ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org


ACSOLInternational Travel

ACSOL Conference Call Nov 2 – International Travel [Recording added]

Conference Call Recording added here

ACSOL’s will hold a public conference call on Wednesday, November 2, at 5 p.m. Pacific time. The topic of the call will be “International Travel” and the call will follow the same format as the previous calls. There will be a brief presentation of the topic to be followed by a Q&A session where call attendees may ask questions pertaining to the topic.

Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055
Conference Code: 983459

I look forward to having you call in.




We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dang, just saw this notice now.

Was there any new info provided on this call?

Theres a recording of it:

I haven’t listened to it either, hopefully, they discussed the renewal of the Lawsuit against IML.

Ah, thanks. It’s even downloadable as an mp3. That means I can listen to it as I go for my morning run through the park. (which contains playgrounds, and is within 1000 feet of a daycare and a school.)

Since I am no longer able to participate in the conference for whatever technical reason (the system fails to recognize that I’m in queue) then I may just have to settle for listening to the MP3 later, myself. I won’t be canceling other meetings in order to participate in the conference call as I had this week, though.

I had some important points in response to earlier callers as well as some information regarding INTERPOL which I had wanted to discuss so I will write a post covering those.

David I hope you do have a lot of info regarding Interpol Do you know how we can discover what information was used to trigger the notice and what is in the notice?

ML, I can’t say that I have a lot of information about INTERPOL so much as I have some additional information and lots of questions as to how it fits into the overall IML issue and what additional elements should perhaps be included in any challenge to IML.

I did find the “Rules” document from INTERPOL that gives a much clearer picture of its regimen of “Notices” (and “Diffusions” which turn out to be distinct, somehow) and the processes and authorities for their issuance and, just as importantly, their removal. It confirms that such notices are under the sole and direct control of that country from which they emanate and whose citizens are their subject. The document also makes very clear that the subjects of those notices have every right to demand to see those notices.

After discussing it with a gentleman who had been refused entry during foreign travel, he filed a request to see his notice and, very quickly, INTERPOL responded that there was no data about him being propagated by the U.S.

Here is their response to him (with the date redacted):

“Dear Sir,
Following our previous correspondence dated xxxxx 2016 and in accordance with its functions, the Commission would like to inform you that the appropriate checks have been carried out.

The Commission consulted the INTERPOL National Central Bureau (NCB) in Washington. This NCB authorized the Commission to disclose that there is no data communicated by the United States concerning you in INTERPOL General Secretariat’s files.”

Obviously, these requests are a very important thing that we can be doing right now, i.e. requesting to see notifications/diffusions as may be included in the INTERPOL database and then sharing those results here.

INTERPOL issued a press release very early in 2012 (sometime in January or February) announcing that sex offenders’ (it may have been “child” sex offenders, I don’t remember) status, as such, would be available to nations on their network (conceivably 190 countries) for the purpose of alerting immigration authorities when foreign “sex offenders” entered their countries by, I believe, March or April of that very year. I found this by doing a Google search or getting a Google keyword notification. I found this very shocking, to say the least. Also, there had been specific mention that the Five Eyes had developed a model, between themselves, for such a system of notification, that would form a basis for such a wider system, going forward. We do know that that had happened, i.e. the English-speaking countries had already been blocking entry of many sex offenders (though apparently not all) to each others’ countries for some years by then.

I did not save that press release, unfortunately, and when I later went back to find it, it had completely disappeared, rather mysteriously. Keep in mind that Chris Smith was collaborating with INTERPOL, and many other governmental (and not just U.S.) and non-governmental agencies to craft earlier iterations of IML, at that time.

INTERPOL’s role in the IML notification scheme is not completely clear but it is one of those resources to which the law refers.

We know that there was a dramatic increase in the number of refusals of sex offenders attempting to travel to foreign countries beginning in the Spring of 2012 (which coincided with the aforementioned press release) and well before the passage of IML.

We know that the judge (Hamilton) in the IML lawsuit appears not to have known under which authority we were being “outed” by our government to foreign nations prior to IML’s passage, although she was ultimately quite indifferent to both the reason and the effect. Of course, neither are we aware of the authority under which we were refused foreign travel prior to IML.

My concern is that that practice probably needs to be a part of whatever future or amended challenge we mount to IML. To my mind, those notifications by INTERPOL, whether “Green” or “colorless”, or whether issued ‘per-trip’ or continuously available on their network as a result of our appearance on NCIC or other criminal databases, are important to that effort and we should all (including those who have made NO attempt to travel) make our demands to INTERPOL to see them. We should then compare the results of those requests.

I include those who have made no attempt to travel for this reason: this might then show if our appearance on a criminal records database, such as the FBI’s NCIC, is connected to INTERPOL or if an event is needed to trigger its appearance on INTERPOL such as a PNR (Passenger Name Record) or travel notification. However, I think that it is likely to be more complicated than this and I am fairly sure that these procedures can and do change over time.

Here is the address of that INTERPOL document and, underneath it, the statement relevant to our authority to demand records in which we are the subject:

“Article 18: Right of access by persons who are subjects of international police cooperation
(1) Persons who are subjects of international police cooperation shall be entitled to access, under set conditions, the data concerning them processed in the INTERPOL Information System.”

Correction: 2013 was when INTERPOL released the press release and was when the travel refusals dramatically increased. It’s now getting long enough that I’m having trouble remembering. Checking my notes, and noting some of my own travel dates (which always helps me to remember things), it was 2013. Sorry!

I found something I had written previously a month or so after the press release in March of 2013:

“INTERPOL has reinvented itself in the age of “terror”, using hysteria over child sex tourism to get governments to disseminate – worldwide – information about their citizens.

We have been hearing, for some time now, ominous rumblings that that mysterious global agency was going to release something truly horrifying as a means to counter the apocryphal “epidemic” being drummed-up by CNN, ECPAT, the U.N. and all of the other professional social engineers.

Now, it is being spelled out for us and it is coming in the form of a global database of criminal records to be shared between member nations (more than 190 countries make up INTERPOL) and will alert, in advance, any nation about to be visited by a “sex offender”.

It will be easy for the U.S. to provide information on its own citizens since every successfully purchased airline ticket having an origination or destination in the U.S. is automatically forwarded to the U.S. State Department and Department of Homeland Security, along with passport number, as part of the great pretense of responding to 9/11.

In the case of the U.S., previous Congressional efforts to enact an “International Megan’s Law” which would have required sex offenders themselves to report, well in advance, their travel plans to other countries have, so far, been unsuccessful.

But it turns out that they will simply do an end-run around that legislative nicety and bring about the effect of that odious legislation, anyway.

One possible avenue on which to challenge this, from a civil liberties perspective, will be to question our own government’s authority to provide such information to those nations with an even more abysmal record on civil liberties than our own.

Details, coming in the form of official press releases and major media non-journalism, are, as always, in short supply and we have many questions which have not yet been answered. We will keep you apprised as we learn more!”

i tried calling in my phone plan said i couldnt even though i pay highest plan rate i will investigate cause i was able to the last one METRO PCS has heard the last of me for sure lol. i will listen to the recording later

I was told that there would be a 1 cent per minute charge. That’s not a deal-breaker for me so I stayed.

Worse, however, was that my call was never taken, despite having requested it very early in the conference. Several people were able to call in twice during the time I was waiting. This was the second time that I have not been able to get through on a conference call.

It was very frustrating as I had taken notes during the call as responses to earlier questions which arose during the conference as well as some additional important points which warranted consideration.

Dear David:

I also was notified that there would be a 1 cent per minute charge, but since I participated in a previous conference call with no change, I fairly quickly understood that this was because I was using different phones and different systems.

I hung up and called back on my land/cable line phone and there was no 1 cent/minute announcement. Apparently, to participate with a cell phone is where these changes kick in, otherwise it is free.

I know that it was only 90 cents for the entire conference call…but I thought I’d let you and others know about what was going on with these charges.

Best Wishes, James

No, I used a cell phone and there was no charge. It may be your plan.

It would have been interesting to hear your points.

Does anyone have any information on some government practices with regard to International Travel? First I seem to have read that our government does not use a past conviction as the sole justification for sending the notifications. Does anyone have any real information about what is used? Is there any way to discover what information the government used? Second, is there a process to discover what Interpol sent to justify their warning? Thanks.
I have an Immigration lawyer in Mexico City that seems to know what he is doing.

As someone who has a spouse in Mexico, this conference was very informative.

Also- I have informed a leading psychologist in New York about the future challenge to IML, and hopefully she could be of help.

Who is Kerry trying to get into Chile?

I wish he would express his story on here.

I have a few questions. Does this law only affect child related offenders? What if I travel with an expunged battery? I never had issues until I flew back to the US (all airports where very courteous etc/other than LAX)

This ( ) is a US citizen who was not required to check in with the police when traveling to another state, was allowed to travel internationally without a “Unique Identifier” on his passport, and is not required to be on any type of registry for anything on his long rap sheet and 17 prior arrests.

I don’t think the problem is Interpol. I wanted to visit Greece and wrote to three attorneys in Athens and received these replies:

“Such a list or equivalent of it doesn’t exist in Greece. More than that, the Greek authorities only receive notifications from Interpol for serious cases and regarding international warrants of arrest and not for previous convictions, which they don’t interest the Greek authorities for tourists who enter the Greek territory. Therefore my opinion is that there will be no problem for you regarding your holidays.”

“I would imagine that you will not have a problem in Greece with this issue since we do not even have a registry of this sort for our own offenders.”

“I have made an extensive research on the matter of entry of sex offenders in Greece and to the extent I have reached through that research there is no indication that Greece would deny entry of a former sex offender in its soil. Unless there is a secret agreement between the two nations (which is virtually impossible) I could not see how your entry to Greece would be affected. Since I have not seen one single piece of legislation addressing the matter (during the research I conducted for your matter) I cannot focus and connect my advice on a particular Act of the Hellenic Parliament addressing your matter and give a more scientific hint on my advice. Also I am not aware of a bi-national agreement neither did I find one during my research that indicates that Greece and the US are co-operating on the matter in question i.e. not allowing entry of US sex offenders in Greece and vice versa. Privacy issues have not made possible the enactment of legislation in respect to dissemination of data about individuals such as yourself in the EU.”

Greece is a Schengen country.

Someone talked about Indonesia on the recording, where Paul got the information from that it turns away SO? I can’t find anything here and have emailed him. I wish he could share it with us a brief story of this that happened after IML, when did it happen or reported. The international posts reported someone could get in but Paul and the matrix say otherwise. Please!

“Robert” reported earlier this year getting into Indonesia, including Bali and Bintang, successfully.

The Aussies are working with the Indonesians or, at least, the Balinese, to identify their “sex offenders” and prevent their entry into Bali. Here is a recent story:

Indonesia seems to be undergoing a great deal of social panic these days and has generated a lot of publicity about “castrating” or possibly even executing “pedophiles” in the future. Combine that with escalating high-profile pogroms against homosexuals and Christians and ever-increasing Islamic fundamentalism and it is sounding pretty inhospitable compared to the Indonesia I once knew and visited often. Ten years ago the white feminist Aussies/Westerners were taking up residence in Bali to become permanent busybody tourist watchdogs and that has only grown worse.

Thanks, David. So yes or no, then? Paul on the recording says no “recently”

I’m not sure. I had thought that someone had reported not getting in but I’m not finding any record of it. Perhaps others who’ve tried will respond.

@David, can I contact you?

May I suggest an automated phone system whereby the caller, (while waiting in for conference call)
can press to listen to comments as audio.
Listen to comment from Theodore press 1… Listen to Professor Quarry press Two… Listen to DudeR & usak repeat their comments Press 3…..
Order pizza Press 4…
Invite me over when you order pizza Press 5.

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend this call to ask the following question, but was hoping that someone might have an idea as to the answer, or possible someone in a similar situation.

In my current state of residence (NV), I was luckily able to go to court to obtain a termination of duty to register as a former Tier 1 offense. So in NV I am currently completely off the registry, and technically NV is considered a SORNA compliant state.

I am however still on the registry in Florida, which was the state of my original offense. Have been told by FL that their registry is independent of all others and thus I can not be removed for a minimum of 25 years.

So being in a bit of no mans land between two states, was wondering if I would still fall under the auspices of the IML when attempting to travel. Since I have no current obligations to the registry in my current state of residence, would not even know where I would report intent to travel if it was somehow still necessary.


Anyone knows if we can travel to Guam or not? It’s us territory and need to register or not?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x