep kicking your dog,it will one day bit you back”…
I am done hiding in the shadows my voice well be heard.

Money talks! We need to donate including me. I just gotta figure out how.

Unfortunately, after reading so many sex offender stories on other websites it seems to me that the public has one general thought: “Facts don’t protect lives.” Nor do facts tell them what they want to hear. I made a comment in the past about legislators using “Wikipedia facts.” And it seems to be very true, but then I was told that I falsely assumed lawmakers actually look at facts at all. And it got me thinking…when I was in college and was assigned a paper to write, I had to cite any fact that was given. I couldn’t just give a random number based on my own personal feelings about the topic. I was required to go great lengths to find scientific journals which were peer reviewed by no less than 5 of the authors colleagues. Now, I know that writing papers in college could be described as being “trivial,” not really having a large impact on the lives of people. But then I see lawmakers coming up with some asinine information regarding sex offenders…my question to congress/senate is this, “Why aren’t you requiring the lawmakers to supply even more citations when they their stats?”

These laws have such an impact on the lives of the offender and the offenders family and in some cases it has cost the offender their life.

I really hope the courts get challenged on their justification for these laws since the recidivism rates are so low that’s what really needs to be addressed

We are a society of people lied to, purposefully mislead, and manipulated via our emotions. We are consistently and purposefully lead to believe the dogma put forth by self-serving legislators and highly-biased victim advocacy groups. Like scared little children we believe all the terrifying stories intentionally told us relating to the ever-present, 21st century ‘Boogey Man’, i.e., the sex offender. We never question the veracity of those who claim this boogey man is everywhere and always waiting to exploit any opportunity to snatch away and/or defile our children. We believe he cannot control himself nor can he be controlled. We believe he is a forever threat. We are offered all the proof we need of the Boogey Man’s existence, as well as his predatory nature, via sensationalize and intentionally misleading media coverage. Each and every high profile case is used to further frighten the already frightened children – children who only appear adults. Emotionally, most of society responds on a level comparable to that of a pre-schooler when the Boogey Man is thrust upon us. Each and every mention of the Boogey Man results in knee-jerk, emotional reactions. Our society vacillates from hysteria to near hysteria when it comes to issues related to our modern-day Boogey Man.

We, or at least many, believe those who commit this class of crime do more harm to the victim than do murderers. Is that some distorted thinking or what? Yet, all one needs to do is begin to question those around them and it will not take long for a respondent to voice just such a belief. Crazy, huh? As is the case with actual children who have been needlessly terrified by an imaginary evil, all attempts to bring forth the truth and enlightenment are met with great resistance. Once a belief is formed and reinforced over and over again facts contrary to those believes are rendered irrelevant. Fear-based, emotional beliefs are the most difficult to overcome. Whenever people, especially those behaving as frightened children, those experiencing strong emotional reactions to a subject, particularly one felt so strongly as sexual threats, the ability to reason logically is all but lost. As a result, we turn to our protectors, for relief – just as children turning to their parents do when faced with fears they cannot control. The problem is our protectors are in the business of exploiting our fears. Our protectors further their careers by responding to perceived threats, often threats which are intentionally greatly distorted, with what is nothing more than ‘feel good’ legislation. They, our protectors, present themselves as champions intent upon addressing and resolving societal protection, but in reality this is not their primary motivation for any steps taken. Opportunities to earn favor with the children they entrusted to protect, i.e., professional attainment, maintenance, and advancement, is, in reality, what they seek most. Furthermore, it is easier to control a fearful group than one free of fear and allowed to think clearly. And because we, the children, are so very consumed by our fears, despite those fears being more imagined than real, we never seem to notice that the protections being offered are also a mechanism which unavoidably leads to the limiting the freedoms of all – not just those who we fear. Today our constitutional protections against expos facto legislation is under attack due to the retro-active nature of current sex offender registration laws. Those convicted of having committed past sex offenses can and are being forced to comply with laws restricting their freedoms enacted long after conviction – long after the date of the offense.

PLEASE Janice et el challenge the Court to justify these laws using the current data. I find it very difficult for the Court to come up with a viable rational reasonable reason to justify encroaching on so many constitutional rights and what their justification is for all the regulations being put in place for rc when the recidivism rates are practically nonexistent.this could be a blessing in disguise that could actually topple the entire registration scheme.YOUR HONOR WHAT IS THE RATIONALIZATION REGULATE,RESTRICT, AND ENCROACH THIS CLASS OF CITIZENS WITH A PRACTICALLY NONEXISTENT RECIDIVISM RATE!!!!!!!!!

Janice, so what are the next detailed steps? Will this information be posted somewhere or will there be a conference call on this? How can I get involved aside from donating money?

Off topic, does anyone know if this IML will effect pending AWA cases? I have my wife’s immigration (2nd attempt) pending due to the AWA. I just hope the IML somehow does not jeopardize it.

Why can’t all these governments entities (US Gov’t. lawmakers, cabinet members, State/local governments)and sex offense hysterical celebrities, like J Walsh, PFML, Runners, Book and etc. be sued in a massive class action for fraud and harassment?

There should be a online forum setup so we can all communicate and better know how many of us there are and this would allow a place to store and better search for information. phpbb or otherwise software. I would be willing to donate my hard earned money to host such a forum.

Florida has required notification for at least 10 years, but only if you were going to be out of the country for more than 5 days (nights) More recently, the instituted a 21 day rule, but did provide for unexpected travel which only requires that you notify them as soon as possible. In the past I gave them a heads up, but kept my trips to 5 nights or less, so no paperwork was required. for the one or two trips where I was gong to be gone longer, i just filled out the form.
After I was pulled aside in Brussels in November 2013, I asked the deputy who was doing my 6 month registration update in December if they had sent my info to CBP? He said no, they weren’t sending it anyone. CBP/Angel Watch got the information from the passenger list of Delta Airlines. That was the first time that I was required to give my full name as it appeared on my passport to Delta when I bought the ticket online and not my first, middle initial, last like it appears on my Florida Drivers license and every other card that I have. I was a bit wary at the time as to why they were asking for that info and in hindsight, with good reason.
My question about the IML is if you live I live someplace like Vermont where as of this year, I am no longer required to register by operation of statute or Georgia where I can be removed from the registry by court order, who would I report my travel to? As I live in Florida, I would still be up on their website with my last known address listed (the state actually went to court to be able to keep people on who had left the country) but under absolutely no legal obligation to maintain my registration unless I came back to Florida. I naturally follows that my old registration would still be somewhere the national registry, but Florida would not maintain/update it once I was gone and in the case of a state like Vermont where they will “pre clear: you before you even move there and as such, I would have never even registered, they would not even report me to that central clearinghouse.