A federal district court judge today granted the government’s motion to dismiss a challenge to the International Megan’s Law. The law, passed by Congress in February, allows the federal government to notify foreign countries that a registrant whose offense involved a minor is traveling to that country and requires the federal government to add a conspicuous unique identifier to their passports.
“Today’s decision is a travesty of justice,” stated ACSOL president Janice Bellucci. “As a result of this decision, registrants’ lives will be placed in danger and their ability to conduct business overseas will be halted.”
A fundamental disagreement between the parties in the case is whether the addition of a unique identifier to a registrant’s passport will convey a fact or an opinion. According to the government, the passport identifier reflects the fact that the individual has been convicted of a sex offense. According to the plaintiffs, the passport identifier reflects the government’s opinion that they are likely to engage in child sex tourism or child sex trafficking.
“Although today’s decision is a significant setback, we will file another lawsuit challenging the IML,” stated Bellucci. “The next lawsuit will be filed this calendar year and could be filed in another state.”
Related
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/26/judge-dumps-passport-scarlet-letter-fight.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-sex-offender-passport-marker-42319842
Certainly a bad setback. I didn’t expect this suit to die like this. I can only hope that a new suit will be more successful. Thanks for your efforts Janice.
Something tells me, that this judge did not want her showing mercy on RC’s get in the way of a chance of a promotion, if Hil-liar-y became POTUS.
Murderers are welcome. But if you pissed in front of a kid 30 years ago, You can still travel. But we’ll leave it up to the country you travel to if they want to let you in. It will be up to you to book and pay for your travel and hotel. Have fun when you have to use your Passport as ID during your travel. And if they don’t let you in, Tough. What’s the big deal? Just like waiting in line to get your Price Club membership updated. It’s all a very minor inconvenience. And if it saves just one child…..None of this is punishment.
Checks and balances gone, seperation of powers gone. All trying to warm their government chairs forever… A dark day for the constitution.
A question, if Doe #3 does not have to register, then would he not be affected by the IML? On another note, when the next suit is filed, I hope that it addresses directly and in a strong manner the notifications which include the green notices. The green notices are made without due process. I do note some verbiage that says something about a conviction involving a minor as well as other factors. How does anyone find out what those other factors are? Maybe Janice can answer this.
I hope that we file a new case soon as I am not a young man and living in the USA is detrimental to my health.
Brubaker wanna be in it…to WIN it.
Wow…that hamilton just didn’t have the courage to defend the Constitution.
The U.S. 6th District Court in great contrast… night and day…compared to hamilton ….The Constitution was on trial and hamilton didn’t defend it.. didn’t protect it…really hamilton failure.
Thanks for keeping up the fight for us, Janice. Setbacks in individual battles are a normal part of a long-term war, which is what we are in.
I think we all need to write Judge Hamilton a nice big fat scathing letter telling him what a COWARD he is for not defending the Constitution of The US. He’s worried that he’ll lose his seat on the bench. Step up Coward!!!
Do what is right instead of what the government wants you to do.
Wow… this is depressing.
Thank you Janice for your efforts.
I was denied entry into Thailand on June 30th due to this wonderful IML. I have been there 2 other times in the last year and when returning to spend time with my finance I was denied entry this time thanks to our wonderful Big Brother. My offense is 20 years old….. when does the punishment stop.
I have been reading a lot of case laws and it amazes me that RSO’s are continually screwed by the courts. AWA… you can marry a US citizen (for now) but unless you prove beyond any doubt you can marry a foreign national but you can’t get her papers… You can travel we aren’t stopping your right to travel….. it’t not our fault if the country you are traveling to denies your entry because we tell they we believe you are traveling there to commit sexual offenses against their children…
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”
Ok so they are going to say we aren’t being punished… but what about the NO BILL OF ATTAINDER part of that?
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
I’m no lawyer and will be the first to admit that I get confused when I read some of these case laws. However it seems to me that the IML is in direct violation to the Bill of Attainder clause, “A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.”
Also I was reading a case Latif v. Holder, 686 F.3d1122 (9th Cir. 2012).
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-opinion-and-order?redirect=national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-opinion-and-order
I highly recommend reading it. While it is about individuals being placed on the “no fly list”. It does relate to RSO’s in the since the court recognizes the right to international travel and addresses the Under the “stigma-plus” doctrine, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutionally-protected interest in “a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity.” Wisconsinv. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (U.S. 1971). While it is again talking about the stigma of being placed on a no fly list I believe this can be applied to being placed on the IML.
um I’m not an attorney but I believe it’s not an opinion but a fact that has already been recognized and determined by the courts.
These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).
Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.
all the documented cases of vigilante attacks here in the US and anywhere else in the industrialized countries needs to be cited and included in any future arguments along with documented cases in third world countries against sex offenders…we need to come armed and ready with documentary evidence and case law like I just posted and not rely on what they can consider opinions or hearsay in any case we bring against anyone else…these losses are severely detrimental to any future arguments and we have to be sure to be ready for any and every possible scenario and technicalities or arguments that the opposition and the courts can bring forth…very disappointed in the way this case was argued and at the predictable out come….
the only way to fight this is to attack it at its core
Operation Angel Watch compares passenger information received from carriers pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 122.75a (via electronic departure manifest) with NSOR data to identify registered sex offenders whose offenses involved child victims, and it provides notifications to destination countries when it determines, based on an assessment of various factors, that there is a likelihood of intent to engage in child sex tourism. Lechleitner Decl. ¶¶ 8-11.
you see that it states AND that there is a likely hood of intent to engage in child sexual tourism…
that’s right the right to reputation that requires stigma plus has already been adjucated and been determined it applies to this issue which would have triggered the strict scrutiny rule but not in this case since this case was only contesting the additions of the mark of the beast and the further notifications that have been occurring for years now…im sorry to say but the court made perfect sense in its opinions based on the facts and arguments and evidence that was presented…I hope we learn from this mistake and use this opinion as a template and guidance for future cases…I know it is going to be extreemly useful for me and my motion….
Disgraceful.
Maybe the new suit should specify if there was an actual victim.
If it were the court that stated this then the court was right and should have allowed the case to continue; the whole argument is that the government is in fact by virtue of notification, which they currently are doing with no need to wait for an identifier, causing alarm by such notification. To argue the foreign government can do with that warning as they please and wouldn’t be persuasive is an insult to the minds of humanity. When you single someone out and state such an opinion, it is in fact persuading and not informing!!!:
” A fundamental disagreement between the parties in the case is whether the addition of a unique identifier to a registrant’s passport will convey a fact or an opinion. According to the government, the passport identifier reflects the fact that the individual has been convicted of a sex offense. According to the plaintiffs, the passport identifier reflects the government’s opinion that they are likely to engage in child sex tourism or child sex trafficking.”
Terrible news, Janice. I’m sorry. I’m also sorry for the whole community because it automatically brands us as second class citizens as well as IMPOSING another penalty. California wishes not to see this nor follow its law of “inalienable right to privacy”. It will be up to a different state that recognizes the IML is added punishment like Michigan, along with the Angel Watch being conducted was illegal.
This is the same state you want to entrust tiered systems? Nay. Find a way to explicitly show registration is involuntary servitude – make it prohibited or make it punishment. Either way is a win for registrants.
A great disappointment and, no doubt, a setback.
Still, we knew that this was not going to be a cakewalk. Let’s learn from this, expand the lawsuit, strengthen our case and refile in another district.
Thank you, Janice!
” assessment of various factors, that there is a likelihood of intent to engage in child sex tourism. ” This seems to be total BS. What are these various factors? How do we find out what these factors are? Who do we contact with respect to our individual situations?
I’m confused that the Judge indicated “Dismissed with Prejudice”.
In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can’t be brought back to court. A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It’s not dismissed forever.
However Janice said she will file a new case. How can she do that if the case was dismissed with prejudice?
“Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments, the identifier is not a public communication and will not even be displayed to the public.”
Really? The last time I withdrew money at a bank in Mexico I was required to show my passport. The last time I reserved a hotel room in Mexico, I was required to show my passport. The last time I entered into a club in Mexico- I was required to show my passport.
“Defendants contend that plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege deprivations of other liberty or property interests, and that nothing in the IML equires or even allows for transmission of inaccurate information, but rather, only accurate information regarding the offenses for which an individual was previously convicted.”
Really? That’s funny, because Angel Watch sent a Notification to Mexico that I was convicted of “Sexual Assault”, when the fact is, I was actually convicted of “Attempted Sodomy” a Misdemeanor.
“It is undisputed that the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders are not violated by state and federal civil registration requirements and the public posting of information about those convictions.”
Really? But I thought the recent Michigan Court Decision had a different opinion? ummm?
“Moreover, plaintiffs nowhere allege that they dispute the accuracy of statements regarding their criminal convictions.”
Really? But I sent the Notification to Janice. Documentation. The Paper Notification Document that Mexico received from the United States which illustrated- an inaccurate statement regarding my conviction.
If I were a court, I’d come up with the same conclusion. In my opinion, the lawsuit should have been over Angel Watch, as that exists, and not IML as I agree it does not exist; and during this year the government has done all it could to keep from coming up with the identifier, long enough for the court to dismiss. Doe #6 in my opinion had the only ripe case with regard to Angel Watch, we’d all be speculative otherwise. Damn the Angel Watch–the one thing that exists today that along with the whole sex offender thing, states unequivocally without due process and along with a fundamentally flawed analysis by the government is persuading foreign governments that I am a threat to their communities!. there’s the lawsuit!!! if that wins and it should then IML falls.
As for the notification provisions,
procedures for providing Angel Watch
notifications were in place well before
the
enactment of the IML. See Lechleitner Decl.
The USMS could continue to provide international notifications
regarding sex offenders under the preexisting practice,
absent the IML. Thus, plaintiffs fail to show that
enjoining the IML would redress their claimed injuries.
A Legal Team with Janice in the lead- would be the best way to go after this.
Janice, you did an excellent job in the courtroom. With my own eyes and ears, I got to see how a judge was unable to grasp the concepts that the rest of us know. Your arguments seemed solid and on-point. That judge was not competent to preside over this matter, plain and simple.
So for the next suit we have to wait until:
1) the detailed rules are formulated and implemented;
2) some people suffer irreparable harm from the law;
and (hopefully)
3) the 6th circuit ruling starts to take hold on judicial thinking
Thank you Janice for your dedicated work on this issue.
You may count on my continued support.