ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

ACSOLGeneral News

Notice of Appeal Filed in IML Case

A notice of appeal was filed today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the first formal step required in order to appeal the dismissal of the only court challenge to the International Megan’s Law (IML).

“The IML unfairly and unjustly labels hundreds of thousands of American citizens as sex tourists and sex traffickers,” stated ACSOL President Janice Bellucci. “This punishment will increase when the State Department adds unique identifiers to their passports.”

The IML challenge was filed in federal district court in February, one day after it was signed by the President. The case was dismissed on September for both procedural and substantive reasons.

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

This is all well and good, and I truly thank Janice and her team, but as others have stated, we need to attack the legal authority (or lack thereof) of the Angel Watch operation and notices that pre-date IML. To me, unless that is undone, anything against IML would still leave the original Angel Watch operation continuing as before.


How true! we seem to always miss the foundational issue in all lawsuits that justify the government’s argument. in the case of IML it’s Angel Watch; in the case of AWA it’s the underlying notion that sex offenders can be lumped together and that they have a high risk to re-offend! Invalidate their foundation and what is left is merely a harsh and unconstitutional form of punishment for a particular class of offender!

Angel watch, what’s that a crusader catch phrase, lol. Then u have the SMART agency, lol. Wow, these are cartoon characters. In the real world they rarely save anyone. But they’re really good at killing women and children with missiles. What are they called, oh yeah collateral damage. Whew, must be nice not to have to worry about killing people, maiming, etc, without having to worry about being prosecuted, and then they have the nerve to call themselves heroes, wow.

In Greece they are demonstrating against the imperialism of the u.s. and Obama, they hate him, and I do to do. He screwed us every step of the way. A fantasy world, this is what they live in, and their real enemy is American citizens to them. They’re taught we are all nuts, all Americans are ill, not to be trusted. They terrorize us, can’t you see, we are the real enemy to them. Patriot acts, total surveillance, laws to deny Americans their rights, deals with foreign governments to kill us.

You think this isn’t true, ask any cia or homeland security gestapo agent, they will tell you off the record. Trump’s already showing you the extent of the fantasy, they’re gonna spend tens of millions of dollars just so he can visit and stay at trump tower. You would think that this would be overruled in the name of national interest, not only to keep him safe, but also not to waste tens of millions of dollars? But no, they live in a fantasy world. While we have to beg for food stamps and unemployment benefits, and then they make us feel like garbage for asking?

Heck, I know they’re monitoring this site. So right now I’m bending over for all of them to kiss my @$$. B the way these add and subtract questions are getting tough, can we stay within the number 5, lol.

That last part put a smile on my face. 🙂

You gave me an idea. Anybody know how I can get a copy of the 99r scam? I bet I can cause a big stir. 🙂

To Abolistheregistry

What’s the idea?

Oh, I was think of reworking it so people wouldn’t know what it was about, then send it out as a chain letter or linking it back to a dummy site. Then sending the results to the makers and to every congress critter, president, news outlet so forth. I suspect you’d get some interesting responses from the tests and the receivers of the collected info.

What does Obama have to do with the IML, he didn’t author the bill? Send your hate mail to Christopher Smith (R) New Jersey. Like the majority of Republicans, he has it out for sex offenders.


He signed the Bill without even a 2nd thought. I guess you missed that conversation.

True PK, but Smith is back in Congress, where as BHO is not any more in 50+ days. Smith needs more mail to read in WDC and NJ.

I’m curious how this Appeal would be received considering that the Lawsuit was dismissed by the Chief Judge of the district correct? Aren’t all of the Judges within the same district in collusion with one another, whether Appeals Court or otherwise?

It was dismissed with prejudice as well.

So I’m lost about this.

It would appear that a lot of Users on this Blog still remain at a loss, months later, when it comes to the IML Appeal.

I’m sure that we will finally be brought up-to-speed this coming Wednesday, the 8th, during the conference call whose subject is IML.

Final dismissals are reviewable at the Circuit level.

PK, the Circuit Court of Appeals is the next step up the judiciary ladder. It is this Appeals Court that has the authority to review the earlier judge’s decision and overrule it (or send it back for further review and consideration by the earlier judge who dismissed it.)

Yea, me too, considering my lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by the chief judge of a federal court as well, and then dismissed entirely for failing to file a stupid appearance form. I figured the appellate court would also collude and basically deny the appeal and the supreme Court would deny hearing the case. I want to see how this one turns out.

Excellent!! Please keep fighting on our behalf for Registrants’ civil rights, Janice et al! May valid arguments, scholarly research, and our Constitution prevail!

this lawsuit is very disturbing as it really puts into question the competency of this teams ability to bring any real suite on the real issues…anyone who believes this suit has any chance of prevailing on the grounds and issues brought forward are unattached to reality….unless they refocus their arguments against the angle watch program itself and challenge the justification for these laws there is zero chance for any kind of success…what a colossal waste of time and resources to go forward with this in its present form…..this is also extreemly counterproductive since it will only increase the validity of this law with precedents in its favor….like I said really makes me question the competency and motivation of this organization especially since it won’t bring suit on the real issues…..hmmmmm

I can think of no one who is doing more on a federal level to help registered citizens than Janice. The Angel Watch program is the fruit of the law which justifies it’s existence. The problem is at the root, the IML it’s self.

Go Team Janice Go! I would still like to see governmental notifications go away altogether on public info, this is a fight that is worth its weight in CA gold for the entire nation.


Many a time I get to feeling the way that you do and there is truth in what you say. But certainly you must show respect and learn diplomacy to be listened to. I doubt this organization, which has achieved positive change, appreciates such comments as your last!

And while I do believe attorney’s in general like things unsettled, as it’s good for business. There are those, too, which have a compassionate heart and true moral compass!

Yeah, I think Janice would be wealthier as a lawyer for the DAPL or CCOA for which her experience in government would be valued. If this was a money making racket, Trump and Hillary would definitely be invested. But what do I know, I see someone trying to make my life better and I invest in them. I once thought I will give $10,000 to anyone who ends this registry for good. But I think that is not my goal in the end. Sensible criminal policy is. Even if you get a judge to so rule, the rabid public spirit supporting it will call that judge an “activist” and seek to remove him from the bench. You have to diffuse the public spirit behind the laws in addition to attacking the laws themselves. And that, unfortunately takes time and actual involvement at many levels. We need to create allies, not more enemies.

So you changed from ending it to accepting it if….

Come on lol

before you guys even start let me say it for you….their so incompetent your so smart stop whining go do it yourself if you don’t like this site go create your own….ahh.there goes mike r with his lame assss bipolar remarks again…ummm..anything else I might have left out????im going to start hammering all these so called civil rights leaders who are creating a name for themselves or finding a niche in which to further their organizations thru donations or popularity off the registry with absolutely no interest in abolishing the abomination of the current registration scheme… so sick and disgusted with this inaction….I really hope and can’t wait to make all these hundreds of sites dependent on the registry to cease to exist after a layman that has a vested interest to succeed where they fail to even act…..go ahead bash me i don’t care im losing any confidence in any of these organizations….the only ones winning or even really trying to fight in any meaningful way are private individuals with mediocre attorneys that do as little as possible when it comes to providing empirical evidence but but making lengthy hypothetical suppositions in order for more billing hours….SAD…..

Nope nothing left out… you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Though I would have added unappreciative, egomaniac but you can fill that in next time.

That’s Mike’s perspective, how appreciative would you be if your friend came over to help you install a new French door, then dropped it off your patio and shattered it because he was two sheets to the wind? You wouldn’t be thankful for it. They’ve done great on a few avenues but that doesn’t excuse incompetence. I’m not saying I agree with him, just giving you what I think is his perspective.

Instead of bashing him, why don’t you ask him what it is he has trouble with?

My problem is he rags on the people helping us and then questions their intentions and their abilities. If he can do better great…then do it

I see him as voicing displeasure in their approaches or lack of approaches. As you’ve said, he has the right to voice it. You of course have the same right. Seems silly. He at least is bitching about something he sees as a problem in their activism. The judge I believe in the iml case was a little confused as to their approach as well. I know something odd is going on to have no group except WAR challenging the registry itself. Surely, just a few here aren’t the only ones seeing that?

Maybe with the iml, it was just an oversight and maybe it was her inexperience in that particular area of law that he’s talking about? I personally fear someone with I’ll intent or lack of knowledge setting something in motion that’ll make it harder in the future for me to get rid of this whole mess. That’s MY main concern. I’d love for her to go after 290 in her own state instead of helping to implement a tiered registry, for instance, to get people off the registry. Seems like a counterproductive approach that helps the state.

I think the core of what mike r may be getting at, and he can correct me, is that attacking only the IML, which seems to (merely) codify in law what the (illegal?) “angel watch” program was already doing, is a fool’s errand, and that unless you attack the angel watch program itself, one isn’t solving anything, since even if the IML is overturned, there is still nothing to stop angel watch from continuing unabated. i.e. cut off the snake at its head.

The passport identifier is a separate issue that can be attacked on its own, however.

My problem with his posts has little to do with his content but more with his presentation. His overuse of ellipsis (ending every sentence with strings of periods) makes what he says hard to read and take seriously. This might seem petty to some of you, but things like that just jump out at me and detract from the message.

He states very well that he thinks the suit has no chance based on Janice and teams arguement…it’s questioning their motives is what is ridiculous.. He has no idea what the teams strategy is or what goes on behind the scenes.

Been awhile since I’ve commented bc quite frankly I don’t have the time due to my work schedule. So I log on today and low and behold who do I see…? mike r still moaning, groaning, griping, complaining, whining and snibbling ha Wow! Talk about a broken record ha. Oh well I’m sure when I check back he’ll be right there playing that same old pathetic tune. Takes your meds dude and chilll out.

What a coinkydink, truely. What are the odds against you being here after a long hiatus and then logging on just to comment on Mike r.


The 6th Circuit recently publicly stated that the Registry is PUNITIVE and thus is punishment. This IML would be Punishment on a global level.

Please push for this argument if possible during litigation!

yep right on the money Steve glad we finally found common ground….

I find it odd that an appeal was filed because of the reasons the court listed which are fairly common in cases of new laws. They generally won’t do anything until it is in full effect and someone is actually harmed. This is commonly known as being “ripe”. Simply put, it’s too early.
I see no chance of the CT of appeals overruling the decision. I’m not certain of the strategy, but hey you give it a shot I guess? But I give her credit for trying, she’s done a lot for our cause. That’s for sure. Be grateful, I don’t hear many other voices as vocal as Janice’s.

Actually many people were harmed by the IML precursor Angel Watch.

I think yet a third conference call on IML is needed to discuss the legal assumptions going forward. This is a very important issue to all of us. With IML, whether we travel or not, we are ostracized from the world! Forced to live in slavery, confined by the borders of this came to be God-forsaken land!

As I’ve been following this, I’ve gathered that not understanding how IML got its authority through Angel Watch was a point which the suit wanted to be amended. I’ll assume some how that’s the basis of the appeal: Angel Watch, Angel Watch, Angel Watch….

one of the things that really bothers me about intolerant people is being played out right now with this stupid election have all these self proclaimed self righteous self claimed morally superior people who are fermenting hate and bigotry by claiming the other side are racist sexist immoral simply because they don’t fit into their mold or represent their beliefs or agendas…they dont respect our Constitution or that someone they don’t agree with got elected with extreemly close to the popular vote and with an overwhelming majority of the college electorate….keep spouting about how this candidate doesn’t reflect the views of the American people and call him racist sexist and as far as a sexual predator as a reason to forment violence in our country….wake up…illegal immigration is rampant and is against the law…African American communities are war zones and jungles with gorilla warfare where I wouldn’t even walk down the street without body armour and armed to the teeth…people on every corner begging for food or money and exploding homeless populations…infrastructures are so bad I have to drive on the lines or in between lanes because the streets are so deteriorated…wages haven’t changed since I started in the workforce over thirty years ago…rich getting filthy richer poor becoming not just poor but destitute…the Constitution being trampled on and completely gutted by the liberals and all the leftest claiming foul because the country is choosing someone and something new that may upset their status qou….these self righteous people won’t even hear what anyone has to say if it isn’t what they want to hear….something going on here on a micro level…..

I would add, that it doesn’t come from just the left. Both sides at the top levels especially are hellbent on stripping this country of its constitutional rights. It’s part of a bigger plan to usher us into a global government. In order to do it, they must make us destitute. Then get us raging for change, which they will put forth as the answer.

Well something Mike r and I finally agree on. Regarding the outcome of the election- to be clear.

To mike R.
Hey I know I said my piece before the election, now it’s over. Politics is not my best suit. I can get carried away sometimes, as you are able as well. I know your speaking in general, but hey we’re all human. Some people just don’t know when to quit, but that’s in every political group? And yea, your pretty much right about what your post states, and I agree with the majority of it.

On a side note it appears trump might be considering a Muslim registry. Wow, that would be awesome, because I think it might fly if they claim it is only for like a 5 year period until they are fully integrated. Then they might start leaving us alone?lol. Cause the compliance boys of states and fed agencies would go nuts.. it may be our best hope, and there are over 3 million of them, haha. Boy I would love to read the dissents if the courts, lol.

Hey, sometimes you have to find another enemy to get your rights back? It’s like I said, you have to have someone to hate, right now it’s us.

You spoke about the rich, yea where is that trillion dollars they have going? It’s not here, that’s for sure. They’re spending it on the rest of the world, that’s American love for you. Why buy a prostitute for 50 here when you can buy one for five that’s better somewhere else, lol. That goes for both men and women o be fair and equal, haha.

Man, were just screwed, and I don’t care by which party. The people with money are running this show now, haven’t you figured that out? Our whining is meaningless. That’s why we’re in this site, cause at least someone gives us a response. So what’s new?

We’ll see what was actually said. I don’t trust the media about anything. I did search however and it looks like it was said. This falls inline with my “conspiracy” about what’s really going on with the US and the world. Stoke fear, divisiveness, bomb countries to cause the hate then keep the borders wide open so they’ll have easy entry to bomb us which in turn allows them further opportunity for more control. Registering people like cattle, who else did that.

The arrogant always ignore history. It’s cyclical, it will repeat and that doesn’t bode well for them, no matter their plans.

There’s an easy fix to terrorism. Stop occupying their countries….the control freaks can’t let go though.

We would be better to just not have potential threats immigrate.
We are not hurting for warm bodies to work at jobs and appear to have a surplus of unemployed. The World’s problems are not ours to solve.
I support Trump because for once in history, we have a non politician in our government. Someone who understands what work is all about.
For anyone seeking work, I say come to South Carolina. There is work but it is difficult for registrants anywhere to find an employer who will give us a chance. Depends on what your skill is. I point you to a few places if you are a truck driver.
You can have a job before you even move.

Thanks for your hard work, Janice. This is just one of many battles in our war for recognition that we are human and deserve to be treated as such.

Could a moderator add in the links to the text of the original motion with any evidence, the dismissal, as well as the text of the appeal and any other relevant info?

It’s been awhile since I read what was being challenged and if anything was allowed to be added to the lawsuit. I think I remember the plaintiffs not being good choices because even without the identifier they would still be denied by Angel Watch.

To Mike R.

I think you should understand by now, and I think Janice already knows, that getting rid of the registry just isn’t feasible right now. I think her strategy has been to limit it’s application to demonstrate it’s ineffectiveness. Harping about her determination and tactics aren’t reasonable. I wondered why it didn’t appear that this organization was directly challenging the registry, but I understood why, because it wasn’t going to happen. So why waste resources when no benefit would be achieved. The big picture is what you look at, the systematic dismantling of it. Then when it reaches a point where it’s existence is so minimal and eroded, it can be simply swept away. It’s beginning to happen, can’t you see that. Little by little the tide is turning. A piece here and a piece there, then when the time is right, you destroy it’s remaining support by virtue of its weakness. In Michigan, Tennessee, kentucky, and Ohio it has been gutted in some measure. So don’t blame Janice, she’s doing her part, or the organization. It’s helped a lot of us already, and will continue to. I understand, I do, but your anger is misplaced, direct it at those who support registries, not those fighting against them.


Well said.

I agree. Thanks Rick.

But all registries can be taken on and defeated. The world of registries are expanding to other topics. Look at the Seattle Times article posted here last month under October General Comments and see what LE says about the various registries not helping. If you condone one, you condone them all based upon the concept premise. The registry death by a thousand cuts (Lingchi), e.g. many court cases, may be the only way it is done until the SCOTUS cannot avoid it further.

Based upon what was said this morning, the Trump Admin Supporter (Carl Higbie) has already said the Japanese Internment Camps are the precedent needed for Muslim registries. Give that a thought. That goes through then the flood gates open to everything else. BTW, the Internment camps were deem illegal by the SCOTUS and no formal USG apology has ever been given about them.

4 years of this fascist. I’m still waiting for a debunk story to come out. I hope msm is just lying as usual.

What a travesty that would be. Registering people like cattle.

Making illegal immigrants register and be part of this ‘civil regulatory sceme’ for their breaking the law by being here illegally, would probably be the thing that makes people realize it is a punishment and exposes people to danger from the public in the name of protecting the public from them! Oh the humanity! Oh the outcry there would be then! It would be nice to have some division on the subject for a change instead of the unanimous votes and callous courts

Do you even know the definition of fascist?
Trump was on television for many years and very successful I might add.
No one ever called him all these derogatory names and slandered him until he ran for president.

Thanks again for all you do for us Janice. Life would be so much worse without you.

Thank you for doing this. I am grateful from the bottom of my heart, even though I am not a world traveler. I have little to offer beyond my presence at the next protest, if there is one.

Oh man, have guys seen what the hypocritical Democrats are saying about Trump’s ideas for a muslim registry? Here’s the quote from the Democratic national committee, “Donald Trump’s proposed muslim registry is nothing less than institutionalized discrimination and a brazen assault on freedom of religion.”. Haha, it doesn’t stop them from practicing their religion. And it doesn’t discriminate, they will be free to become citizens. Unlike us, we lost our citizenship and all of our rights.

You gotta be kidding me, institutionalized discrimination like what’s been done to us? Brazen assault in freedom of religion, how about the brazen assault on all of our rights, to include imprisonment for not surrendering those rights. Wow, now I’m in the sink throwing up. Like I said before, put them all on registries trump, including all persons that don’t follow the constitution. Please apply registries to all drunks with proven records of recidivism with DUI or DWIs. All other criminals, all child and adult abusers, including parents who allow their children online without supervision, and anyone who is a threat to the public safety.

I so wholeheartedly disagree that the registry in its current form cannot be overturned by the courts….I’m very glad to see some positive conversation about what I’ve said from most of you on here..even from steve…guess some like the guy who only visits to bash me won’t ever open their minds to anything besides what they want to hear but can’t make or touch everyone’s curriousity I guess….war called me way back over a year and a half ago after I signed up for their class action and told me they would be filing last fall…never happened can’t get any responses as to why….it apparently isn’t going to happen unless one of us who realistically want to topple the registry does it themselves….why would any organizations want to cut off their reason to exist??? they have all these board members and other staffing,their getting 504 or 503 tax exemptions or whatever it is, they have a platform that lets them travel and have meetings and purchase necessary supplies and equipment all of which are write offs….I don’t care what anyone says there is a rational basis for such inaction as to why absolutely NO ONE has or will challenge the Courts or legislators justification for these laws and the false facts and lack of data that was and is central to their decisions… would have to be literally in a braindead comma not to question why……we are cows being herded to the slaughter right along with our democratic Republic….key word Republic…means we are a country of constitutional laws and rights not a mob or oligarchy rule….

People for the most part tend to believe that this Country is a Democracy!
A Democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority over the minority.
That is why we have a republic instead.
That is why our Presidential election is not decided by popular vote for if it were, California,New York, and Texas would determine the election.

I really wish those attorneys who fought for those parollees residency rights would bring this kind of suit im talking about…..we need constitutional law professors and other extreemly talented and articulate attorneys to draft this motion and it will take hundreds and hundreds of hours and be over a hundred pages or close to it long….this is and will be the biggest issue the courts have or probably ever will have to decide on as it will set the stage as to what kind of country we have going forward….i cant express how important this is to our country and the world’s….I kind of hope no one does file and I as a layman get to be the first to challenge this bs and make the courts and the academic legal community take note what a self taught determined true American can actual achieve…laugh at me now call me egotistical and naive and even crazy but I will not stop or even be discouraged by anyone or anything from doing this because I am a fuc……warrior and I have the courage and conviction of a true American that has made this the greatest country in the world but is simply losing its way because of inaction and gutless cowardness thats rampant and out of control…..thank thank you thank you and god bless America thank you….lmfao….

not going into massive detail here but here is the beginning of a true argument against cruel and unusual punishment which is going to be the most difficult argument to make not because is isnt easy to prove but because the courts have in the past declined to even hear 99.9% of cases involving this issue…Their central theme is that they deffer this subject to the discretion of the legislative body that is why someone can get life without parole for shoplifting under the three strikes law…It can and will be done though….

(Cruel and Unusual Punishment)

(6) The sex offender registration and notification laws are subjecting me to so onerous and far reaching and vague regulations that is not only impossible for me to comply with it is also so disproportionate to my offence that it can no longer be considered regulatory in nature or effect and is so extreme as to shock the coincidence of ordinary citizens of this country. These new registration schemes are in fact newly designed measures to apply to current punishments that have been traditional in this country for over a hundred years. Any new punishments that have been added to what has been in the past seen as acceptable and traditional punishments and that have been in place for decades if not centuries are subject to strict review by the courts for excessiveness. These laws are a violation of the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment and ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution as well as the California Constitution.
I am asking this Court to recognize what other courts across the country have increasingly found: that the nature of sex offender registration has fundamentally changed since 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a registration scheme that imposed only “minor and indirect” restraints on registrants. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 100 (2003).
Numerous courts—most recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—have now recognized that the retroactive application of super sex offender registration schemes and their associated restrictions are indeed so severe that they now raise to the level of punishment in violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. See, e.g., Doe v. Miami-Dade County,No. 15-14336, —F.3d.—, 2016 WL 5334979 (11th Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) (slip opinion); Does #1–5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016); U.S. v. Juvenile Male, 590 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated as moot, 131 S.Ct. 2860 (2011); State v. Williams, 952 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio 2011); Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009); State v. Letalien, 985 A.2d 4 (Me. 2009); Commonwealth v. Baker, 295 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. 2009); Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008); see, also, Doe v. Swearingen, No. 4:16cv501-RH/CAS, prelim. inj. at 11 (N.D. Fla. September 27, 2016) (Florida sex offender registry law requirement to report all “internet identifiers” unconstitutionally vague); In re W.Z., 957 N.E.2d 367 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (automatic classification of juvenile as Tier III sex offender required to register for life based solely on crime of conviction violates due process).

Even though a century has passed since the Supreme Court started reviewing criminal punishments for excessiveness under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, this area of doctrine remains highly problematic. The Court has never answered the claim that proportionality review is illegitimate in light of the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning. The Court has also adopted an ever-shifting definition of excessiveness, making the very concept of proportionality incoherent. Finally, the Court’s method of measuring proportionality is unreliable and self-contradictory. As a result, a controlling plurality of the Court has insisted that proportionality review be limited to a narrow class of cases. This area of doctrine needs rethinking.
The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was originally meant to prohibit excessive punishments as well as barbaric ones and that proportionality review is therefore unquestionably legitimate. Proportionality is a retributive concept, not a utilitarian one. Punishments are unconstitutionally excessive if they are harsher than the defendant deserves as a retributive matter.

I agree that registries can be taken on and defeated. Last month, the Seattle Times posted an article about the number of various registries implemented nationwide that are not helping. It is linked here in this website and can be found under the search function here. The problem is the topic relating to the registry for one, regardless of the data. The other problem is, if you strike one registry, the rest mentioned in the article above have to go too because of the registry concept being deemed illegal. Once the avalanche starts, the motion is hard to stop, if it can be stopped.

this argument alone is going to take 40 or 50 hours to complete and will have to be at least close to ten or more pages long as well as numerous hours of research…it can and will be done though…

good God dont make this thread be about Mike R. Please stop acknowledging him and discuss real issues!!

the following is a crucial statement by the court in Michigan.

As we have explained, this case involves far more than an Ex Post Facto challenge. And as the district court’s detailed opinions make evident, Plaintiffs’ arguments on these other issues are far from frivolous and involve matters of great public importance. These questions, however, will have to wait for another day because none of the contested provisions may now be applied to the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and anything we would say on those other matters would be dicta. We therefore reverse the district court’s decision that SORA is not an Ex Post Facto law and remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.

I was wondering if we could have a follow-up phone conference to discuss generally the logistics of the Appeal? Some questions I have include: How long would the Appeal Process take? Would the approval of this Appeal enable a new Motion for an Injunction?

agreed…we are digressing from the topic….

I’m confused.

What’s the basis for appeal and reasons it should be considered?

It was already stated by the judge that the plaintiffs still would have travel impacted because of Angel Watch regardless of the identifier being on their passport.

Has the case been amended to challenge Angel Watch or has it added plaintiffs that will only be affected by the new passport mark and weren’t impacted by Angel Watch?

With implementation of IML and the identifier so close, wouldn’t it be better to file a new case that addresses all of the judges concerns and at a time when it is “ripe” than risk drawing this out longer? At best, won’t appeals just send it back down to this judge that is against it?

Could the moderators PLEASE add the links at the top for the original lawsuit and any other relevant developments? Thanks!

This case is highly important, and it’s the reason why I recommended a new phone conference with everyone.

I agree it’s EXTREMELY important and the ramifications of doing the wrong thing will hurt for probably decades at least.

I would like to know why it was appealed instead of re-filed, or, at least tell me that the reasons can’t be disclosed at this time due to keeping certain things from the other side but that are concerns are factored in.


Yes, you an get a passport, but you won’t get in. GB will return you. Check the RTAG for more info here (use website search function).

There is a vague chance…using Britain’s laws in your favor…maybe.

I copied and pasted this from someone that posted this this year.
You will also want to read the UK immigration rules here:

Read this part:
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom
is to be refused
(1) the fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules;
(2) the fact that the person seeking entry to the United Kingdom:
(a) is currently the subject of a deportation order; or
(b) has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of
imprisonment of at least 4 years; or
(c) has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of
imprisonment of at least 12 months but less than 4 years, unless a period of 10 years
has passed since the end of the sentence; or
(d) has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of
imprisonment of less than 12 months, unless a period of 5 years has passed since the
end of the sentence.

So if you were sentenced to less than 12 months then after 5 years the UK won’t automatically deny you clearance to enter.


I have planned to use this for myself, but ended up…busy this year.

This is just a suggestion…if you have a very cheap airfare and no hotel reservation money on deposit, maybe give it a shot.

I did spend Christmas in London in 2014….with no apparent trouble, damned if I know if I was lucky or if the above rules applied.

Let us know what you decide and how it goes for you.

Best Wishes, James


after they deny you and before they ship you back, can one have legal appeal while still in detention?

Dear David:

I honestly don’t know the answer to your question or what an appeal process would entail…and the time limits to be heard, and even if you must stay in detention for whatever time period is involved?

I was detained only once, at the airport in South Korea….fortunately I was outbound to CA and was only held for 12 hours….I don’t think, from detention, I would have waited out any appeal process.

I just don’t know how this would work, the mechanics of it, from London.


Best Wishes, James


I only mention that as you provided a good legal challenge as to being able to enter the country. At what point do you believe one should argue the laws you posted? I just figured it would be most appropriate while one is in detention awaiting entry. I believe immigration cases like these are handled expeditiously

Back to the Appeal Subject at Hand:

I was wondering if we could have a follow-up phone conference to discuss generally the logistics of the Appeal?

Some questions I have include:

How long would the Appeal Process take?

Would the approval of this Appeal enable a new Motion for an Injunction?

Thanks in Advance!

Not sure if it’s been posted yet, California is now enforcing IML and the 21 day notice, I went in today just to have peace of mind and they had a form you have to fill out, they also stated that I have to return within 5 days of my trip to “check out” of their jurisdiction. That part I did not know that I had to do. The form is basic it asks for your name, address, addrsss of where you are going, days of travel, flight info and passport info and the country that issued it, i will be traveling to Mexico with family.

Best of luck getting into Mexico. Nearly everyone else who has tried, has failed.

PK, luckily I’ve obtained my dual citizenship, so I know I will be able to enter Mexico. The only thing that I’m really expecting is to be harassed as I am when coming back into the US.

Check out of whose jurisdiction? Do they mean check back in with them to show them you have returned by your intended itinerary?

The guy is an older gentleman, who is not a cop but a helper, he tries to throw a power trip on registrants, he’s told me this before, he says since I will not be at home then technically I have to check out. Then check back in, i would like to get some info from Janice if this is possible or somebody who knows more about this then I do.

Sounds like he is saying you need to unregister and then reregister. If the law says that, then follow the law, but if this guy says it without any background info, then ask for clarification from an LE official, not a volunteer. Volunteers are nice to have, but not, NOT, the official source.

I hope Janice can help here or a paralegal of hers could help.

The 21-day notice is the only thing new here. The coming in to register out within 5 days of travel is something I’ve been doing for many years. This has always been for trips longer than 1 month. I have had officers in the past tell me they will just put a note that I am traveling in my file, but I have never relied upon that. I always check out and then check back in. Gives you proof that you are in compliance.
When you check out, the State no longer has jurisdiction over you.

Isn’t that great. Unclear rules…being treated like a child. Worse yet, a lifetime of this utter BS while real criminals are out there doing actual crimes someone who might have looked at an image in the privacy of his or her own home has their lives ruined forever.

Really makes you resent…no that is not strong enough…hate and loath the entire system that gives you and I a life sentence of having to check in out like a child asking for permission to use the bathroom during class.

This is cruel and unusual punishment and anyone who can clearly can not see that is a liar but I suppose that is pretty much a prerequisite to be able to stomach politics or worse “law” enforcement.

What sense does it make to require a registrant who can travel anywhere around the world but has to do the 21 day notification prior to travel? only to learn if he does that then an alert notice will be sent by the feds to that country he’s heading to and will get setup for denial of entry and sent back to the US.

Don’t kid yourself. The 21 day advance notice has nothing to do with the notice going out. The system is such that the notices go out at the time of travel. Just do the 21 day paper and get a signed copy that you complied so that you are not hit with a charge later on.

And I agree. We must give the government 21 days notification so that they have time to ruin a vacation or business trip. It seems that the “Angel Watch” program needs to be challenged right alongside of the “IML”.
If paying for a vacation including flight, Hotel and rental car…only to find out that when you arrive to your destination country, you are refused entry, is a horrible form of Punishment, IMHO.
Those who pass these type of laws are vindictive, hateful pieces of crap.
Both of these unconstitutional legislative nightmares of the worst kind are “RIPE” to be tossed back into the toilet where it came from.

The other thing that has been bugging me and thinking about is, i will be using my mexican passport to enter mexico of course, the paper they had me fill out for the 21 day notice asked me for that info like passport number and issuing country so i put the info for the mexican passport because i put the information for the american passport I’m sure ill be told i can’t enter, i went in july without a hitch they scanned my mexican passport and zipped right in with zero questions. Now my question is does the USA have a right or a way to flag my mexican passport even though no crime was committed in mexico as a a mexican? am i making sense here?

After I returned from my unpleasant experience of denial of entry into Lima, Peru, on 6/8/16 and had three returning flights, I called my hotel in Lima to cancel my reservation and I had to pay cancellation fee all because I didn’t make it due to this “angel watch” nonsense.

My question is was the IML reviewed and passed on legally when the President signed it, and didn’t let all registrants know the business of it? Because when an innocent registrant is traveling internationally and upon arrival at immigration, he is unaware that an alert notice was sent by the feds, then gets denied and sent back, and has to explain to his friends and family about what happen.

Notifications sent to Mexico.
Paul Rigney met with a representative at the Mexican Embassy in Washington DC recently. He shared with me that Mexico’s position is that it is a problem for the traveler in the USA. Well yes it is of course but they are under the impression that the USA is telling Mexico not to allow entry. I recently talked to another source with a representative in Mexico who said the same thing. Mexico is under the impression that they are complying with the wishes of the USA. It would be great if anyone has a copy of the paper that Mexico asks you to sign or a photo of it to send a copy to Paul at or email a copy to
This is a big contradiction from what has been stated by the US in that the position of the USA is that they are merely notifying the foreign country of the problem. What is true? We do not know.

Has this notification yet been a subject of a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request) filed with Homeland Security?

I do not know David. I do not think so. Is there a process to discover what notice was sent to a foreign country?

Would recommend:

1) That Janice do the FOIA request for this document from Homeland Security since she is on record fighting the IML.
2) That Janice do the same request through both CA Senator’s and the Rep for her district
3) That each RC who has a travel interest do the same request as 1&2 (including for their state if they are not from CA), copy it and send it to Janice should she not receive hers.

A flood of these requests through these channels cannot hurt because someone somewhere who reads this blog will be successful in receiving a notification that can be used in legal matters and share with others in the community.

Just an idea…

Hi David,

I’ve posted a couple of times about questions concerning the Actual Appeal of IML.

I was wondering if you had any insight?

How long would the Appeal Process take?

Would the approval of this Appeal enable a new Motion for an Injunction?

Is there a way to read the Appeal? Previously all of the Motions regarding IML were posted on here.

“Is there a way to read the Appeal? Previously all of the Motions regarding IML were posted on here.”

I’ve been wondering the same thing myself. I didn’t receive a copy of the Appeal this time. Perhaps Janice will forward that.

There will not be a new opportunity for an injunction I BELIEVE.

And I have no idea what the time frame for hearing the appeal will be.


Hi I was wondering if there was ever any indication about this?

Help me clearly understand this.

Several Federal Judges can approve for an Injunction on Trump’s Travel Ban, but yet this Executive Order was just put into place less than a week ago.

How could that Executive Order now be considered ripe?

How are Plaintiffs able to “show harm” from the Travel Ban, that was just implemented days ago?

But yet, this IML was signed into Law nearly a year ago, and there have been countless RSO’s “being harmed” and turned away from entering into countries.

Why the double standard?

Exactly. Most registered ‘citizens’ cannot even take a one week trip to visit family in Mexico or elsewhere because of the slimy dishonest tactics employed in IML, yet no outcry over that.

I have nothing against immigrants and foreigners traveling per se, but why the hell is there so much outcry over their ‘rights’ when our rights as actual American CITIZENS have been flushed down the toilet and the judicial goes out of it’s way to make sure it stays that way?

Because there’s a big push for open border one world government and anything that threatens that agenda is highly funded by the lines of Soros and friends.

Ha! I WISH that there were a “big push” for open borders; that would be a vastly better world and much more like what once existed. Remember, we have not always had passports, seamless border control and difficult-to-obtain visas. Indeed, the trends are in precisely the OPPOSITE direction with government solely determining the movement of individuals across all borders, which is to say, extremely regulated and controlled borders. We would have once been able to vote with our feet and leave this country (and I would have done so long ago). Now, not very much. The IML is the perfect expression of that regime of highly-regulated and substantially closed borders. That “open borders/George Soros” talking point originates in the populist-authoritarianism promulgated by the likes of Alex Jones and Donald Trump, by the way. Arguments for closing borders and empowering governments with the sole authority in determining who can and who cannot cross borders (which also means deciding who their citizens can or cannot enter into a voluntary association with) is a persistent feature of fascism.

“Open borders” have nothing to do with “one world government”, by the way; instead “closed-borders” are its perfect expression. The skeins of government control which spreads a net over the whole world prevents international travel and are an expression of the state’s assertion to ownership of their citizens. That’s a feature of end-to-end “world” government in which each nation conspires with the other to subjugate their own citizens. INTERPOL is the perfect example of such a conspiracy between governments in controlling the movement of all people across national borders.

Because all the media have turned it into a ban on religious and specifically Islam. It is obviously NOT and simply a way of controlling allowing potential terrorists into the country.

So now you have something that every soccer mom and religious zealot can get behind and protest…”religious freedom” which is how they have spun this travel ban.

They public will have no such sympathy about registered sex offenders being not allowed to travel…hell, they don’t even give a sh*t when we are not allowed into parks or even made homeless BANNED from living in certain areas (and we are Americans trying to live in America) so do you really think they are going to care that we can’t use our passport to travel.


Also, the federal judge rejected the administration’s argument that the president was acting in the public interest, and therefore that made it all OK, the same argument successfully made for the State of Alaska when SCOTUS accepted that argument in 2003 to validate the registry. Yes, double standard, but more so, it shows this country has been sinking into totolitarianism behind the scenes for a few decades now. Donald Trump is the fruit of that trend not the cause, and people haven’t really noticed because it applied before only to ‘those people’. Now it applies to foreign employees of Google and Facebook, the people that matter to the bottom line of the biggest corporations, and now it is unconstitutional.
You were wise to get out of here.

I am also reading a lot of “freedom of travel” quotes in the argument ffor the Washington st ruling….janice take note

Unfortunately I can’t stay out, but believe me there will come a time.

That’s it. You nailed it! Now that we know the score, how can we use it to get back our Constitutional rights? Can some of the findings of these judges are using to overturn Trump’s ban be used in our future lawsuit? Or will the judge simply continue to morph the facts and the Constitution to screw us once again? Indeed, at this point, foriegn employees of tech companies have more Constitutional rights than registrants and their families

Talk one of these great humanitarian advocacy groups into filing against the core registry itself and I suspect you’ll see RC’S and families coning out of the woodwork. Keep it going around the edges like it’s going now and you’ll take decades to gain traction for real change.

Timmr speaks Truth,

These Blind Seats, These SoCalled Judges produce a “Counterfeit Justice” a “Coliseum Justice” for not Just the Masses of The United States – these Adulterated Fruits sprout fourth for The Masses of the World Populace to consume.

These Wicked Servants have formed and multiplied their Daily Bread out of The Registered United States Citizen.

These Blind Seats are in fact a Resurrected Priest of Molek aka Cohen Baal aka Cannibals who once again sacrifice The Children of Freedom.

As Yehovah Lives, I speak Truth

Oh, I think we know why the double-standard.

Just compare the crowds that have turned up for demonstrations against the travel ban (on seven Muslim-majority countries) and compare those, in which many thousands turned-out in righteous fury, to the one demonstration on behalf of Registrants adversely affected by IML.

Just as importantly, compare the actions of one Federal Judge to the other and ask why they have behaved so differently.

That is it! Just dreaming, but we need to foster positions that don’t serve to divide us, but that every registrant can get behind, and serve every registrant a dose of adrenaline rush of hope, a way to overcome fear in the disheartened and downcast, so that hundreds of thousands of registrants, family and friends can show up in D.C. and march. Imaging the news coverage that would get, almost a million ‘monsters’ decend on the capital, and demand to be heard. I would die happy after that.

@PK: The moment they are refused boarding onto their U.S.-bound flight, they have suffered a “real” injury. (And the fact that the ban is affecting tens of thousands of sympathy-worthy, displaced refugees supports their argument for urgency.)

We have filed a Notice of Appeal in the IML case in order to preserve the right to appeal the judge’s decision. The board of directors will make a final decision regarding whether to appeal during its March meeting. If the judge’s decision is not appealed, a new case will be filed in another jurisdiction at a later time. For more information about this, please join the Conference Call on Feb. 8 at 5 p.m. (Pacific).

“It would be great if anyone has a copy of the paper that Mexico asks you to sign or a photo of it”

Are you referring to the document that one must sign with the Migracion Official indicating that the Traveler acknowledges they are being denied entry?

I believe (however not 100% certain) that this is a simple “acknowledgement” NOT a Deportation Order.

PK that is what we want to know what it says. We are intimidated into signing the paper but yet they will not tell us what it says.

Yes from what I recall it’s complex Spanish for Mexico at least.

And from what I’ve learned from my Mexican Immigration Attorney, is that BY LAW the Migration Agents MUST provide those people who are being shipped out/ deported or whatever- Legal Representation and an Interpreter that is Certified by the Government.

That being said, whatever previous deportation/ not able to enter document that you signed, where you were not provided with a LEGAL Interpreter and LEGAL Attorney by your side- that “thing you signed” can and Should be challenged during the Mexican Court Proceedings and Appeals Process, when fighting to obtain a Mexican Visa.

PK would you please contact me. I would like to contact your attorney to help us with Latin travel. I hope to build a network for sources of information.


I believe we can now correctly infer that the subject of the document that the Mexican border officials have intimidated US citizens to sign is to prevent them from requesting The International Right of “Asylum”

Asylum is what they fear The US Citizen will request and all that it Implies:

for 1 it implies the whole US illicit immigration situation in revers.

Let’s look at the Docs filed on 2-28-2017 :


32. Mr. Darweeh’s attorney was present at the Arrivals section of Terminal 1 but did
not enter the CBP area. Mr. Darweesh and his family waited to be processed by CBP for about an
hour. Approximately one hour later, Mr. Darweesh himself was moved into “secondary
screening.” The family waited for over an hour before a CBP officer and Mr. Darweesh emerged
to return passports for every member of Mr. Darweesh’s family except for Mr. Darweesh himself.
Mr. Darweesh was then taken back into secondary screening.
33. At approximately 11:30pm, two CBP officers, upon information and belief, Officer
Scott Maurel and Officer Ray Sinacola, requested that the family return to the CBP-controlled
security zone for additional questioning of Mr. Darweesh’s wife. CBP refused to conduct the
questioning of Mrs. Darweesh in the Arrivals area despite requests of counsel. When asked by
counsel, the officers confirmed that they were making a request, not giving an order at that time.
Through counsel, the family declined the request and left the airport.
34. Mr. Darweesh is not being permitted to meet with his attorneys who are present at
JFK and have made multiple attempts to meet with him.
35. When Mr. Darweesh’s attorneys approached CBP requesting to speak with Mr.
Darweesh, CBP indicated that they were not the ones to talk to about seeing their client. When
the attorneys asked “Who is the person to talk to?” the CBP agents responded, “Mr. President.
Call Mr. Trump.”
Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
36. Upon knowledge and belief, Mr. Darweesh remains in the custody of CBP at JFK
37. Upon knowledge and belief, Mr. Darweesh is not being permitted to APPLY for
ASYLUM or other forms of protection from removal.
38. Upon knowledge and belief, Mr. Darweesh is at imminent risk of being returned
to Iraq against his will, and despite the grave danger he faces there


57. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
58. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts
in a way that deprives individuals of liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment.
59. The United States government is obligated by United States and international law
to hear the asylum claims of noncitizens presenting themselves at United States borders and ports
of entry. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present
in the United States or who arrives in the United States. . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may
Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14
apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(1); see also id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii).
60. Consistent with these United States statutory and international law obligations,
individuals arriving at United States ports of entry must afforded an opportunity to apply for
asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection and be promptly received and processed by
United States authorities.

61. Having presented themselves at a United States port of entry, Petitioners are entitled
to apply for asylum and to be received and processed by United States authorities.
62. Respondents’ actions in denying Petitioners the opportunity to apply for asylum,
taken pursuant to the EO, violate the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth


63. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
64. Under United States law as well as human rights conventions, the United States
may not return (“refoul”) a noncitizen to a country where she may face torture or persecution. See
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b); United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the
Foreign Affairs Reform and RestrucTturing Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, div.
G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231).
Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15
65. Respondents’ actions in seeking to return Petitioners to Iraq, taken pursuant to the
EO, deprive Petitioners of their rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) and the Convention Against
Torture without due process of law.

66. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained
in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
67. The Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations, including 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) (expedited removal), 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.3(b)(4), 208.30, and 1003.42; 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158 (asylum), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal), and the United Nations
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub.L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat.
2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), entitle Petitioners to an opportunity to
apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. These provisions also entitle
Petitioners to a grant of withholding of removal and CAT relief upon a showing that they meet the
applicable legal standards. Respondents’ actions in seeking to return Petitioners to Iraq, taken
pursuant to the EO, deprive Petitioners of their statutory and regulatory rights.

Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16
68. Petitioners repeat and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
69. The EO discriminates against Petitioners on the basis of their country of origin, and
without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection component of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
70. Additionally, the EO was substantially motivated by animus toward—and has a
disparate effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

71. Petitioners repeat and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
72. The INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s race,
nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
73. Respondents’ detention and mistreatment of Petitioners and the members of the
proposed class pursuant to the January 27 EO, as set forth above, is not authorized by the INA.
74. Respondents’ actions in detaining and mistreating Petitioners and other members
of the proposed class as set forth above were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or
immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).

And finally the source of motivation for the Cardio Action:


(4) Award Petitioners and other members of the proposed class reasonable costs and attorney’s
fees; and
(5) Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.

As Yehovah Lives, So should We, I speak Truth

I think in my opinion that’s a good idea for him to do which is going to the embassies of those countries that are listed in the RTAG Matrix and do exactly like he did with going to the Mexican Embassy in Washington DC and getting their feedback information about the alert notices being sent out by the feds, and maybe let these countries know what’s going on with our government.

The problem with that is that there exists no obligation on the part of foreign governments to respond to our queries or to provide the reasons for our denial of entry. This is why I think that we should file either a FOIA or a Privacy Act request with our own government to find out what message about us is being disseminated by them. I would say that this is crucial for our legal challenge. I would also think that Janice has every right to subpoena the government for this information in aid of litigating IML. Really, how could it not be so?

I don’t object, in principle, with meeting with foreign officials to discuss this matter but I think it unlikely that this will result in better outcomes for us. I hope I’m wrong.

I think it would be interesting to share with the foreign government what is being negatively said about their country in this country and how it paints them poorly. There is a difference in combating a particular situation, but when a broad brush stroke is used, it seems to catch others in it beyond the original intent (sound familiar?).

Just a quick update I flew into Mexico Christmas Day, 21 day notice was filled out prior to trip as well, presented my Mexican passport to Mexican authorities upon arriving, not a single question was asked.

You were allowed in because you have a Mexican passport. If you had an American passport, you would’ve been turned away.

I understand that because I have been turned away in 2015 when I didn’t have my dual citizenship. It’s just a comparison of how people are treated based on a passport.

Did you complete the Travel Survey?

The Mexican Passport was probably the reason why you got in without problems.

But also- It would be helpful to know your conviction if it was a misdemeanor or felony, and if you have a Level.
Also the state you are required to register in.

Yes I did fill it out, I was convicted of 220pc which I recently had enxpunged and also received a COR, although I doubt that had any bearing on being allowed in.

Well it’s been over a year now for the Appellate filing. What’s happening with IML now? Denied? Not sure.

No, it has not been over a year. The lawsuit was filed less than a year ago and it was thrown out by the judge last Summer. Janice has filed an intention to file with the court an appeal with the appeal itself not yet filed.

This, whether to file that appeal or re-file the whole lawsuit in another court, will be the topic of discussion during the next phone conference this coming Wednesday.

I listened in to the “International Travel” conference and had a question about the caller from Sacramento, CA who had problems getting into Thailand. He said he gave the 21 day notice, but I thought California was not a SORNA state and therefore does not require a notice to be given? Am I misinformed? Do you have to give advance notice, leaving the country, if you live in California?

I think the Caller indicated that he gave 21 Day Notice as “an abundance of caution” and that it is NOT a requirement.

Where does the fight stand on this? And if a person no longer has to register will notices still be sent out notifying that a monster is getting off the plane?

Any updates on this fight against the IML?

I would love for someone to get a restraining order against the IML / Angel Watch, and they are just slandering people when they send out those notices. No due process, and no proof that anyone is doing anything they claim, or even a danger to anyone.

Plus… it is racist in that the AWA says you can’t sponsor a foreign national, or marry one, but any american citizen is fine. With or without children. So basically AWA is only protecting non Americans…
Of course, none of it makes any sense.

In case anyone hasn’t heard, Pennsylvania’s SORNA law was dealt a death blow by the PA Supreme Court (Case 47 MAP 2016) on July 19th 2017. The case was Muniz v. Pennsylvania. This caused a ripple of a $hit-hemorrhage across the vile and corrupt system here in PA, and was immediately appealed to the US Supreme Court on 13 October 2017 (Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jose M. Muniz).
Fearing that a good chunk of their posts and budget would be taken away, the PA State Police filed an amicus curaie brief on 16 November 2017, and the respondent’s pleading is due by 18 December 2017. If certiorari is denied,as it was in the case of Richard Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al. v John Does #1-5, et al. (15-1536, 15-2346, 15-2486) the we in PA who suffer may be finally free. This decision was just rendered on October 2nd 2017.
As these dominoes begin to fall, I predict that the IML will fall right with them, as the US Supreme Court will ultimately hold the federal government up to the same standards as it is doing with individual states. Fingers crossed.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x