ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Judge Dismisses Challenge to Special Sex Offender Passports

Last week a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a constitutional challenge to the so-called International Megan’s Law (IML), which requires special passports for sex offenders and authorizes notification of foreign governments when they travel. The lawsuit, filed last February by seven unnamed sex offenders who worry that the IML will impair their freedom to travel, argued that the law, which was enacted in February, violates the First Amendment by compelling speech, imposes retroactive punishment, violates procedural and substantive due process, and denies the plaintiffs equal protection. Phyllis Hamilton, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northerrn District of California, ruled that the lawsuit was premature, since the passport provision has not been implemented yet, and in any case fails to state any valid constitutional claims. Full Article

Also see

Judge Dumps Passport ‘Scarlet Letter’ Fight

Join the discussion

  1. Here's to another Fight

    Well, there it is! Constitutional law does not apply to pariahs, perverts aka registered citizens no matter how long ago the crimes may have been committed. We no longer have any rights at all. We can all burn our passports as we can no longer travel in peace or have piece of mind. We are trapped on the island of the USA forever to be forgotten. One of the plaintiffs in the case lost his right to see his wife, or to travel to his home country for fear of being executed for his past. He will most likely lose his way of living since he won’t be able to go to the places where his company does business. Since the government does not look at this new law as punishment, they will amend and modify it without prejudice since the public will be cheering them on to make it even tougher hoping that we will just crawl into our holes and disappear.

    As I said in an earlier post, this is beginning to remind me of the movies “Escape From L.A.” and “Escape From New York” where islands are built to house the UNWANTED. It would not surprise me in the least if this was one of the executive orders being planned by the government. God help us if we ever invoke Marshal Law and they start corralling everyone up like they did the Japanese in WWll (check current list of executive orders). You will hate what they plan on doing to ordinary citizens creating a free slave labor force. What happens to us, the most despised people on the planet. Sorry about the rant folks, i just needed to vent. Vive Le Nazis.

    • LM

      They can’t circle the wagon around SORNA, Megan’s law or whatever iteration of community notification forever.

      It’s not future proof and won’t stand the test of time.

      • Eric Knight

        The point he’s making is that sex offenders are the “canary in the mine” with regard to what happens, over time, to the rest of the country. This is similar to the period in time in the late 20’s through early thirties in Germany, when they used sex offenders to condition the German people to hate individuals based upon their “group”, and THEN they used that same societal lack of empathy toward that of the Jewish individuals, of whose wealth the regime wanted to confiscate. The bottom line: without the ability to groom hatred of sex offenders groups into the populace, they would have NEVER been able to turn the Jewish invididuals into a pariah to steal their wealth and fully condition the populace to selective group hatred, which in turn would have made it extremely difficult for them to start WWII.

        This is why it bristles me to no end when pundits try to rake Janice over the coals when she brings up the Nazi German argument, because they only associate Jewish individuals with registrants, and not take into consideration of HOW the Jewish individuals even became a victim group in the first place.

        (I do not use the term “Jews” for “Jewish individuals” as “Jews” is used too much by majority populace as a derogatory term, and didn’t want to inadvertently cause that sort of rumification here.)

  2. Stephen

    The judge almost sounds like she wrote the law the way she defends it.

  3. Steve

    This judge fails to recognize what the 6th circuit said in their recent ruling and that is the current scheme is nothing like the original scheme.. smith v doe

    • Chris F

      True, and any case filed for Sex Offenders needs to have a section explaining that clearly to the judge.

      Judges have to quit referencing those cases from 2003 both because the current scheme does not resemble that scheme, and their decisions were flawed due to incorrect data and relying on quotes that had no basis.

  4. mike r

    so right chris judges have to be forced to stop referencing those 2003 cases by providing concrete facts and evidence rebuking those cases and be forced to recognize thru concrete facts and evidence that the current scheme is no where near the same schemes that were in place at that time and I repeat need to be forced to judge whatever case is brought before them on the merits of that case and on the circumstances surrounding that case….there can be absolutely no lack of evidence no lack of facts and have to have absolutely no way out for them to take because we all know they will take any out they can…this sounds like a daunting task and may seem impossible but it can and will be done sooner or later….its also absolutely critical to have the right to reputation with the attached stigma plus claim or the other fundamental rights that will trigger the stricter scrutiny review…just saying

  5. New Person

    From the article,

    She makes similarly short work of the lawsuit’s claim that the IML imposes retroactive criminal penalties, noting that both the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (which includes California) have held that registration of sex offenders, no matter how far-reaching and life-crippling the consequences, is not punitive and therefore does not implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

    Again, since registration is not punitive, but the life-crippling consequences are for a life time would construe a life time duty with crippling consequences. It cannot be Ex Post Facto since it isn’t punishment. But it does violate involuntary servitude with the crippling consequences – especially failing to register.

    Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless it is to punish a crime.

    The fact registration isn’t a punishment makes it a service to the state to register – an involuntary service for the rest of your life in California. Srsly, registration, according to the California and US Constitution, is prohibited b/c it’s involuntary servitude AND not considered punishment.

    Also, where is the ACLU on the inalienable right to privacy and obtain privacy under the California Constitution. Why isn’t California mad for sharing information of its citizens to another country? I guess California Constitution means nothing to anyone for both privacy and involuntary servitude laws.

  6. New Person

    Janice,

    May I sue this judge for libel?

    Here’s a quote from the article:

    “A mark on a passport identifying the holder as a registered sex offender is neither an ‘opinion’ which is being attributed to the passport holder, nor a misleading statement. Registered sex offenders had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the criminal charges at the time they were brought. They cannot now argue that there is any dispute regarding their status as offenders,” Hamilton wrote.

    A registered SO carries a misleading notion – they will re-offend, which is why information is being disseminated. A registered SO with a minor has been explicitly noted to always have the identifier, thus implying these registrants will ALWAYS re-offend.

    I am a registrant who’s low risk assessment does not put me on ML by law. My case has been dismissed as well. If I get the COR, then I will no longer register. But if my situation involved a minor, then I will still have to be labeled? Is that not John Doe #3? John Doe #3 received the COR and is no longer a registrant.

    The judge just screwed up with her comment! John Doe #3 isn’t a sex offender for all intents and purposes! Her prejudice judgement may land her in hot water due to her comment of a misleading statement in regards to John Doe #3. And any more people who could end up in the same path as John Doe #3.

    To me, John Doe #3 is the kryptonite to the IML. I would ask the state to reconsider this dismissal in light of the comment by the judge of “misleading statement” upon Sex Offender when it comes to John Doe #3. If John Doe #3, who has done everything correct in lifting all restrictions via 1203.4, 17b, and COR, then there truly is no escape from his past regardless of however many hoops he jumps through. That is a sad day.

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 *

.