ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Janice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Say “No” to the Scarlet Letter

The federal government has done it again. They have issued not one, but two, press releases that reveal both the proposed language and the placement of a “unique identifier” on the passports of some registrants. How many registrants? Although the exact number is unknown, it is estimated to include hundreds of thousands of American citizens.

That bears repeating. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will be issued a Scarlet letter by the federal government. A mark that will limit if, and where, they can travel both overseas and domestically.

On what planet and in what country does this make sense? Certainly not in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Americans are travelers. Our country was, in fact, founded by travelers who first explored and then lived in an unknown land. Our country later grew because travelers chose to explore beyond the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains.

The reason given for the addition of a “unique identifier” to the passports of some registrants is to protect children in other countries from Americans who engage in sex trafficking and sex tourism. That is a worthy goal. The problem, however, is that “unique identifiers” won’t protect children in other countries because virtually all of those who passports will be marked with a Scarlet letter do not pose that or any danger to children.

Instead, the “unique identifiers” will harm hundreds of thousands of American children who will be unable to travel with their fathers. These American children will be denied the right to visit with their fathers the home of their ancestors as well as to see cultural icons such as the Aztec ruins in Mexico and the natural beauty of the Amazon River. These American children will also be denied the right to visit family members and friends as well as cultural icons and natural beauty in nine states — Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Washington –that have failed to comply with the federal REAL ID Act and therefore will require travelers to provide their passports.

We are Americans! We demand the right to travel both internationally and domestically.

We will not allow the federal government to further punish and stigmatize hundreds of thousands of Americans by the addition of a Scarlet letter to their passports. Therefore, we will challenge the addition of “unique identifiers” to the passports of any and all registrants both inside and outside federal courts.

The next legal challenge to “unique identifiers” is forming on the horizon. We are bringing together for the first time legal scholars and experienced litigators in order to identify a path to success inside the courtroom. We are also bringing together for the first time advocates and civil rights leaders to identify a path to success outside the courtroom.

In order to succeed in our challenges to “unique identifiers”, we need YOU! We need YOU to show up at future meetings, to stand up at future protests and to speak up when your civil rights are being violated. Together, we can say “no” to the Scarlet letter of passport identifiers!


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Or, we could just challenge the registry itself…..Just sayin.

Considering that registration, including application post-sentencing to people who are still under supervision, and retroactive application to people who have already completed their sentence, has already been challenged numerous times without success, what makes you think a new challenge to the constitutionality of the registry would succeed?

Considering that the arguments for both cases would be virtually identical, I think it would be wise to fight the item that upon successful outcome would provide good for all, rather than providing good for some, as we have just seen in California. As long as scapegoats are provided, they will be used. We need to fight as one large group.

I believe a DUE PROCESS challenge maybe possible for those who did NOT enter into plea agreements. In the 2003 Connecticut case plaintiff DID enter into plea agreement and thus his redress application was rejected 9-0.

For those who opt for trial do not waive right to contest via direct or indirect appeal.

Absolutely!!!! Just like my case. I plead guilty in 1991 when there was no sex offender registry. Therefore, it was not part of my plea deal!!! Just because my last year of probation fell in 1996 that should make no difference. I plead guilty to 5 years probation not to a sex offender registry!!

When you say “we”, you mean the handful of people that make up this organization (ACSOL) and its (financial) supporters? Just askin.

Yes Joe, exactly. With limited resources it seems to me that we should be trying to take out the registry all together. I think what’s happening here absolutely has merit, don’t get me wrong. But if we are going to pick a fight in federal court, that could get us to the Supreme Court, we should do it for a case that could change things for all of us, instead of just some of us. We just saw this happen in California.

We have right to trial for failed to provide info. It is no different than burning draft cards in 1969_70. The question is do you have what it takes to face a jury to make your case.

I have done just that on two occasions. I am 1-1! Be ready to act pro se, attorneys are few and far between that have the guts, skill and balls.

UNDER FELONY INDICTMENT, one can call witness in for defense!

What arguments do you think will help take out the registry altogether?

I don’t think SCOTUS will decide that sovereign states can’t make regulatory laws.

That the ruling was used to enable unconstitutional domestic surveillance!

I agree, I’m not an attorney, but if we (290s and there supporters) continue to make the registry more curtailed and more refined, are we not further reinforcing its legitimacy? From all that I have read it (the registry) is punitive not administrative making it illegal, unconstitutional and (besides the point) COMPLEATLY FOUNDED ON THE WHIMS OF OFFICIALS WHO TO THIS DAY SAY THEY JUST “MADE IT UP AS THEY WENT” Please watch for reference and if you haven’t seen this video, it’s a must. It honestly made me light headed. I know it’s wrong, I just didn’t know… Read more »

Matt: Yes and yes. I think that fighting the Registry, as a whole, is where we’re headed.

I hope so. But I suppose one needs to build a case over time with little demonstrations, until there is critical mass to change the culture. For what it is worth, I don’t view the registry as a weed that one can attack the root and it is dead; it is more like a plague of weeds, that keep producing seeds. Kill some laws here, more pop up over there. In my yard, I control weeds by modifying the environment to disrupt what they need to grow. I don’t know all that is driving these laws, but I see it… Read more »

I think that we are, rightly, fighting both. Ultimately, to fight IML is also to fight the Registry but I can see sound strategic reasons for tackling IML first. The fundamental authorities being challenged are largely the same but we should lay the necessary groundwork before fighting the Registry, head-on. The IML appears to be the perfect stepping-stone to that effort. Janice indicates a development here which is even more important than which law is being fought: our resources, as a community, are being greatly expanded with the collaboration of experts in the courtroom and in the field of civil… Read more »

I’ve been very vocal in my opinion that while whack-a-mole is needed to stop all these little laws, we still need a challenge to the entire registry scheme that is out of control. However, landmark cases like one against the scarlet letter still need to be fought and won at the same time. For those interested in learning how our country has historically had to fight and win on big issues, I recommend “The Hollow Hope” by Gerald N. Rosenberg. It goes over the two different viewpoints on SCOTUS. One says the courts do nothing to help change because the… Read more »

One additional thing I learned from this book. SCOTUS cannot blatantly go against the majority public and political opinion even when it is the right thing to do, if that opinion is an extreme majority. Historically, if they do, the legislation will change the role and limits of SCOTUS to gimp them. SCOTUS knows this, and will use any excuse not to make a ruling that will cause them to lose more power. They will deny hearing hot cases outright. They have to wait to rule on an issue after the tide of public opinion has started to turn, and… Read more »

Yeah, we’ll ALL be LONG DEAD in the ground when “public opinion” changes.

Especially in light of this “me too” activism nonsense.

I would not call the “me too” activism nonsense. For myself, I would also use the hashtag “metoo” because as a female registered citizen, I have been sexually harassed, assaulted and battered by men who know I am on the registry. It’s as if they have free reign because in their minds, “who’s going to believe the word of a sex offender?” I am curious if there are other female RCs who have been similarly victimized, and I think there should be studies on women who are on the registry who have been sexually harassed/assaulted/battered or raped, but couldn’t say… Read more »

I wouldn’t call it nonsense, either. We should be careful to not minimize anyone’s pain.

Each human to for their own.

NPS, I’ve experienced some of the same, even as far as people thinking that I was ‘safe’ for a relationship because I wouldn’t complain, or that I was desperate, and then was treated like dirt because I couldn’t/wouldn’t complain.

Me too. As many registrants, I have also been harassed by someone because of the registry. Sex is only one weapon people use to threaten and demean.

I totally agree with you. This hysteria about inappropriate behavior just shows how willing the general public is to accepting victims and demonizing anyone even remotely accused (not found guilty – just accused) of anything related to that biggest American fascination and taboo S E X!

So anyone who thinks there will be one second of sympathetic thought by the public is really in total denial about how America thinks and works! You really need a reality check!

” legitimate moral and financial reasons to keep legislatures at bay. ”

What are you talking about? The federal judiciary, including and especially SCOTUS, is one of the three co-equal branches of government. They do not answer to the executive or the legislative branches. Co-equal.

Chris, challenging the “registry as a whole” is, indeed, something we should do. However, this would be a challenge beginning in STATE courts, in whichever state(s), and possibly ending up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The IML can begin, from the get-go, in Federal Court. I think that this is an advantage. Certainly one of time. Its success might well translate into an erosion of the registry, as a whole.

Im doing that already along with the tired registration, I’m challenging them both on the 5th & 14th. Amendment violation to legally empose any statute punitive or non punitive must be done. By the proper jurisdiction,( the courts) not CDC&R, NOT the legislators both have no power to empose any law, or enforce it

And another thing we need to work on getting the architect of this idea, Chris Smith of New Jersey out of office once and for all. Make him pay for his crimes against us.

I agree with you Jack, and Chris Smith needs to be confronted.

Confrontation thread:

Richard Blumenthal
(R)Wis Paul Ryan, Duffy, and Pocan, most of all Sensenbrenner for his NSA connects.

Shameless exploiters….. Sound familiar?

I am glad to see that the effects on the children of registrants will be part of the argument. That same angle worked well for advocates of same-sex marriage, and figured prominently in Kennedy’s written opinion in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. It could be persuasive. At least, it would be hard to dismiss it and remain consistent with similar arguments made for same-sex marriage. The domestic travel angle based on the REAL ID act may not be so relevant. Even if passports will be required to travel by to non-compliant states, it is doubtful that the destination state… Read more »

“…it is doubtful that the destination state could deny entry…” I would not count that, CR. FL and LA would love to do that.

If Florida didn’t want OJ, they sure as hell don’t want us.

The Florida legislature, in particular, would easily come up with a law to do just such a ban so they can keep promoting their tourism industry. The problem is that they have to do it in a way that would meet constitutional muster, but I’m sure they will give it a whirl.

They might try, Harry, but they won’t succeed. The right to interstate travel is well-established.

The right for anyone convicted of a crime after coming out prison is well established, except for RCs.

IML will fail and be the nail in ex post cases, all on govt message grounds. Our FED has no culpable interest in protecting foreign citizens on constitutional grounds save ” officials in habeas, Emissaries” They cannot protect our children much less other people’s children. Such notions are altruistic feel good measures used to bolster perceptions of necessity. To remain Prince one must appear to act. Let SCOTUS be the bad guy. We have nuked men, women and children, mostly civilians! This is OUR fed! They have IMHO no place feinting interest. That is a parental responsibility. Just as it… Read more »

If you get arrested for failure to provide. GO TO TRIAL!,
Call it a local protest. It works sometimes + believe me you will feel better.

Make the villain YEE MACHINE!

Oh and be sure to tell them to buy identity protection cause none of their information is SAFE.

Janice ,

Are you fighting the green notices as well or just the unique identifier ?

She indicated the Identifier at this time.

The (presumed) Green Notices are only a part of the government’s notification scheme. In fact, IML doesn’t explicitly mention Green Notices, although it is known that Green Notices would be the mechanism for notifying countries through INTERPOL. It is also the form of country notification that will live on INTERPOL’s computers indefinitely, i.e. continuously (until the U.S. has it removed) and not depend upon the U.S. issuing a trip-specific travel notification. There are other, non-INTERPOL means through which these notifications can also occur. To quote the law: “It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State, in consultation… Read more »

@David Kennerly- Good summary on notices/info outside of IML. Japan may also be included in NCIC access. Do you know if APIS, as used for international travel in ~25 countries per the PNR and part of the CPB is tied into the NCIC? Or would those PNR searches only be a crosscheck in the NSOR? NCIC always has the offense, but does it include registration status? And if so, does it get updated? For example, a registrant from Cal (for life) moves to DC and then is relieved from registration but still has an NCIC entry from the Cal offense.… Read more »

Japan, now that you mention it, has been said to be privileged to NCIC (U.S. criminal records) data. I cannot confirm that. It does have the fingerprints of convicted U.S. Citizens. [ “Agreement between Japan, U.S. to share fingerprint data proceeds in Diet” ] The NCIC, which is a criminal database comprised of a number of sub-databases (including sex offenders [NSOR] and passport numbers) of U.S. Citizens or those arrested/convicted in the U.S. Passport number fields in NCIC can, of course, “pivot” with the same field in other databases, bringing up matches. This can be true for any of… Read more »

@David Kennerly- Thanks for the details and links. Very informative. It appears that NCIC only has records on current registration and not sex offense convictions. So, say a Cal registrant who properly relocates to DC will have the Cal DOJ registry entry removed which updates the NSOR and then DC enters a new record, creating a new NSOR record. Then if/when relief is granted in DC to the Cal offender and the NSOR is updated, the name/record should be removed completely from NCIC. Is that your take? Also, if a Cal registrant is relieved by a COR (or petition in… Read more »

“It appears that NCIC only has records on current registration and not sex offense convictions.”

No, I’m afraid that isn’t my impression of NCIC. I’m fairly certain that NCIC goes back to arrests and conviction being that it is the primary criminal database from the FBI. Now, the information available to the foreign border agent is probably far less extensive and may well only include information about Registrant status.

@David Kennerly- NCIC having “arrests and convictions” was my original thinking too, but the link you provided states NCIC has only 12 million records and 21 databases. We know the NSOR is 800K or ~7% of the total records. “Supervised release” database could be a few million and the others can be large too. (Felons alone in US ~20 million) The FBI of course has every arrest & conviction record since forever and certainly anyone at the NCIC could tap in, but it doesn’t appear to be within the “automatic record retriever” provided by an NCIC query and therefore within… Read more »

Relief, I don’t believe that the number of records cited there is correct. After all, who is able to say what they really are? The U.S. Government is the only one who could confirm that and we know how forthcoming they are in revealing their databases. Besides, what they count as “records” is pretty hard to define as there are a number of databases that can be accessed that are either part of NCIC or related, such as NSOR, which they certainly have full access to. As you say, it is going to have most arrests (that are reported to… Read more »

@David K- You’re probably correct on US Customs, especially with the emphasis on border control now.

As you state “They will only have what the U.S. is willing to provide.” So, if IML is defeated, and/or registrants finally gain relief, foreign immigration agents could in the future be provided records showing “Former Registered Sex Offender status…” which would have the same reception by countries as now.

We should just anticipate the long arm of US Law a few years down the road even with successful challenges.

Well, if IML is entirely defeated, including the authority of the U.S. to communicate our sex offender conviction and registration status to foreign governments, then they would not be permitted to continue transmitting that information.

@David Kennerly- You are correct. Here’s the NCIC operating manual link. The section on the NSOR records is pg 546 – 615. The conviction remains within NCIC with modifiers. It also gives examples of the large amount of information displayed on an NCIC NSOR query.

That’s quite a document, thanks! Now if it only told us how to edit NCIC records, it would be perfect.

“Of course everything could change/expand at anytime…”

Tru dat! Because it’s all civil regulatory law, not criminal punishment.

Do you think we’ll ever have “done our time”, “fulfilled our obligation to society”, truly completed our “sentence”?

I hope that day will come. I think it is doubtful I will be alive when it comes.

There is no doubt databases contain some whom are actually innocent the question is how many innocent men?

All government stakeholders, especially the US Government are running a scam. They need to be called upon it.

The sham or scam comes not from protecting our vulnerable, but from the unconstitutional use of a DATABASE. NSAs collection of METADATA is yet another expression of domestic surveillance that SORNA accomplished. Clearly, such mass collection is MORE for political party security than for individual safety. Ladies and gentleman the fact the first NSA database was erected in UTAH is an important clue! IMHO this is what was at stake in SMITH V DOE! One justice recognised that, ” something else was afoot” That justice named John Paul Stevens. He also made the statement, ” if no liberty at stake… Read more »

You said IT ALL Janice! Now Let’s Fight!!!!! I’m on board.

Am I in a bad dream? I guess NOT, the U.S. Constitution must not apply to american citizens that pay taxes, follow laws and continual punishment for all on here? WE MUST ALL JOIN TO FIGHT, this IS the time to jump into action and chip in, for those of us who are honored to be allowed to keep a job or even have one. WE ARE BETTER than this, we deserve the same rights! ARE WE STILL IMPRISONED?

Thank you Janice for continuing the fight. Even though this identifier will not affect me, the travel warnings have. I believe with your tenacity, we will eventually prevail in court.

Looks like passport renewals run $110. If we’re forced to renew annually, that becomes a large sum of money- more than $500 in just five years. I’m no expert, but it would seem to me this would fall under some sort of equal protection or due process challenge. No other group would be forced to do this. That will create a true hardship, and no other group is being subject to this.

The annual renewal provision did not make it into the final bill. The passport will have to be valid for the full term of the passport; ten years.

This still doesn’t address the issue of this right us overseas. Not everyone has been paying attention because it’s figured that if you don’t have to register in your other country you should be okay. But with states like NY,WI and possibly Florida you could have people with the marker and revocation and no one would know it until they try to travel again and get arrested.

Let me add a large ISSUE I have not seen noted so far: This unique identifier will put us at actual physical risk…from people that see this endorsement. Maybe even worse, we will be at risk of blackmail….when I leave my passport at the front desk of a hotel, who is to say that that night clerk doesn’t falsely say that I requested a female, an under-aged female, to be sent to my room? When the night clerk tries to shake me down, what do I do? When I refuse, what do I say to the never sympathetic towards Americans… Read more »

It has been previously noted, James but thank you for reminding us of the inevitable harm which the “unique identifier” will bring to Americans traveling abroad. The “night clerk” scenario is one that I have real concern for.

That’s true. That last 3 times I’ve stayed at a hotel they have wanted to at least photo copy my passport as holding my passport is essentially the same as keeping you prisoner overseas.

It’s what they do to foreign workers here. They hold their passports so that they can’t even leave the house. No passport =prison and deportation

Some countries actually require the hotel to hold on to your passport. The police would come by in the evenings to scan through them. Much of Europe used to do this and some Asian countries although I haven’t noticed it in quite a while.

The registry is relatively “new” to us as my spouse had to register this past year (for a non-violent, non-contact offense), and we have already found it to be a living hell (for starters, he had 10 days to move out of our home because we live too close to a school–even though we have lived in the house for almost two decades and paid nearly $100,000 in property taxes). I will also add that the registry has been harder on our marriage than anything–including his conviction. Not being able to travel has been one of the hardest parts for… Read more »

Yes, the registry is worse than our conviction and court-ordered punishment. Glad to have you.

Well stated, Janice. I’ve visited Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and a few Asian countries. I’ve actually not attempted to travel Internationally or take a cruise to (free) Mexico after learning these countries have banned or would be notified of impending travel (expunged battery/summary probation/non child related/no other arrests etc). I think it’s terrible. My wife’s mother recently (Asia) became ill and eventually passed away. I refrained from traveling with her because of a fear of being banned etc/embarrassment/waste of $). I’ve never been notified, called or sent any information regarding International Travel. I simply found the information on this… Read more »

You seem to be a very complicated fellow USA. Sometimes you troll to no end and others you seem concerned with the future. It’s good that you won’t have to worry about the updated passport and don’t have to register etc. It sucks you didn’t travel with your wife for her mother’s funeral. With the way the laws are I’m more scared to return to the US for my own family issues,like my father’s recent surgery or the car accident my mother was in. If I return to the US I may get stuck there again and I just can’t… Read more »

He’s concerned about his own future while nobody else here deserves a future. His posts are bipolar.

We also need to stop the identification on drivers licenses in several states which is certainly the same thing as this and causes many of the same issues including denial of services where one must show a DL, threats to safety for both the registrant and anyone with them, public shaming, etc.

I concur. The license comment is disturbing! When will this stop! 1st, your required to register! Then, Megan’s Law! Then, park bans, beach bans etc etc etc. Oh, Retroactive for an expunged offense!

I have a question how do I support the fight against the IML?

Donate to this website. It takes a lot of money to hire people to help do all this work.

I concur with AlexO. Although it’s small, I donate $20 monthly. I wish could donate 100 times more a month and hopefully one day I could but this is all I could afford for now.

It’s too bad we can’t hit these legislators in the pocket book. That’s what they really understand. That and re-election. I wish there was a way property taxes could be tied to the number of sex offenders in a neighborhood. If Marshall and Swift could incorporate it into their property tax assessments that would be ideal. Then they might consider removing people more easily from the registry or getting rid of it all together. Fighting them on emotional grounds has never worked. These guys have no soul to appeal to.

I think Ca is headed in right direction. I don’t know how people on the Megan’s website, have special licenses, prohibited from living in certain areas, banned from parks/beaches etc function? It’s getting worst. Now, we are almost banned from traveling and select individuals will have special passports? I can’t cognitively understand. Initially, you just went down and registered annually? What about the guy with an expunged offense from 25 years ago? I’ll file my no longer register paperwork in 2021/unless we can do it sooner. By that time, I’ve been on the registry for 25 years/new 10 year requirement.… Read more »

I was watching a program over the Veterans Day weekend about the bombing of Germany and how shocked the allied forces were when they found the concentration camps. We are not to many steps away from being put away in a camp and left to rot. I was convicted of possession of four emails that I received while in a chat room. My crime was 8 photographs and chatting with the person who sent them to me. Yes it was cp and I did not send it anywhere else and I never had any history of purchasing membership on cp… Read more »

Strong CP attorney in SF area: Seth Chazin

Well, this is clearly a must. Sam and Steve, I think I might refrain from making judgements if I where in your shoes. People don’t think to highly of your physical actions. I just read an interesting article on this website. There is presently only a 5 % recidivism rate for those who committed sex offenses. Yet, the highest percentage for some reason is child related? So, I imagine the laws are more stringent on child related offenses for that reason. I suggest getting your charges reduced or expunged if you can. Otherwise, look at all your alternatives. Best wishes… Read more »

@usa- do u realize how douchy u sound when u make lame, passive aggressive, entitled, weirdo, etc… comments here? There r no angels on this board, including u. So get over urself

I have tried your suggestions but the state of Michigan doesn’t have provisions for reducing or expunging crimes of this material and states that these are the only type of crime that can never be expunged.

I’ve had one crime when I was still a teen and I don’t plan on committing another.

I wasn’t passing judgement I was just saying that at times you have trolled the hell out of mike r and other times you have voice legitimate concern.

Not judgements,your posts are facts about what you are about.

I wish you nothing but the best Sam! Hopeful, I hope you feel better about yourself/calling me names and relaying your narcistic behavior. I’m simply here to support and truly feel bad for your situation. I only hope focusing upon me and making judgmental comments help you in one way or another. I’m wearing armor and nothing bothers me. I’m just glad I received your response. Best wishes and I’m sorry for you Sam. I consider myself fortunate under what could have been! I clearly bad some very bad choices and somehow had fortune on my side. I could write… Read more »

I already have a valid passport and recently used it to travel to the Caribbean without issue. Is it known how current passports would be revoked and can you still travel on a revoked passport? (My research suggests you can in fact travel on a revoked passport as long as it hasn’t expired, and mine won’t expire for at least another 8 years). Will the federal government and/or secretaries of state attempt to retrieve the physical passports? If so, can we be criminally charged for civil disobedience if we refuse to give up our passports?

Also I wonder what would happen if we just tore out or otherwise altered / obscured the marked page on the new passports?

§ 51.66 Surrender of passport.
The bearer of a passport that is revoked must surrender it to the Department or its authorized representative upon demand.

so when we petition for removal in 2021 and let’s say try to travel (example) to the Philippines, would our background still show on thuheir computer (interpol)? and let’s also say the person applied for a new passport in 2021 with no mark and not registering any more here in California, what is the grace period to be completely removed from registering once the petition is submitted?

Same question i have

Then you could be charged with destruction of government property and your passport would be void for alterations

22 CFR Ch. I § 51.62 Revocation or limitation of passports.
(a) The Department may revoke or limit a passport when
(1) The bearer of the passport may be denied a passport under 22 CFR 51.60 or
51.61; or 51.28; or any other provision contained in this part; or,
(2) The passport has been obtained illegally, fraudulently or erroneously; was created through illegality or fraud practiced upon the Department; or has been fraudulently altered or misused;


I might suggest contacting DHS and sending them a copy. I might also carry a copy of the document stating your no longer required to register. The comment (Sam) regarding your Passport is without merit. I don’t think we have any Esq on this site or Government Employees. Who knows!

I was just going off of what’s written inside of the passport itself. As it technically is government property and says that any damage caused to it will render it null and void.


Actually, Sam is correct. If you look on page 5 of your passport, you will see about the owner of your passport (USG) and the implications of altering of it, possible prosecution.

So, please go check yours now, return to this forum once you have done so with the knowledge laid out in front of you and acknowledge the correct info that has been stated here.

Representative Chris Smith, (Dennis Hastert Jr)passed this as fast as he could with no discussion. He would not even consider the facts that surrounded him. He is a political bufoon trying to score points instead of doing what is right. He wanted his sorry face on it. This is an absolutely abhorrent law and will hurt innocent people and families ALL ACROSS THE BOARD and will protect no one but your slimey face will be on it!!! Well let’s beat IML as unconstitutional and leave his hateful ugly face ON IT FOREVER!!!

Well, I’m just glad you guys got that off your chest. I think if you guys want to focus your anger or control issues on me, that’s fine if it will help in any way. Just don’t act out. I think that focusing upon getting this law is a wonderful idea, but I think we also need to look at the bigger picture. Many registered citizens are banned from traveling altogether. We need to think clearly, stop your controlling behavior and realize you can’t always be right! So, rather than focus on the negativity and lashing out with negativity and… Read more »

@USA, when you make accusations that the people responding to you have “anger and control issues”, and that they are going to “act out”, you are not helping the dialogue “calm down”, you are gaslighting people and provoking further anger directed at you.

Thank you Registry! I truly appreciate the kind comments. I want you to know how much I appreciate your concern. My priority here to to provide helpful dialogue and refrain from responding to angry and hateful comments or attacks. I think it should be important to know that I care and my number 1 fear these new laws will cause someone to act out. I wasn’t convicted of a child related offense and I can only imagine how you must all feel with the impending tier system, high Static 99 scores many of you have and now this Passport Law!… Read more »

I’m going to refrain from going on this site. I have no friends, no one likes me and you all seem to gang up on me or attack me when I make both an honest and accurate/truthful comment. I’m not worthy. Just because you have more convictions (mine was exlunged), score higher on the Static 99 and are on a higher Tier doesn’t make you better then me? I’m embarrassed by this! I wish you all the luck. Best of luck on the passport agenda. I recently came across a possibly proposal to alter the CDL of those with tier… Read more »

Like any social forum or gathering this always happens. I would encourage you to toughen up a bit and not leave. Regardless of how you feel, not EVERYONE feels that way. It would be better if you stayed and helped fight. We are stronger in numbers.

“Just because you have more convictions (mine was exlunged), score higher on the Static 99 and are on a higher Tier doesn’t make you better then me?”… “I recently came across a possibly proposal to alter the CDL of those with tier 3 offenses. Good luck!”

That’s why you have no friends. Adios.

@USA: I think the issues people have had is when they’ve felt personal attacks coming from you. I’ve overlooked most conversations you’ve had, not because of you but because of being CA-centered and my not being in CA. The few times I have delved into your comments, I, too, have felt a bit of a chip on your shoulder and/or an air of inequality (using my definition of either demeaning someone else or lifting oneself up). People want your knowledge, thoughts, and opinions. What they don’t want is (further) judgment–from you, me, or anyone. It does seem peculiar that the… Read more »

You don’t have friends because you are incredibly antagonistic. You have insulted plenty of people over the years that I have been reading both posts and comments. I, too, have an expunged conviction, scored less than 1% on the LS/CMI which means very low risk of reoffense, am not on the public registry, and I’d be a tier 1. But I don’t throw that fact in the faces of others just to make myself feel superior. I am still rather skeptical of this tiered registry, and I have much empathy for others that are at risk for being publicly posted… Read more »

Janice, I strongly recommend that your staff attack this in court by claiming de jure segregation. Segregation by law, or de jure segregation, occurs when local, state, or federal law requires racial separation, or where the law explicitly allows segregation. De jure segregation is mandated by law, enacted by statute, enforced by the police. De jure segregation has been prohibited in the United States since the mid-1960s. In order to find unconstitutional segregation, we are required to “prove all of the essential elements of de jure segregation”–that is, stated simply, a current condition of segregation resulting from intentional state action… Read more »

@Cruz: Oooo, I like this concept a *lot.* Good thinking! Hopefully there is at least one judge out there willing to consider it, instead of going along with the “belief du jour” (like that play on words?) that it’s merely collateral consequences. I’m still wondering if there’s any other situation where one’s collateral consequences constantly shift. For example, suppose I’m a stock broker and get busted for financial fraud. I may lose by license for a set amount of time, let’s say 10 years. That’s it. The State doesn’t then come along–whether at year 1 or year 21–and say, “yeah,… Read more »

@Cruz / AJ:

Have either of you researched the originally published Doe v Snyder opinion on Pace? It was corrected 4 days after to exclude comparing the residency restrictions to “punitive sundown laws”.

Sundown towns, sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of non-white races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence. The term came from signs that were posted stating that “colored people” had to leave the town by sundown.

Segregation at it’s core.

I have not. It does give a good indication what the 6th’s view of it is (a unanimous opinion, BTW), but since it’s not in the record, I don’t know that it has any use in court. One could perhaps twist it and reuse it.

AJ – I agree with you that it isn’t in the official record or published opinion. It was just a response to Cruz’s segregation comment. “Segregation by law, or de jure segregation, occurs when local, state, or federal law requires racial separation, or where the law explicitly allows segregation. ”

Seems to me a lot like what the 6th had in mind with their “Sundown Law” statement that was struck from the final opinion. It’s segregation, period.

Well, I think everyone has great comments. I do know that something shows when your passport is scanned here in the US. I’ve been stopped and questioned when re entering the US! They can see what your conviction/history is. (They last official could see the date of the conviction and expungement). So, I think altering your Pasdport will simply create more issues! I suggest those who get this registration process removed in 2021 or sooner should contact DHS and inquire! I would also carry some form of paperwork showing this as well. Good luck

There is something in the system. When I went to Korea in 2015 and came back through the UAE they have US DHS before you even get on the plane and they asked me about my registration in NY after being held in secondary for 2 hours. Asked me what I was doing in Korea which it was pretty obvious I was visiting family after he looked at my face. Asked how long I was locked up. Told him (8 months) and he just shook his head and said “that sucks man”. And let me go on my way.

Just curious, does anyone know the likelihood of an issue when traveling to Europe? More specifically the Schengen countries? I’ve wanted to move abroad well before my troubles but I may curious about the possibilities now. Any insight would be appreciated,


The general consensus is that we’re still good here. UK is really the only EU nation that has a ban on RC’s. Germany, France, Italy, etc are all friendly to us.

Thanks! Those are the countries I was thinking about, possibly Austria too.

Avoid UK and Ireland (not part of the UK, but they are also not part of Schengen). Basically any English speaking country is off limits. What the heck is it with English speaking people anyway, and fear of someone who’s committed a crime in the past (US, UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ)? I’m in Schengen countries 3-4 times per year. The border control officers never even blink at me, so I’ve always assumed they don’t even see the Green notices. Will change with the Scarlet Letter, I think, when the actual officer looking at the passport sees the info. Makes me… Read more »

After reading Janice’s article, I went to to review the current Travel Matrix they post online. There are 29 countries listed that turn SO away. Of those 29, only 15 actually have a SO Registry. And only a total of 11 have laws in place barring SO. So… my question is… Since our great nation is so eager to protect the interests of other countries and territories, what does the United States get in return? How many of these countries are reciprocating? Are they providing the United States with similar information and warnings about their citizens? Again… What is… Read more »

This can be won against that id and really puts the listing ‘registry’ in check…gonna be checkmate.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x