ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

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

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


IML Lawsuit Filed

A lawsuit was filed today in the Central District of the U.S. District Court of California challenging regulations issued by the State Department that announced the addition of a “unique identifier” to the passports of some registrants. Addition of the identifier to passports could affect more than 500,000 Americans and their families.

“The State Department violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it failed to provide the public with an opportunity to comment upon its regulations,” stated ACSOL Executive Director and attorney Janice Bellucci. “As a result of the State Department’s significant violations, we are asking the Court to order the agency to begin again its regulatory process.”

According to the lawsuit, the State Department issued the regulations in September 2016 and October 2017. The agency declared the first regulation to be a “final rule” and did not request public comment before taking effect. The agency issued the second regulation in the form of a press release which was later posted on the agency’s website.

In its regulations, the State Department also declared that it will not issue passport cards to some registrants. According to the lawsuit, Congress did not provide the State Department with this authority, but instead required the State Department to add a unique identifier to passport cards issued to some registrants.

The plaintiffs in the case include the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, a national non-profit organization, as well as two registrants who reside in the Central District. One of the registrants has an existing passport without an identifier and is concerned that his passport could be revoked while he is traveling overseas. The second registrant does not yet have a passport and is afraid to apply for one because it would include a unique identifier.

“The possibility of having a unique identifier added to their passports has had a dramatic chilling effect upon hundreds of thousands of American citizens,” stated Bellucci. “Due to this concern, they are choosing either not to travel overseas or not to apply for a passport.”

The United States, in the past, has not added a unique identifier to the passport of any American citizen. The only countries known to have done this in the past are Germany and Russia.



Call-in meeting regarding International Megan’s Law (IML) on Jan 30

Related Media (AP)

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Somebody should have the guts to confront Chris Smith about his bill, and put him in his place.

Correct. He’s not done with us by a long shot and needs to be called on his fear mongering nonsense. His “passion” is vengeance and persecution aimed at everyone with a prior sex offense which will never translate into justice for the Kankas. These misguided, misdirected and ill-conceived laws will never prevent the same thing that happened to Megan.

If Megan’s Law is so wonderful and “proactive,” then why are children STILL being groomed and exploited by family members and individuals that are not on the registry, Mr. Smith? It’s time for a national discussion about the efficacy of these laws that amount to little more than security theater, disenfranchisement, encroachment and an insane amount of entitlement.

A congressman engaging in “bikeshedding”? Never! (See:


Hmmm….learned something new there with the Law of Triviality. You see so much of that I did not know there was a formal term for it. That is being added to my lexicon.

Why is Chris Smith supporting a religious group that advocates for child marriage as long as parents consent, then portrays himself as against child sex?

@Tim Moore

Can you expand on that church fact re: Chris Smith?

It needs some more looking into, I admit. I just came across this: which mentions Smith’s involvement with seven mountains dominionist theology. You can search dominist theology to find references to child marriage.


Now that would be some good opposition research for Chris Smith’s re-election effort this coming fall.

I guess that should read against his reelection efforts, not for them when its opposition research.

Maybe we should start to try to take these politicians out (meaning defeating their re-elections).

We got this!!!! Thanks J.

Best of luck with this Janice. Although I have no money for travel, I resent that I would be unable to freely travel if I wanted to like any other free citizen.

>Lake County> The government is going to say that they are not in any way “restricting” you from traveling. And actually, they’re correct in that statement.

Yes, but at the same time, they are “RATTING” you out.

Wrong. Our government DOES restrict us by notifying other countries, knowing they can choose to deny entry into those countries. That IS their mechanism/tool/method of accomplishing their goals. With that knowledge and the effects they know it causes, they should easily put a stop to it because by their own admission, they are in fact providing it as a service only to “protect children from trafficking” or some BS. However in effect they know it prevents travel and as such they are culpable.

Putting blockadates in place that in effect have negative consequences on a person’s constitutional rights is normally considered illegal and is reversed. This is not the case for sex offenders. (as usual). I hope i’m making sense.

Here’s a perfect analogy of IML:

It’s like the U.S. Government intentionally breaking our legs with the registry, but giving us crutches – in the form of an shame-bearing, “cry wolf” passport – just so they can say we can still walk.

Yes, the government does have a reasonable expectation that its system of notification will result in Registrants being barred from many countries. It cannot claim that this is not its intention. Indeed, Chris Smith has explicitly stated that that WAS his intention.

@David Kennerly (I almost overlooked that “r” in “Pantry”…):
That sort of statement from the author of the bill would be a wonderful thing to present in court. Kind of undercuts the “nonpunitive regulatory scheme” argument, doesn’t it? It also would seem to violate the decision Kent v. Dulles ( or and/or Aptheker v. Sec’y of State ( or

P.S. Fun fact: Three anagrams of “David Kennerly” are Darkened Vinyl,
Lavender Dinky, and Nakedly Driven. I like the second; I suspect you’ll like the third.

I kinda like Darkened Vinyl considering The Smiths reference in his subtitle. Every time I read it, I hear “he said ‘return the ring'” sung in my head.

Nothing says “darkened vinyl” like Morrissey 🙂

Did thinking about music from The Smiths cheer you up? That would seem to be an oxymoron. 😉

Thanks for the anagrams, they’re always fun. Yes, I do rather fancy “Nakedly Driven,” it’s true. “Spiro Agnew” can be rearranged to form “Grow a penis,” as one fun example. Did you hit upon those through rearranging the letters yourself or is there some very clever ap now that cycles through the permutations? Oh, I think I found the answer! “Dank Nerdy Live,” indeed! “Rand Kid Evenly” certainly speaks to my interest in libertarianism…

I would hope that Chris Smith’s statements both anticipating and reveling in the inevitable denials of Registrant travel should find a place in any lawsuit against IML. Let’s hope that they do.

David Kennerly:
As you found, there are sources aplenty for anagrams. Not like the good old days when Dick Cavett would come up with them. He has a gift for it, and to my knowledge first cited Agnew’s anagram. (

I do, however, still use my own grey matter to figure out words from telephone numbers. (Much easier, given the forced placement of set letters.)

A little levity now and again is good for the soul.

Im glad “The Dumbass” admitted it!!!!

Nicholas, yes you make sense and I would just like to add that I enjoy reading your posts. You help me to understand this chaos that is the registry.

Really? Perhaps not with the Scarlet Letter, but they are with the 21-day rule. If I see a last-minute cheap deal to Backwards-istan, I can jump on the plane and just go, leaving my accommodation plans to when I get off the plane? Riiigghhhtt. The Government *is* restricting travel, which is a deprivation of my right to free travel and movement. This warrants intermediate or strict judicial scrutiny, and means the burden is on it to show why, and that the method used is least restrictive and necessary.

Also, they cannot choose a route simply because it’s faster, easier, or cheaper. SCOTUS has already said so. See: Vlandis v. Kline at 451 (, citing Stanley v. IL.

Good point that having to report in advance travel plans is a form of travel restriction.

By the same token, what if you’re in Germany and decide to cross the river on into Belgium for a couple of days?

This wasn’t included in your advance itinerary. So does this mean you should get arrested?

Really?! Countries deny entry based on information given by our government. They wouldn’t know without that. Maybe you can call it Russian roulette travel banning, which in a sense is more morally repugnant and cowardly than just saying you can’t go.

This is subversion tactics, they do damage and are within the law, but the old saying, justice is blind can be applied here ! Of course any dammmm fool knows if you are influencing to destroy or void ones rights it should be looked upon as illegal! Regardless of what so called theory or past history or whatever……because it violates civil and constitutional rights! Duh ! To the Police Order etc… !

No they are not correct If the law does subversion tactics, directly or indirectly they are still hindering and blocking, we just have to package and present the official complaints in the correct legal jargon ! Nazi tactics to murder still = Murder, though many did not pull trigger !

Not sure I understand. So we are just asking them to start again so they can pretend to listen to the public so they can go ahead and put the identifiers on?

It’s a good start. This needs to be fully examined, in small bits. I like the approach!

W O W , It’s Happening! Now the biggest lawsuit (Fed) that ACSOL has ever undertaken!
Hope they keep those blindfolds on once they review ALL in your suit {Fed Courts) for fairness and completeness of their OWN LAW passed not following the Constitution and other points your Team has
brought against them to prove how unfair the Pres. {Obama} had on when he signed, not knowing the consequences it brings to the one’s that suffer including families and ones crimes decades old and have NEVER even traveled before besides denying one to see a ill or life threatened or even funeral for that matter back to country of origin or where they might of grown up or their family moved to.
Just Wrong on so many levels
let’s get out some donations, including me as unemployed, this is BIG.

Thank you, Janice, you’re now Saint Janice!

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams.

John Walter:

Paul Abrams:

The district judge is a Bush appointee, while the magistrate is an Obama appointee (and former public defender). Good luck to Janice et al! I think I speak for everyone else in saying that we are rooting hard for this victory!!

Are registrants allowed to travel to Mexico?

No. Mexico will turn you back, especially if you arrive via air or sea. Some registrants have reported being able to walk or drive across the border, but if you are attempting to travel much beyond the border, you will likely encounter difficulty.

This has huge implications for me and my family. I travel internationally for business and my fiance’ is a foriegner. Thanks Janice. Good luck.

May God Bless this challenge and bring us all justice!

Actually, there is another politician in New Jersey. If you dig into the Congressional Record you will find that there was one and only one mind you who spoke out against the reauthorization of the Adam Walsh act. His name is Senator Cory Booker, Democrat, New Jersey. Also, he and Senator Kamala Harris are the the first African Americans to be appointed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which just happened this week !

Time to DONATE!!!

Yes, time to top-off the tip jar.

I got a question if you decide not to get the new passport with the unique identifier that identifies you as a registrant whose crime involves a minor and you just don’t travel at all what happens then, is that a crime?

Some states require that registrants apply for and maintain either a valid and current state-issued driver’s license or identity card. The situation with respect to a passport is unlike that. As a US citizen, you are not required to own a passport, nor to renew one that has expired, nor to attempt to renew one that has been revoked. You don’t have to have a current valid passport.

If you do not plan to travel out of the country any more, or wish to be prepared for travel outside the county, you need do nothing when your current passport gets revoked.

Tell me if I am wrong but it seems like this suit may slow down the implementation of the passport identifier but really does nothing to curb the draconian notifications. Slowing down the identifier is great but will that have any affect on the current international travel for RC’s?

It will do almost nothing, this lawsuit is just trimming a limb off a wicked tree. The tree will still be alive growing more limbs against us. The tree needs to be killed, which, no one is doing.

Your analogy works both ways. Effective tree removal starts by removing the limbs. Trees die without limbs.

I prefer the removal of tree limbs bit y bit, then perhaps in 10+ years there will be nothing left of the tree.

I agree with you and Henry David Thoreau in general.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
So if IML is one of the branches, what is the root? I have been trying to figure that out.

I see it as the false fear and belief. Whether it’s “frightening and high” or something else, it’s the false narrative that is the root. The fertilizer (appropriately, manure can of course fertilize) is the Chris Smiths, the John Walshes, etc.

My line of thought, also. If you are attacking the narrative, in a lawsuit, at the end of an article in the comments section, writing a politician, standing on the street with a sign or before a school board, doing research on the laws or the sociology behind the registry, you are attacking the roots, because you are weakening the false narrative with truth. The roots are wide spread and there is plenty for all abilities, skills and education levels to attack and in many different ways.

No not a crime. Then they will figure out a way to put an identifier on your State Drivers License.

Already done. I think FL, OK, MS all come to mind. Maybe LA too? AL?


LA and AL both do.

Nobody is ever under any obligation to get a passport, so you’re fine. If you never wish to leave this country or its “domestic overseas” locations (PR, Guam, etc), you’re good. Whether your State has RealID-compliant IDs is another question. But in short, no, not a crime.

That’s what the Jews said each time the nazis took another right away and started the abuses ! Surely they won’t do this, no it’s too horrible, we are good people, they know we are important……we are like them human, we have needs like them and so on !

[T, no one is required to get a passport. But you will need to have one in order to travel internationally.
Entirely separate from the issue of a passport is the requirement that registrants must provide 21-day advance notice to your registering agency (police department) that you intend to travel to a foreign country. There is a specific Advance Notification form you need to fill out to comply with this requirement.]

Our government is doing some real sick things, and they are no less evil.

I lost everything in a fire a few weeks ago just after getting my life back on track. I would love to help in some way, but I cannot. So instead, i say thank you and will be watching from a distance. Thank you to everyone who can help as well.

@Nicholas Maietta:
I’m sorry to hear you lost all your items. I’m glad you’re okay.

I don’t know at this point, but I may drive up to the court hearing. I am willing to give a ride, depending on where you are and where the court is. Oakland again?

Got in trouble in 98 with statutory rape and Chris Smith aka Dennis Hassert wants to mark my passport in 2018, 20 years after?????(NOTTTT). These judges see the bs…….. KICK HIS MOLE ASS J. THANKS.

Also, don’t forget to read this article “Some Americans may need a passport to fly domestically in 2018”

Currently, states like New York, California, and New Jersey are having their extension requests reviewed. If they are not granted by January 22, residents will need a passport to travel on domestic flights.

TSA pushed back the deadline (again). Now it’s Oct. 11, 2018.

Secondary source of the deadline being moved to the right:

The TSA is waiting a little bit longer before it forces some Americans to use a passport to fly domestically

From Florida. Best of luck Janice and ACSOL. Hope we get this win.

Glad to see it made the major wire services! The story could use some meat to it, but it’s still good to get it out there.

This can only be good, as it will cast light on the topic. There will certainly be the chorus of cretins who say, “They should be thankful they’re allowed to travel…or even live,” but there will probably be a good number of pieces written in support of our side.

I hope so. It may also be an opportunity for Republicans to show they are not “pedophile lovers” like many Democrats are accusing them of after Roy Moore. Talk about involuntary service! We serve both sides as pawns in their bickerings.

It’d be nice if Eugene Volokh at UCLA was on board for this effort and maybe even did some writing about it for the filing and WaPo.

Fellow registrants, when you see news articles – like the ones cited here – please be certain to post your anti-Registry comments to the “Comments Section” that follows the newspaper’s article. We need to start turning the tide in this public relations battle and turning public opinion against Registries. We can do so by showing the public that informed, intelligent people DO NOT support Registries, that Registries do nothing to enhance public safety, and that they are unconstitutional. The media use the term sex offender in their headlines to get the public’s attention, so once the media gets their attention, let’s use that public attention to start swaying opinion against the Registries!
So please post as many comments as you can at every opportunity!

(Suggestion: write yourself a generic post that you can then cut-paste-and-post into the “Comments” section of every newspaper article about sex offenders, providing real facts and information opposing registries.)

The members and friends of Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform thanks you for continuing this fight. Best wishes and prayers for success!

Thank you Janice for all you are doing for ALL of us. I am not understanding why you are taking this angle with regards to ‘public comment’ – as others have mentioned, the public in general would be happy if we were all locked up on an island and still considered all of us monsters. So even if this is a ‘win’ it is putting off the inevitable – may delay it, but might make it worse if it comes to the public commenting.

In regards to not everyone having the stupid stamp, I thought this was originally based on ‘conviction’ not the registry? If it is based on the registry and if you are no longer on it, then would this apply? Furthermore, there are hundreds of possible offenses, how do you know (tried to find, but couldn’t even on the State’s site) what all those are?

Based on the 10th Circuit ruling on driver’s licenses, how can that be overcome, that was a HUGE blow to this fight. I know it was only one courts ruling, but major impact all over, but I guess I have to believe that other courts District/Circuit would see things differently – hopefully!

In this letter, someone said they are ‘afraid to travel’ which is the GOAL of the pathetic politicians of creating this whole thing – they are winning as long as that is the case. That being said, this stamp, IF it is on the very last page, that no one ever looks at and sometimes can even get stuck together, most will never see it. (has anyone seen a passport they can post a picture of?) There are ways to travel internationally even with all of this hell they are putting us thru, many countries in EU (east and west) could care less and don’t agree with this policy. Mexico, it kind of sucks, but not really, there are plenty of other great beaches – such as the US virgin islands/Puerto Rico/Guam where you don’t NEED a passport to go there! Canada, they won’t let anyone in with ANY felony – don’t even try to fly thru Canada!! This all SUCKS bad, but don’t let them win – there are still options, many of them.

Let’s hope this and many other lawsuits to come will hopefully succeed – we can bitch and moan and hide, OR can stand up and join Janice, Alison and all the other amazing attorneys (and their teams), help when we can, donate, etc.

Moderator –

It may help the discussion here to have the Pub Law link posted above on the law signed by Pres. Obama to avoid misinformation from happening, which appears on who gets a unique identifier and not and notification:

I know it is posted on other postings here previously, but maybe a reference link here could help (certainly would not hurt). Just a helpful thought.

BTW, thanks for all your hard work on keeping the flow going on these many postings by the masses. It cannot be easy at times.

it is not that simple just posting a link to a site like that, it says which section, but even when you go to the AWA site, it is extremly confusing – there are litterally hundreds of sex offenses that could be considered against a minor and many not, i know someone who’s crime was against a teen, but the conviction was ‘unlawful sexual contact’ – non child offense – so guessing he would be exempt? Most of what it says is contact related Here is the link – it is mind boggling to go thru this and would be nice if someone would help translate for us that don’t speak legal
This is very confusing, hopefully we can get some clarity as this moves forward.


From the documented link of the IML public law:

(7) Minor.–The term “minor” means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.

From the documented link of the AWA public law:

(14) MINOR.—The term ‘‘minor’’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.

AWA divides minor into age ranges for specific matters, but IML is an under 18 broad brush stroke.

Given the passport is a federal document, not a state document, you can see the USG across the their legal documents has taken the stance under the age of 18 is the definition of a minor, which would include a teen.

In the end, I’d bet that regardless of what the state thinks, if it involves a person under 18, the minor definition kicks in and the passport would be marked.

There was a federal case trying to determine what is the age of consent, or rather a minor, in respect to a non-citizen in trouble with a romeo-juliet type case. The guy would be deported dependent on what is a minor. The girl was 16 or above. The federal case decided that under 16 was a minor.

If this is federal law that 18 is a minor for all, then what of those in states where a minor is 16 years of age and aren’t charge for dealing with a minor. How is that even equal?

Age of consent laws are a bit of a wash anyway. Kids are still gonna have sex.

I remember when I was in high school there were pregnant girls in the 7th and 8th grade.

My aunt was married at age 12 in Michigan back in the day.

Hell even Tennessee the age of consent was 13 until a guy took a 15 year old down there to be with him from Michigan.

Globally, quite a few countries age of consent is legally 13-14 as long as you plan on continuing the relationship (Japan and Korea included) but as more countries are trying to be like the US this may change. Maybe the Philippines will finally raise theirs up from 12.

If they want to make it all in line with when you’re treated like an adult maybe they should just make the AOC the same as the drinking and smoking age. Then change the age that you can join the military to 21 too. But then again unless you’re married you’re still considered a child tax wise until you’re 25 and your parents can claim you and the money you paid in taxes. So fuck it make the AOC 25 and call it good.

You treat people like kids and punish them like adulta there is something wrong. *sigh* sorry for the rant

The case was Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions (, and it didn’t categorically decide 16 as defining a minor. What it did say is that the generic federal definition of a minor is 16. This means that absent a specific definition otherwise, the default (i.e. generic) age is 16. That does not preclude a law from defining that a minor is anyone under 18.

“The State Department previously said the notice will not prevent sex offenders from traveling outside the United States nor affect the validity of their passports. However, other countries may prohibit or place strict restrictions on the travel of convicted felons.”

Here they go again- mis-stating the facts. Not ALL RSO’s are convicted Felons. Some poor a****** with Misdemeanors too got swept up in all of this Registry mess.


Canada prevents felons from coming in regardless of the felonious conviction. I can see how it can be read saying all RCs are felons, but what they say is not technically wrong because it does not specify RCs are felons. May be splitting hairs there, but grammatically, they are correct.

Canada has a process called “rehabilitation” that allows an American to petition the Canadian embassy for a certificate of rehabilitation for previous felons seeking entry into Canada. The process is best handled through an immigration attorney that specializes in Canadian law. Part of the formula is time since offense, I believe it’s 7 years to be considered. Many things that are misdemeanor here would also disqualify you from entry like a simple DUI.

[I will gladly swap my felony convictions to be a “poor a****** with misdemeanors”!]

In terms of being an RSO- it makes no difference, at least in my world.

Man, I am really surprised I am not getting media coverage on my suit. I guess they feel it’s a joke or impossible to win Pro Se or someone tipped the press off on Janice’s suit, but we’ll see what happens. This suit is all tech errors and has no real bite except to postpone the inevitable, but A+ for jumping in at any level…..

Just sent this off to the Criminal Justice reform email, I am pretty sure I already contacted them but what the he$#%^^ can’t hurt.
Hello, my name is Michael Richardson and I am living in CA. I filed suit against the CA AG and the US AG in the district court for Eastern CA and would like to know if you would be interested in assisting me, or can direct me to someone who will. I have already tried the ACLU, ACSOL, NARSOL, and have exhausted all avenues that I can think of for assistance. Here’s a copy of my latest brief responding to a motion to dismiss four of the nine claims that I have in my suit. For more information please contact me or go to the courts electronic data base and check out the entire complaint. Any assistance would be great.
Thank you.
Michael Richardson..

You’re a Lawyer and you would know that it’s all about “tech errors”.

No, I can read the English language. Doesn’t take a attorney to see what the suits issues and arguments are.

Oh Mike… why don’t you call the media outlets yourself. Is it really that important to you to be acknowledged?

Dear Janice,
The English language has no words that can accurately express the depths of this registrant’s gratitude for all your amazing sacrifices and incredible hard work to help us. Therefore, I will let that sentence speak for itself and add a simple “Thank you!” as the tiny cherry to top that infinitely large sundae.

Why don’t they also include info to the country about nature of offense, disposition, and date of offense. They are throwing a vague , general blanket out there knowing that says ” this person did SOMETHING, but we won’t tell you what”. The idea has SOME merit regarding violent offenders.But , as usual , they want to appear like this would stop ALL sex crimes forever.

@ Counting, separately from the passport, the Angel Watch program sends “green notices” to foreign countries advising them that a registrant is planning to visit their country. I have never seen a green notice myself so I do not know what information they contain.

Watches are sent to INTERPOL who then sends them on overseas via Green Notices.

here is a question, are alert notices that are being sent out to foreign government agencies by the angel watch center classified information? if so why does the notification have to be done secretly behind the back of a traveling registrant that is not doing anything wrong or committing any crimes?

Just saw this @NARSOL via HuffPo

On the registry? Your passport is now invalid

Applicable to those with convictions involving a minor

@TS and you believe this because it was on the NARSOL Website and it came from the Huffington Post?


Did not say I believed it or not. Just posting it because it is there to read and the topic is hot here. You can draw your own conclusion(s) on the article at NARSOL and HuffPo. 😉

Why so defensive or controversial PK? Chill Bro…


The second train of thought on this is “forewarned is forearmed” if they are truly doing this action as written in the article, New Passport Rules for Sex Offenders,

(NARSOL has moved it to their forums already behind a login.)

Reasons for sharing this are:

1) The RCs here need to know if it is happening or a possibility should it be validated. Validating it is questionable given the article author runs a passport business in Chicago, IL and may have a vested interest in generating more business by asking those who are subject to this action and need a new passport to go through her business. Her source article is a CNN article from Nov 2017. However, if there are people on this blog, who do read it from around the world, that have had their passports revoked or invalidated as written for the Chris Smith stamp of love, then it needs to be known.

2) If it is happening, then legal eagles need to know also so they can plan accordingly in legal motions, etc. You gather all intel as best as and from where you can then validate what you can to ensure you don’t run a fruitless rabbit hole while wasting time and energy.

3) If this proves to be false, then RCs need to know that too so they can breathe a touch easier as the process runs its course. Someone would’ve most likely said something about this, so get ahead of it as you can and become informed whichever way it could go. RCs already live a more stressed life, providing helpful info to possibly relieve it a bit is never a bad thing.

I’m sorry to say that I don’t think this suit can be won unless the challenge is that just RSO crimes are listed and all others are not. The Government is listing a true fact and that’s all the courts will look at.

In Germany, the big J on a passport truly identified the individual as Jewish. Just stating facts. No harm.

Touché. Your move, stephen.

Stephen, in this lawsuit, the details are important. It is not a question of the government stating irrefutable facts. The point is that the government violated it’s own administrative requirements in setting forth these IML rules without the required notification and comment period. That, too, is a fact: that is what the government did. Some may think, “What does it matter? Even if Janice/ACSOL wins this suit, the government will just go through the necessary procedure and re-issue the rules.” But I think they’re missing what I believe is the strategy behind this lawsuit. There is, indeed, wisdom in this approach.

Keeping the IML locked up in administrative procedures buys time to mount more powerful attacks. It also puts a chip in the armor of future attempts to pass such laws.

I think most of us would prefer to go straight for the jugular, but the truth is that approach ends up relying nearly 100% on social pressure, whereas this approach has a higher chance of initial success. And initial success matters, because it tends to define the tone of the rest of the fight.

Good points.

You’re being somewhat obtuse.

The legislative intent of IML is an unobtainable pipe dream. It’s actually the highest form of spite-work. Just because a rule or law is supported by public consensus doesn’t mean it’s right or constitutional. Megan’s Law imposes that all sex offenders are a legitimate public safety liability with a permanently broken moral compass and subsequently need to be monitored and tracked. This is patently false and an illusory correlation.

It’s inhuman and unnatural to be forced to live a lie under a compliance or prison ultimatum.

Oh no, Janice is going to win this hands down. She is very perceptive, very experienced, and well trained to find these types of fallacies in the language of the laws. This is what intelligent lawyers do, the first thing they look for is if there are any fallacies or tech errors to attack the law. They are going to have to place the implementation of the law in limbo until they can work some kind of tech error themselves to bypass her claims, and what the court is going to order, in order for them to go forward. If not then they will have to proceed as Janice states in her suit….

The point is that it was used selectively to single out a specific group. They did not mark everyone’s PP with a mark indicating their ethnic group…just the Jews.

Not all Americans will have this additional classification but on their documents. Nor with any other group of citizens who have some sort of criminal issue in their PAST…murders, drug dealers, drunk drivers, in other words no other criminal offenders are singled out for this unprecedented (except in Nazi Germany) alteration of the most vital travel documents which are recognized and required for world wide travel!

This is the most unAmerican action since slavery and it is being done to a vilified group that was artistically created by politicians specifically for public shaming purposes and has nothing to do with saving children and everything to do with the erosion of rights and the slow but steady shift to a total police state.

All Americans should be outraged at this but they have been fooled by the fake statistics, and the emotional manipulation which is easily done when you mention children…facts be damned!

Sad days for the country and days for true Americans (none of which seem to be working in government anymore).

I’d be happy to go to the protest against IML and supporting the case, like the last one. Lawsuits I believe are not enough. Learning from gay and other movements , you have to show faces.

And burn something.

or… showing videos and articles of registrants being attacked, their families being attacked, their houses burnt down, or reported killed because they were simply on the registry. Show enough of these with names to humanize registrants.

Afterwards, show the recidivism rates of all crimes.

Yeah, like my registration card, but not like myself as in Tunisian revolt. Wonder when one of us will get so desparate, dispirited to do such a dramatic and desparate thing, probably a matter of time and rope’s end. When one reaches social death, is biological death far behind?

I flew to Cancun Mexico with a misdemeanor 311.11(a) in September 2015. As soon as the plane met the gate the flight attendant announced my name and advised that I needed to exit the plane first. I was with my girlfriend at the time who was aware of my status but did not expect this to happen. I was of course denied entry and we were both put on an immediate flight back to the States.

My passport expired in 2017 and I’m now hesitant to apply for a new one. I would really like to be able to travel abroad again and know that I can for sure visit certain countries prior to arriving there.

If I could remain publicly unnamed I would be willing to testify in court to the embarrassment and humiliation I suffered that day and how my girlfriend sat and cried on the way home totally frustrated.


Please contact Janice. It’s not too late to add claimants to the suit, and specific cases like yours help specifically to attack the argument that the notifications do not prevent travel (patently false).

I sent her an email. I’m willing to help if she needs me.

I’m married to a Mexican and I don’t come to Mexico to vacation. Even though my passport doesn’t expire until 2021, I’m extremely nervous that they will try to confiscate the passport I have, upon my return to the United States in a few months.

I too would be willing to testify.

Don’t worry about them conficating it.
All they have to do is make your PP number invalid and it becomes a useless little blue booklet.

I question whether it would become completely useless.

@PK is right. It can technically still be used as identification like your driver’s license or ID card from the state. You may not be able to travel with it, but it still has your picture on it and all the other relevant information. So it is not completely useless.

Or perhaps if you are not “in or going to” the United States, and you are in a foreign country, you could probably still use it to travel to another foreign country.

You could no longer cross borders with it but you could use it to get hotel rooms, change money and possibly to buy train and airline tickets.

What about fly domestically, in lieu of an identification document (driver’s license) that comported with the Real ID law?

Well @CR it is still legitimate identification and therefore should work even if you are only flying domestically. If you are worried about it being taken away from you after being revoked, well, then that is a good question. Does the system recognize the passport and track it when flying within the US and its territories? Maybe someone here will know.

Perhaps some borders but not ALL borders.


What borders are you referring to that is not included in the ALL borders when it comes to a revoked passport?

That would be some BS for those of us not even living in the US go to renew a visa and end up in a foreign prison for 15 years for invalid travel documents

Probably not prison, they would just send you right on back the United States where you have nothing.

My current country has a habit of losing people who break the law in jail for years before they decide what they wanna do. Deportation is not an option for a lot of these, especially if it’s a drug crime, those get rushed straight to execution.

Right now illegal immigrants are a hot ticket item too with our election coming up.

You are right…not completely useless as it will let everyone know that you are a sex offender which is the reason for this action – further punishment and public shaming.

Not thanks…if they do revoke it then it is no longer valid. I really don’t care if I can check into a hotel with it unless I am checking into a hotel out of the USA.

It is a travel document and will effectively be useless for that purpose.

thats kind of strange/weird. i also flown to Cancun mexico back in 2005, in which i had not a single problem entering, took a deal back in 1995, back when i took that deal i was 19 which came with a felony, i was sooo young and stupid for taking that deal (now im 43) 22 year’s later and not even thinking about applying to renew my passport until 2021, by than i will roughly have 24/25 under my belt, my passport also expired last year, but yes cant wait until 2021, most are very excited.

What’s so magical about 2021? If your Passport already expired and you need one, why don’t you just get one now?

I think j might be from California, and in 2021 the tiered registry goes into effect, and he will have an oputunity to get off the registry.

To focus on only the unique identifier, and preemptively decide that sending the alert on some registrants and the sex offense record on all, even misdemeanants and even for offenses for which the feds do not require registration but the state does, is to pull the wool over registrants’ eyes and undermine their best ingtests. Taht alwert, and even that sex offense record being sent, will get resgirtatns nixed from entering most countries – it already does — and they won’t find out until they get there.

This approach is already compromising the best interests of registrants, and shows that this group supports registration and this sending of the record as Constitutional. But it doesn’t even matter if its Constitutional, tiis wrong and 110% unacceptable anyway.

If this group is not going to fight for real relief for registrants, only touch here and there around the edges, then it is a bankrupt group giving false hope — just the same as the drastically overdone cheerleading for the fake tiers, which are just renamed CORs but with longer time frames for some offenses — yes, this group pushed for some registrants to have to register for a longer period in trade for calling a COR a tier.

This is the kind of BS approach the ACLU has been taking for the past couple of decades on any number of topics (even as is spent that time refusing to do anything for registrants). It is a complete failure that this group could not get into the discussions on the tiers, but the ACLU did, and did what ti always does now, BS comprised garbage that does little to change the status quo! And this group let itself be co-opted by the ACLU’s lead.

Anonymous Nobody, I understand your frustration and perhaps it does feel like some lawsuits are just “nibbling away at the edges”, but I do believe there’s a valuable strategy to this approach being pursued. We are not going to get a lot of shots at attacking the Registry and it’s many requirements and if one were to put forth big, bold lawsuits (as you seem to be suggesting), there is a chance they will fail. And if those big lawsuits were to fail, that would only creates more “established law” that our opponents could use as defense against our future lawsuits.
Therefore, we need to work in the opposite direction and start getting the court rulings – one by one – in our favor, so that as we win, the “established law” begins to favor us and support our arguments that the Registry and its requirements are ex post facto unconstitutional punishment. …….. I think it is important in this IML lawsuit to hear what the defense has to say, the wording it uses, the reasoning it uses, to defend the emergency declaration of these rules, because that can be used in the future lawsuit against the IML itself.

I’ll take a bunch of “base hitters” on my roster over a bunch of “home run hitters” (and strike outs!) any day! IOW, a bunch of little gains can often win more effectively than trying to get it all at once.

David, you are correct. Anonymous Nobody, shooting for the moon by making spectacular court challenges sounds like a good idea, but the reality is that it is extremely high risk. Losing a challenge doesn’t just mean you start over at square 1. In reality, the new precedence means you are stating at square minus 10.

The African American struggle for civil rights wasn’t just random marches and court cases, it was a decades-long tried-and-true strategy using “gradualism”, which is what we use:

Similar efforts succeeded in marriage rights for gays:

We all think something is a straightforward way to do something until we try it. Think of how often someone angered you in your job when they say “Why don’t you JUST do it this way?” , not understanding the complexity of reality.

@ Anonymous Nobody ,,,,, ,, I understand what your saying in a big way my friend , and I admit this so called legal process makes little sence to me in regards to the handling of this huge matter , hell I am just a nuts and bolts kind of guy , where you go strait for the cause of the problem , and deal with making sure you can ride unhindered , making it able deal with other matters that are going to be problem on down the road , but that’s nuts and bolts , and just my “thinking” , but the way I “think” has little to do with this , there is nothing logical about the law when it comes to RC’s , not a lot of room for my thinking here , as the law is so far over my head , the way I “think” about this matter is to go for the biggest problem of why the head gasket was blown in the first place , and then replace the gasket , and do all the clean up and fine tuning , Hahaha! , in dealing with this Registry it looks like they are just fixing leak after leak and polishing , but that’s just my thinking , I mostly worry that the problem is just going to get worse , and at what price ? our family ? Our Life ? it seems that taking a wrench at the registry is a very worth while shot , and if we fail for what ever reason , oh well ! yes you start all over , but at least you have been inside of the problem and you know where all the pitfalls are at , the next time you turn the wrench’s it should go faster than the last , I don’t see at this point how we are ever going to get this bike out of the garage , but it aint just my bike , its “everyone’s” , and everyone is turning different wrench’s , buying from different parts houses , lol , and it seems that the courts are and LE are a competing shop that wants us to just scrap out bike , and buy theirs hahaha! , where I say scrap their after market piece of crap , it makes me so mad that sometimes it sounds like we have people in our garage that belong over at the courts shop at times , but its a good deal I am not the attorney because it would look funny standing in court with a big old tool chest grease rags and an old bike , saying, Now what is it you don’t understand judge ? Janice is the wrench in there lol , I am just an old man trying to stay standing , early Alzheimer’s that would be much happier puttering around in a garden , you know trying to feed people , and like everyone else wishing to be free , I don’t have much to offer , just a few bucks that me and my family can scratch together , but make no mistake I am stand up and very real ,

This is going to sound weird and may not be worth to something, but when I was at the airport immigration area in Lima, Peru back on June 8/9, 2016, I saw with my own eyes a letter on the desk that was in Spanish which was about me coming into the country while I was waiting to be sent back to the US.

So you were denied entry into Peru. There has been some vague information about RSO’s being denied entry into Peru- so yes this is helpful.

The Letter could have come from Peru’s Main Immigration Office that was sent to the Airport. Or in fact the Letter could have been the actual Travel Notice sent from the U.S. Since you don’t have it, it’s impossible to know.

Yes I was denied entry into Peru and gotten extra screening by CBP, when I got back to the states. Ever since that day of getting sent back and learning about the IML, I stop traveling overseas.

I don’t mean this to be embarrassing or anything. It’s just a question because my GF and I want to vacation in Peru…

What was the seriousness of your offense? I am considered very low risk and wonder if it might let me visit Peru still.

I’m thinking that it was just a travel notice sent to Peru by our government after I did the 21 day notification, otherwise how else did that travel notice that I saw with my own eyes got sent to Peru in the first place? was there anything that could be done to prevent that from happening and me being allowed to enter Peru?

It seems that the angel watch operation under the IML that has caused the turning away registrants by exploitation and predicting their travel patterns to foreign government agencies as Chris Smith’s victory.

This all sucks, we know that, simple question – what can we do to help? Complaining doesn’t change anything, is there ANYTHING we can do to help with this huge challenge?

You are right Tod, we should have a positive attitude and not a negative one.

@Tod – The most important thing you can do right now is to make a donation to ACSOL so that the organization can continue to pursue the lawsuit filed on Jan. 11. The “Donate” button is in the right hand column of the website and is easy to use — for a one time donation or for monthly donations. If you would prefer to write a check, ACSOL’s mailing address is 1215 K Street, 17th Floor, Sacramento 95814.

Also support the lawsuit against the IML.

We all should donate. That’s what I’m doing even though it’s not a lot per month. But each dollar counts as more and more people donate. There are court costs and other costs to file and maintain a lawsuit, so let’s cobtribute everyone!

I set up my monthly ACSOL donation on my credit union account’s free Billpayer service. That way, I don’t have to remember it – it’s just automatic, every month. Even a little bit helps and will make YOU feel better about our fight.

I agree. Every dollar counts WHEN MORE AND MORE PEOPLE CONTRIBUTE especially when Janice and Chance and team are fighting to protect your rights!

I read this article on the RTAG website but the article came from injustice today what do you all think of this?

I wonder with most countries around the world that are turning registrant travelers away under the IML, and some countries that are not turning them away in spite of travel notices being sent out by the Angel watch, if there are countries that are waking up to the craziness of the IML? and would it be a good idea to get international support that is against the IML and can they be useful for the battle against the IML even for a lawsuit?

correct me if I’m wrong but when the IML was passed not only did Chris Smith got the highest levels of our government to support it but also got international involvement too, even though his rhetorical statements were based on logical fallacies.


Going to gently correct you here, but you’re wrong. IML is a US law that directs US action with foreign partners, e.g. INTERPOL, but cannot direct action of sovereign foreign nations when it comes to IML or through IML. The only way to entice other countries to bend to the USA way of thinking is via aid provided (or received by the foreign country, if you prefer), e.g. military, medical, economic, etc.

For example, Chris Smith likes to tout Thailand as a great partner. There are reasons why, so please read the Dept of State (DoS) web page on US relations with Thailand to see how Thailand works with the US (and vice versa): U.S. Relations With Thailand

Compare them to a Schengen country in Europe for travel, Italy for example, and read a similar web page at the DoS: U.S. Relations With Italy

See the difference? Who gets more through what methods and what is received in return?

I think the hidden culprit is the Angel Watch Program. It is my understanding that the US and other countries agreed to notify each other regarding travel about RC’s. I was told by a person negotiating with immigration in MX that immigration had no choice because they were bound by an international agreement.


That would make sense then given it is an Intel related Op as denoted from various sources where reciprocating data happens usually:

SMART Watch Dispatch

Angel Watch

ICE authorized to create Angel Watch Center to expand child protection efforts following passage of International Megan’s Law

Op Angel Watch

At the same time, in theory, those RCs who have been convicted where a minor was not involved should be able to transit globally without fear of a green notice from Angel Watch then sent because it would be not be part of the program’s intent. That’s the theory at least.

Maybe some of those here who are RCs, but did not involve a minor, could say whether they traveled fine as an RC or were turned back as they attempted to enter the country. If turned back, you could speculate it was because of being a felon (if a felony conviction because that can get you turned back, e.g. Canada) or something else.

Can’t really see why Chris Smith is hot on Thailand anyway. They have bad human rights records. See 2016 report here and notice they thing they turn people away for is one of the violations noted: THAILAND 2016 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT

If you follow the money, Chris Smith’s major contributors are NORPAC (the Israel lobby), Family Reasearch Council, and various trade unions. I don’t see any obvious links to Thailand. I think Smith is just on the anti trafficking band wagon, and Thailand is thought to have a great problem with that. It probably gives him points with Christian conservatives, blue collar workers and passing grades from left wing feminists. He is kind of a chameleon, from what I see.

Tim, regarding Chris Smith’s chamaeleon-like image: he represents the 4th Congressional District of New Jersey which is affluent and relatively sophisticated relative to, say the Deep South. He’s also Catholic in its most conservative form, as with people like Mel Gibson, the founder of Domino’s Pizza and the founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince. So there is this Jesuitical/Dominican aspect to his politics combined with a requirement to not come across like a hillbilly. He carefully crafts his image to maintain the balanced presentation necessary to win elections. He hates gays but won’t say it, for example. His appeal to voters is, correspondingly, broader than he deserves. There is much which he doesn’t say. Who knows what secrets he conceals?

Sorry, you don’t have a reply button, but I am replying to your last post, David. Thanks for the added info. I am just trying to find out a little more about this guy who seems to hate us. I was a Catholic once. If it wasn’t for the fact that they used to espouse forgiveness and loving of your enemy as a virtue, I would have regrets growing up as one.

@Tim Moore

Because Thailand receives a great deal of US economic support for their country that ends up being very beneficial to them, the Thais are going to do more to ensure that support continues to roll in even if it appears hypocritical with the human rights violations as noted by the Dept of State. So, they will turn around RCs who they have been notified of traveling there from the USA to appease Congressional people and continue the money rolling in.

Chris Smith may be a chameleon (which politician isn’t?) and on that bandwagon, but as long as the USA is sending aid overseas, countries will do what they can to appease the USA for continued foreign aid appropriations and so Congressional members look good.

The only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. From Edmund Burke

That may be, because countries also have made agreements with others to not accept that country’s political prisoners. The United Nations frowned on that, but wonder if they are using this meme “if it saves one child” to put blinders on this facial conflict with articles 06, 07, 11, 12 and 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I don’t know what they can do about it, anyway. The US would just threaten to cut off aid to UN programs.

Are there some foreign countries that are aware of the IML that’s imposed by our government, and are they all in support?

It is illegal to keeeeeeep all passports except the the newest issued people ! Don’t speak tooooooo much what you could or like to do with them…….the ears are listen on here !!!

No it’s not. When renewing a passport, the old, cancelled one is sent back to the applicant. Nothing illegal about it…especially since it’s useless. In fact, I have five, only one of which is current. As for having passports from more than one country, that’s also not illegal, regardless whether one is more recent than the other.

I think that you will also find that they have, very considerately, drilled a hole in your old passport, just to drive home the point of its greatly diminished utility. I have three with holes in them and one that expired last year which I haven’t renewed. “To renew or not to renew, that is (unique amongst America’s citizens) our question.”

Sorry ! People, AJ is right, I live in a state that requires drivers license to be surrendered and so forth not passports, curious why they have not done this with passports, except they did not get to that point yet !

Hey ! AJ….thought you would enjoy looking at the newest news on here, last year a mans passport was REVOKED ! and NOT JUST HIS…..he had to surrender his OLD ONE ! Interesting ! Good idea to not get caught up in SQUABBLING amoung ourselves! And not get LEGALISTIC about words like ILLEGAL ! ! ! What we see is one thing, but what the Law Enforcement believe is quite another! Thanks !

I was refuting your statement that keeping an expired passport is illegal. That’s false, and nothing you said supports otherwise. I have surrendered my passport every time I’ve applied for a new one…and then got it back once State voided it. As revoking is similar to surrender, only it’s forced. The point, and truth, remains that it is not illegal to possess old passports. If you can find a law that says it is, please provide the URL.

Yes, there are certainly some countries who are aware IML and are in favor of it. However, there are other countries – especially most of Western Europe – who ignore IML and the U.S. Marshal Interpol green notices.

@DavidKennerly you’re going to have to renew sometime, so you may as well do it now.

@ PK, I definitely disagree with you regarding renewing one’s passport now if there is no urgency to do so. Depending upon the outcome of this IML lawsuit, there may be a temporary hold placed on the State Department revoking passports and issuing the new “uniquely identified” passports. (I’m going to wait to see what happens with this lawsuit. I do not want a “uniquely identified passport” or to waste my hard-earned money paying for such a thing, if we might be fortunate enough to have the judge rule in our favor and slap a temporary restraining order on the State Department.)

What’s going on here please? I thought they had until the 10th to respond. Did they? And so now what?

I was wondering if there is any news with this also? Has anyone look-up the latest updates for this?

Perhaps if anyone on here has PACER access, they can look up the lawsuit and see what update(s) have occurred, if any, especially with respect to the response due on the 10th.

Also, given the couple of recent reports in the other thread about revoked passports, if those folks reside in the relevant district, should the suit be amended to add plaintiff(s), if those folks are willing? Just a thought.

PACER is available to anyone, so you could just as easily sign up and find out. Also, as long as you stay under $15.00 in usage per quarter, it’s free. So maybe you could be that “anyone” on here.

Thanks, I thought there was a charge to even sign up and get access.

Any luck with this?

Very well written lawsuit, excellent job Janice!

Is there any news about this IML lawsuit? ⏳

Does anybody have any updates on the IML lawsuit?

Is there any update to this? Has the government responded? It’s been over 2 months since filed and curious about the status as I’ m sure this has a direct impact on ability and willingness to travel abroad for many people, especially since some passports have been revoked.

Lawsuits proceed very slowly. Please be patient. When there is any development, Janice will report on it.

Maybe they dismissed the lawsuit already and are coming up with some lame reason to do it.

No dismissal. The State Department has received an extension until the end of this month (April) to file its response.

Per PACER, Scheduling Conference to occur on June 18 in Los Angeles. Joint Report due June 4. Below is what’s due on June 4 and I leave it to more legal minds to decipher and translate to lay terms.

“Counsel are directed to comply with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-1 in a timely fashion and to file a Joint Report, on or before June 4, 2018. The title page of theJoint Report must state the date and time of the Scheduling Conference.
The parties must include the following information in their Joint Report which, except in unusually complex cases, should not exceed ten pages: (1) the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims and defendant’s counterclaims, whether any issues exist regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, whether any parties remain to be served, and, if any parties remain to be served, the date by which service will be completed and an explanation as to why service has not been completed; (2) a brief chronology of the facts and a statement of the principal factual issues in dispute; (3) a brief statement, without extended legal argument, of the disputed points of law, including reference to specific statutes and decisions; (4) all prior and pending motions, their
current status, and any anticipated motions; (5) the extent to which parties, claims, or defenses are expected to be added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending the pleadings; (6) whether there has been full and timely compliance with the initial disclosure requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26 and a description of the disclosures made; (7) discovery taken to date, the scope of anticipated discovery, any proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, and a proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); (8) any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body; (9) all relief sought by the complaint or counterclaim, including the amount of any damages sought and a description of the bases on which damages are calculated. In addition, any party from whom damages are sought must describe the bases on which it contends damages should be calculated if liability is established; (10) whether each party has filed the “Certification as to Interested Parties or Persons” required by the Local Rules. In addition, each party must restate in the joint report the contents of its certification by identifying any persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including
parent corporations) or other entities known by the party to have either: (i) a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (11) an appropriate last date for the completion of discovery and the hearing of motions, a date for a final pretrial conference and a trial date; (12) whether the case will be tried to a jury or to the Court and a preliminary estimate of the time required for trial; (13) efforts made to settle or resolve the case to date, and the parties’ views as to an appropriate plan for maximizing settlement prospects; (14) whether the case is complex or requires reference to the procedures set forth in the Manual on Complex Litigation; (15) what motions the parties are likely to make that may be dispositive or partially dispositive; (16) any unusual legal issues presented by the case; and (17) proposals regarding severance, bifurcation, or other ordering of proof.”

I’m hoping to bifurcate the discovery of my dispositive jurisdictional severance motion.
Let’s see how the State Department likes that!! 🙃
In the meantime, we wait.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x