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.
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)
Horrible, just horrible. The analogy of the dragon is apt. In Christian symbolism, the dragon represents the devil. It seems as though the devil himself is energizing lawmakers and the federal government. And the most pathetic thing is some (not all – many are simply cynical) believe that they are doing good.
What is also twisted is that courts seem to argue from petty points of law instead of greater principles. Upholding the Constitution has been reduced to nitpicking at fine points – straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Somehow, biblical metaphors seem to apply here. David and Goliath, etc. etc.
My overall impression of the judge was that she was uninformed and misinformed, like the majority of people in this country. As you said, they are building upon precedents of myths and lies. Untangling this mess needs a multi-pronged approach – PR, education, RC involvement and organizing, legal coalitions, whatever we can muster up.
So, what is the next step?
Also, I have six years left on my passport. Does anyone know if I can I use it until it expires?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-block-passport-marker-law-involving-sex-crimes-38367796
http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/national/article_be736263-f5db-545f-a008-283da91a3cda.html
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/13/too-soon-to-fight-sex-offender-passport-mark.htm
I’m confused about the Judge’s argument:
“Since the marker provision has not yet gone into effect, deciding whether to block it over constitutional issues would be premature” so therefore it is not yet ripe.
However, “Hamilton also rejected a request to block the notification provision, saying federal authorities were already notifying countries when sex offenders travel there”.
Isn’t that part ripe enough?
So what does this mean. We need to challenge pre-existing notification law, which actually isn’t a law.
“Because plaintiffs are not challenging the pre-existing notification provisions, they have not shown that an alleged injury resulting from implementation of the IML would be redressable. Further, any injury that plaintiffs might be asserting relating to such notifications would not be fairly traceable to the IML, and cannot be said to be “certainly impending.” In light of these facts, the court finds that plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success on the notification claim.”
We should have a passport burning event !
Does Janice’s lawsuit clearly target the notification process with its language of the RC is likely to commit a crime in the foreign country? It is very clear that we need to go on an aggressive campaign to grow each state’s memberships of RSOL groups. The longer that we wait, the more ridiculous laws will be passed. We need more members and a lot more money to not only file lawsuits but maybe more importantly, to promote a PR campaign where facts are emphasized so that even Federal judges have a clue. This judge seems to already have her mind made up as to the merits of the case. Either that or she is gutless.
Does anybody know if there is any kind of precise legal definition for the standard “certainly impending” that the judge used? IMHO nothing in human affairs can be said to be predictable with absolute certainty. So is there, say somewhere in case law, a notion of how closely to 100% certain something can come to merit the word “certainly” in a legal sense? I know this sounds nit-picky but a few weeks ago the SCOTUS justices were arguing about the plain meaning of some words and phrases in a law. Shouldn’t she have used “likely” rather than “certainly”?
Wait, what??? I read the decision and don’t understand this part:
***
However, at the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that plaintiffs would not
oppose the passport identifier “if it were limited to [those with] convictions for child
trafficking and tourism.” In other words, plaintiffs do not necessarily seek to enjoin the
entire passport identifier provision. Plaintiffs’ counsel reiterated that the purpose of the
IML was to address child sex trafficking, which she asserted was not what her clients
were convicted of and not what resulted in their being required to register as sex
offenders.
For these reasons, the court finds that the claim regarding the passport identifier is
not yet ripe for resolution. The consequence for purposes of the present motion is that
plaintiffs cannot clearly articulate which acts they seek to have enjoined, or why.
Accordingly, plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success on the passport identifier claim.
***
The judge makes it sound like the law may not apply to the plaintiffs once everything is finalized, but it does as long as they were convicted of a sex offense against a minor.
Questions:
1) Were the plantiffs convicted of a sex offense against a minor???
2) If someone is given deferred adjudication and probation but is a registered sex offender and the original charge involved a child, do they get the passport identifier and is Angel Watch notifying other countries too even though they were not convicted???
The IML states “Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction qualify as covered sex offenders for purposes of this provision”
This site is seriously depressing me today.
IML, colorado, New York, Taking away my gun rights to protect myself ughh
2 questions:
1) Since the issue isn’t “ripe” now, will an injunction request be filed again once the creation of the passport scheme is complete?
2) The law says:
“Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction”
Today I live in a jurisdiction where I don’t have to register. But I would be required to register in California. I assume I am no subject to the passport requirement since I’m not “CURRENTLY” required. But if I moved to California and then I applied for a passport, I’d get the mark. But if I moved back to a state where I’m not required to register, then I wouldn’t get the mark. OR does the language mean that since there exists a jurisdiction where I’d be required to register, I get the mark no matter what?
Can’t you appeal the judge’s ruling? This is normal action in a majority of states. Judges do whatever they want not following the rule of law. Ultimately more lawsuits need to be filed so this issue goes before the USC. To me this is normal course of action. Most judges wipe their ass with the Constitution throughout the USA. It’s really a meaningless document.
Here’s an interesting paper on “certainly impending”. Made even more interesting by the fact that it actually focuses on the Northern District of California. It appears our little judge went against the precedent set by her peers. How very nice of her!
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/standing-iii.pdf
Well in my opinion and mind u it’s just an opinion this judge is gutless and took the cowards way out. There was plenty of information in the motion to support our complaint but chose to ignore it. I think she was much more worried about her reputation than our rights. Thus making a cowards decision to protect her reputation. But our right is not over we will re- group and right on. So fellow registered citizens keep your head up and keep calm and right on. Janice is not going to let this deter us from our fight. We lost the battle but not the war.
You can read the Judge’s Order online at the link provided. You can come to your own conclusions.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/308438358/IML-Injunction-Denied-by-Federal-Court
Predictable and pathetic – just want you would expect.
I can’t wait to find a way to escape this cesspool of a country the USA has become.
Our government is actively fighting us and marginalizing us more each year and yet we are supposed to remain optimistic.
You only have to put your hand on the stove one time to learn you will get burned…how many time do you have to be burned by the government until you will realize that nothing is going to change.
Lies and more additional punishment year after year is all we have experienced and there is NO reason to expect anything else.
This just proves the point.
I think I’m done with all this stuff… if all 800,000 of us just stop listening to this crap and rebel they will have to do something else. Unless they build a prison to house all 800,000 of us
My response to this ruling will be offensive to many.
I am going to start talking. I know things about what “Americans” do when they travel posing as teachers, electrical contractors and other trades.
I know that right now in Thailand, Americans “working” as electrical contractors for Marubeni drink and drive on the streets of Thailand, which is essentially attempted murder of Thai children.
I am going to write a letter to the leaders and papers in EVERY single nation, telling them that they should refer to the DOJ website for statistics on Americans that are not convicted greatly outnumber those convicted and that every American is a potential child rapist, corporate or government spy, identity thief, drunk driver, arsonist and serial killer. The only way to protect their children is for every American to be escorted 100% of the time by an official from the host governments and that all electronic devices should be seized from Americans upon arrival and returned when they leave. Any American caught with electronic devices should be arrested and charged with espionage and/or child sex trafficking.
I will also point out the factual evidence that allowing an American into their country attracts death, as an American citizen is to a devout Muslim terrorist as sugar water is to ants… when these countries allow Americans in, they take the risk that their own people will be killed as the devout Muslim terrorists try to kill Americans.
I am tired of waiting and losing. I am going on the offensive.
Is there a poll-system that is worldwide? We should pose the following question to the people of the world:
An American woman, traveling alone, comes into your shop to purchase good or services. As is customary you require her identification to verify her credit card. When she opens her passport you see in bold red letters the words “SEX OFFENDER” above her photo and personal information.
What is your response? Keep in mind the rights of an American do not follow them outside the US.
Will you serve her?
Will you notify others of her sex offender status?
Will you have the urge to harm her?
Will you charge her more for the goods or services?
What if it was an American man, also traveling alone…..
There are so many good questions here. Can we appeal the decision based on a biased judge? When will they stop making decisions without ever looking at the facts? What if she decided that anyone who ate red meat was a murderer? Does she not have to have some evidence to prove this? Same with “sex offenders”. If the statistics show that those on the registry are NOT the ones committing these imaginary crimes, then she should not be able to make her decision based on what she has heard. She has to present the facts when making such a detrimental decision. So, is anyone who looks at pornography already a rapist? She would probably say yes. She has to be stopped. Someone else has to look at this case.
I’m pretty sure any registration is a Hit List on its face. Thus must I say it? Punitive! Is it possible we could all chip in and buy this island they all want to send us too. Because I will happily go to it.
I was told that after 10 years I could petition to be removed from the registry…that being said I am looking to get out of this country. I lived abroad several years ago (should have stayed) and would like to go back. I know the laws in each country are different, but if I wanted to move to Germany, let’s say…what are the chances? My hopes are that during the 10 years on the registry I can try to say enough money to move away, but would Germany even accept me?
This country is ran by a bunch of cowards and I would rather be a citizen of another country than allow the government to prevent me “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
any help with that would be much appreciated.
I always though the whole marker on the passport thing was more of a red herring, or a symbolic part of the International Meagan’s Law. The real issue is that they inform other nations that anyone on the US Registered Sex offender list is a criminal. It does not matter if they were ever found guilty of a crime or not, or if they received deferred adjudication, and therefore NO conviction. If you read the law, they call anyone on the list a criminal, and they tell other nations this. That is the REAL issue, because all the mark on the passport would do is confirm the list they already have you on to not let you into their country in the first place.
One step backward. Now let’s prepare for two steps forward!
Thank you, Janice, et al for continuing to fight this ugly fight!!!
IMHO the only way this “identifier” will ever go away is like this: Every convicted felon, no matter what the offense, should be required to register for their mistake.
This registration will be mandatory and failure to register will result in a prison term.
There names will be published with details of their crime for all to see. Any travel out of the country will require a 21 day notification and the destination country will be notified of the high risk and danger of the traveler engaging in a similar crime upon arrival to the destination country.
As well, there should be an “identifier” on their passport.
That would put an end to all of this unconstitutional ex post facto bull-*rap.
And it would end in a hurry when one quarter of the US citizenry all of a sudden
feels the punishment with these type of laws.