ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Mar 30 – San Diego [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Mar 23, Apr 27  [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

Save the Date: ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

General News

Registrant Travel Action Group (RTAG) International Travel Matrix Update

The Travel Matrix is a list of nations along with information about how they handle entrance of visiting or moving registrants (Registered Sex Offenders) and their families. We compile this information from various sources including Travel Experience Reports submitted by users of this website. This list is kept as current and thorough as possible, but individual experiences may vary. This list is informational and in no way implies any guarantee. If you have information to contribute, please submit one or more Travel Experience Reports or contact us to share other information. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Political Prisoner

    You have Japan down twice once in Asia and once in Europe.

  2. Mike

    I am pretty sure that Mexico does not have a registry, although they are turning back anyone on our registry.

  3. O.A.L.

    Thailand is a y/n on entry. Does anyone know what their criteria are., or is it just. On an individual revue of case.

  4. Kris Klein

    Is the whole continent of Africa allowing people in OR no rc has attempted to travel there? I’m curious to know. I would love to go to Africa if there’s no restrictions. This pale white girl only needs to take with her a lot of sunblock

  5. Quint

    There is a lot of incorrect information presented in that table.

    • Joe

      Quint, please clarify. I know that France does have a registry but it is not public. The Netherlands does not have a registry per say, but anyone convicted of a sex offense does not have their criminal record purged after a certain number of years like with out other crimes. The information is still retained for background investigation for licenses, etc. Canada excludes all people with convictions, but you can get a temporary residence permit and then get legally rehabilitated if you are willing to invest the time and money.
      What bothers me about the UK is that while they do have a registry, most of us would be off it 5 years after our conviction and they have specific laws about how long you can mandatorily exclude people from entering the country based on a conviction. As a matter of fact, their courts struck down their lifetime registration for the worst offenders because it was in violation of the European Convention off Human Right. It appear they are using their catch all law to keep us out. I know that in Belgium, a public registry would be against the law and I read that one reason that they don’t have an EU wide registry is that some countries like Germany and Spain have flat out declared that it would violate their laws.

      • Quint

        I can only speak of Japan. They DON’T have a law against registrants. They DON’T have a law barring felons. They DO have a registry.

        Sources:
        http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?id=173&vm=2
        http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/osaka-to-keep-register-of-released-child-sex-offenders

        • Erwin

          Didn’t you mention before that Japan’s landing policy excludes individuals with a sentence of more than a 1 year? That covers most felonies. I don’t know about California, but here in Wisconsin, the overwhelming majority of people convicted of a felony sex offense is looking at 1 or more years in prison

        • Quint

          Yep, more than one year. Japan makes no distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, just the amount of jail time served.

        • Political Prisoner

          Quint, Are you the person with the moving to Japan info? I started to communicate with him and I lost his email. I would like more info on moving to Japan. Who ever controls this site has my permission to give him my email.

      • Kris Klein

        Point made but Britain is still somewhat consistent since they do have a registry although they have exclusion rules for foreign registered offenders. But remember Mexico and the Philippines don’t have a registry, And those countries still exclude foreign offenders. Plus it makes even less sense because many sex offenses committed in the US is legal for Philippine residents due to the country’s very low age of consent

  6. Thomas

    My attorney said that the government could void my current passport and not allow me to get a new one…surely this can’t be true.

  7. greg

    First and foremost, Thank you for the hard detailed work I know you must have incurred in compiling this list..
    However, i see errors with japan being listed in two different area and listed as Y and N in each.
    Also, there is no Philippines listing. Why is that??
    I know it will take time to enhance this list… Again, THanks for all that you have done!!
    Greg

    • ChrisC

      I was wondering the same thing.

      Is Paul R even aware of Janice’s Blog and this Thread regarding the Travel Matrix?

      Why isn’t anyone maintaining the accuracy of this RTAG Matrix?

      I’ve emailed Paul a couple of times, and have very rarely gotten a response back.

      • Paul

        Chris. I am currently swamped and do my best to update the matirx. I am constantly in touch with Janice and will be presenting with her on Thursday at National RSOL convention of which I am funding myself. The substantive content of the matirx is accurate. I will update the Philippines today. I get on average 10 calls a week and field numerous emails on loved ones and registrants attempting to travel. I also am integrating the data base to prepare to publish. I volunteer about 20 hours a week to this effort besides running 2 companies. Your patience and contribution to the effort is appreciated.

        • Kris Klein

          Paul,
          Thanks for your work on the matrix. I’m just puzzled by one thing…..the entire continent of Africa. Is it true that no country in Africa is turning registrants away? OR are you just not getting reports from registrants traveling to that continent

        • Brian D

          Has anyone that is a RSO been pardoned by the State of California? If so, have they been denied entry into the Philippines since being pardoned? I hear that once pardoned it still does not clear the information from their background and it could still pose a problem for entry. Just wondering. I’m an RSO who was turned away in May 2016 because of my conviction (expunged misdemeanor). I’m afraid I’m permanently barred from re-entry. I was able to go there in 2012 with no issues but now I’m afraid I’ll never be able to enter to meet my fiancee in person.

  8. T

    I have some questions, is the lawsuit against the IML still standing? and here is an interesting question if the IML is lifted what’s going to happen? will registrants be able to travel internationally again without being flagged and turned back, and will doing these notifications and sending out green notices to other countries ceased?, and will registrants be allowed to go to countries that they were flagged in if the IML is lifted?

  9. PK

    I would suggest that you study the posts of this blog to answer your questions.

    But nothing so far has been lifted, the injunction was rejected. So you’re basically f******

  10. Florida Girl

    Hello I am in Florida and a Family member is a offender without a underage charge. We have never had a issue before even with the 21 day notice. It occurred to me that Florida’s update states if you are going to be going out of the country for more than 5 days you must give 21 days notice. So what happens if we give the 21 days notice but happen to leave 4 days before the designated trip. My thought is this would avoid any possible day of arrival issues yet still comply with the fact. I also am confused as some people including state officials say once you are out of the USA they could care less. Would it not be better to plan a trip to a friendly country and then decide to explore other places? I dont see how you could possibly know every place you want to visit when many countries are a train or plane ride away. Any thoughts? Some people have also suggested a denial to a country would be better to simply fly to a close local destination and land cross as its a entire different experience in many countries.

    • brian

      Ok guys, been fighting the nwo for last 7 years.. and i’m a us navy veteran that makes it even more sicking to have my rights stomped over after i would of gave my life for this country.. Anyway been forced move out of house i owned… lost job at sandwhich shop in mall had flyers passed out.. you name it.. I finally left the uss of a.. tried to get dual citizenship in jamaica.. rasict country and could not make it..

      ok, what ive learned.. illinois does not do 21 day notice so do a few other states.. move fly out of one of them is my advice.. once you get a green notice i think you are in that country computer for life.. europe doesnt care, from what i’ve observed.. once you are out of uss of a.. then you can get into a country that will not let you in.. unless its tied into our data base.. then even still in some situations heard of others getting in.. so far canada, maybe mexico have us just scan passport and it pops up.. Uk columbia.. i think that is it.. good luck, there are other tricks that i’m not going to post on this site.. Never give up and always fight for you’re rights.. more of us need to make a stand.. I am wating when i can join my fellow prosecuted americans whos numbers are around 800,000 strong.. that is an army, when will we do our version of the million man march? 50,000 or more of us fly to mexico or another country on the sameday? or every sex offender in the country changes there information everyday for a month.. I am a fighter and i know how to defeat enemies.. you do not need to fight with a sword, the pen is mightier.. there are many ways to bring down the beast if we just united and stood strong.

      • Rick

        Brian…how to contact you?

      • Rick

        Brian here is my email rickzued@gmail.com
        I would like to chat if you have time, thanks

      • Richard

        yes you are right I’m a veteran to also the Vietnam War and I am tired of this I fought for people’s rights in this country and now they take my rights away okay we made a mistake right let’s get past that move on the government makes mistakes every day and yes you are right we need to stand up for our rights

  11. Florida Girl

    This is new for me and my Family but I took the time to read the passed IML and It says these notifications only go out to Offenders with a underage victim. I see nothing that allows them to notify if you dont meet that requirenment. I do believe it could have possible broader effects but I would like to know if anybody has been prevented from Entry and did not have a underage alleged Victim. I do see Florida has its own 21 day notification but it appears to be selective based on somebody making a judgment call that you are a high risk and then doing some kind of notification. I contacted a lawyer in some of the countries we have visited that you have listed as no go and he explained it often gets handled on a individual basis and non under age charges are often simply overlooked. This seems to be the issue as I believe some people are travelling all the time and others get singled out. It sure is not very consistent based on what I have read experienced and been shared with other people traveling. It appears one person who got bumped on a flight got in simply because the airline rescheduled the flight for the next day on a different flight number. Said had no problem going in but the usual coming back with the second checks.

  12. mike

    I wish that there would have been a suit on the notifications with the green notices. The green notices are a back breaker with only speculation as basis.
    Why was that not done?
    Also what is the legal basis for the “with prejudice” ruling when according to the judge, the case was not yet ripe? So when it is ripe there is no redress?

    • David Kennerly

      We know so little about them other than that they are being disseminated. We don’t know on what legal basis they are being sent. I have speculated that it is language in AWA which the government believes authorizes this dissemination but that’s really just a guess. IML may well be the retrospective legalization of these practices but it also expands on them while simultaneously leaving unaddressed the distinct role of Interpol and, as you say, the Green Notice.

      We have had to learn about these practices simply by observing their effects.

      • mike

        David I do not see what language could be in any law which legitimizes making the statements that go along with the green notices, ” are likely to commit a crime.” Do they have any statistical basis, any basis other than speculation? A crystal ball maybe? To me that is like saying since they are politicians they are likely to take money for favors and have sex with congressional pages, but send it to various entities. In the case of the green notices, since the US government sends the notices, they have great credibility. I can not even speculate as to what legal basis they have.

        • David Kennerly

          Mike, it is devilishly difficult (for me, anyway) to find the source of the authority of alerts sent to foreign governments by our own.

          Perhaps most telling would be cooperation agreements which the U.S. has entered into with Interpol as well as its agreements with the Five Eyes (the English-speaking countries).

          The relationship which the U.S. has with Interpol, which includes clear mandates to exchange criminal information (but for which I have no Congressional citations for their establishment), is probably the most telling source for such an authority.

          Looking at this document it’s easy to see that the U.S.’ relationship with INTERPOL has data exchange at its heart and probably has for a very long time.
          https://oig.justice.gov/reports/plus/a0935/final.pdf

          Here’s a single quote from that:

          “INTERPOL has developed a secure, Internet-based, virtual private network known as I-24/7 that serves as the conduit for INTERPOL-related communications. Through I-24/7, INTERPOL provides its 187 member countries with direct access to a wide range of criminal information contained in a variety of databases managed by INTERPOL. The information in the databases comes from queries, messages, intelligence, and submissions from law enforcement officials in member countries. Member countries also use I-24/7 to request assistance with locating wanted, missing, or lost individuals.”

          The more I look at this the more I believe, and depressingly, that these criminal record exchanges have been freely traded for a long time and without any (successful) legal challenge. So the authority almost certainly (I am now coming to believe) derives from these relationships with Interpol as well as with other country-to-country agreements, such as the Five Eyes.

          So perhaps prior acts, such as the Protect Act or AWA, matter a great deal less than these established data exchange relationships with Interpol, et al.

          The Protect Act: In addition to some, admittedly quite vague, language in AWA, I have considered that language of the Protect Act 2003, which asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. Citizens when traveling abroad for the purpose of sexual exploitation might offer some hints (although I haven’t found them).

          Foreign alerts may be an instantiation of these authorities, other laws or perhaps authorities derived from discretionary administrative law. We need a legal scholar and researcher to get closer to this, I’m afraid.

          Here is a candidate from the AWA:

          SEC. 151. ACCESS TO NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION DATABASES.

          (a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General shall ensure access to the national crime information databases (as defined in section 534 of title 28, United States Code) by–

          (1) the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to be used only within the scope of the Center’s duties and responsibilities under Federal law to assist or support law enforcement agencies in administration of criminal justice functions; and

          (2) governmental social service agencies with child protection responsibilities, to be used by such agencies only in investigating or responding to reports of child abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

          (b) Conditions of Access- The access provided under this section, and associated rules of dissemination, shall be–

          (1) defined by the Attorney General; and

          (2) limited to personnel of the Center or such agencies that have met all requirements set by the Attorney General, including training, certification, and background screening.

      • Robert

        A suggestion if you have ever been excluded or had an alert sent – request a copy of your record from Interpol. It cost me $1.15 to mail a request to Interpol. Unknown if I will get a positive response but at least it’s worth a try.

        From the website:
        Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
        Any individual wishing to know if any data about them exists in INTERPOL’s files, or wishing to challenge such data, should address their enquiry to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files. This also applies to enquiries related to passports/travel documents that may be recorded in INTERPOL’s database.

        Address to mail your request:
        INTERPOL General Secretariat
        200, quai Charles de Gaulle
        69006 Lyon
        France

        link for the request form:
        http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Commission-for-the-Control-of-Files-CCF

        • PK

          I wouldn’t be alerting or requesting information from Interpol about anything.

          That is just asking to be included in their Green Notices Database.

        • Robert

          PK,
          I am quite comfortable in my decision to make this request. I prefer to do something and try than nothing and just wonder what if.

  13. Robert

    I am currently in the Philippines now. I arrived here a couple of days ago for a funeral. My trip was planned short notice. My wife went to Manila to check with Bureau of Immigration before I arrived. There was no active blacklist against my name when she checked.

    However when I arrived I was detained due to a new alert sent by the US Homeland a day before my arrival. This new alert resulted in Philippine Immigration preparing a new blacklist order against me before I arrived.

    Both experience and luck were responsible for a successful fight against this new blacklist order. Because I possessed documents showing that I was cleared of prior blacklist orders, my wife and I were able to clear this new blacklist order. After nine hours of being detained, I was allowed to enter the country.

    I do want to share some insight with folks here about how foreigners view these alerts and exclusions from the US government.

    I can say first hand that Filipinos don’t like to do this to visitors. They are deeply troubled knowing that this creates a hardship for another Filipino that you have a relationship with or a family member who may be one of their own. And they are compassionate for you.

    Philippine Immigration officials view this entire situation as a problem that you have with your own government. They see the alert sent on you as communication that the US government does not want you to travel here.

    I had the opportunity to speak directly with the overall Chief of Security regarding the alert sent by the US. I asked about what the alert means to them, if it means that I am a potential threat or what. He stated that “The alert is not viewed so much as you being a potential threat as much as it communicates that your government does not want you to travel here.” “And if your government does not want you here then we feel we must oblige this request.”

    He then asked me if US Homeland or airport security in the US tried to stop me for traveling before I left my country. He seemed surprised when I told him this was not a practice in the US and no one has ever attempted to stop me from traveling. I said that I read public statements by US Homeland that these alerts are not intended to stop a US citizen from traveling but rather to inform a foreign country of a person’s past conviction of a certain crime. And it is up to the country to determine if the person is allowed to enter or not.

    The Security Chief explained to me that his country has very different procedures and views. If someone is perceived to be a threat abroad then that person would not be allowed to leave the country in the first place. He said that his country would know its own citizens best in making such a determination. He also said that such a determination would be very rare and normally require that a person have an active or unresolved criminal case. Citizens with old cases that are resolved would not be subject to any such sanctions.

    I was also questioned by three different senior security officials during the day why the US Homeland keeps sending alerts on me to them for the very same conviction. They had printed the US Homeland alerts out and compared each one. Each alert sent from the US had exactly the same conviction information. Each official questioned me separately why the US Homeland did not consider my case to be closed since it was an old case and determined by court documents to be resolved already.

    I told them I didn’t really have a good answer for the actions of my government but gave an answer that they could understand. I told them I believed that these alerts are generated more from the source of corruption in my government than any meaningful law enforcement purpose. Some bureaucrats have found a way to receive government money and credit for themselves for sending these alerts without caring or being responsible for the consequences of their actions. I felt from my side that there seemed to be little regard for the effectiveness of this program despite the severe problems and burdens caused to family members and foreign immigration officials trying to resolve the headaches and heartaches that results from these alerts.

    The US Homeland says they want to prevent future crimes but actually end up doing something completely unrelated to any criminal activity.

    My wife was present and spoke up saying that the only crime that US Homeland prevented with the first alert on me was the crime of her husband wanting to spend Christmas and New Years with her and his family here in Philippines and for that he was deported. The second alert sent by Homeland prevented the crime of her husband trying to enter the country for celebration of her college degree graduation ceremony and wedding anniversary and for that he was deported again. And now this third alert sent by US Homeland seeks to prevent her husband from attending a family funeral here and spending time with her.

    During the shift I counted as many as seventeen Filipinos working very hard to resolve this situation for us getting the new blacklist order cancelled so that I could be with my family here. After nine hours, the Chief gathered his staff and acknowledged supervisors in helping resolve this problem. He also stated to me in front of everyone that he had possibly risked his reputation in the decision to allow me entry and hoped that it was not a mistake on his part. My wife was already taking the floor, she asked to speak again to address his concern…. I was shaking my head in response but never had the chance to say a word.

    • Chris F

      Robert, you have the perfect examples of how the IML and notices to foreign countries is a damaging and horrible practice and I hope someone can include you in a lawsuit against this practice.

      The fact that a notice or mark on a passport can happen to deny us of our constitutional right to travel and be with family without the due process of a judge and fair hearing to determine we are an active threat worthy of such action is deplorable.

      I would be surprised if even 1% of those sex offenders travelling are lucky enough to have another country spend its time and money looking into an individual’s unique circumstances to decide if they are really a threat when our own government won’t do it just one time. The creators and implementors of these scarlet letters shouldn’t be able to win the argument that these are merely statements of facts and aren’t stopping us from traveling. That is absurd.

      They might as well stamp our passports that we may be carrying a fatal contagious disease that the US won’t test for, and expect the other governments to test us every time we try to cross a border instead of a single test by our own government.

    • PK

      That is quite a detailed account of what you went through to enter into the Philippines.

      It’s almost like anyone thinking about traveling to the Philippines for an important purpose, should have a team of lawyers waiting for them at the airport so that they can explain his case to the Security Chief.

      Did you happen to get a copy of the Alert that they showed you?

    • robert m

      my wife is also in the philippines and i cant bring her to the usa because of awa. i can be removed from the registry in 2020, will i be able to go to the philippines after i am removed? i want to be together with her but they dont want it seems. what would my options be so we can live together? anyone have any suggestions??

      • ONE DAY AT A TIME

        No one could possibly answer that question without a crystal ball. You’ll need to determine that in 2020. You could ask an immigration attorney, but the laws 4 years from now could be quite different.

    • 4sensiblepolicies

      Thank you Robert for that eloquent recap of your experience. You have correctly explained the origins of IML that a great many officials in many nations can comprehend – government corruption. When foreign officials are confronted with this non-sensical travel notice, I think they will definitely relate to the concept that it was promulgated by special interests that have their hand in the till – with zero disregard for whether it is effective or fair. Ultimately, corruption is where bad laws come from. That’s where IML came from. Hopefully this will be the origin of a dialog that can be established with officials in nations that understand all too well the concept of corruption and on a case-by-case basis may be willing to do what is right and just. Obviously, it is something america is not willing to do anymore.

      • David Kennerly

        I’m not seeing much of an opportunity in making money off of our inability to travel. What is clear is that it bloats the size of government and necessitates hiring more useless eaters at the government trough.

        I think that the motivations for these laws lies in the sanctimony and cruelty of people like Chris Smith and their aggrandizement of power.

        Power, and the quest for it, is at least as important in creating unjust laws as greed.

  14. Brian D

    Good morning,

    I am a RSO from Washington State (20 yrs ago) and haven;t been ob probation/supervision for 10+ years. My wife and I are planning a visit to Jamaica for our Honeymoon. The matrix says I will be fine and I find little to no data suggestion I will be turned away. Does anybody have any advice or input? Thank you in advance,

    • Laura

      We are wondering about Jamaica too. My fiancé and I are traveling soon. Were you able to get in?

      • jo

        You won’t get in

        • AJ

          It seems like any of the Five Eyes countries (US, UK, Aus, NZ, Can) and their current/former colonies are all no-go for RCs. I have no data to support this, just what I’ve gleaned from reading things on here.

          Conversely, some of the prettiest and most American-friendly countries in Europe are quite welcoming, or at least don’t care. That ranges from Netherlands to Albania. Again, just what I’ve gleaned from postings here.

          –AJ

        • Drew

          Jo,
          Please elaborate on your comment of “you wont get in”
          I am leaving for Jamaica in 10 days and am very worried that I will be turned away, but I have also read that I will be fine. Looking for some answers

      • PK

        Please do report back to this Blog to let everyone know if you made it in successfully or not.

  15. E

    Hi does anyone know whether RTAG is still active? Last update from Paul R. was November 2016 on the site. Thanks.

    • PK

      I wouldn’t rely on RTAG. Although probably most of the information is still relevant.
      Paul is a nice guy and everything,

  16. Counting the days

    Does anyone think that actually caring your conviction, release, and other pertinent data (phsycology reports, etc.) could possibly help in entry to places like Thailand , Phillipines, Japan. Countries that don’t lick American politician shoes. I would appreciate responses. It seems as though informing these countries of the actual circumstances could sway opinion. Not everyone is as moronic as our own government.

    • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

      I don’t actually believe that there is much likelihood that engaging foreign countries directly in discussion about IML is likely to bear fruit although I would love to be surprised. But I also don’t think that this approach is likely to make matters worse, either. The Philippines, Thailand and Japan are all traditionally quite deferential to the U.S., by the way, even if Duterte is, for the time being, going on an authoritarian and nationalistic rant.

      There seems to be a split in approaches to IML with some insisting that the government exceeds its authority and jeopardizes our own liberty and safety by releasing this information to foreign countries and others who believe that those countries need to be approached and lobbied individually to disregard those notifications and, at least in some cases, because they believe that the U.S. has the legal authority to do so.

      This is a pretty fundamental difference in beliefs and approaches.

      • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

        I will add that one is a ‘special pleading’ approach and the other a strict constitutional one. ‘Special pleading’ in that it appears to argue that foreign governments should consider individuals on a case-by-case basis, making distinctions between them with a goal of ameliorating rather than eliminating notification. The problem with this is that it tacitly endorses the concept of notification at the same time as it fails to identify U.S. practice as the constitutional travesty that it is. It also must imagine that convicted individuals can be reliably identified as a risk, a determination which inevitably relies upon just prosecution and the wisdom of contemporary laws. Whether this RTAG approach to meeting with foreign government officials on the one hand or with the people who created this awful law on the other hand (Chris Smith’s staff) can bear fruit I am very skeptical. I think it’s a bit naive as well as implicitly congratulatory of criminal jurisprudence as it now exists. It appears to make tacit claims for the good-faith of government officials and lawmakers as well as the reasonableness of laws.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

Michael Dickson Womens Jersey