ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  May 25, June 22, July 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

General News

Survey – International Travel after IML

If you have traveled to a foreign country after President Obama signed HR 515 / International Megan’s Law into law on February 8, 2016, please complete this survey to help gather details about the effects of this legislation. We will also share this data with the RTAG group for incorporation into their travel matrix. Thank you.

Go to International Travel Survey

Join the discussion

  1. Major Henderson

    Question for anyone who knows the answer: Concerning the travel form we are required to fill out for international trips, is the form the same at all police stations throughout the US, or does each police station make its own?
    And, if standard, what information is required? Cities or countries or also hotels?

  2. Travel Update

    It’s been 24 days since I returned from Europe trip and still no revocation letter. Will be traveling for work within next month or so, so hopefully no issues with passport. So still hard to figure out what government is doing (or not doing). I did give the 21-day notice. Slipped through the cracks with this trip? Targeting only certain tiers or crimes? Who knows…

    On another note, looks like government did charge someone for failing to notify in July 2018. Clearly this guy was asking for trouble…

    • jo

      It’s coming. Sadly, it’s coming.

      It’s been over 30 days for me and yep, the lovely yellow envelope arrived yesterday. Consider me revoked.

    • AD from MN

      I returned from Europe on June 18. Received my letter last Monday, it was dated July 30th. (6 weeks from my return). I would be careful.

      • Travel Update

        It’s been over 6 weeks since my return from Europe and I travel in about a week back for work. Still no revocation letter. I’m worried will get one in the next few days and then lose my client because I can’t travel to meetings that have been setup. Fingers crossed.

        BTW – found this piece thought some of you might be interested (if you haven’t seen before): IML – It’s not about what works. It’s about what sells.'s_Law_It's_not_about_what_works_it's_about_what_sells

        • @ Travel Update

          Did you make your second trip? Did your passport ever get revoked?

        • Travel Update

          I’ve done a couple trips since, giving notice, even with last minute changes. No revocation letter yet and no major issues. One time when returning in secondary, they called registration office after asking my trip details – my trip was shortened so assume this is why (and I did inform registration office by voicemail). So far so good, but so stressful to travel, but when you have to in order to earn a living and provide for family… It’s going to be a very long year before my registration finally expires. This is absolutely punishment, not administrative. I just wish there was more court action, but understand need to proceed cautiously.

  3. David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

    “Clearly this guy was asking for trouble.” Well, perhaps he simply didn’t know. Ignorance of the law? Does that even matter for us? Thanks for your travel reports. I’m afraid that my career has already ended because of the travel notifications and I’m unwilling to renew my now-expired passport for one with the government’s crimson letter upon it. I just assume that my once-fabulous days of foreign travel are behind me.

    • Travel Update

      Did you read the article? States he was told numerous times (he probably even had to sign a form stating his knowledge). That said, wish you wouldn’t give up…

      • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

        Yes, I see that the government says that he was notified “numerous times” by them. And the “article” is, of course, written by that government. From experience, I’m not willing to believe anything they say, however. I haven’t given up on fighting IML but I’m not, at this moment, terribly hopeful or as hopeful as I once was, that IML is going away anytime soon. In part, this is due to lawyers on our side who have expressed pessimism that it can be defeated on a constitutional basis. I think that this makes its successful challenge contingent upon a much longer term project, the challenge of the Registry, itself. I also think that an IML challenge should include a group formed specifically to fight it and which represents the interests of all who are affected by it and not one willing to accommodate the interests of the government.

    • PK

      @David you should have split when you had the opportunity.

    • Forever marked

      I hear you and feel you! Travelling was my true joy. It is how I found real friends and realized how completely messed up this country is. Now I have to live here until I can afford to leave. I literally am at war with the U.S. I cheer for all the crap that is happening because it will help bring down this place. I am willing to go down too if it helps end this farse.

  4. Steveo


    Per your refusing to travel with the crimson letter… I’d rethink it.

    • Matt

      David …. over the years I have appreciated your comments … thank you. I would be interested to see the statement placed in our passports. Would anyone who has it be willing to post it for everyone to view? Thanks

  5. David

    @ David K: Stop traveling? Not at all! If anything, I would take every opportunity I could to travel internationally, because as soon as I arrive at another Countries port of entry and I get harassed, refused entry,et etc, that will form the basis for the next lawsuit against IML!

    • PK

      I wonder if the previous 2 IML Lawsuit dismissals will set a negative precedent and make it even harder to challenge IML in the future.

  6. David

    @ PK: I don’t believe the two previous lawsuit’ outcomes will set a precedent for future lawsuits. The first lawsuit was dismissed because the judge felt that because IML had not yet been implemented, no parties had yet been injured. I suppose that’s a reasonable argument. As for the second lawsuit, it was very specific, regarding the failure of the State Department to follow administrative protocol that is required of them. However it was the judge’s belief that the protocol was not sidestepped or was not relevant.

  7. AD from MN

    GOT THE LETTER – if everyone remembers, I traveled to Europe (France, Germany, & Switzerland) in June without one issue. Didn’t even have a secondary upon return to ATLANTA.

    We returned on June 18th and I received the CERTIFIED LETTER from STATE DEPARTMENT on August 6th. The letter was dated July 30th (6 weeks after my return).

    Angry is not even remotely how I feel…especially given the media/government attention given to illegals…UGH!

    • E

      Sorry, but thanks for the confirmation. That one dude working on this at state must be getting backlogged now.

    • Bob N

      How come we stopped fighting against IML?Lets write petitions,go to DC, find competing lawyers for civil rights,and etc.Why we say Okay to have mark in the passport,coming back from foreign countries because government keeping sending letters that we are coming for the child sex tourism.Thats why which country will want these people.
      That’s do something,please

  8. Ron

    Have any expats had thier passport revoked after visiting the USA and returning to thier current country?

    • PK


      I think the question should be:

      Have any Expats had their Passport revoked after returning to the United States for a visit, and then not be able to return back to their new found Country?

  9. Alexander Rodrigues

    I would also like to have a compiled list of countries you can travel to with the new red identifiers

  10. Malibu

    I still don’t understand how are government ever did this, and how it isn’t a constitution issue?
    I was released from 1 year county jail in 1987. I was able to travel freely since then until IML passed. So almost 30 years. Then they get to add this? Plus AWA that I can no longer marry / sponsor a foreign national? New restrictions keep coming. I just want to retire and move out of the USA.
    I no longer feel free, or safe. Crime free for over 30 years, who cares….

    • Major Henderson

      Same here. Crime free for over 30 years, active in the community, philanthropist. Yet more restrictions on my life every year. Just cannot be constitutional, at least as it was originally conceived.

    • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

      I had been off of government “supervision” for more than two decades when I found that I was no longer able to travel. I had traveled widely and frequently since getting off of parole (and even a bit while on parole), built a business that depended on my ability to travel abroad and on short notice (I once traveled to Taipei to deliver two electric generators to our production facility the day after a major earthquake knocked-out power to much of the island). Now I can’t even get into Taiwan nor, it would seem, any other country in Asia (with the exception of Hong Kong, apparently) where I could once visit with customers, tour their facilities and exhibit at trade exhibitions. I’ve gone from having my liberty largely restored immediately following parole, and for many years, to having it curtailed again two decades later as if I were suddenly back on parole. How is it that that has managed to become a manifestly unjust hardship that cannot be effectively challenged in court?

      • PK


        It could be challenged, but it would require a lot of resources.

        • Hysteria

          It won’t be challenged. We don’t have a voice in our corner. Oh sure, we might “win” a residency restriction every blue moon, but REAL progress? Come on…………….

      • Caregiving Public Servant

        First of all, I enjoy reading your posts as they are all filled with good insights and perspectives. Do not stop traveling internationally, otherwise you will allow a Nazi controlled government to conquer control of you. What is happening now in the United States against people with a sex related conviction is unprecedented and a disgrace, but you really must keep fighting. Do not ever give up, David! I would like to suggest two options for you:

        1. Do whatever it takes to file a lawsuit against IML now, even if you have to do it yourself. Just file the lawsuit. Try not to think too deeply into things, but just focus on fighting against IML for as long as it takes. However, do not only rely on a lawsuit as a means to an end right now. You will need to do much more.

        2. Seek political asylum in a foreign country because you are being hurt by a Nazi government. If you don’t receive asylum in the first country, then try another country.

        You will have to take risks to fight for your freedom. That involves resisting oppressive sex offender laws, telling Nazi supporting police “No”, and doing whatever it takes to escape Nazi control. Essentially, you may need to break uncivil sex offender laws to stand up for your human rights. The reality here is that you are going to have to be a soldier and refugee to obtain freedom. You never have to subject yourself to Nazi pseudoscience and being shamed by your government. Just don’t give up. Fight aggressively!

      • J

        @David Unless you have actually been denied entry to Taiwan, why do you think you are unable to enter Taiwan? And why do you think you can only travel to Hong Kong? What makes Hong Kong different from anywhere else? If you can enter Hong Kong, you should be able to enter other countries too. If I were you, I would be persistent on meeting with your US Senators and Representative to ensure that you can lawfully travel with no problem, but I would also advise you to take your issue to court as your constitutional rights are being violated. It should be a no-brainer for the court to know that the federal government cannot control where you travel. In the event that you are not successful in court or with your congressmen, I would say run for the border even if it involves sneaking out of the country to protect your rights.

        • NY won't let go

          It could be that Taiwan has denied others from entering due to the green notices.
          But the thing is Taiwan is the major hub for sex workers and human trafficking over here already. So I’m not quite sure what they are trying to prevent by people just coming on holiday when you have body runners coming in and out every day.

      • jd

        Yes, I don’t understand why a case like yours couldn’t be used to show that the registry is in fact PUNITIVE.

  11. David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

    He could only issue a pardon for federal charges, such as child porn. Now is he going to? Uh, no.

  12. Major Henderson

    I went to the Houston police to fill out my travel itinerary today and was told by several people that I was way too early. They only want you to fill it out 5 days before your trip. I told them I had read that it was supposed to be done 21 days out, and they said that is when you are supposed to make an appointment with the agent. She is on vacation, so they said to call her in a week.
    This stuff just drives me up the wall.

    • Hysteria

      You have to realize that we know WAY more about our supposed limitations than government agencies. They are there not to act, but to react! We are an inconvenience to most law enforcement agencies. They use us as practice for harassment, searches, and community relations.

    • R M

      Who cares what “they” think. I don’t. Cover your own ass, at least 21 days has no maximum time.

    • TS

      @Maj Henderson

      Have to agree with R M here and CYA regardless of what they say. If they won’t do an in person notification until later than 21 days out, send it via USPS mail with tracking, certified, or registered to the person who you need to make an appt with to fulfill the national law of them being notified at least 21 days out. Keep two paper copies of all that with you (one on your person and another in the luggage) and maybe a scanned copy of it all either on your phone or in the cloud for retrieval later if needed. They may look at your weirdly, but as long as you CYA here with the Feds, let’em look at your weirdly. TX may think at times they are their own country, but last I checked, they are not.

      • Major Henderson

        It was already too late to meet the 21 day deadline. I just did what the officer requested and called back when she was back in the office. She instructed me to come in the Friday preceding the Monday of my departure to fill out the papers. They seem to be cutting it as short as possible. I have no idea why. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, they probably don’t know what they are doing, but what other choice do we have?

    • AJ

      @Major Henderson:
      “they said that [21 days out] is when you are supposed to make an appointment with the agent.”
      1) If they’re wrong, who suffers? Who perhaps is stopped at the gate by USMS? Who risks prison?
      2) They are wrong, as Fed. Law, via AG guidelines, says the RC must provide info 21 days ahead. If the State chooses to exercise its 10th Amdt. rights and ignore the 21-day guidelines, so be it. Were I you, I’d get the agent’s name, and then mail a certified copy to her.

  13. Malibu

    We can’t just travel to countries to see if we get in, if we can’t, they detain and send back on next flight at our expense. Also, if trying to go to Philippines, they not just send you back but put you on a black list for life, so without a lawyer you will never get in.
    This is without a doubt, unusual punishment, and also cruel. SCOTUS needs to grow some balls and put a stop to it. Instead of just sitting back and watching. I heard one of them actually said people only travel to the Philippines to have sex with children. I am sure that view is the same for all of Asia.
    When I was first on the registry in 1987 I was not restricted. Now every day more restrictions are added. I should at least be able to face my accusers, and defend myself. But even that no longer is allowed.

  14. Ron

    So what happens if your mom dies in her home country and you can only give 7 days notice? Does the government prohibit emergency travel?

    • TS


      There’s wiggle room for these types of events in the 2011 AG SORNA direction given to the states. Notify with the specifics you normally would (state and federal rules ( apply here) then possibly also provide proof of her passing with details. If possible, please report back here with the travel notification and actual travel experiences please.

      • Anonymouse

        Again you insist on applying 2011 guidelines directed at states about to modify their laws to a 2016 law directed at individuals having to comply with said law. Seriously! I certainly hope that no one believes you to the tune of 10 years in Federal Prison.

        34 U.S. Code § 20914: “A sex offender *shall* provide and update information required under subsection (a), including information relating to intended travel outside the United States.” 2011 SORNA Final Guidelines:

        “The authority under 42 U.S.C. 16914(a)(7) to expand the range of required registration information is accordingly exercised to provide that registrants *must* be required to inform their residence jurisdictions of intended travel outside of the United States *at least 21 days in advance* of such travel.” (p. 1637)

        “While notice of international travel will generally be required as described above, it is recognized that requiring 21days advance notice may occasionally be unnecessary or inappropriate. For example, a sex offender may need to travel abroad unexpectedly because of a family or work emergency. Or separate advance notice of intended international trips may be unworkable and pointlessly burdensome for a sex offender who lives in a northern border state and commutes to Canada for work on a daily basis. *Jurisdictions* that wish to accommodate such situations should include information about their policies or practices in this area in their submissions to the SMART Office and the SMART Office will determine whether they adequately serve SORNA’s international tracking objectives. (p. 1638)

        Unless a state / tribe / territory formalizes their policies and procedures to address this, there is no, zero, wiggle room for the 21 day advance notice on an individual level as far as internationally traveling registrants are concerned. None.

        This provision does not necessarily criminalize travel, but certainly criminalizes spontaneous travel.

        Further, the actual law (34 U.S. Code § 20914, and reiterated in the guidelines above) reads: “A sex offender shall provide and update information required under subsection (a), including information relating to *intended* travel outside the United States.”

        What is “intended travel”? When do you *intend* to travel? When you check in at the airport? When you step on the plane? When you buy a ticket? When you schedule an overseas business meeting for next month? When you wake up one morning and think, Tahiti for Christmas this year?

        How can the failure to report an *intention* be a crime?

  15. Mike G


    That is an excellent question. I have heard no discussions about any “emergency” provisions or what might constitute an emergency.

    On the other side, I haven’t heard of any penalty for giving notice and then not traveling.

    If my mom in a foreign country were seriously ill and could go any time, I would start sending a 21 day notice of travel every day. As long as she made it for the next 21 days, then when you did have to travel, you would just take a copy of the notice you’d sent 21 days earlier, showing you arriving on the date that you will actually travel.

    Granted, this would eventually totally enrage whoever you were sending the notices to, but unless it was illegal, the worst they could do would be toss your new notice in the trash every day. But you would have your copy with delivery confirmation that you could take with you to CYA.

    All of this stuff is so damn stupid, unfair, and unconstitutional, but no one cares other than us, so maybe all you can do is try to out-bureaucrat the bureaucrats.

    • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

      No, they do claim that they can make provisions for exigent circumstances or some such. It’s in there.

      • Anonymouse

        “No, they do claim that they can make provisions for exigent circumstances or some such. It’s in there.”

        Who does? And where is it in?

        • TS


          Where you ask? You have it right in front of you, the very section of the Fed Register which the AG used to supplement the SORNA law giving the exceptions to the 21 day part of the law. (You could get the GPO copy if you prefer online too.) The 2016 law refers back to the 2011 AG supplement guidelines which refers to 2008 SORNA. That is how many laws work, they refer to previous laws and either supersede them entirely/by section with new laws/sections or incorporate the previous laws for implementation with legal notes embedded within. 2016 IML incorporates 2008 SORNA which was supplemented by the 2011 AG SORNA Guidelines thus making both of them implemented within 2016 law unless specifically called out otherwise for whatever reason deemed necessary.

          Who you ask? The US AG (Eric Holder at the time) did, that is who.

          BTW, it appears you are confusing States vs Feds. If the states have implemented SORNA fully, the exceptions apply. If the states have implemented SORNA partially, then exceptions may apply if they have accepted them. If states have not implemented SORNA at all, then fed law applies unless superseded by state law which would usually require something harsher than the Feds, e.g. greater than 21 days notification. It is the All/Some/None rule where states can receive full SORNA funding, partial, or none depending on their action. Why is this important? Because the states can do as they want when it comes to travel notification, e.g. give no less than 7 days notification even if the Feds want 21 days – meaning you give 21 days notification regardless because it is the greater of the two and meets them both. If a state has not implemented SORNA and has its own Registrant travel notification laws where they specifically call out there are no exceptions, then they can do as they wish and the person may be in a hard place to travel on short notice. However, I’d be hesitant to say the Fed exceptions do not apply to the traveler because the state could be construed with interfering with the freedom of travel (a fundamental right) on such an exception if founded to be needed to be used by the traveler.

          A less than 21 day notification long weekend soiree overseas would be frowned upon since it is not under the exceptions and could be possible trouble with those you are notifying, especially the Feds.

          If you chose to not believe this, that is your choice. As has always been said here, check with your local LE office for further guidance or an atty who will hopefully guide you through the process. I am not an atty and won’t espouse legal advice here, travel related or not.

          As for Ron’ scenario, if mom’s country will keep her on ice until Ron can get there with 21 day notification, great; but if not, he needs to get there in 7 days, and the state is not willing to budge on 21 days, there is a need to talk with the State Dept, consulates, elected officials, etc then for alternate considerations I would think to raise the issue and the exceptions in the Fed Register. What do you have to lose in trying?

        • Anonymouse

          @TS – one more time and then I give up.

          What I have in front of me is an exception afforded to JURISDICTIONS who are modifying their legal code in order to become fully SORNA compliant. If their legal code is to include any deviations / exceptions from the SORNA blueprint the JURISDICTIONS must submit their proposed legal code to the DOJ in order to see if their exceptions are acceptable to the SMART office in their quest for SORNA compliance.

          The whole point of Nichols was that IML elevates the travel notification from a an issue only applying to SORNA compliant jurisdictions to a Federal Law. It IS now a Federal Law -34 U.S. Code § 20914- whose technical details are based on the Supplemental Guidelines in place for technical implementation.

          How you confuse this with your local law cop shop being able to make an exception for Joe Blow’s trip next week to visit his ill mother is beyond me.

          “I am not an atty and won’t espouse legal advice here, travel related or not. ”

          Yet you make the value judgment that “A less than 21 day notification long weekend soiree overseas would be frowned upon since it is not under the exceptions and could be possible trouble with those you are notifying, especially the Feds.” By “frowned upon” you mean a felony offense with up to 10 years in Federal Prison? That is one hell of a frowny face…

          BTW – you are never notifying the Feds. A traveling registrant is to report intended travel at least 21 days in advance to their local registering agency. And we all know how the local cop shop is a great source for reliable legal advice. Especially for federal laws.

          Seems to me you should take your own advice and not espouse legal travel advice here.

        • TS


          As I said earlier, “If you chose to not believe this, that is your choice. As has always been said here, check with your local LE office for further guidance or an atty who will hopefully guide you through the process. I am not an atty and won’t espouse legal advice here, travel related or not.”

          If you are not willing or able to check with your local LE office for further guidance or an atty who will hopefully guide you as to what the state law (with possible exceptions) is possibly based upon federal law (with noted exceptions), then just say it so the rest of us won’t be the wiser with what you could find out from them with your quandary.

          I would notify the feds at 21 days (or just prior should it be a weekend travel start date and had no travel exceptions required) if I was intending to travel overseas with a full intent to attempt such when the time came to travel, e.g. checking-in at the counter, access security, and board (or cross the border via personal vehicle and my passport or passport ID card).

          I will make no judgements as to the frowny face repercussions of the travel situation by those who don’t think well of the person’s attempt to game the system.

          If the fed, state, or both laws are not to your liking, then take it up with elected officials who have the power using words to your liking to convey to the rest of us who may need to know a corrected version of the law.

          Lastly, here is criminal intent from wikipedia:

          Let’s see what you can glean from it for further discussion here.

    • David

      Unfortunately, Mike G., the 21-day notification requires some details (such as airline and flight numbers). Unless you can book, cancel, book, cancel, book, cancel day after day, it would be difficult to maintain a “running”, just-in-case 21-day notification. 😒

      • Mike G


        You’re right, it would be pretty impractical. You could, though, put down an airline and flight number without actually booking the flight. Just pick a likely one that you would use. If the day came, and you booked the real thing, you could just say you had to change the flight last minute. Angel Watch doesn’t notify based on your 21 day notice anyway; they use the actual flight manifest data, so it wouldn’t change anything with them.

        I wrote this half sarcastically because I have to believe some accommodation would be made for emergencies, but if I was certain my only options were the 10 year mandatory IML prison sentence or missing a parent’s death bed / funeral, I would seriously consider something this drastic.

  16. E

    Hi all: has anyone traveled with a marked passport yet? I’m used to making 3-4 trips per year on business. My passport was revoked after my last trip, in which I reported here that I was pulled aside in Spain after a flight from Germany (after German passport control). That could only have happened due to the notice sent ahead as they normally do not check passports after an intra-Schengen flight. It ended up not being an issue, but what if I’d had that mark in the passport?

    I’m attempting to plan my travel this fall and unsure about a scheduled Europe trip. Can anyone report back on entry/exit of Schengen WITH the mark? Did the border guard see the mark or not see it? Thanks.

    • steve

      I’m interested to know as well. I’m in the process of planning a trip to Europe next summer. I have to get a new passport as mine expired so I might luck out and get an unmarked one and be revoked when I come back.

    • Bruce

      Hey E, have you (or anyone else on this site) already got your new passport? Do you know if you use the DS-11 or DS-82 form to get the new one. I really would like to travel to see my wife at Christmas and I need to get a new passport since mine was revoked because of IML earlier in the year but I don’t want to fill out the wrong form and find out weeks later I need to do it all over again. I hope you or someone else can let me know which form to use.

      • Steve @Bruce

        I applied for a brand new one a month ago and received the passport last week without the identifier.

    • Major

      They did not look at the page 27 – just the photo page and the page they stamped.

  17. Major Henderson

    OK. A new question for anyone that possibly knows the answer.
    Why does Homeland Security always pull us out for secondary clearance? What are they looking for when they go on their computer? I finally asked one of them and was given the ridiculous answer that they were checking to see if I had changed residence during my absence. That makes no sense.
    So, are they doing it just because it is written in their procedural duties and purely for harassment or is there some actual purpose? I suppose since Angel Watch was created, they are missioned with looking for the marking on page 27, but before that was initiated – why?

    • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

      It’s all part of the security circus show. It pads their statistics showing that they have, in their minds, appropriately investigated someone who was already on their radar as opposed to looking for those people who aren’t but to whom they are paying little attention nonetheless. I was once the last person to clear customs from a packed jumbo jet that came from a Middle-Eastern country. So, that tells you something about their priorities as well as their ambitions. They spend countless minutes (sometimes over an hour) bent over their screens checking databases which they had already thoroughly checked the last time we went through Customs. They make phone calls to other agents in offices somewhere to find something – anything – that could make your day go much worse. They are following guidelines that have been written just for us. Aren’t we lucky?

    • NY won't let go

      Last time I entered the US they just asked me if I knew I was on the registry. Then asked how long I got put away for. And how old I was now. Then they apologized to me and said they feel sorry for me for getting stuck on the list. ( I assume they looked at my age when I was convicted, the guy doing the interview was the same age as me)

      Other than that I waited 2 hours for 3 questions. Then they let me go along my way.

      So I think they keep you there just to make sure there are no open warrants for you. I’ve herd some people getting their phones and computers completely scanned looking to see if there was any porn. Never experienced this myself.

    • Mike G

      Well, Major, David Kennerly pretty well covered it.

      Years ago, we used to go to Mexico all the time, and all you needed was a driver’s license to come back into the US. Then, they changed policies to require a passport, so I had to get one. As soon as I started showing my passport, I was sent to Secondary every time. I don’t know if any felony conviction would have triggered it, or only sex offenses, but they would take my passport into an office, type away on a computer for five or ten minutes, then bring back and hand it to me, and send us on our way.

      The big question now, is what is triggering the passport revocations. My guess is that now, when the officer sits in front of the computer screen after scanning the passport, a message pops up saying “Does this passport have the Sex Offender marking on the last page. If the officer answers no, then either another message pops up saying “confiscate the passport”, or at least a notice is sent to the state department instructing them to revoke the passport and send out the infamous “registered letter”. I got my letter about a week after I returned from Europe.

      Angel Watch was around long before the IML and marked passports became law, but they couldn’t care less about you coming back to the US, they are only concerned about warning countries when you leave the US.

      • Jason


        Prior to my conviction I worked in gov’t for almost 20 years, LEO. I have friends that work DHS, DOS, DOJ, and a crap load of PDs around the US. I instructed in several PDs in several countries as well. Despite my situation and not to sound boastful… I’m still networked, and I want to help you guys out. ONE TEAM, ONE FIGHT! I can ask questions if I know whats important to ask. My new father-in-law is also a recently retired immigration official in the Philippines, he can answer i-24/7 questions. Anyways, my email is God bless you guys.

        • Hysteria

          Sounds like you should be using your connections to get yourself out of the mess you are in.

        • Jason

          Hysteria – matter of time my friend, it took me a few months but I finally have what I needed to prove my case was BS. Separate note… Did you ever find a job, I left you my contact info on separate comment?

      • Major Henderson

        Are you positive about your remarks on Angel Watch? I thought their creation was part of the evil Chris Smith legislation requiring the markings and notifications. Even if they were in existence prior to Smith, I never had a single problem in all my travels except for the harrassment begun when Homeland Security was assigned to target us rather than terrorists.

        • David Kennerly

          Yes, several of what would become provisions of IML were implemented, administratively, at least two years before IML came into effect. Countries were notified by the U.S. of a “sex offender’s” status and refused entry. U.S. INTERPOL even announced that these policies were about to be implemented. Later, that notice was removed, for whatever reason. We heard here, at the time, of refused entries.

  18. Mike G

    One of the problems with discussions on this thread, as well as other threads in this forum is people who say “I flew to such and such country and I never gave 21 day notice” or “I’m planning a trip to the Philippines and my local office won’t take my paperwork, so I’m going anyway, or “I spent two weeks in Florida and no one said anything” or “I’m going to Las Vegas for a week, but I’m not going to tell them”, etc.

    We often warn these people that this is risky behavior, or at least we ask them to let us know how things worked out. But if things DIDN’T work out, we are NOT going to hear anything, because they are in Jail or Prison somewhere!

    When was the last time we saw a post saying “Don’t try what I just did because I’m now sitting here in a cell”?

    • Major Henderson

      I truly think we are in deep – you know what. I have stated that I have the financial resources, IF I can find the legal representation that is talented enough and mainly MOTIVATED enough to help us with the new unconstitutional and highly discriminatory legislation that has recently been passed, masked as clarification of the Megan’s Law but in actuality new harsher and more punishing laws. Janice sent me the name of someone in Texas that could meet the requirements – supposedly. At first I was told they would call me back Monday to discuss the challenge to International Megan’s Law. Ten minutes later I was called back and told the lawyer had no interest in participating, and as the legal assistant was speaking to me, she was instructed to get off the phone with me and get back to work. Sounds scary, doesn’t it. Reminds me of the many movies I’ve seen depicting life in a Nazi or Communist country.

      • Hysteria

        I strongly feel that besides a few residency restriction fights and maybe a few individual parole restriction reductions, this is basically treading water. If it hasn’t gotten better since 1970s, and society has only gotten more unforgiving, then it will only slowly get worse. Just in the last 4 yrs, look at the terrible laws passed. Loss of expungement, IML, passport notification, no bail on sex offenses. But hey, we can live 2000 feet from a park that drug dealers and homeless hang out at.

  19. James


    I need to step in quickly to say that I am finding s certain snipping cropping up in certain conversations that seem to be saying that “Presence Restrictions,” and “”Parole Restrictions,” are nothing or…minor.

    Nothing could be further from the actual and real truth…Presence Restrictions were and are a far greater danger to us than the IML…we live in these cities, we navigate, we get around, we eat and rest here in the United States…We once could spend a little time out of the country, but our real time was spent here.

    And the Presence Restrictions were a real and pressing and everyday danger to our very existence.

    No small beans at all.

    And no one else protects us or fights for us at all except for Janice and crew…honorable and great human beings each and everyone of them.

    Cases against the IML that involved immense amounts of work have been filed and….lost. There is no dishonor in this…I thought the San Francisco case was particularly good, yet it did not succeed…however now, maybe some form of Tiered relief is on the way.

    Progress his hard…complaining is easy.

    From time to time it seems important to point this out.

    Best Wishes, James

    • Hysteria

      Agree. The restrictions set many up for failure, which in turn goes into the stat sheet as recidivism, which then gives politicians cause to create more obstacles. The laws squeeze us into navigating a mine field. Now, as one that cares more about IML, I still want to spend any time here in compliance, which gets harder every day not knowing what is going to be passed @ midnight as a rider to some abscure bill.

    • Tim Moore

      The layers of laws are immense, like the strata laid down in the Grand Canyon. It has only taken a few decades to accumulated, but might take as long to erode. Those fighting these laws are like water and are cutting a path downward, as fast as can be managed, to what we all hope is to reach the bedrock of justice. There are only two types of forces involved here, the ones who pile on, and their allies, the do nothing ones; and the eroders, the ones removing the overburden. The operant question is which side are we on. In the end it comes down to an equation. Which side of the equation are we supporting by our actions? It could make the difference.

  20. lee

    Question please. I have not received the “revoke” passport certified letter but I probably missed it not sure. Anyway, I plan on going to Europe in May 2019. My passport is set to expire 2020 but I’m worried about being stopped at the boarding gate and have my passport revoked because it has no identifier like one incident that recently happened to someone else. Could you please let me know if I can send in my current passport and renew with the identifier?

  21. georgina todd

    My husband who is on the registry gave the required 21 days notice sent certified mail. We traveled with our two kids. Just before boarding the plane, three marshals and four policemen with their guns out approached us putting me and my husband in handcuffs and issued a warning that we were under arrest. They took our kids away, took us two both to be charged. After 8 hours I was released and able to get my kids back each 8y and 10y. My husband was charged for not filing all the needed information(so they claim). He cannot get bail because the judge agreed he is a flight risk and that’s why he was trying to leave the country. We now have to find the money for a lawyer and have been told there have been a few similar cases where the registrants were found guilty and one was sentenced to seven years Federal incarceration. He also faces child trafficking. His own kids. We own our house, kids at school and we both have or had jobs. Why would leave?

    • E @ georgina

      This story seems insane. I’m so sorry

      When was this?
      What airport was this?
      What state did you come from/does he register in?
      With whom did you file the 21 day notice?
      What paperwork did you use and how much information did he put on the form?
      Where were you headed (at least the continent)?

    • steve @Georgina Todd

      We really need more info Georgina. It would be very helpful, if you are able, to answer E’s questions. Sorry that you and your kids went thru that. I hope Janice is following up with you on this.

  22. concerned

    maybe a Gundy win will wipe this out as it seems the AG is making the rules

  23. David

    U.S. Customs border searches of Cellphones and Electronics ….. Someone asked about U.S. Customs searching cellphines and other electronic devices. These two cases may be of interest: “Alasaad” and “Kolsuz”.

  24. 290 air

    Just came back from an international trip and it was the first time in at least 15 years that I wasn’t pulled into secondary. The guy even asked if we usually go to secondary and I said yes. He said he had a cousin on the registry so he knew it was harsh and for life. He said since we weren’t traveling with children he didn’t see any reason to direct us to secondary and hoped he wouldn’t get in trouble with his supervisor. Nice to see some logic and discretion still exists. Satan Watch must send a really harsh notice though to the foreign country that we travel to. When we got there they searched everything like they were told I was on my way to rape children or something. After they were done I told them sorry it wasn’t as exciting as they were anticipating and they smiled, kinda laughed, and let me go.

    • Lake County

      Eventually, everyone will have a friend or family on the registry. That will gain us more understanding of the situation and how the registry harms families.

    • E @ 290 air

      Please share where you landed? That’s huge for this conversation. Also, were the foreign border guards aware of the conviction? Do you have a marked passport?

  25. 290 air

    Just came back from an international trip and it was the first time in at least 15 years since I wasn’t pulled into secondary coming back to US. Satan Watch obviously sent a really crazy notice to my destination country, but I think they realized after the search that it was some sham government agency trying to get hysterical over a 21 year old conviction.

    • Will Allen

      “Satan Watch” – that’s perfect! I will adopt that if you don’t mind. Glad things went well for you.

    • James

      Dear 290:

      I am glad that your secondary in the US went so well…but I am a little, maybe a lot, concerned that you were so thoroughly searched on your arrival in…presumably, Europe, (about the only place we can still go!)

      In any case, could you share what your destination country was?

      If possible…please.

      Best Wishes, James

  26. 290 air

    For those of you that were asking I went to Canada. I’m a dual citizen. Never been pulled into secondary or searched going to Canada until these last 2 trips where I had given my 21 day notice. Prior to them passing that last year I was never required to give a notice and never had ANY hassle. Just “welcome back” and “enjoy your trip” so obviously the 21 day notice triggered a notice sent that must have been pretty alarming for them based on their reaction. I even have a Canadian passport which I used. My US passport isn’t marked. Don’t ask why I don’t live in Canada…. long story.

    • Steve

      The only reason they let you into Canada is because you are a dual citizen. Your experience crossing the border has really no relevance to anyone here.

      • James

        Thanks, 290 air, this makes perfect sense now…dual citizenship makes all the difference, especially with Canada I would imagine.

        Canada which I miss btw, from Quebec City to Victoria BC….a good and gracious country except they won’t let me in!

        Thanks again,

        Best Wishes, James

    • TS

      @290 air

      Canada aside (and those who poo poo you getting in), which I do miss visiting our NORAD neighbors but am pleased you get to visit still, your travel experience is of value here WRT registrants traveling outside our borders and returning. It is an interesting return experience you had which can be used in the tracking of return experiences. Was it because you returned from the great white north perhaps? Have to wonder when comparing return experiences from various travel points. Thanks for letting us know.

    • Js

      Thank you for posting your experience. It is relevant to some of us. Have been wondering about this as significant other is a dual citizen and we hope to go visit family after off paper. So they just asked questions? Won’t have a canadian passport, but do have bc.

  27. 290 air

    BTW I use the words “Satan Watch” because Angel Watch implies that these guys passing laws are like angels watching over kids and we all know that is far from the description of Ron Book, Chris Smith and the rest of their cronies.

    • Will Allen

      Exactly right. They represent Satan and thus Satan is watching over and running the witch hunt that is truly harming all people. Just what Satan wants. Hate and division.

  28. Major

    Latest travel update. I traveled in September to Europe and never had anyone question me. Only a few places looked at the passport and none looked at the last page.
    Only problem was coming. back to IAH where I got one of the Homeland Security agents that felt it necessary to ask me several questions about by criminal history. I suppose they are checking to see if you will lie. Really? Who doesn’t realize that they have your complete history in-front of them on the computer screen?
    The whole thing is just silly.

    • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

      My response to those questions about my criminal history was always to tell them “I guess you already have that information in front of you (their computer screen). Yes, you always have to be cautious to never say anything factually incorrect as they will charge you with lying to the police.

    • David

      I certainly agree, Major. Once when I was going through secondary, the CBP “mall cop” asked me if I had ever been arrested. Like what am I going to say, “No officer, I have no idea why you’re pulling me aside for special attention (a/k/a harassment)!”

    • E @ Major

      Major, you have a marked passport and we’re traveling in Europe/Schengen countries? Thanks for the update. The first first-hand report we have if you have a marked passport.

      • Major

        I bought a new computer and just got around to reading the comments on my post about traveling to Europe.
        1. Yes, I have the marked passport. As I previously stated, no-one ever looked at page 27.
        2. I flew into Amsterdam and then to Prague. Prague did not check passports.
        3. The cruise line checked our passports multiple times, but never looked at page 27.
        4. No country to which I traveled looked at the passports.
        5. I asked to receive assistance (wheelchair) when arriving back in Houston. They rolled me directly to a passport agent and he immediately told the person assisting me that “He needs to go to secondary.” There the Homeland Security agent did the usual search on his computer and called me up and asked, “Have you ever been arrested?,” then “What were the charges?” and last “How long did you serve?” He nodded his head as I answered the questions to indicate that I had answered truthfully. Then he said I could go.
        6. After you return from an international trip, you have to return the letter authorizing your trip to the police department. My registration officer asked how everything went and I told her the only problem was when going through Homeland Security. She commented that I could have said to the officer asking the questions that they already knew the answer to the questions because they had it on their computer screen. I didn’t say anything to her, but I feel that making any waves could result in them holding you longer before admitting you into the US.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          She’s right: they do already know it. Tell them just that as I have done when asked the same questions in secondary in the past. Try not to play their games. Try not to give them too much satisfaction. Let them know that you resent their treatment of you as a second-class citizen.

        • AJ

          “6. After you return from an international trip, you have to return the letter authorizing your trip to the police department.”
          Could you explain this please? Are you on paper? If not, who is telling you you need authorization to travel?

        • CR

          @Major, you mentioned before that you are in Texas. So am I. Over the years, I’ve been told by several of the registration officer’s I’ve reported to that Texas does not require registrants to obtain permission for travel outside the state, or even notify them unless we are leaving for more than 7 days. What is this “letter authorizing your trip” that you refer to?

        • El

          When you flew to those countries, were they included in your itinerary, you know the itinerary you had to fill out before you go. I am here in Europe now. I was told Norway is nice but I did not put that in my travel form. Since it is part of the Schengen zone, will it be ok if I fly there?

    • steve @Major

      Thanks for the info major. Curious how you obtained the marked passport. Were you revoked or when you applied for one it came that way. Thanks for the info.

      • Major

        Evidently some of you (AJ and CR, for example) haven’t read all the previous posts on this thread. Since 2011 it has been a Federal requirement for registrants to get a travel permit (by supplying an itinerary of your planned trip) for international travel. And no this is not required for domestic travel.
        Steve – my passport was revoked upon my return from Europe last April (by certified mail from the State Department.) From other posts on this thread I have come to the conclusion that this happens only when Angel Watch becomes aware that a registrant does not have the new marked passport. This would happen at the airport when reentering the US. Incidentally, no-one ever asked to see my travel letter, even during the harassment by Homeland Security at the airport.

        • TS


          Since when is supplying your trip itinerary requesting a travel permit (especially if off paper)? Do they give you anything in return that said you can travel, e.g. the DHS letter? This is the first I’ve heard (and others too it appears) of this DHS letter allegedly permitting you to travel, ever.

          So, maybe you can be enlightening and share the letter content with the forum without the snark?

        • AJ

          You may want to consult the laws and SORNA guidelines, as you’re woefully confused. There is absolutely ZERO requirement to get permission from anyone to travel. Having to notify (which does exist) the government you’re traveling is distinctly different from getting its blessing.

        • steve @Major

          Thanks for the info. I just got a new passport and it didn’t get the mark. So hopefully I get revoked after I’m back and not pulled off airplane before I go. I’m going to Paris with a plane switch in Berlin in June.

  29. Mike G


    Yes, thank you for the update. If you have a chance, you might mention which airport you flew into and what countries you visited. We have trips scheduled in 2019 flying into Athens and Naples.

    I’m wondering is this category should be updated to “International Travel with the Marked Passport”. Just a thought.

    • Major

      Sorry. It did come out as a snarky comment. I was attempting to draw the attention of the two that asked the question. Sorry it came out so rude. But I still say there are several posts on this thread that explain that 1. in 2011 the federal government started requiring registrants to supply an itinerary for their intended international travel. The posts state that the itinerary must be given 21 days prior to travel, but the Houston police refuse to accept it until just a few day before travel. 2. the passing of international Megan’s Law restated that as well as requiring passports to have a stamp notifying that the barer had been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.
      I don’t know where the permit letter comes in, but it was given to me when I supplied the itinerary and it was on a standard form, so I have to assume that the federal government supplies the form.

      • CR

        Doesn’t the letter you were given identify who it was from? Who gave it to you? What exactly does it say?

        If you redacted personal information, you could even post a copy of it somewhere.

        If it simply acknowledges that you provided the required itinerary information in a timely fashion, I would not take that to be a grant of authorization to travel. It might be valuable to have with you in case you are questioned by CBP, but in no way would it be required, or constitute permission to travel.

        If you are off paper and there is anyone or any agency that purports to be approving your international travel plans or granting you permission to travel, then it is important that we find out more about it. We need to understand what the basis is for their purported authority to do such a thing.

        • Major

          I’ve been thinking about the comments that they are not giving a permit to travel when they provide the letter after the itinerary is given to them. If it isn’t a permit, it comes as close to it as you can get. You are not allowed to travel internationally without providing the itinerary, so sounds like obtaining a permit to me.

        • AJ

          “You are not allowed to travel internationally without providing the itinerary, so sounds like obtaining a permit to me.”
          Were it a permit, the Government would have the power and authority to deny the travel. The Government has no such power or authority.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          Major, Constitutionally, they cannot prohibit you from traveling so they simply “regulate” your movement by requiring your notification and to follow their regulatory framework. If it were a “permit” then they would have the authority of denying you permission. They make a big show of not requiring “permission” however since they have positioned IML within an international notification regimen stating that, if we are refused entry by a particular country it is not their doing.

        • Joe

          Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly – true, but they are absolutely prohibiting you from spontaneous – and by spontaneous I mean anything less than 3 weeks planning to the nth degree – travel. Under threat of prosecution and 10 years in prison. That should count for something.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          Joe, of course it is egregious and cynical. By heavily regulating our movement they eliminate much of our travel. They use the conceit of regulation to impoverish our lives and, in my case, quite literally. I use to travel in business until they began their system of notifications, even before the passage of IML. Now, no travel and no business.

      • TS


        Thank you for that. Much appreciated contrition.

        Yes, there is a Fed requirement for 21 days unless there is justification for less than 21 days (which we discussed here extensively earlier this year and is acceptable beyond just the state not accepting it at 21 days but less than 21 days as TX did for you).

        Speaking of TX not accepting yours at 21 days but less than, as long as you document you (the collective registrant here) tried to meet the 21 day effort, then the registrant should be in the clear with the Feds because the state has their own requirements, as we have also discussed here to keep the registrant in the clear as best as possible.

        That is what many of us have here to do is help the registrant travel safely and within the bounds of the law with known caveats to avoid issues as they do travel. Whether that always works could be up to debate, but we try. As we all know, registrant or not, the law will do as they want and feel they need to do regardless because they are the law and have the ability to misinterpret the law they are trying to enforce (granted by SCOTUS).

        As for the permit letter on a standard form, is it a USG form, which would be detailed with a USG or dept form number somewhere (usually on the bottom unless the form is title like a tax form would be), with what could be taken as boiler plate, e.g. standard USG, language? Again, you are the first to mention this letter. It makes me wonder if it those who have marked passports who travel that will receive this letter or is it all who have provided notifications regardless of their passport situation, e.g. marking or no marking. Since you did not mention a PO in your details, being off paper here is why you have received the letter??? Any specific details you are willing to share would be helpful here for the masses as we track this ever evolving legal travel situation.

    • Major

      @ AJ. I suppose the letter is proof that you followed the law and provided the police with the itinerary that is required. As I mentioned, no-one ever asked to see the letter during my travels, but no-one probably knew of my status as they never looked at page 27 of the passport. Surprisingly, even the harassing Homeland Security officer didn’t ask for it.

      • AJ

        Thanks for the clarification. It sounds more like you’ve been given a receipt than a pass. I’m still concerned, though, that some government entity somewhere is claiming authority over one’s right to travel. That will be nailed out of the park by any half-competent judge.

        Yes, having the proof of notification along with you can possibly avoid being detained or delayed by some rabid DHS agent or other LEO during your travels. TX not accepting the form until a few days before travel harms them in no way, but could possibly open you up to legal problems–for missing the 21-day window. As has been detailed many times on here, mail it to them 21 days in advance with proof of the document and proof of delivery.* That it’s “too early” for them is their problem; that it’s too late for the Feds is *your* problem. There’s absolutely no way I would let my State put me at legal risk by stalling my filing for 18 days. I would also be sure to travel with (multiple, separately secured) copies of my letter and all postal records. (I would further keep such information, perhaps as a PDF, for at least 6 months, if not 12 months.)

        @TS touched on everything I was going to say, so I’ll leave his words to speak for me. Since you said you had to turn whatever paper back in, that would make it what USG-types call an accountable form. Accountable forms *must* have some sort of form or document number on it. If it doesn’t, it’s not an accountable form, it’s a worksheet. Worksheets are yours to do with as you wish. (Trust me on all this, I’ve had decades of exposure to Federal bureaucracy.)

        *Based on some reading, it would be better to send it by both First Class and Certified Mail. See: It’s also helpful to include the Certified Mail Number as a header on the letter(s). “VIA FIRST CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL (Number XXXXXXX)”

        • Aman

          To all…..
          Having traveled overseas many times over the last four years I can tell you what I know about serving “notice”. The 21 “working day” rule is our federal obligation, however, not only each state, but each county has its own rules for notifying law enforcement. Here in Washington state, my county only requires a written letter with my dates of travel and return, passport number and so on. In order to ensure compliance with the law I personally hand the letter to my registration officer a full month in advance, see it stamped and get a receipt, then in my case I am good to go. I think the idea of having a stamped copy is a very good one just to show that you have indeed complied, but if your registered count seat is too far away then registered mail return receipt requested is the best way to go, especially for the folks in TX. Always have proof on your person nowadays, but remember…..21 WORKING days to have your intent to travel “received”.

        • TS


          Check this: in addition to the actual US Code

          21 days is the US codified federal law, not working days but calendar days. In WA State, it may be 21wkg days and even in your county, but not federally.

        • AJ

          *sigh* Once again you beat me to the point, but make the same point. Without a “business” or “working” modifier, “days” defaults to mean calendar days.

        • Major

          I’m not sure what is meant by “being on paper.” But if you mean am I on parole or probation – no. The offense occurred in 1986.
          Sorry I cannot provide a copy of the letter they gave me as they required me to return it to them once I got back into the US. It looked very official and had some sort of seal on it. I don’t know if it was generated locally or by the US government. I do remember that it read more like a permit than just a simple receipt. I would offer to post a picture of the next one I get, but I don’t believe there is any way to do that here.

        • AJ

          “I’m not sure what is meant by ‘being on paper.’”
          Yes, “on paper” means still supervised, “off paper” means done.


          That they issued and required return of a document is quite troubling. Did they also mandate you have it on you at all times? (Truly a “papers please!” situation.) Maybe you said and I forgot or missed it, but do you reside in AL? That’s the only State I’ve heard that had (has?) any sort of process akin to what you detail.
          Their original version was struck as unconstitutional, and IIRC the current form is in litigation.


          “I would offer to post a picture of the next one I get, but I don’t believe there is any way to do that here.”
          You can’t post here directly, but you can anonymously upload files to and then post the supplied URL it gives you. Whenever next time comes along, a redacted PDF or picture would be helpful and appreciated.

  30. NY won't let go

    I just got back from my trip and got back to my home country. No issues besides getting caught at customs with extra smokes. Got foreigner taxed but that’s it.

    Heard an announcement at the airport though saying for all people traveling to the US there would be a heavy interview prior to going to immigration and security check due to heighten security in the US. Not sure who are the people interviewing are but pretty sure it’s people from the US.

    • David

      I believe the interviews will be conducted by the President himself who is looking for his next Eastern European Mrs. Trump!

      • NY won't let go

        That would be a trip if he was doing the interviews I would ask for a presidentential pardon, could introduce him to his next hundred or so wives if he wanted.

      • Robert

        Why do you have to make such a stupid dumb comment? This isn’t about Trump. It’s about us. Get it? Besides Trump wasn’t the one who put you on the registry. You did

        • Will Allen

          You are right that Trump did not put anyone on a Registry. But David did not put himsef on a Registry either. No one who visits this web site did. Criminal regimes put the nearly million people on their Registries. They failed America.

        • NY won't let go

          I think that David’s joke may have been missed….. Anyway, the fact that I would even need an interview to fly back to the US makes me not want to come back. Apparently you guys are expecting some attack from Asia and that’s why they have the additional screening for all flights from here, because honestly he is fucking our economy over here with his trade war.

        • Will Allen

          NY won’t let go (November 20, 2018):

          I think everyone realized that was joke. Funny as well.

          These interviews crack me up too. I’m sure there are many decent people who work in big government. And I wouldn’t want to insult anyone who does not support the Registries. However, most of the people doing these interviews are flunkies who I wouldn’t trust to cook french fries for me. But I’m SURE they are doing wonderful work and fake protecting people worldwide. Especially from those outrageous, traveling “$EX offenders” who are only traveling because the Registries have made it impossible for them to attack children in America. Awww, so cute!

          Because of the Registries, I can’t support sh*t that government flunkies try to do. Nothing, nada. There must be chaos. The more, the better.

          Asia is attacking the U.S. by being disciplined (unlike here) and buying us up. They don’t need a military. When you own the U.S. there is no need to attack it.

  31. E

    Interesting post at FAC about denied entry to Kenya. Good example that the final decision always rests with the border guard.

  32. steve

    Not sure if this has ever been posted but:

    From Interpol website.
    Article 89: Green notices
    (1) Green notices are published to warn about a person’s criminal activities.
    (a) The person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety;

    In Doe-VS Conn One of the reasons they found the SOR websites constitutional was because in the opinion written by Rehnquist he states “The Court reasoned that, because the law was not based on an offender’s dangerousness, but rather only on convictions, disclosing an offender on the registry without a hearing did not violate due process.” Interpol clearly states above YOU NEED TO BE A THREAT to issue a green notice therefore our government is making that assessment about our dangerousness contradicting Rehnquist.

    (b) This conclusion has been drawn from an assessment by a national law-enforcement authority or an international entity;

    In the 6th’s ruling this would be ex-post facto.

    (c) This assessment is based on the person’s previous criminal conviction(s) or other reasonable grounds;
    (d) Sufficient data concerning the threat are provided for the warning to be relevant.

    • CR

      @Steve — “In the 6th’s ruling this would be ex-post facto.”

      What are you saying would be ex post facto? Why?

      • steve @CR

        In the Michigan case the 6th circuit said it’s unconstitutional to go back a give someone a tiering designation or changing their tiering without due process. I would think with the government saying we are a threat is somewhat similar as we were not given due process. That’s why I go back to Connecticut vs Doe. They said the online registry is not telling society who’s dangerous. But IMLIS because Interpol won’t accept a green notice if someone is not a threat. Someone posted on the Florida Action board a person can appeal a green notice with Interpol I need to do more research on that. I only found something on red notices being appealed.

        • James

          Yes, Steve, I saw that also…but I don’t know how one would go about challenging INTERPOL in reference to being willing to not forward a US Green Notice…(after all their own President, the President of INTERPOL himself was just kidnapped back to China! {true story}).

          But this is something that bears watching and research for sure.

          Best Wishes, James

        • David Kennerly, Travelling Boogeyman

          Regarding Green Notices: keep in mind that INTERPOL, as an international organization, is not making the decision to issue Green Notices in our regard, it is the U.S. Department of Justice which operates its own staff of “U.S. INTERPOL.” Each INTERPOL member nation gets to decide whose criminal background, among their citizens, will be disseminated through the use of notices. However, INTERPOL can veto their issuance (at least with Red Notices) when individual nations attempt to use notices for political repression or to silence their critics. Inclusion of such notices when the subject is considered to be a political dissident has become a major controversy in recent years and INTERPOL has had to withdraw some of these notices. Even so, INTERPOL, as an international organization, has no authority to decide which U.S. Citizen will be the subject of any notice, including Green Notices. Their bylaws explicitly acknowledge individual countries’ sole authority to submit such records to its database. INTERPOL is at pains to represent itself not as an international police agency but as an international clearinghouse for criminal data in cooperation with law enforcement of their member countries. This hasn’t stopped some of those law enforcement agencies from wearing INTERPOL uniforms, however when conducting law enforcement actions, sometimes in multinational task forces.

        • David Kennerly, Travelling Boogeyman

          I should add that INTERPOL does have investigative staff and conducts investigations which are then shared with the relevant governments. They don’t have the power of arrest (yet).

        • James

          Thanks Mr. Kennerly, you always add real value and clarity to any issue you turn mind to.

          However, the dream is nice that maybe there was another avenue to attack these damned Green Notices….more court cases I suppose.

          I am sorry that I do not know more.

          Best Wishes, James

  33. bill

    i assume nothing is going to happen to get 311.11 convictions put into tier one until the new law goes into place. Just checking

  34. TR

    @David Kennerly, Travelling Boogeyman
    Correct me if I’m wrong, so when a registrant does the notification for international travel, with the US Marshals informed, is the U.S. Interpol and not the international Interpol the one sending out the notices? Another words do you believe our government is acting unilaterally with the angel watch operation?

    • steve @David K

      My point was not that Interpol issues the Green Notices, we all know the US sends it to Interpol. My point was that there are Interpol standards for accepting them. The US is making a determination that we are dangerous or a threat, (something the Supreme Court said the government ISN’T doing on Megan’s Law websites Conn vs Doe..IML contradiction) the US has to or Interpol won’t accept the green notice.

      • David (not K)

        So Steve, using that Conn v. Doe SCOTUS ruling as a basis, couldn’t a “Registrant
        John Doe” sue Angel Watch for sending Green Notices without first determining on an individual basis that Registrant John Doe is, in fact, currently considered “dangerous”?

        • steve @ David (Not K)

          I have emailed Interpol and got a response. They want me to send a letter and verify who I am by sending a copy of my passport. Your question to me is also my question.

        • Scotus Save Us Now

          I am curious what they reply with…

        • David (not K)

          @ Steve, Could you post that Interpol mailing address? I would like very much to ask for copies of whatever they are sending to countries about me.

        • James

          Dear Steve;

          Thank you! That’s really great of you to take the Initiative in this fashion.

          I am impressed and…thankful.

          Let us know the results, please.

          Best Wishes, James

      • David Kennerly, Travelling Boogeyman

        Steve, that’s a good question, i.e. “because Interpol won’t accept a green notice if someone is not a threat” and the question of a finding of “dangerousness.” AJ would be a good one to weigh-in on the applicability of recent court rulings to this issue. INTERPOL, itself, may not be all that fastidious about the need for dangerousness. From what I know of them (and especially about Mick Moran who’s in charge of the “crimes against children” division) I would say that we should not expect them to be any better than our own government. They are pretty scary in their own right.

      • AJ

        Are you in contact with the Interpol mothership in Lyon, France, or the DOJ one in DC? I suggest you contact both. If you do, I think it would be wise to get the info from the French office first, as you don’t want to show your hand to the US Bureaucrats. In fact, it might be a good idea to ping France, then FOIA DOJ, then ping France again after getting your FOIA docs to see what, if anything, has changed once you contacted DOJ. (Gotta try to catch them in their deception if you can!)

        • steve @ (AJ)

          The address they want me to send my letter is in Lyon France.

        • steve @ (AJ)

          Thank you for the advice. Yes, my plan was to inquire with Interpol first regarding their own standards for issuing the green notices.

          “I think it would be wise to get the info from the French office first, as you don’t want to show your hand to the US Bureaucrats. In fact, it might be a good idea to ping France, then FOIA DOJ, then ping France again after getting your FOIA docs to see what, if anything, has changed once you contacted DOJ. (Gotta try to catch them in their deception if you can!)”

  35. Fortunate Traveler

    This only applies to Mexico. It has been difficult to find attorneys in Mexico that will provide representation in Mexico. They want to hide and not take the case. I have found a firm which includes and American attorney and a Mexican national. They helped me and now all I have to do is present my passport and any other supporting documents at the border immigration station. This has taken a long time but not all that expensive. I also had some good luck. If you are interested, contact me at
    I will give you the contact info. Any case is tough, but this firm will at least advocate on your behalf.

    • Concerned Registrant

      Fortunate Traveler: Glad to hear things are working out for you. It would be helpful to give a little more information. Are you and Mexican national, or of Mexican nationality? Are you married to a Mexican national? What was the argument that allowed your attorneys to succeed for you?

    • PK

      Mike, have you tried to do that and has it worked?

  36. steve @ (David not K)

    Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
    200, quai Charles de Gaulle
    69006 Lyon

  37. E

    @steve–nice work. Thanks for keeping us updated.

    My concern would be Angel Watch going much broader than “just” the green notices. Don’t they talk/email directly with each country we list on our itinerary? Or is it somewhere published (SMART or somewhere??) that green notices is how this happens? I would assume we need to attack SMART’s authority to send anything to anyone… which of course was permitted (after they started doing it) within IML.

    Are you researching this apart from the scarlet marking? Do you have the passport marker?

    • steve @ (E)

      No I don’t have the marker..yet.Traveling to Europe next summer. I am only attempting to question their own standards for issuing the notices.

      • dontgetit

        One should not lose sight of the fact that this identifier is added strictly and directly to protect children from unspeakable horrors committed by this group of travelers.

        As such, any passport held by every single one of these 900k+ individuals should be revoked immediately. Is this a great logistical or costly effort? Not really – they have all mailing addresses of those affected, the cost of a new (and marked) document is borne by the applicant (regardless of length of validity of the current document).

        So why is this not being done post-haste? It is the law, and if it saves one child… seriously – why not?

        Then you would think that any application for a new or replacement passport would for sure trigger the marking. Surprisingly it does not appear to.

        What does appear to trigger the revocation is a completed trip with an unmarked passport. Round trip. And since we all “know” that the only reason a registrant travels overseas is to sexually abuse children in the most horrific ways (justifying the mark), is the government not complicit in aiding and abetting such crimes certain to take place during a registrant’s travels?

        How creepy is that?

        • TS

          Only problem with your premise is not every one of the 900K needs a mark to save one child who they travel overseas to see in person. It is less than that.

          So, why isn’t the gov’t then processing the known knowns of these who should have the mark since it would seem to be so easy to do so? Because 1) not every one of them has a passport and the USG won’t give them one if they don’t have a need for one; 2) who is willing to extend passport processing times for those who don’t need a mark for a bunch of people who need something marked in theirs?; and 3) who is going to pay for the plus up of people, technology, etc required to meet the passport need of those who have to have mark? Certainly not the USG because that is a cost they cannot pay when the elected officials are asked why is it taking so long to get an expedited unmarked passport returned for spring break in a foreign land.

          As you said, the round trip is the big triggering factor for most travelers, not all, as we know here. So, any proactive marked passport work ahead of time may be moot and merely to cause more angst when one wants to be traveling. This would be in line with the cost the registry gives out because it is just a side effect with no ramifications on the person, e.g price club membership, etc.

        • Chester M

          The IML law states that the State Department has to get a determination from the Angle Watch Center for each registrant. So I would imagine that the Angle Watch Center is not prepared to do all the paperwork involved in making that determination for all potential registrants with passports.

    • AJ

      “Don’t they talk/email directly with each country we list on our itinerary?”
      Yes almost assuredly. Uncle Sam outright admits it uses its foreign-posted FBI and USMS people (and probably DHS and other ilk) to liaise with their in-country counterparts. So it’s above and beyond Green Notices. (I don’t have the GAO or SMART doc at hand that mentioned they do this, but I have read it a couple times.)

      One would need to FOIA FBI and USMS to find out what’s been said and sent, but it will probably come back redacted except for your name..if you get anything, given they could throw the LE trump card on it all.

      • James

        Just for everyone’s consideration, there is a fairly long article in Bloomberg today on INTERPOL being in trouble and even suggesting the US defund and cease any cooperation with the organization…well..!

        My problem, our problem, is of course larger than this, our real difficulty is first and always is first with the United States government and the IML….though maybe with equal primacy are the state registries.

        In any case, here are the troubles with INTERPOL

        Best Wishes, James

      • E @ James, AJ

        Indeed. Here’s a follow up on countries communicating directly using Interpol channels:

        “member countries can issue requests, known as diffusions, directly to other countries using Interpol’s communication system, without going through the centralized Interpol vetting that’s in place for red notices. Watchdog groups are urging Interpol to reform the diffusion system too.“

        • steve

          Well that’s interesting. I have sent my request for information on Green notices explaining they are not following their own guidelines for issuing them in regards to RC’s. We’ll see what they say.

  38. Robert M

    I want to plan a trip to Africa in 2019. I only register once a year and am a tier 1 in New jersey. i dont have a problem giving 21 days notice but who do i notify??? the person i register with? i dont have a P O just a police officer in my town i register with. this is so confusing any help or advise so i dont get in trouble.

  39. J

    I will be getting married in June of 2019. We have started looking at honeymoon destinations and I am very confused as to what I need to be wary of when travelling internationally as I have never done so before, ever. I do not even have a passport yet. Some background:

    I live in Pennsylvania, I was charged and convicted in 2005 of two felony 3 sex offenses. One of which did involve a minor (15) however on my megan’s law/sorna registry it always said something about that information not being required to be notified, so I’m not sure if that fell before any such requirement.

    I finished my probation in 2015 and since that date I have not been under any supervision of any kind. All fines and court costs are paid, I am under no requirements.

    II was originally sentenced to a 10 year registration on megan’s law. With Sorna that was increased to lifetime, then reduced to 25 years, and finally as of this past year due to the Muniz ruling I have been removed from the registration, and received my letter from the Pennsylvania state police that I was removed. I do not appear on the PA megan’s law website, nor do I appear on the FBI website either.

    So as of right now, with no registration or probationary requirements, I don’t know where I fall.

    We have been looking at resorts in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. My fiancee’ today told me while searching, that she found something that indicated I may not be able to enter the country. I hadn’t even considered an issue because I’m “off” of everything and was getting used to living life without having to worry about anything.

    So now the feelings of anxiety and depression are back. Are we going to be able to go to the place we choose for our honeymoon? Do I still have to deal with IML if I am not showing as registered anywhere? If so, what do I need to do and where do I start? I was so hopeful that this stuff wouldn’t spoil my honeymoon and we could just be free and enjoy it, but now I feel like my past is once again coming back to hurt us.

    Any information or guidance anyone could provide would be helpful.

    • steve

      Go to Hawaii, US Virgin Islands, or any Schengen European country.

    • TS


      This is not legal advice, which you should seek from a PA atty that is knowledgeable in this area to ensure you are comfortable with where you stand as of now with the data you wrote, but since you have no registry requirements, you should be free to enjoy international travel without issues, e.g. no notification 21 days in advance to your registration office since you don’t have to register. If you have a current passport or need one, you should be ok to travel to the DR with it sans a mark given the “minor” issue you had but have moved beyond.

      Again, talk with a PA atty who is aware of this ruling, its impact to you, and how you are able to travel internationally. There are others here on this forum who are from PA and read this forum that can provide a decent PA atty to discuss this matter with. I believe there is a PA chapter of RSOL who can also be a source for you to share your concerns with. If not, email the national office your concerns where they could help you.

      Lastly, congrats on the impending nuptials and travel to celebrate this milestone in your life.

    • Concerned

      According to IML you have to have a sex offense against a minor AND be obligated to register in a state. If you are not registered in any other states (now including Penn) you should not have a notice sent to Dominican Republic, and they should allow you in.
      That being said, how can anyone be sure that the government will not send notice anyway?
      How important is it that you go to DR, when there are other beautiful Carribbean locations where you will not be turned away even if you were subject to IML? U.S. Virgin Islands, Bahamas, etc. Check the website to get some ideas.
      If it must be DR, then you could just book and try. But, if you want to greatly reduce the chance that you will be turned away, buy a discounted RT ticket to DR for a couple days for yourself and see what happens. It means spending extra money, but if you get in without problems then you will have more confidence moving forward. You can also check out whatever accommodations you were planning to honeymoon at. If it turns out to be less than you had hoped, you could find a more suitable destination.
      You have 6 months to figure it out. Good luck and congratulations on your wedding.

      • TS


        @J does not send notification to DR, but the USG would if he was to provide notification 21 days in advance if he was required to register. However, since he is not required to register and has no need to submit a 21 day in advance travel notification of his own, the USG should not send any notification to the DR of his impending travel and his travel info from the airline should go through the process without issue within the USG system. If the USG did send notification and he had problems in the DR upon arrival due to this notification without due process of a notification even being needed, then the USG could have a heap of trouble on their hands.

        @J – as previously recommended, talk with a PA atty who is knowledgeable of the ruling and its impact on you WRT international travel. Enjoy the DR or wherever you and your bride go to celebrate.

        • TS


          Disregard part of my reply about @J sending a notice to the DR. I read your reply differently after rereading it again. Apologies. However, I do stand by the lack of due process trouble the USG could have if the USG did send notice without needing to given he is not required to register.

        • Concerned

          Just to clarify: There is no guarantee, no matter how many attorneys one consults, and no matter what the IML actually says (which should mean J is exempt from being interfered with, whether intentionally or by ineptitude), that he will not have a notice sent and be disallowed entry to DR — thus causing financial loss and a ruined honeymoon. My suggestions were made to help prevent a bad honeymoon experience. Never mind that he might have a lawsuit if he is wrongfully treated.
          A paid Pennsylvania attorney will not guarantee him anything, will not prevent the government from doing whatever it is going to do. J wants he and his wife to have a wonderful and memorable honeymoon for all the right reasons — not memorable because he was forbidden to enter a country and shipped back to the U.S.

  40. 290 air

    Anybody know if the 21 day notice has a max time frame? For example could I give notice now for travel plans a year from now? Also, does anybody know if we are limited to the amount of times we can come and go? For example can I give a notice to travel from May 2019 until November 2019 and use the same notice even if I return to the states between those dates and leave again to the same country? Doesn’t seem like either of these scenarios are addressed in SORNA. Only that we have a minimum of 21 days.

    • James

      Dear 290:

      You need to look at the form…they really want some specifics and certainly a return date after an outbound.

      Some people have been very specific…what hotel’s what dates….and I applaud them for this. But for me, just the outbound the return and some general Itinerary in between… (ie Paris, France, Terragona, Spain…etc

      But your outlined plan…is wrong, I think…and maybe dangerous even.

      Let us know how it goes.

      Best Wishes, James

      • 290 air

        Thanks for your reply. The form i have to fill out in CA everything just says “anticipated” dates and anticipated destination so it seems like it leaves it open for change. I think they are really trying to skirt the unconstitutionality of what they are doing so that’s why they phrase it that way. I guess we’ll see. I don’t see any problem with giving notice way in advance, but there might be a problem with returning and leaving again on the same 21 day notice. I kinda just like to make their job as hard as possible while still being legal about it. why make it easy for these jokers..

        • PK

          @290 air
          You mentioned you just received your revocation letter.

          Was this based on you providing 21 days advanced notice?

          Or did you actually travel and then receive the letter?

        • CDC Alum

          @290 air

          You mentioned a California “form” for your 21 day notice. Where did you get that?

  41. 290 air

    Just got my passport revocation letter. I don’t get how they can require us to send it back when they don’t include a prepaid postage envelope? Isn’t that another fine I’m incurring for a previous conviction that wasn’t included in the original paperwork I signed? Seems a lot like additional punishment. I get how they can get around the fee for the new passport because that’s on us if we want one with the identifier, but to require it to be mailed back and making us pay for it seems a lot like additional punishment.

    • TS


      It’s their document; thus they can make the user (any user) return it at their request and the user’s expense. Because it’s userwide applicable, not punishment. You could choose to not return it to see what they’ll do. We’ll, all, wait here to read about that.

      • Buster S.

        Baloney. By them cashing your check you have entered into a legal contract to use their document for 10 years. If they want it back, you should be entitled to a refund of the fee, prorated at a minimum.

        Otherwise, what is to stop them from changing one word every six weeks and recalling the document over and over while keeping your money, good for 10 years? Highway robbery in perfection.

        • TS


          A passport is a privilege, a privilege one must apply and pay for, not a right or an entitlement, just as many licenses/certs are. If you still want it after initial issuance and it needs to be amended by your actions to be used as determined by the law/governance, then you need to pay for that too. The USG does not care if you travel overseas. If you do care to travel overseas, then the law has to be followed as applicable. Don’t like the law, work to change it.

          I don’t believe your refund argument would hold up in court if you sought a partial refund for the time THEIR passport in your name was not in your hands to be potentially used (or the postage either), just as it would not hold up in court if you sought a partial refund for any other suspended/revoked license/cert by your actions. You either use it as dictated by law or lose it as dictated by law regardless of the time used and unused over the stated effective period.

        • RegisteredNotAnoffender

          It’s an interesting conversation for sure, judges revoke passports all the time as a condition of bail and that’s been found constitutional.

        • TS

          Thank you @RegnotOff for bringing up passport revocation as part of bail. Was hoping someone would. There’s a whole page at the DoS website for LE and others which discusses that. Doubt the accused could seek a partial refund for the time they didn’t have the passport in hand after being adjudicated.

        • Buster S.


          Name one instance where a license can be revoked absent any action / misconduct by the licensee, with the licensee issued the same license with a slight modification upon re-application and full fee payment. Name one.

          This has nothing to do with international travel or a passport being a right or a privilege. This is a commercial transaction between me and the US Government. For my fee I receive a passport to use for 10 years, providing I submit the required documentation.

          Thisis no different than me renting a car from Enterprise or Hertz and have my rental period of their car – always their property – abbreviated due to a change in their policies or a faulty engine – their action alone, without a replacement car or refund for the remainder of my pre-paid contract period.

          Subsequent to being issued my current passport I have engaged in absolutely no action that warrants revocation or amendment. I have not changed my name or sex, I have not incurred IRS debt in excess of $50,000, I have not fallen in arrears on my child support obligations, there is no active warrant for my arrest, and I am not on parole for international drug trafficking or child sex tourism.

          It is undisputed that “a passport at all times remains the property of the United States and must be returned to the U.S. Government upon demand.” (22 CFR 51.7) It says so right on the inside flap. It is also a fact that the period of validity of an adult passport is 10 years (22 CFR 51.4). Further, the fee for a mail-in renewal is $110. Those are the current laws, as of today.

          My historical conviction predates the issue date of my last passport by years, if not decades, and no action of mine requires my current passport to be revoked and amended. It is the government that changed the law, causing the revocation. Again, nothing would stop them from passing a law amending the unique identifier next year by one word, and every year thereafter, requiring my to pay the full fee for 10 years while depriving me of the 10 year period.

          22 CFR 51.54 regulates replacement passports without payment of applicable fees. For things like to correct an error or rectify a mistake of the Department (which me possessing a passport without the legally required identifier might be) or when a passport is retained by U.S. law enforcement or judiciary for evidentiary purposes and the bearer is still eligible to have a passport. Is that something to work with? Perhaps.

          And “Don’t like the law, work to change it.”??? What an utterly useless statement and sentiment. Everything about the sex offender registry is legal, according to current law. The entire purpose for this web site, this organization, this movement is to change bad, unjust and uncostitutional laws. Duh.

        • Buster S.


          judges may require an individual to surrender their passport as part of pre-trial release if that individual is deemed a flight risk. Note – individually evaluated and ordered person.

          Only the Department of State can revoke a passport. But not as a part of bail.

        • Buster S.


          an accused person – in other words an unconvicted / innocent person can have their passport revoked as part of bail??? Interesting.

          Is this the page you reference?

          If it is, there is nothing on it about revocation, and certainly not as part of bail. Is there a different page discussing this? ????

        • AJ

          @Buster S.:
          “By them cashing your check you have entered into a legal contract to use their document for 10 years.”
          Not so fast, Buster. According to State (
          The passport application fee and the execution fee are non-refundable. They are collected and retained by law even if a passport is not issued.
          Even if a passport if not issued. So much for the legal contract argument you make, given State can cash your check and still give you nothing. The only possible legal contract is that when they cash your *Application Fee* check, they agree to process your application. Using your logic, Stanford enters into a legal contract and owes me some classes or a degree or something if I pay their non-refundable $90 application fee (

          You’re paying (more likely only reducing) the State Department’s administrative work of deciding whether it generates and issues you a free government document (i.e. passport) to use for up to 10 years. $110 to make the judgment and $35 to make the book. To me that’s a wonderful example of a user fee, as I do not think it right for all taxpayers to fund passport processing.

          “what is to stop them from changing one word every six weeks and recalling the document over and over while keeping your money, good for 10 years?”
          If Congress exercises its plenary powers and such a law is enacted either by Presidential signature or a 2/3 majority vote of both chambers overrides a veto, nothing stops them.

        • TS

          So, @Buster, if a registrant has a marked passport and has their legal situation adjudicated on appeal (by an applicable action of themselves or another appellant(s) in state/fed court or SCOTUS) to where they no longer have to register and don’t need a marked passport, then they should keep the marked passport and it’s remaining effective time because of an alleged “commercial transaction contract” instead of just happily paying the entire renewal fee for an unmarked passport and potentially a new 10 year effective period? I’d imagine many would happy to pay the renewal fee early to lose the marker.

          Bottom line – Right to travel exists as does the right to a passport, as granted or denied by the law, but you don’t have to take advantage of them. This is equal for all parties, regardless of what passport people are eligible for.

        • TS

          Let’s also make one thing clear: revoked v retained passports

          In the legal terms many here may be used to, when one hears “your parole is revoked, send back to wherever” that may come across as “taken away”, which it is.

          In some minds, while a passport is technically “retained” by the courts/LE when asked to be surrendered, a.k.a. taken away from potential use until its disposition is evaluated, e.g. returned or send to DoS, revocation is synonymously inferred and sounds applicable when it is not.

          While those who hear and think of “passport revocation” for bail by the courts/LE are not technically correct, it is understandable in the course of legal “taken away” thinking.

          In the case of a passport revocation, the passport is invalidated as completed by the DoS.

        • Buster S.


          let’s back up a second there, AJ. Your Stanford analogy is sadly lacking. Stanford is a private organization filling a finite number of spots, typically far less than the number of applicants, using completely subjective and possibly arbitrary criteria, owing justification to no one (just ask my kid who did not get admitted).

          The Dept of State is the official organ of the US government that issues a, the one and only, document that proves my US Citizenship. For every US Citizen who is able to provide satisfactory documentation. No other entity is authorized to do likewise. If the US Government has the right to operate arbitrarily like the Stanford Admission Board, the Rule of Law no longer applies. We have chaos.

          If I do not fulfill the (subjective) Stanford admission requirements, my app fee is lost, indeed. Likewise, should I not fulfill the US Passport requirements, I am not entitled to a refund. This is very true. However, I DID and DO fulfill the US Passport requirements, as evidenced by my issuance of a passport in the past (that determination is covered by the one time $35 execution fee) and no subsequent conduct which changes that. I have not (I repeat myself) since then changed my name or sex, I have not incurred IRS debt in excess of $50,000, I have not fallen in arrears on my child support obligations, there is no active warrant for my arrest, and I am not on parole for international drug trafficking or child sex tourism. I also have not accepted another country’s citizenship.

          “Even if a passport if not issued. So much for the legal contract argument you make, given State can cash your check and still give you nothing.” Sure they can – IF I do not satisfy their requirements. But there must be a transparent reason for the government to give me nothing. Because they are NOT Stanford University. And, and this is ginormous difference, I DID, in the past fulfill requirements, they HAVE given me the object of my desire and now they want to deprive me of it without recompense.

          Regardless of acceptance, the contention that Stanford owes me a degree for my application fee is ludicrous. That is like saying that the application of a US Passport entitles you to an African Safari. Fail.

          What Stanford owes me, upon acceptance, is the right to enroll in classes within a certain amount of time – clearly stated in their guidelines up front. I assume you cannot get admitted today and plan on actually enrolling 50 years from now. Once enrolled, I have the right to work towards my degree, assuming I abide by all rules, like satisfactory course work, ethical academic practices, and probably a time limit, etc. Clearly stated up front and binding from my date of admission. Unless I actively violate any one of those criteria, Stanford cannot change my status to “unadmitted” due to a change in their guidelines. Because cashing my check, processing my application and approving me, is a legal contract entitling me to their goods as described, as long as I adhere to said description.

          And my last comment / question was rhetorical… of course they can do anything they want, retroactively to the beginning of time. Dear God, we are talking about sex offenders, and none of this is constitutionally unsound, after all.

        • Buster S.


          “So, @Buster, if a registrant has a marked passport and has their legal situation adjudicated on appeal (by an applicable action of themselves or another appellant(s) in state/fed court or SCOTUS) to where they no longer have to register and don’t need a marked passport, then they should keep the marked passport and it’s remaining effective time because of an alleged “commercial transaction contract” instead of just happily paying the entire renewal fee for an unmarked passport and potentially a new 10 year effective period?”

          ??? Such a person should do as such a person wishes…. voluntarily applying for a replacement for an otherwise valid passport because you they want a passport without unnecessary verbiage (having become unnecessary due to personal circumstance) or because they do not like their photo is up to each passport holder. What on earth does that have to do with the government revoking someone’s passport without any action on their part and not replacing it for the remainder of its validity? ???

          “Bottom line – Right to travel exists as does the right to a passport,” or “A passport is a privilege, a privilege one must apply and pay for, not a right or an entitlement, just as many licenses/certs are.” Which is it, then? Please make up your mind…

        • Buster S.


          “Let’s also make one thing clear: revoked v retained passports” – “While those who hear and think of “passport revocation” for bail by the courts/LE are not technically correct, it is understandable in the course of legal “taken away” thinking.”

          No, before that let’s make one thing crystal clear. People who do not know the difference between “passport revocation” and “passport surrender as part of pre-trial release” have no business being in this conversation.

        • TS


          If you’d read the rest of conversation between David Kennerly and I, then you’d have seen I stated it’s a right to travel abroad in the end.

          However, if you had also read the Fordham University document through the link I had posted, you would have seen, historically speaking, a passport was initially an informal privilege to facilitate overseas travel as a US citizen identifying document before it became a right to use for traveling abroad through the Passport Act of 1926.
          You’ll read those facts in the first paragraph of that doc.

          As for revoke v retain, a retained passport may be revoked if one falls under the US Code to be denied one.

          I don’t like marked passports either but a right to international travel with a passport doesn’t have to be exercised.

        • AJ

          @Buster S.:
          Stanford is a private organization filling a finite number of spots, typically far less than the number of applicants, using completely subjective and possibly arbitrary criteria, owing justification to no one
          It’s because Stanford is private and has subjective criteria that they can charge a non-refundable fee? How does your argument hold up when it’s the University of California charging a $70 non-refundable fee? ( That all aside, you fail to address the basic concept that you are paying State Dept, Stanford, or the UC an *application fee* for the other party to consider whether you merit what they offer. That is true whether objective criteria of State, subjective criteria of Stanford, or whatever criteria you decide UC uses. You are paying for them to look at you, not to give you something (passport, degree, classes, time of day).

          You’re also wrong that Stanford owes justification to no one. They are still bound by Federal, and perhaps State, Education laws and civil rights laws and may have to answer in court for any claimed infractions (can you say “Harvard Asian-American discrimination”?).

          The Dept of State is the official organ of the US government that issues a, the one and only, document that proves my US Citizenship.
          An absolutely false and completely ridiculous statement. Right on State’s website it says one must, “[s]ubmit an original or certified copy of your citizenship evidence AND a photocopy when you apply.” ( According to you, I should have to submit my passport, the “one and only” document that proves citizenship, to get a passport? Please explain how one gets that initial “one and only” document.

          From the above URL, the primary, valid forms of proof of citizenship are:
          1. Fully-valid, undamaged U.S. passport (can be expired)
          2. U.S. birth certificate [meeting certain criteria].
          3. Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
          4. Certificate of Naturalization
          5. Certificate of Citizenship

          So much for “one and only.” Nor is State “the official organ” of the US Gov’t that issues citizenship documents. USCIS, an entity not of State but of DHS, issues Certificates of Naturalization and Citizenship.

          If I do not fulfill the (subjective) Stanford admission requirements, my app fee is lost, indeed. Likewise, should I not fulfill the US Passport requirements, I am not entitled to a refund. This is very true. However, I DID and DO fulfill the US Passport requirements, as evidenced by my issuance of a passport in the past (that determination is covered by the one time $35 execution fee) and no subsequent conduct which changes that.
          So taking your “legal contract” claim, those who have their money taken but don’t get a passport have no legal contract with State, but those who receive a passport do have a legal contract? Oooookkk…. An “interesting” take on contract law, to be sure.

          I have not (I repeat myself) since then changed my name or sex, I have not incurred IRS debt in excess of $50,000, I have not fallen in arrears on my child support obligations, there is no active warrant for my arrest, and I am not on parole for international drug trafficking or child sex tourism. I also have not accepted another country’s citizenship.
          There’s this thing called Congressional plenary power. Those laws were passed in the exact same manner as IML: plenary power. Maybe you should do some legal research and find where the deadbeat parents successfully challenged that law and got their passports back. Good luck with that. And what about those with an active warrant? They face just an *allegation* of a crime and are barred. If a presumed-innocent person can be barred or burdened, what makes you think a convicted person cannot be?

          “Even if a passport if not issued. So much for the legal contract argument you make, given State can cash your check and still give you nothing.” Sure they can – IF I do not satisfy their requirements. But there must be a transparent reason for the government to give me nothing.
          No, they cash your check whether or not you satisfy their requirements. And here I thought you understood the concept of “non-refundable Application Fee.” Who says there “must be a transparent reason”? There must certainly be a reason, but whether it must be transparent is up for debate. As seems to be your norm, a sweeping, unfounded statement.

          Because they are NOT Stanford University.
          It doesn’t matter who it is. Whether it’s a private or public entity, whether it’s using subjective or objective criteria, if you don’t meet the criteria, you don’t meet the criteria!

          And, and this is ginormous difference, I DID, in the past fulfill requirements, they HAVE given me the object of my desire and now they want to deprive me of it without recompense.
          You said it: “I DID, in the past fulfill requirements.” Exactly: “in the past.” So old people or someone who has suffered some sort of physical or cognitive disability and who get forced in for re-checks of their driving abilities should get their money back if it’s found they’re no longer competent to drive? As for recompense, let’s again review: non-refundable Application Fee. You paid them to review your application, and they did. The business transaction (your purported “legal contract”) is completed.

          Regardless of acceptance, the contention that Stanford owes me a degree for my application fee is ludicrous. That is like saying that the application of a US Passport entitles you to an African Safari. Fail.
          Thank you for again making my point. To hold that paying an Application Fee entitles one to anything beyond consideration of admission to Stanford or issuance of a passport is indeed ludicrous….kind of like your “legal contract” contention.

          What Stanford owes me, upon acceptance, is the right to enroll in classes within a certain amount of time – clearly stated in their guidelines up front.
          Once again, you make a leap and ignore the issue. What does Stanford “owe” you if you are NOT accepted? Nothing. Again: Non-refundable. Application Fee.

          Once enrolled, I have the right to work towards my degree, assuming I abide by all rules, like satisfactory course work, ethical academic practices, and probably a time limit, etc. Clearly stated up front and binding from my date of admission.
          Another leap: “Once enrolled.” That’s well down stream from the Application Fee transaction. Application, Admission or rejection, then Enrolled. Your Application Fee money goes solely to Application, and to nothing later (i.e. admission, enrollment, attendance, graduation). State’s Application Fee goes towards Application, and to nothing later (i.e. issuance).

          Stanford has the right to change its rules after you’ve applied, after you’ve been accepted, after enrollment, and even after starting to attend. With proper notification and within the constraints of State and Federal laws, Stanford is free to change its rules as it sees fit (especially being the private institution you pointed out), which may result in some students not applying, not being accepted, not enrolling or attending, or perhaps even leaving–either by free will or by compulsion. Similarly, Congress (remember plenary power?) has properly notified those holding or seeking passports that the rules have changed. The Government has decided it wants to change how *its* document looks when used by certain citizens when they present the Secretary of State’s request for the citizen to be allowed entry into another sovereignty.

          You really should pick one pseudonym on here and stick with it, @Static-99 blah blah blah. But as with your other personalities, I’ll just skip right past this one.

      • @TS

        @TS did I miss signing something when I got the passport that said I would return it to them at my expense?

        • TS

          See my response to @Buster about a passport being a privilege, not a right or entitlement, which has to be applied and paid for. You don’t have to sign anything that says you will return a USG passport at your expense, it is theirs to which by law says you must surrender it when revoked or requested. No exceptions. If you don’t, then expect to see USMS greeting you at your departure point.

        • AJ

          “did I miss signing something when I got the passport that said I would return it to them at my expense?”
          You mean the same expense incur when renewing their document by sending in the application and old passport…at your expense? So really the sticking point is you’re not doing it on your terms.

          You can either agree or refuse to comply with the directive. Go ahead and take whatever stand you wish…I’m sure you’ll show them! At least you won’t have to worry about that pesky IML marker, because you won’t get another passport unless and until you comply.

          “Penny wise and pound foolish,” comes to mind.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        TS, I would argue that it is NOT a privilege but a right, regardless of whatever assertions statists make. Also, while not wanting to re-excavate the whole “privileges vs. rights argument” – what I call the “high school driving instructor speech” that everyone seems to have extended outward to everything but breathing and eating, assertions of “privileges” are usually on very thin legal ice not to mention ill-defined and often contradictory. We should not be so quick to give away our rights.

        • TS


          I can see your perspective and respect it as presentated here. When put in such manner, it’d be a right you apply and pay for but can be denied by as well as granted by law.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          TS, Yes, that’s about right (no pun intended). It’s a “right” that is regulated by the state (“state” in this case meaning government at any level). Rights can be regulated such as gun ownership. It’s still a right but one which can be “reasonably regulated.” We are paying the price, however, for the Founder’s oversight in not mentioning international travel specifically in the Bill of Rights, though that was clearly their intention that we have such a right as demonstrated in the earlier Articles of Confederation (where it did appear). They thought it so obvious that it need not be enumerated. Fools, them. We’re paying the price for that oversight. The frequent arguments for things being “privileges,” such as the Driver’s Ed dictum “driving’s not a right but a privilege” which seems to have been drilled all-too effectively into our heads, is on a very weak Constitutional foundation, from what I can see. When the Constitution mentions “privileges,” as I recall, they are used almost synonymously with “rights,” meaning they saw them as much the same thing but with “privileges” having even more status – not less – than “rights.” Question for today: Does the emergence of new technological capabilities mean that government can use those technologies to increase its power beyond anything anticipated by the Founders and to degrade our right “to be let alone” as a result? Think INTERPOL databases, “sex offender” databases, license plate readers, blanket surveillance, etc. Okay, I just found a couple of pieces on rights vs. privileges which are very interesting:

        • TS

          IIRC, the right v privilege has been broached here previously and addressed with similar discussion, but I wanted to delve deeper into the right v privilege of a American passport to see what else I could find again. The topic is an old topic within this country and one that has caused much discussion while evolving it appears, but with the power still in the hands of the Dept of State to do has they feel is best by law. It appears within the sources below, a US citizen has the RIGHT to a passport as long as they meet the laws of being issued one and not denied by law (which the latter part could cross over to the privilege aspect of the discussion and causes consternation).

          In the Yale Law doc below, there are interesting to points that are very applicable today since it is a recent doc:

          Citizenship, Passports, and the Legal Identity of Americans: Edward Snowden and Others Have a Case in the Courts

          At the same time, from Fordham Univ, comes this doc (which I have posted here before):

          Right to Travel Abroad

          Citizenship of the US

          United States Passport

          No where does it say it is a contract that has to be honored for the 10 years one has paid for the use of a passport regardless of revocation or being asked to surrender it by the courts or LE.

        • TS


          Thanks for the definitions and interesting reading as I read it. There is a supplemental reply of mine that has yet to post which will add to yours unintentionally as I was researching it as you were submitting yours.

          BTW, if anyone reads the docs I supplied links to, you will find in a footnote the Magna Carta being referred to as the first source rule of law discussing passports and their use.

        • Scotus Save Us Now


          Equal protection would say that having to pay over for something no one else does is a violation. Its not being revoked bc of a new action, like when your DL is revoked for a DUI… This should be easily challenged as an additional fine/punishment… They might very well be able to make you send it back for a new one, but to charge the full price again is unreasonable.

          Similar to states that make a RO pay for the license every year, I think that would be the same idea

        • TS

          @SCOTUS Save us

          I disagree because you don’t have to have a passport in life and thus, not pay the initial or renewal fee if you don’t want or need one. If you want or need to travel internationally, then you have a right to do so, which is granted or denied by passport law, but you must pay the man to do so for a passport. That is equal for all parties. International travel is a right you don’t have to take advantage of if you chose not to, which is also equal for all parties.

          “Equal protection would say that having to pay over for something no one else does is a violation.” – It is equal for all parties to pay for a renewed or replacement passport at any time in the useful 10 year passport effective period or after, regardless of markings. DoS could consider this an early renewal (through revocation by law and not personal choice) if the person intends to renew it anyway. This leads to a big question here, I believe, which is “What are the effective dates of a newly marked passport?” and addressed next.

          “They might very well be able to make you send it back for a new one, but to charge the full price again is unreasonable.” – The consternation with paying full (renewal) price for a marked passport would depend on the marked passport effective date range, i.e. Is it only for the remainder of the returned unmarked passport’s current effective 10 year time or does the effective use clock start over with the newly marked passport where the full 10 year duration is in effect? Does anyone here know that answer who has received a marked passport? Can you look at that on the passport please? That is a key answer I have not seen here. If someone here who knows could back fill that, it would be helpful, IMO. Again, it may be seen as an early renewal by DoS. This also begs the question, does a lost or stolen passport have the same usable remaining time or does that clock start over? If it differs from those who are receiving a marked passport, then there is a possible EPC violation. Who would not be pissed if they paid full price for less than full term use?

          “Its not being revoked bc of a new action, like when your DL is revoked for a DUI… This should be easily challenged as an additional fine/punishment…” – I’d say it’s being applied ex post facto as an additional requirement as you write this because of a preexisting legal condition before the marked passport law went into effect.

    • David Kennerly

      290 air, could you please enter the text of that letter here? Thanks!

  42. Frustrated

    I think I will mail my passport in with a big “Fuck you” finger taped over my pic. Maybe smear shit all over the pages for them to get a good sniff of. What are they going to do, revoke it? LOL.

    • AJ

      “What are they going to do, revoke it?”
      To your first idea, your Free Speech rights will probably prevent anyone from doing anything–though willful defacing/destruction of an official document may not play well for you. To your second idea, you may find yourself in violation of improper transport of biohazards. There may also be laws regarding intent to inflict bodily harm via your excrement.

      When you pick a fight with the Government, which is what both these actions would be, you’d better be sure you’re on solid legal footing. My betting money says you’d be nowhere near such.

    • TS


      Wouldn’t recommend mailing it back with fecal matter involved since that could constitute a biohazard with possible terroristic intentions and really ensure you’d not get another passport for travel but perhaps to SuperMax instead. Don’t pass go, don’t collect $200, but go straight to your isolation cell.

      Of course, you probably wrote that as a facetious statement…

  43. 290 air

    @David Kennerly,
    I can write the exact text of the letter at a later date, but the basics of it said I no longer am entitled to an unmarked passport since my crime is one of the covered crimes. My passport is now revoked. I have to surrender the passport immediately and I can apply for a new one with the identifier once I’ve paid the fees, filled out the application, and provided citizenship info.
    Sent out a week before Christmas. Merry Christmas.
    I’m going to renew though and travel like I do now. The best revenge against these jokers is to live a full life. Exactly what they are working so hard to take away from us.

    • TS


      Are you going to apply for a new passport while returning the revoked passport in the same envelope or are there two different addresses involved with you receiving a new passport?

      • 290 air

        I was thinking of sending it in with my application since i need proof of citizenship then they can forward to whoever needs it.

        • PK

          @290 air
          You mentioned you just received your revocation letter.

          Was this based on you providing 21 days advanced notice?

          Or did you actually travel and then receive the letter?

  44. 290 air

    It must have been triggered by my trip at the end of September since I don’t have a 21 day notice out right now. Weird that they sent it almost 3 months later though…

    • E

      Mine came about 8 weeks after returning from a trip. They prob have one person working on these and getting backlogged in saving the world.

      • David

        (I suspect DOS is now even slower with the current government sgutdown.)

    • NY won’t let go

      This says the revocation is not mandatory but at their choosing. 😒

  45. America's Most Hated

    I read through all this thread… Does anyone know if Guatemala is allowing registrants to enter? Colombia and Ecuador are now refusing entry so I have to find a new paradise.

    I am already aware of RTAG. Not much info there.

  46. David

    (I suspect the State Department is now even slower with the current government shutdown.)

    • Darrin

      Possably,….when i 1st went to HK in Oct i recived my passport “revoked” letter about 2 months later….upon booking another fight back i had to get a new passport with the help of the US Post office its been about 1 month with EXPIDITED service, at the same time i have sent my old passport in at the same time. Pretty fast with Holidays and traveling desk to desk i think. They did tell me over the phone that passport services are NOT affected by the shutdown! They did tell me that it could take up to 8 weeks for general prossesing, and 4 weeks for expidited.

      • NY won’t let go

        It’s crazy how the processing time in the US is so much longer than abroad. When I talked to the embassy here they told me it would take 8-14 days from submitting for renewal

  47. Leo

    I am currently in Italy. I want to go to another Schengen country. Though it is not in my 21 day notice, only Italy, will it be a problem if I fly to another country? Also, are, they still hustling people at customs returning from overseas?

    • Warren

      I carry my police Sargent (In charge of sex registration where I live) e-mail on my phone and send her any itinerary changes to my international travels (It happens). That will be your proof if US Customs gives you any grief.

      I would always expect customs to sent you to secondary inspection when you return to the US. But our last trip back from Tahiti about 6 months ago, they sent us right through the line, no secondary! First time in about 4 years or so, so you never know. Cheers.

    • NY won’t let go

      Depends what country you’re thinking about going to, I preferred the train when I was in Europe. Got to see all the little towns along the way. Not sure how it works with the flights, like if you have to go through immigration again even though it’s like a local flight.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        If you’re traveling within Schengen then they depart and arrive at domestic terminals, so no fear of flying is necessary. I used to travel much more by train in Europe in the 70s and 80s but started flying more about twenty years ago as air travel deregulated and became much cheaper. Also, trains do check passports for travel beyond Schengen and even within Schengen, I have had immigration demand my passport. They hop on the train during the route and go from one car to the next, demanding passports. They’re often not very nice about it, either. This happened to me at least a couple of times when I traveled between A’dam and Paris and, I believe, Berlin whereas I don’t remember ever being scrutinized on flights between those cities or elsewhere in Schengen. Unrelated, but I will add again that, to my knowledge, there are no Schengen directives to the effect that U.S. Registrants are to be allowed in. However, all of the member countries do, as a matter of practice (and so far) do allow in registrants. I believe that this is more of a function of being European than being in Schengen. Still, don’t get carried away with the idea that they like sex offenders, it’s just that they don’t hate us as much as the U.S. or the other Five-Eyes do.

        • Mike G

          Correct me if I am wrong, but if they do ask for your passport while on the train (I was asked to show mine once on a bus going into Austria), all they do is look to see if you match your photo. They don’t carry scanning units to run your passport through the system, do they? Of course, if they start looking at the marked last past, that could have some effect, I’m afraid.

        • Mike Griffiths

          Edit: That was “marked last page” not “marked last past”.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          Mike G., that’s been my experience, too that they usually scrutinize the passport rather perfunctorily but I wouldn’t be at all surprised that they might now have portable passport scanners that connect via mobile networks. I don’t know if they do but it is certainly now possible. And, as you point out, the inclusion of a “sex offender statement” in a U.S. passport can certainly be encountered by them, as well without any technological capability.

        • NY won’t let go

          I remember them coming on the train but they didn’t ask for my passport, the passengers they did as were of a darker complexion or of middle eastern decent. Something about white heroin and Moroccans. This was a few years back though.

        • Warren

          I think of the 6 train trips I taken in Europe, maybe 1 time they asked for our passports. And even then, they didn’t scan it.

          For hotels in Europe they will ask for passports to show at check-in. In some country’s (notable Italy) they do collect information on guests. So keep that in mind while visiting Italy.

  48. Mike G

    When applying for your replacement passport, how is everyone handling the “Why do you not have your passport?” questions when the only options are “it was lost” or “it was stolen”?


    • NY won’t let go

      I haven’t had to replace mine as of yet, but I don’t live in the country anymore(still stuck on the NY registry though). From why I’ve read though they usually send it back with a note of some sort. Otherwise they get sent another one like if they renewed it without the stamping.

      If I remember correctly someone had said there was something on the picture page telling them to look at page 27also(endorsement page)

      If this is true wouldn’t that be more than they said they would do initially where they just mark the last page?

      I’m still wondering what’s going to happen since I haven’t lived in the US for a while now, and if it’s revoked I’ll get deported to the US where I have nothing to go back to.

      • NPS

        “If I remember correctly someone had said there was something on the picture page telling them to look at page 27also(endorsement page)”

        This is written in all passports regardless if the holder is a registered citizen or not. I’m in a career where I see many different passports. I make it a point to always look closely at the U.S. passports and so far, they all have that sentence about page 27.

  49. steveo

    My wife and I went to Europe for a 21 days in September, and will be going back (Lord willing) in February for another 21. The first time was vacation, the second time is to open a remote office for our business. My passport is from 2010, and they never sent me anything to renew it, but i’ll have to at some point in the next 16 months or so.

    • Mike G


      Are you subject to IML? If not, passport renewal is easy.

      If you are, I would wait and see if you get a revocation letter requiring you to return your passport and apply for another. You should be able to do both in the same envelope.

      My passport was revoked after I returned from Europe in April. I have put off applying for another, hoping something might change, but we have a Europe trip scheduled for this April, so I am applying now. The only problem is that you have to state whether you have your passport or not. If you check that you don’t have it, they require an explanation as to how it was lost or stolen. There is no option for revoked. Since I have to apply in person, I’m planning to go there tomorrow. I’m betting they’ve never heard of one being revoked (we are an exclusive club 🙂 ), but maybe they will know what to do.

      • steveo

        I am subject to it, or more like subjected to it. Yes, I just move through life assuming that things will work out, and if they put a road block in front of me I just move around it as good as I can.

      • E @ Mike G

        Please let us know how the in person visit goes. I’m in exactly your same situation (have waited but have a trip coming up) and have thought about just going into the passport office as well. Thanks in advance for letting us know how it goes!

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 *