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)
This injustice to free Americans is for all the world to see.
This wrong can be corrected… Can be righted.
There are issues that are yet to be argued and set forth that can win.
For all free Americans , NO one should be treated in this manner. ‘…Not only an offense against history, but an offense against humanity”… .
The Berlin Wall came down…so can this.
There is no hope… why even bother going forward? it’s just a waste of money and time…. i try to stay positive and have some sort of hope… I just don’t see any more hope…
I’m seriously thinking about having a long conversation with my loved ones tomorrow about actively looking to move out of the country.. I’m not seeing much hope coming from Janices team her past posts seem to have some sort of hope and her arguments seemed super strong too…
Is there any other district that would have a better chance at this? I’m in Arizona I am a level 1 offender here they base things off of the individuals risk and if your a level 1 there is no notification, and your not on the public website… I still have to check in once a month via mail or if i move or buy a new vehicle.. otherwise i am left alone..
If i had the legal knowledge and an attorney that was willing to fight that battle here in this district i would do it in a heart beat its worth my money…
Step backward (ahhhhhhhhh) how about a hop skip and a jump backwards “signed sealed and delivered “it’s over”
A interesting comment left as a review from the book…. A memory of skin.
All alone in the world, hiding in the shadows of society, part of an ever-growing mass of exiles electronically shackled to a society that despises and shuns them.
Who are these modern-day lepers? And why are almost a million of them in America? What if sex offending is a symptom of a malfunctioning society, and these men are just the canaries in the coal mine, carrying the burden of society’s shame? What if the Internet is the snake in the Garden of Eden, and pornography is the forbidden fruit?
The deeper ironies of a culture that condemns man for life, even while turning its children into dehumanized sexual commodities. The punishment becomes profound loneliness and isolation, alienated by the digital age, the inability of people to get beyond false facades to truly trust and connect with each other.
Fear of outliving family only brings near total isolation on a virtually deserted planet called earth. One can’t help but feel like a shipwrecked survivor on a island. The reminder of others existence only comes in form of hatred and distain. How can strangers have so much hate? Every individual is surly different. Every case must have different variables of guilt. Not in today’s digital world. Even after death peace will not be given. The red dot on the map will still exist.
Sex offender registration—a kind of social death sentence. Entire families sentenced to social death.
Since when did the general public trust and believe anything the government has said?
The hypocrisy of the sex laws… Written mostly by sex offenders. Foley, Hastert, Walsh, Lungsford, Schwartzenegger.
Immortal sole, electronic prisoner of war.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/europe/air-passenger-data-sharing-terror-europe/index.html
In an effort to combat “terrorism”, and “trafficking”. I’m thinking our days of traveling to the EU are coming to a close. It certainly won’t be long before the IML stuff finds its way into this mess! Especially given the IML goal of obtaining reciprocity from other countries.
Well like it or not the court used the facts to deny the injunction so lets watch and see if they use the facts to dismantle IML once implemented!!!! Keep up the Great work RSOL and ALL involved….
I think this would have been a lot different if the John Doe who was a pilot was fired from his job because he can’t fly his cargo plane anywhere. The fact he’s still flying into countries without a problem, so it seems, is an issue. The only real affects so far are people being turned away. Yes, that’s bad but not serious enough for the judge to grant this injunction and she’s right that we have no idea what this “identifier” will look like.
I believe we should have fought the notifications when they first started happening. The judge, it seems thinks so.
“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”.
I think what the Judge was saying that Janice did not challenge the pre-existing notifications in her Motions.
Of course they ruled against it. The US doesn’t want us here, but doesn’t want us to leave. They want us humiliated, ostracized, and bared from civilization. They want a front row seat for their efforts, to watch us die alone, in a ditch or under a overpass as far away from civilization as they can push us, with nothing but our shame and humiliation to keep us company. They claim that they don’t want us going to other countries to commit new crimes, which is absolute BS. They don’t want us going to some other country because they know that there we might get a fresh start and a chance at living a normal life, and that would ruin all of their hard work to watch us suffer under their thumb.
So many people are so quick to point the finger of blame and hate. So quick to judge and hate anyone that has even just been accused of a crime. Those are the real danger if you ask me. Those are the people who turn vigilante and take the law into their own hands. Maybe out of frustration to begin with, but soon enough that turns to enjoyment, self riotousness, and satisfaction. Why not lock them up? Those are your serial killers right there. But I guess murder is OK unless someone sees you naked when you do it. Then you have to pay for life.
Read and reread judge’s decision. I can see her point about waiting til things are a bit clearer as to who will be hurt and how. She obviously believes in the good intent of legislation and legislators. We know better! She seems oblivious to how these laws have grown to grotesque proportions, and how bureaucrats expand and build on the original law’s or regulation’s intent to cover more and more types of crimes, and more and more types of people. We have seen and KNOW how each state has expanded the punishments and restrictions, and seen the day to day realities of the registry. She has taken the road of logical extension instead of common sense. The Justice system is too often like that. Logic is a dangerous thing when you compare slightly different situations to each other…and the more you do it, the farther you move away from the original common sense point of view, until you end up, logically of course, with an insane conclusion bearing no resemblance to common sense. I argue these things with my lawyer brother all the time.
Unfortunately, we pay the price and the judge enjoys a nice glass of wine in the evening!
Well we have Janice, and she’s fighting the good fight, and we have to applaud her. It will be a long war, but criminal justice reform is starting to be a thing, and hopefully we’ll see the day…
Does any know who we to give travel notice to in california?
Unforgiven:
Travel notice? To where, for how long? I gave notice to my local agency for Europe, for three weeks.
They told me there was no requirement of notice now, but if I wanted to send a letter that was fine.
Instead, I went back East for a Funeral. I stayed a week, the amount of time allowed in that state before I felt it was necessary to register…even as a temporary transient…or visitor. (I will note an attorney in that jurisdiction insisted I had 37 days!)
At some level I am inclined to think each of us has to figure this out for themselves.
But in general, talk to your local agency…it can’t hurt and shows to some degree your sincere desire to stay compliant.
However, don’t be surprised if you don’t get the hard answer you want.
Good Luck
Best Wishes, James
I can’t knock the judges reasons on the fact it hasn’t taken place
on passports yet. But I can tell she would rule just being an RSO is reason to reject entrance into a country, and not IML fault for listing a true fact.
The judge clearly believes that sex offender literally means sexually offending in the present, and that if you are on the registry you are dangerous. Therefore, she justifies the government’s actions. She is apparently unable to conceive of the situation that so called sex offender is traveling on an innocent family vacation or legitimate work travel. Despite appearing to know the law by all the cases she site, she has no concept of the real situation and the reality of those she is making a judgement against.
Stephen wrote “I can’t knock the judges reasons on the fact it hasn’t taken place
on passports yet. But I can tell she would rule just being an RSO is reason to reject entrance into a country, and not IML fault for listing a true fact.”
I can also tell that too, that she would illogically come to that conclusion since she did not acknowledge the Government’s lack of nexus of registrants being involved in child sex trafficking and child sex tourism. The Judge does not point out that these statements I list below that the Judge repeats from the Government response do not show registrants engage in these 2 crimes, child sex trafficking and child sex tourism.
Decision states “The IML was enacted to “protect children and others from sexual abuse and exploitation, including sex trafficking and sex tourism.” IML, Preamble. In enacting the IML, Congress noted that “[l]aw enforcement reports indicate that known child-sexoffenders are traveling internationally.” IML § 2(4). Congress found that “[t]he commercial sexual exploitation of minors in child sex trafficking and pornography is a global phenomenon,” with millions of child victims each year. Id. § 2(5). ”
She nitpicks plaintiffs but let’s this nonsense stand. A nexus was not established of registrants and child sex trafficking and child sex tourism, in these statements. The Judge also does not scrutinize the Government where in their response , they only mention child sex tourism and child sex trafficking. The Judge could have said the Government should only be concerned with sending notifications and establishing passport identifiers for those convicted of those 2 crimes, since those were the only crimes mentioned in the government response. The Judge took it upon herself to mention whats mentioned in the content of the title, that mentions ‘other’ sex crimes other than those 2 only mentioned in the government response.
Since the Government in their response mentioned only those 2 crimes, and it’s reasonable to assume the Judge would be questioning the government in their response to plaintiff’s stated case as to why they are not defending notifications and passport identifiers for those convicted of sex crimes other than child sex trafficking or tourism, pointing out you are not opposed to notifications or identifiers for those convicted of the 2 crimes, trafficking or tourism, only re-enforces that the government is not defending notifications or passport identifiers for those not convicted of trafficking or tourism. In my opinion, the Judge did not make a fair ruling, by ignoring these things and selectively applying logical scrutiny. I also take issue with her using Chris Smith’s statement on country-hopping registrants. She just accepts Chris Smith’s fantasies as worthy of inclusion in her decision. Theres not only no nexus for the notification, but also she offers no support for a nexus for a need for a unique identifier since Chris Smith’s statement is unsupported.
Timmr writes “The judge clearly believes that sex offender literally means sexually offending in the present…”
Which makes as much sense as saying a drunk driver is on the road, when it is someone who was once convicted of a DUI 30 years ago and hasn’t had a drink since.
I think it is important to remember what a preliminary injunction is designed to do. It is to stop the action of the government right now before too much harm is done to the plaintiffs. Firstly, as of the time the case was heard, the government was not yet labeling passports, thus the plaintiffs could not show any damage done to them. Furthermore, the identifier has yet to be designed so the plaintiffs cannot show how damaging it might be. That’s why it wasn’t deemed “ripe”. Perhaps by the time the injunction is heard it will be ripe. Secondly, the Angle Watch program has been in place for some years now. With the implementation of IML there is no significant change to the notification program that has already been going on. Thus, the plaintiffs are no more damaged then they were before IML became law.
If you think about it that way it’s not a surprise that the injunction was denied. At some point the passport identifier issue will become ripe and there may still be a chance for success against it. However, since the Angel Watch program was not law prior to its implementation, I’m not sure an injunction can be granted against it. How do you stop the government from doing something that it has not been authorized to do by law? Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can answer that question.
Will a transcript / audio recording of the March 30 IML hearing be posted onto the CA RSOL site here for us to read and/or listen to the proceedings? I am not in a financial position to order.
Here is information on how to order a transcript or audio recording of March 30 initial IML hearing in Ninth District Courtroom, Oakland, CA:
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Clerks Offices (San Francisco and Oakland locations)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/locations
Transcripts Procedures and Requests
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/transcripts
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Home Page
(Cases of Interest shown on Home Page do not include IML)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/home
So, they are saying that the plaintiffs could have not shown any damage done to them yet since the identifiers have not been placed? I thought they were good at imagining how things would be? Like, they can imagine a sex offender re-offending, even after having been crime free for decades, yet they can’t imagine the hardship this will cause the registrant AND their families? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
From ICE’s web page:
***
Through Operation Angel Watch, HSI uses publicly available sex offender registry information and passenger travel data to strategically alert foreign law enforcement partners through its HSI attaché offices of a convicted child predator’s intent to travel to their country. In Fiscal Year 2015, HSI made over 2,100 notifications to more than 90 countries.
***
Has a lawyer reviewed the list of 2100 notifications to confirm that is what they are doing?
What is their definitions of “child predator” that makes them so likely to engage in Sex Tourism? I can see if they were doing it only to those convicted of Sex Tourism, but we know that’s not the case at all.
What countries do they consider likely destinations?
I wouldn’t consider England, Australia, Canada, Japan, France, or Germany likely destinations and not needing to be notified even under their vague wording, but I bet they still notify them.
Doesn’t it violate “due process” to blacklist any registered sex offender without the slightest bit of review on our side?
By the U.S. sending any “warning” or applying a “Scarlet Letter”, that puts the burden of diagnosing an individuals threat and liability if they are wrong on every other government a person ever travels to instead of it being done just ONCE here, through a fair evaluation. Obviously, that will result in complete denial of entry for everyone marked because other nations aren’t going to wast the time/money or take on that liability when they can simply deny entry.
Heaven Forbid if they ever identify a specific gene in the human body that makes sex offense more likely, because with the type of logic the government is using that will justify those people being marked as well.
It seems to me from reading the travel comments, that fighting the IML is by now useless and irrelevant, since Angel Watch is already doing the job in all of the countries where they accept the myth that previous sex crime convictions are a warning for future behavior, or where they are so beholden to the US that they do whatever they are told. I guess that was the judge’s point. And Angel Watch does this, apparently, with no legal authorization. The lawsuit should be directed to stopping the Angel Watch notifications, which are as illegal as the IML. Will overturning IML stop Angel Watch? They are doing it just fine with no benefit of IML.
Why is Janice and CA RSOL the only fighter in this battle? Why are there not many suits in many states to tie up the State Department in multiple depositions and maybe get them to cry uncle? I read on RSOL, for example, that ACLU is fighting a registry rule in Illinois and taking a case to the Illinois Supreme Court that does not sound any more significant than the fight against IML. Doesn’t anyone reading this have any contacts within local ACLUs which can be recruited? Sounds to me like we need much more firepower.
I would like to point out that the identifier will in all likelihood be data stored on the electronic chip which is in all new passports. It doesn’t need to be visibly printed on the outside.
If the Nazis had had the technology to “chip” people they would have done so. Instead they forced them to wear a star symbol which was an identifier that they were a member of a monitored group…and of course, they also give them a physical tatoo as a permanent marker.
Since a passport is required for travel across borders what this new “law” does is effectively CHIP us just like a dog so we can be identified. We are being marked just like dogs.
Make no mistake about it. If they could get away with it they would actually implant the chip within our bodies and most likely the next step in the ongoing abuse and punishment that is added yearly. This virtual chipping is just as insidious.
Think I am taking this too far? Well, did you ever think that our freedom of movement would ever keep us locked in a virtual prison within the borders of the USA? Did you ever think that a simple sentence would result in a lifetime of punishment with no possibility of ending?
Well, just look at what has happened and is there any reason to think this will stop? NOT AT ALL
Make no mistake about it. We ARE considered second class citizens and this unprecedented destination should make every American quake in their boots!
These are dark days for the once great land of the free.
My passport has the RFD chip. Back a year ago I used my passport for identification. It was scanned through a machine like they use in immigration and at airports. I ask what what information does the RFD chip hold and the man who scanned it turned his computer screen to show me. All it shows is the same info as what is on the inside cover.Your info and picture and no other markings or other writings.
it’s nice to see a lot of new names posting on here maybe the words getting out to a lot more people
Could someone (Janice?) get this article on the judge’s desk? Seems the entire sex offender registry scheme (and all the other ensuing restrictions) originated with a Psychology Today article that was based on no empirical evidence whatsoever, but has been quoted by innumerable judges and politicians, starting with Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2002.
A forthcoming article in Constitutional Commentary notes that Kennedy’s words about the recidivism rate of sex offenders — “frightening and high” — have been cited 91 times by courts around the country. The scary thing is there’s no empirical data to support Kennedy’s oft-cited phrase, and the statistic Kennedy cited is paper thin and demonstrable false.
Justice Kennedy likely found the reference in the single source for the claim, an article published in 1986 in Psychology Today, a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience. That article has this sentence: “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses– indeed, as many as 80% do.” But the sentence is a bare assertion: the article contains no supporting reference for it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/20/how-a-dubious-statistic-convinced-u-s-courts-to-approve-of-indefinite-detention/