The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) will challenge the passport identifier recently revealed by the U.S. State Department. The challenge is expected to be filed in a federal district court within the next 90 days.
“We have begun the necessary process of identifying a strategy for a successful challenge,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The strategy will include the identification of potential plaintiffs as well as both legal and financial resources. The federal district court in which the challenge will be filed has not yet been determined. That decision will be made after potential plaintiffs have been identified.”
The addition of a “unique identifier” to the passports of some registrants is one of the requirements of the International Megan’s Law (IML) which was Congress passed Congress and the President signed in February 2016. Registrants to be affected by this provision are those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor and are currently required to register as a sex offender.
The IML does not include a description of the “unique identifier” or its placement in an individual’s passport. According to a press release issued by the State Department on October 27, 2017, the following language will be added to the inside back cover of affected passports: “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212(c)(1).”
Prior to passage of the IML, no American passport has included a “unique identifier” for a U.S. citizen. The IML does not require the State Department to add such an identifier to the passports of U.S. citizens convicted of murder, robbery drunk driving or any other offense.
Thank you very much, Janice! The world needs far more people like you <3
Janice, I’m going to file suit against IML as well. I can file in the 10th or the 6th- I assume you’ll be filing in the 9th.
What to do if our passports are revoked prior to then and we don’t live in the country anymore? File for the new marked passport?
I live outside the USA and would be willing to be a plaintiff if you need me.
But, I am not sure if my passport will be marked as the article mentioned;
“Registrants to be affected by this provision are those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor and are currently required to register as a sex offender”
Since I live outside the USA I do not register. But, my information is still on the Florida registry
Very glad you are taking on this challenge. Thank you.
I want to be a plaintiff.
You know, I hate to be pessimistic all the time, and I commend Janice and team for all they do, but I have to note here (And I would bet money on it) that IML probably only effects a very small percentage of people out of the 100,000 on the list here in CA. I would go as far to say that 98.9% can probably give a rats $%^& about this IML issue. I mean sure, we all care, but in reality it only affects such as small amount of people I wonder if all this effort and resources are being correctly applied. Like I said, I commend everyone that helps us, “I just wish that all those resources were aimed at stopping or altering the tiered registry bill, or altering the entire scheme, not just for me either, but for a large majority of RC’s right here in CA”.
Bash me all you guys want, I just had to get that off my chest…..Let me be sure since a lot of you seem to think that I don’t appreciate all that is being done, I do appreciate it…
How about a plaintiff who has to register in his state of residence, but not in some other states? I have a court order that says I do not have to register in Alaska. I also have confirmation that I am not required to register in Texas. So, if I lived in either of these two states, I would not have that notification on my passport. However since I live in Washington State, my misdemeanor offense requires my passport be branded. I have to register here for 3 plus more years.
Also note that Washington State driver’s license do not meet federal standards for TSA, therefore a passport is needed.
See any legal issues here?
Best news of the week, and something we have been waiting for since last week. Let’s hope the strategy to fighting this law is successful, as you know they could always point to the fact that we still have the current systems of Notices that is sent out, ‘Angel Watch’ and that it is allowed to run, while this is just an extension of the notification system. You know these people will come up with anything to keep an atrocious law on file. I’d like the criminal justice system to tell us how this is any different than being marked with a ‘J’ in Nazi Germany. A solid argument that I see right now is the same one that won a recent case: there is no individual assessment process for each person to warrant the need or ‘notification for public Global safety’ because they cannot determine that everyone with a registerable offense is a potential child trafficker or molester that will reoffend. If the person has been released from state custody then they should adhere to the same exact laws as all FREE citizens, period. Of course we can throw in the real recidivism rates, as well as the extremely low occurrence of such ‘international child sex tourism via US citizens’ as further statistical proof that this law is not warranted via the giant net that it casts. If this law prevents anyone from being admitted to countries for legitimate reasons, then it cannot and should not be on the books as it causes harm after release from state custody.
Thank you Janice and team. However, I would like to see the whole IML taken to court. The hit notice (Green) still would keep from seeing my daughter graduating from the School Doctor of Medicine in July 2018, even with an unmarked passport. Again, Thank you.
This is amazing.
I’m not sure my case is appropriate to be a plaintiff (but if it is I will definitely let you know) – but you have every penny I can spare. I’ll be contacting you separately to see how I can help.
I wonder if this is enough to be deemed “Punishment” and therefore apply apprendi v. new jersey as the age of the victim was not a element of my conviction, only of my requirement to register
Count me IN!
BTW I plead not guilty! Single count 1st degree child sex assault 1992, rock county WI. I did not waive right via plea! Actually NOT guilty! Demanded trial and found out they do not need real evidence.
Never had a passport except maybe while in ARMY 82-89 when I was sent to Germany Holland, send TDY to England, Ireland as well. Never actually held the passport though. Maybe Army used another method..not to sure.
Please use mailing address listed on WISOR, for contact by mail. I opt not to use email for obvious reasons. Big brother is watching!
Thank you, Janice.
(I am happily sending an extra “Defeat IML!” contribution!)
What is meant by “some” in “The addition of a “unique identifier” to the passports of some registrants is one of the requirements of the International Megan’s Law (IML) which was Congress passed Congress and the President signed in February 2016. “.
Does this mean that only hands-on, higher tier offenders will have the identifier placed on their passports?
How people who live not in Ca can be involved?Let us know.Сan this law effect people who already on register ?Its possible if we knew about law we would not plea.Anyway thank u from all of us
This is a sneaky “Travel Ban” nothing more nothing less, and is punishment.
From Chris Smith’s website
“Due to International Megan’s Law, destination countries will no longer be caught unaware by sex offenders who MAY BE traveling for nefarious reasons.”
In other words guilty before you even step off the plane.
Awesome! Thank you Janice and ACSOL. I will support this effort in every way I can.
Another issue with this passport thing and the IML is that there are RCs that live states that are off the registry that can have in-marked passport vs the ones that live in states that have life time registry must carry the mark that may have a convection older than the RCs from that do not have lifetime.
If you are filing in the Ninth, I am happy to be one of the plaintiffs.
I’m happy to see that this will go to court. This news has been in my mind all week and it’s one more huge issue that will have a massive adverse impact on my life.
I got pulled OFF an airplane recently in Miami trying to travel out of country because my state failed to notify the State Dept and Marshals after I had written a certified letter to them well in advance of my 21 day notification requirements. I lost $thousands in lost air tickets, hotel room, new tickets to return home, and I was left stranded at MIA international in the middle of the night crying. I don’t know if it was incompetence and laziness, or if some clerk just said, “Screw this guy. I’ll show him!”
So travel is painful and costly and stressful enough without this new development. I can’t tell you how stressful and worrisome it is when I travel. And after being pulled off the plane in Miami when I was peacefully sleeping in my seat, I especially have PTSD that it will happen again. I have to down several $13 airport beers just to stay calm. Vacation is supposed to be relaxing, not terrifying.
I will be following Janice’s case every step. Thank God someone is fighting for us to simply have the freedom to live a normal life.
I haven’t contributed money in a while. I’ll do so tomorrow.
This would be much more important than even the Packingham case if it gets to SCOTUS.
We got a great quote from the Justice’s on Packingham, where they said “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court”.
It’s time to put it before the court as this affects the lives of people and their family that are no longer under the supervision of the government…and the duration of that supervision was already determined by a judge as being all that is needed to protect the public.
This needs to be challenged on Substantive Due Process and that it’s arbitrary government action on many different levels. Nobody had a court decide the duration someone is on the registry since it’s an arbitrary number created by legislatures. Therefore, the length of time they have such a dangerous mark on their passport is arbitrary as well, and not related to their individual circumstances and no due process way to get rid of it.
It’s easily and Equal Protection issue, as its a national designation that applies to people differently that were in the same situations, since some states don’t require them to register for the same crime and some do. Some have different age of consent laws. It’s not apples to apples. You can even have two people in the same state with the same exact crime treated differently because one traveled to Florida and got permanently stuck on their registry.
It probably falls under Bill of Attainder as well. It’s a devastating law aimed at an easily identifiable and politically powerless group, and there is no rational basis for it to affect those without a history or high likelihood of travelling abroad to molest children. I am sure someone can dig up quotes from those proposing and supporting the bill that admit to their real agenda of just preventing all RC’s from travelling.
Look to Connecticut Department of Public Safety V Doe 2003 SCOTUS case to keep from making the same mistakes they did. Don’t go for Procedural Due Process unless you figured out a completely different approach. This issue is similar in that in that SCOTUS case the argument was about a public registry, and was upheld because it was just showing factual information (and didn’t claim they were dangerous) and people got their “Due Process” at the time of original trial. With IML, there isn’t just a place to look for “factual information” like a public registry, it is being branded on us and forced to be disclosed, also violating free speech by forcing us to present the government’s message that we do not agree with.
It’s also a Separation of Powers issue. It is the job of the Judiciary to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public from those that committed a crime. The legislature is stepping on that authority by over-ruling the judiciary on the length a person should be considered dangerous and the extent restrictions are needed on that person. It’s not their job to do that, and certainly not their job to only do it to an easily identifiable and politically powerless portion of those convicted of a crime.
Good luck Janice and Team! This could be the most important challenge of the next few years that is a big stepping stone to challenging the entire thing.
you guys are right, I really wasn’t thinking about how many people this will help and it doesn’t really matter how many it helps it is important. I am just really frustrated with a lack of assistance from any of the orgs. I commended Janice and her team and at I least know they are one of the more thorough and articulate out of all these attorneys. I wish it best of luck..It is definitely ripe now.
@mike r, I’m glad you realize that trollish posts (definition: posting inflammatory comments) don’t help get registrants their freedom. Negative crap causes pain to many registrants.
I feel HOPE when I see Janice leading a NATIONAL organization into a strategic WAR of MANY BATTLES against tyranny on a national scale, using the largest state to set positive trends for registrants nationwide.
Presence restrictions: GONE from California! Residency restrictions: knocking them down left and right! Bad California bills: slammed! IML: fighting hard!
Guys, let’s all DONATE our time and money (I DO!) to support ACSOL. It needs resources to expand its scope even more.
And let’s attend the phone and live meetings or at least listen to the recordings so we keep up on the latest news and actions we can take.
Together we are making our lives better. Not perfectly by a long shot, but better than if we hid isolated in our homes.
Doubling my monthly contribution even though it’s just $20. Will contribute more if and when I get my end of the year bonus. The politicians have gone too far with this non-sense and fear mongering in clear spite of evidence which refutes their “frightening and high” bullsh!t of a mantra/propaganda, all the while making RCs suffer and live in constant fear and dread of traveling just so they can stay in office. Go Janice and Team!