ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

SMITH: International Megan’s Law working to protect children

New Jersey’s Maureen and Richard Kanka’s courage and perseverance through unspeakable tragedy — the sexual abuse and murder of their daughter Megan in 1994 — has brought significant protection to children across our state, the U.S. and throughout the world. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. PK

    Still using those words interchangeably: “pedophiles and other sexual predators”

    Pedophiles, Sexual Predators, Sex Offenders- All should be considered to be in the same monolithic group.

    Should a Child could be considered someone who is 16 or 17 years old?

    Most of the Threads on this Blog make me angry, and I’m not sure how much good it does me to feel this way by continuing to read this garbage.

    How about a Thread about what the plans are to challenge this IML?


      What about the plans to challenge the registry outright? I think 20+ years of empirical evidence showing the uselessness of the registry is long enough. We are going to die before this gets addressed at this rate. I have been on the registry more than half my adult life, 19 years now. I want to have the last part of my life “free”.

      • PK

        I don’t see it happening, unless you can somehow escape the United States with an intact Passport.

      • Aiden

        Better hurry. Courts are getting stacked with loads of “unfriendly” judges…

      • AlexO

        Challenging the registry directly is difficult and dangerous. If we win, the benefits are obvious. But if we lose, it’ll be 2003 all over again with the loss setting a precedent for future challenges as to why the registry is fine. Even now, 15 year later, courts regular use the 100% bogus stat of “frightful and high” to rule against us. A stat that has been completely disproved by numerous studies, and even recanted and blasted by the original authors. So that’s the danger you face when taking on the whole thing as a whole. A loss becomes way more than just a loss.

        • Tim Moore

          The legal system is not the only way to challenge the registry. It is a last resort. Theses laws are only a symptom of a deep insecurity permeating our country. That needs to be challenged and mitigated somehow.

        • David Kennerly, Haven't Gun, Can't Travel

          You may be right but that sounds awfully “generational,” doesn’t it? As in, you have to wait for whole generations to die off before things get any better. I’m afraid that my generation, and I, will die off before they do. I’ve come to see “generational death” as the most sure, but sobering, way of changing society.

        • David Kennerly, Haven't Gun, Can't Travel

          Tim, it’s both, working together. Bringing legal challenges at the same time as enlightening society. That’s how gays moved ahead.

        • Tim Moore

          The “enlightening” needs to come first. If not you get Smith vs. Doe happening because of unchallenged beliefs of frightening and high. I sat in judge Hamilton’s court watching her be confused why anyone would challenge marking registrants passports. I can almost read her thouggts, we’re all sex fiends registration is working and why is anyone trying to advocate for these perverts? I believe she was not fully conscious of those biases, they are so ingrained.

    • TS


      I hear and understand your frustration. However, please remember this, Representative Smith does not list the details given by the GAO that actually shows how many people have been caught going overseas over the last number of years for actually committing these incidents that he alleges. That is mighty convenient, don’t you think? Without looking it up on this website, but it was mentioned, if I recall properly, it was a low-mid single digit number of people within the last higher single digit number of years. Maybe someone here can find those actual data points and reply so you can see that, maybe rest easier afterward.

      All he’s really doing is being Chicken Little in a theater yelling “fire” while the “sky is falling” when all it really is the smell of burnt popcorn and someone dropping a box on the ceiling above him making a loud noise and scaring him enough to wet his drawers.

      He is obviously spinning up his reelection campaign already as a Christmas present to his constituents in his respective New Jersey district. This is three articles, if I recall properly, now within the last month that have been published regarding him and his efforts in this vein.

    • New Person

      PK Wrote:
      Should a Child could be considered someone who is 16 or 17 years old?

      Actually, this discrepancy should be at the forefront of the IML. The IML pulls its pool of registrants based upon individual states. In the US, there are varying ages of consent, ranging from 16 to 18 years of age. There is an equal protection case here as the standards vary between state to state. The feds cannot state a nationwide law that relies on varying and differing laws on age of consent. If this is the case on nationalism of the registry, which it is, then I’d argue that the lowest age of consent is the standard age of consent since it exists.

      And if the IML concedes to that lowest age of consent, then it re-writes who’s on the registry for all states save that one who’s age of consent is 16 years of age. That means in California, if you were involved with someone aged 18, 17, or 16, then you actually did not commit a crime. This is IML brings to the forefront of what is a minor nationwide and removes state’s rights to designate what is the legal age of consent.

      Again, the IML is a nation-wide law reliant upon differing laws of who can give consent. Every registrant whose convictions involved with an individual whose age range is 18 or 17 should have an equal protection’s complaint as 31 states have their legal age of consent set at 16 years old.

      From wikipedia:
      age of consent 16 (31): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,[a] Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,[b] Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia

      age of consent 17 (8): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas,[c] Wyoming

      age of consent 18 (11): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin

      • jw

        Esqivel-Quintana v Sessions 2016 – Supreme Court held that “in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of ‘sexual abuse of a minor’ requires the age of the victim to be less than 16”.

  2. J

    In my experiences it’s people like this coward who has been going across seas to hurt children, not registrants. To promote lies when you know the truth is ABHORRENT!!! Think about this, who would go to this extent to push a lie, maybe an abuser in a race against time????
    In court this is an easy win and hopefully it will put him in the spotlight for accusers to come forward. I say we march on Capital Hill with signs about IML and this closet monster Smith and see how many women or men we can bring out of the shadows. This lowly man is a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!

  3. New Person

    From the article:
    •Since enactment, the United States has warned nearly 100 countries of more than 3,500 convicted pedophiles seeking to enter their countries. Nearly 2,000 convicted pedophiles were denied entry by the destination country.

    Notice, this is the federal government spreading this information to other countries. In the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, the justices said this information is not like a scarlett letter as people have to go search the information. With the IML, the federal government is broadcasting your information – a far cry from what the 2003 Smith v Doe decision stated.

    Also note how the travel was restricted due to the IML. The registry wasn’t supposed to restrict any travel. It does now. They have just banished people. A subsection of where the recidivism rates are the 2nd lowest among all crimes. In California, it’s own State appointed sex offender management board’s own research has shown a recidivism rate of under 1% for the past two years, in 2015 it was 0.8% and in 2016 it was 0.6%.

    Fear mongering is fear mongering. The SCOTUS has fallen into fear mongering before when it created internment camps for its US citizens who have Japanese heritage. How long will the SCOTUS perpetuate this lie on sex crimes? How long will the SCOTUS perpetuate that anyone convicted of a sex crime loses the full rights of an American citizen, thereby creating a second class citizen – Jim Crow laws anyone?

  4. Eric

    With all due respect to the terrible tragedy the Kankas experience, First, I doubt a registry would have prevented that tragedy. It was a total failure of the justice system and probation. The perpetrator had two previous offenses and was a problem throughout his entire time in the justice system. He was clearly a red flag and the justice department dropped the ball on him, now everyone who makes a poor choice behind their sexuality has to be punished for life and classified with this horrible person who murdered a child. This man was a psychopath, laws didn’t deter him, and how would a registry have prevented him form doing the horrible thing he did? The justice department should have been monitoring him more closely. Secondly, a unique qualifier stamped on the passport only notifies the general non-professionals who will react hysterically, just like the registry. I do agree that sex tourism is a serious issue, so when an ex-offender wishes to travel abroad, then first, there should be a reasonable suspicion of risk, most SO’s are not, but if they are, then a notice to the proper authorities from the US could be sent so as not attracting undo attention and hysteria. Clearly this is just more punishment and humiliation for SO’s. A real deterrent would be done between justice systems and governments not at the front desk of a travel agency.

  5. Kari

    Hi group,

    Question can we or do we know if anyone can write to the Supreme Court addressing the constitution. I write my elected officials usually every week. Any thoughts?

    Last week, I started to flood Chris smith with letters. I’m in Wisconsin.

  6. T

    Chris Smith is being delusional and cocky about how the IML is working. No one on the registry would be crazy and stupid enough to travel for the purpose of being involve in any criminal activity knowing full well that if they’re traveling for that purpose, they’re gonna get caught, because they know they’re being watched & scrutinized because they are on the criminal database. The real criminals that are involve in sex trafficking and tourism involving children are not registrants they are those who’re not on the criminal database that haven’t got caught. Somebody needs to really put Chris Smith in his place where he really needs to be and shut him up. His rhetorical statement is nothing but logical fallacy that is trying to scare everyone and trip foreign governments about all kinds of crap that never happened.

  7. Civil Rights First

    Before IML I traveled abroad to Hong Kong and Thailand twice. And not for sex tourism, trafficking or any other illicit activity. I met a woman online and yes she knew all about my past. I disclosed to her about my past and even gave her a link to the Governments public shaming site, there were no secrets. We had built a relationship online for over a year before I decided to go visit her. I went back again and had another nice visit with her and explored so many wonderful things there, ancient temples, parks, zoos etc… then on my third trip July 2016 to meet her parents, brothers, uncles, aunts etc. I was stopped as I got off the plane by 7 immigration officers in full Police Uniform with sidearms, in front of everyone. I felt so embarrassed and humiliated. The immigration officers were holding printouts of my registration page asking me “Is this you, Is this you,” while pointing at the paper they were holding. I felt like a fugitive and was so embarrassed as other passengers were walking past looking at me being led away with an officer on each arm. I had no idea the IML even existed!!!
    I committed my offence in 1996, arrested in 1997, convicted in 1998, released from prison 2003. While incarcerated I never once got wrote up for any violation of the rules and after being released I completed 10 years of probation, passed every polygraph, urinalysis, completed every offence related treatment program ordered to attend either by the judge or probation officer. Never once committing any probation violation requiring me to be re-arrested and have even had my Civil Rights reinstated.
    I completed my Bachelors of Science Degree in Information Security and have stable employment and have just tried to live a “NORMAL” life. Something that every human wants to do, live free, meet a partner, have children, raise them as best they can, grow old with that partner and just live. But do to a series of poor choices in my 20’s I live in continual fear. I’ve had employment offers with some good companies (Amazon 6 digit salary) be rescinded after I was offered the positions and passed all interviews, only because I am on the Governments public SHAMING Site. Heck the Criminal background check even came back clean but the background check says public sex offender registry. I’ve been with my current employer for 5 years now and am making that nice salary and yes I told my current employer all about my past and they did a background check on me and still offered me employment. The Company I work for is a large company with some international locations, Japan, Germany, China, Thailand, and several different states. But now I am in fear of loosing this wonderful career that I have worked so hard for because I can’t travel and other employees will find out about my past from 20 years ago.
    There is one paragraph in this article that inparticularly bothers me.
    “International Megan’s Law does not prevent the pedophiles from traveling. It empowers the destination countries with the knowledge we give parents in the U.S. — the names of people who have shown themselves to be a danger to children.”


    I got to read the notice that was sent to Thailand. “Attenion! Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX was convicted of committing a sex offence against a minor in the United States Of America. It is our concern that he may be traveling to your country to commit similar offenses”.
    Now what country is going to let any criminal or any type of offence, sex, burglary, robbery, assault.. ect…. with a notice that states “It is our concern that he may be traveling to your country to commit similar offenses.”
    They let me have copies of everything except the NOTICE From the Department of Homeland Security.
    I never knew IML or even AWA existed until this happened to me.. Just living a normal life trying to put the past behind me
    Reading this article upset me so much…. Such BS!!!

    • PK

      You should meet her some place where you can still travel to, then NEVER come back here.

    • AJ

      “International Megan’s Law does not prevent the pedophiles from traveling. It empowers the destination countries with the knowledge we give parents in the U.S. — the names of people who have shown themselves to be a danger to children.”
      This is legal maneuvering to avoid court scrutiny here in the US. Were they to try to stop you from traveling, there would be a big legal battle. Instead, they can paint it as a sovereign nation making its own decisions about who to let into its lands. True…but poisoned by our Government’s actions.
      “Attenion! Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX was convicted of committing a sex offence against a minor in the United States Of America. It is our concern that he may be traveling to your country to commit similar offenses”.
      That wording is strikingly familiar to what a Green Notice says.
      Quoting from the Cato article ( posted recently, “[i]f government defamation is not unconstitutional [as decided in Paul v Davis], then disclosure of truthful information —the fact of conviction—through a state-registry website could not be a deprivation of liberty warranting special procedures,” makes me wonder how we can ever overcome Green Notices or Scarlet Letters.

      • Civil Rights First

        I highly doubt we will ever overcome this BS

        • Tim Moore

          No it has become like religion. It’s all about the belief not the proof. The enlightenment is over, if there ever was one in criminal justice. Welcome back to the middle ages. Pillaries, banishment and stocks are back.

        • David Kennerly, Haven't Gun, Can't Travel

          Maybe not but we have to try. I wouldn’t be too pessimistic, though. More dramatic changes have swept over society. Who would have once thought that Jews would be fully-integrated into American society? Anti-antisemitism was once endemic both here and most other countries.

      • Paul 2

        The fact that they make you provide your travel info in advances restricts travel regardless of what they do with the info

      • America's Most Hated

        Did you know that if you want to marry this girl, the USA won’t give her a spouse visa? You can’t even bring your wife to the US, and they’ve helped to ban you from going to see her in Thailand. It all boils down to revenge. These people think that all sex offenders should get life in prison. Since the courts disagree, then these crusaders of revenge are making it their mission to make our lives as unlivable and lonely as possible.

    • Mike G

      @Civil Rights First
      I fully understand your experience in Thailand. I had the exact same experience in November 2016, including the public shaming on the ramp as the other passengers filed by. Unfortunately, it was to be my first trip to Thailand, and had three weeks of planned tours set up, along with plans to meet and spend time with my wife’s family. Yes, my wife is from Bangkok, but fortunately, we got married a long time ago; we just celebrated our 40th anniversary!
      I pled no contest in 1995 to a crime I committed in 1994. I never was arrested. Since it was a rather minor crime, I received no prison time, and I wasn’t required to register. Well, of course, that didn’t last long – 4 months later they told me that they didn’t care what my sentencing judge said; either I register or I go to jail “because the law requires it!”
      Like you, we had done a lot of traveling in the past. I lived in Japan for 2 years, and with my wife, we spent 3 weeks in China, 2 weeks in Egypt, and 2 weeks in Italy. Last year we spent 10 days in Northern Europe, including Russia, and in March, we plan to spend another 2 weeks in Central Europe.
      Most aggravating for us, though, is Mexico. We both have permanent residency in Mexico, and we own a home there. We could travel to Mexico whenever we want, but they don’t know that I am an RC, and I am sure as heck not going to give the Government a 21 day notice that am traveling to Mexico, only to have Angel Watch tell the Mexican Government about me. So going to Mexico is not problem, but coming back to the US without having given notice could make me eligible for that 10 year Federal Prison sentence. My wife is planning to go to Mexico later this month to check on our place, but she is afraid to drive in Mexico, so one of our friends from down there will have to pick her up at the border and drive her around.
      So, the way things look in California right now, it will be sometime in 2021 before I can apply to get off the registry and then go to Mexico again. Of course, I could go anytime if I just want to stay there, but I’m not to that point quite yet. At least for now, we can still travel to Europe.

  8. Chris F (@Mike R)

    Mike R, Chris Smith has just given you what you need to respond to your AG’s request for dismissal of your constitutional challenges that included references to IML and very similar to what I said in the November general area.

    The California AG wants to claim it is not responsible and can’t be accountable for how IML affects you so you need to sue the feds and not California. Well, look at exactly what Chris Smith, author of IML, wrote:

    “The identifier is only for those who have been found guilty of a sex crime involving a child, and who have also been deemed dangerous enough by their state to be listed on a public sex offender registry. When their state decides to remove their name from the state registry, the passport identifier will no longer be required.”

    BINGO. It’s the state’s lack of Substantive Due Process that puts you on a list meant for those that are deemed currently dangerous enough to be listed on the public registry.

    Here is what I wrote for comparison: ” California is the Gatekeeper of the California registry and they participate in sending that list to the Federal Government for the sole purpose of whatever actions or restrictions the Federal Government deems needed against someone so dangerous that they need to be on “the list”. If California didn’t violate your Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection rights by including you on that list, you would not be subjected to the Federal restrictions and restrictions by the other states and even cities.”

    • New Person

      yup yup yup

      the IML pool is directly supplied by the respective state’s own registry. If Ca doesn’t supply it’s registration pool to the IML, then no CA registrant is subject to the IML.

      The IML poses yet another barrier imposed upon you. The recent case of Snyder dictates you cannot have newer impositions placed upon you as they are now deemed ex post facto. This second registry application is being applied retroactively based upon a past conviction. Except this registry is purposely being advertised to the whole world.

      • CR

        The IML poses yet another barrier imposed upon you. The recent case of Snyder dictates you cannot have newer impositions placed upon you as they are now deemed ex post facto.

        We need to be careful not to misconstrue the scope, applicability, or significance of court decisions.

        The court did not conclude that no sex offender registration law could be applied retroactively. Rather, it concluded that Michigan’s SORA imposes punishment, and thus cannot be imposed retroactively.

        That ruling directly affects only Michigan SORA. It has precedential value only in the states within the 6th circuit. It will not prevent the state of Michigan from retroactively imposing a new registration scheme, so long as it is not punitive.

        Does v Snyder had nothing to do with the IML, and it says nothing about it.

        • CR

          I want to clarify something I said previously:
          It will not prevent the state of Michigan from retroactively imposing a new registration scheme, so long as it is not punitive.

          The reality is that government can create laws that have a stated regulatory intent, regardless of whether they are actually punitive, and they can impose them retroactively. A law is presumed to be constitutional until it is successfully challenged and deemed unconstitutional by a court with jurisdiction.

          For the politically powerless (us), there is no way to prevent the passage of an unconstitutional law that the state or federal government wants to impose on us. All we can do is challenge them after the fact. We’ll win some and we’ll lose some, but the laws will apply to us in the meantime (mostly, unless a preliminary injunction were granted by a court during the pendency of a challenge).

          This is why we will never be truly free, no matter how many years since we’ve completed our sentence. Even if we manage to get removed from a registry today, public or not, any of us can be made to register again in the future, so long as retroactive application of the registration scheme is not deemed punitive.

    • Sam

      This makes me wonder if they pull the names from the state registries or the national registry. None of my info is listed on the national registry but it is on the state one and I’m pretty sure DHS doesn’t want to sift through 50 states of paperwork

      • TS

        There is no true national registry per se, but state only. A national database is based on state registry data.

        The FBI database is based on state data. I can attest to that.

        • Sam

 is the national sex offender registry website. On here it leaves all my info blank and says out of country.

          This is the federal website last I knew. It’s quite irritating that NY will keep your info on it and the Feds don’t when you leave the country

        • TS


          Fed’s fed from the state registry which is the true registry source of your data at all times.

        • CR

          Sam, if NY is the only state that has you on its registry, it sounds like you’d be free and clear if you can get NY to take you off. If it ever happens, just don’t ever come back to the US.

        • Sam

          @CR Trying to do so, still waiting on then to contact the lawyer back. I haven’t lived there in almost a year now, have no ties to the state other than the registry, have no plans of going back, and my offense didn’t occur in the state.

          Their basis for doe v O’Donnell ruling was that the crime originated in NY, so hopefully since mine didn’t I can be removed.

      • David Kennerly, Cognitive Threat Level: HIGH

        Well, their assumption may be that the federal database/registry is going to be current and, therefore, why develop the much more sophisticated search tool that would be necessary for checking all states and territories? It would be my guess that that is what they are doing. I’ve never seen any discussion, here or elsewhere (is there an elsewhere?) about discrepancies between state and federal Megan’s Law websites although I assume that they exist in some kind of an abundance. I mean, that’s what we would expect, right?

        • TS

          @David Kennerly

          There’s some lag time between state and federal. Even some state’s disclaimer says their website has that between published and updates.

          Yes, St. Elsewhere, Boston, MA 😁 1982-1988

    • j

      “The identifier is only for those who have been found guilty of a sex crime involving a child, and who have also been deemed dangerous enough by their state to be listed on a public sex offender registry. ”

      So is the identifier for anyone who is on the public registry or anyone who has to register? I have to register here in California, but I am not listed on the public site. Are they making the distinction of being publicly listed vs not?

      • ma.concerned.citizen

        Great question. I am a level 2 in Massachusetts. My information is not available publicly, but if someone went to my local police station and asked about registered citizens living in the area, they’d provide them with my name (I wonder how often that actually happens in my little town…)

        So I’m on a registry, but not public. How does that affect my status with IML? Interesting…

        • TS

          I’d wager that the entire MA state registry is available to DHS regardless of who is published or not publicly. It’s the registry itself that’s important, not level or public publishing of the persons to DHS for IML.

        • TS

          I’d wager that the entire CA state registry is available to DHS regardless of who is published or not publicly. It’s the registry itself that’s important, not level or public publishing of the persons to DHS for IML.

  9. kiwiboy

    Saw this. Thought it was an interesting wrinkle on IML, kind of in reverse. What will Rep. Smith come up with to save dem travelling chilren? Force all US RSOs to leave the US?

    • David Kennerly, Haven't Gun, Can't Travel

      VERY interesting! How could they refuse him entry? Creepy.

    • TS

      They blocked him based on a family member, but not necessarily the RC specifically. Interesting. Has to be more to the story.

  10. Registry Rage

    “Child predators thrive on secrecy”

    Privacy is NOT “secrecy.” And privacy is not necessarily cover for criminal activity.

    The memory and legacy of Megan is now forever tainted and defiled thanks to her parent’s misguided ambition to make her death “stand for something” along with Mr. Smith’s flawed preemptive ideology.

    • AJ

      Yeah…I like some privacy when Mother Nature calls, but I certainly don’t need secrecy! 🙂

  11. David Kennerly, Haven't Gun, Can't Travel

    VERY interesting! How could they refuse him entry? Creepy.

  12. mike r

    Chris, AJ and anyone else please remember to post any relevant topics or issues on general for Dec as I do not have the time to check everywhere and a lot of times your post are no longer visible in the recent post section on the side. I am so swamped right now with the end of the semester it’s killing me. I am barely passing my calc. class mainly because I have been spending so much time on this case. I am trying to juggle all this and prioritize my case at the same time. Right now it’s frigging 4 am and I am still doing math and preparing a presentation I have to do tomorrow and it will be an all nighter. Please you guys post everything like this in the general and i promise I will get to it on Friday when I get a break….Thanks man…….Link me up in general Chris to Chris smith that you are talking about….

    • David

      Good luck with your academic endeavors, Mike R! 👍

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      I would try to move the case farther back on the calendar. I wouldn’t trust the State’s motives one bit in moving things sooner, and it only harms your ability to research and reply. Next time they want a sooner date, decline.

      Also, did you see my posts about Section 3030, as addressed in Footnote 3 of the AG’s filing? From what they say, it’s only applicable to those subject to Jessica’s Law, i.e. parolees. That may warrant some research, as first blush does not indicate it’s in any way subject to JL. The CA SC ruling may be a good place to look, but one will also have to look at how Section 3030 came to be. I recommend contacting a family law attorney for a free 30-minute consult and find out what you can.

  13. JoeBlo

    The ONLY good thing (since we lose with the Federal Passing of I’LL, w/o attention to detail), is that….according to this NOT the actual Bill. Congressman quotes statimg…ONCE REMOVED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE’S WEBSITE…THEN they will be removed from ILL for passports…REALLY? who’s going to do that??? How long will that take…30 days 6 months a year? Oh we have to wait for verificatikn from your State 1st in writing. Oh we have to have you reapply for a newer updated passport.
    Oh that will be an additional renewal cost 60 please!

    • PK

      My understanding was that the Passport Mark stays forever simply because you were convicted of a Sex Offense involving a minor. The fact that you are able to somehow miraculously come off of a Registry would make no difference.

      • David

        PK, that seems improbable. What if someone is wrongly convicted and is able to have the conviction overturned and thrown out? There must be a procedure to have the “unique identifier” removed from that person’s passport.
        (‘Just my thought.)

        • PK

          That sounds plausible but most of us on here aint going to be able to do that.

        • Chris F

          The mark can be removed once you are no longer on the public registry.

          How they remove it, I don’t know. I assume you have to just request and pay for a new passport. There have to be two conditions satisfied for the mark to be on your passport, your crime has to be against a minor and you have to be currently on the public registry.

        • anon

          Almost…. There have to be two conditions satisfied for the mark to be on your passport,

          1. your crime has to be against a minor and

          2. you have to be currently required to register (public notification / on public web site or not is immaterial)

        • PK

          So it’s not an “or” condition. I stand corrected Attorney Chris F is correct, and if you’re off the Registry, you should go ahead and replace your existing Passport, even if it’s not expired, just to see if the new Passport comes back with a Mark, just as a test.

        • Michael

          If you name is on the national registry, even if you no longer register, you will be effected by IML.


        • CR

          I don’t believe it works that way. Right now, what you might refer to as a national registry is just a collection of state registries. There is not a separate national registry. So if you aren’t on a state registry, you won’t have the scarlet letter stamped on your passport when you go to renew it.

          That is not to say that Angel Watch won’t send a green notice about you to the country you are visiting. They do that today. You’ll still be in the NCIS, even if you are no longer required to register.

        • AlexO

          Yup. That’s why people are cautioned to try and not register outside of their state if they believe they’ll be able to get off the registry. Some states like NY and FL keep people on the registry indefinitely, even if another state releases you, you move out of the state, move out of the country, or even die. So if you live in California and get off the registry but you also registered in Florida because you were there for a week on a vacation, right now you’re SOL and will still be showing up on the “national” registry and will still have the IML mark on your password.

        • New Person

          I thought you had to have a “conviction against a minor” and be on the registry.

          You can have your convictions dismissed and still be on the registry. So maybe someone needs to clarify this some more.

  14. j

    My father got his new passport yesterday (he’s not an RC). I looked at it and in the first page it says this:

    “The Secretary of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.”

    This is written in English, French, Spanish. This is the endorsement our government gives us as citizens.

    How is this consistent with:
    “Attenion! Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX was convicted of committing a sex offence against a minor in the United States Of America. It is our concern that he may be traveling to your country to commit similar offenses”.


    • PK

      I’m curious to know if:
      “Attenion! Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX was convicted of committing a sex offence against a minor in the United States Of America. It is our concern that he may be traveling to your country to commit similar offenses”.

      will also come written in English, French, and Spanish.

  15. Michael

    Of course. It’s always the “family values” Rightist who pushes these type of laws.

    What are the chances will find out Chris Smith is a fraud at some point in the future?


  16. T

    It seems people want to honor the legacy and the tradegy of Megan Kanka with passing all kinds of sex offender registry laws that are extremely oppressive, because they think that these laws are going to keep children safe and that the kanka family and their supporters are just refusing to let their daughter go after the tragedy of the girl.

    • David

      T, correction: “…. because they think that these laws are going to keep children safe…” That might be what they claim, but it’s actually very clear that this is nothing but vengeance! They want nothing more than vengeance, pure and simple. The more continuing punishment, the better, in their opinion!
      Have they set up voluntary counseling programs for potential offenders?
      No …. just more unconstitutional, ex post facto punishment.

  17. T

    Chris Smith is being too cocky and delusional about how this law is working to protect children, because of the advance notifications that are taking effect in identifying and tracking registrants that he thinks are traveling to commit a crime based on their travel patterns and past conviction records.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *