State Department Files Motion to Dismiss IML Lawsuit (Updated)

UPDATE 06/07: The date of the IML hearing has been changed from June 25 to July 9 at the government’s request.

The State Department today filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit which challenges the International Megan’s Law (IML) on procedural grounds. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for June 25 in Los Angeles.

In its motion, the State Department asserts that its final rule issued in September 2016 is consistent with the IML and that its press release issued in October 2017 that included the language of the unique identifier to be added to the passports of some registrants was a website update, not a regulation. In addition, the State Department asserts that it already had authority to deny passport cards to registrants prior to passage of the IML.

“The State Department motion does not change our position that the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it issued a final rule implementing the IML without first requesting public comment,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci. “In addition, we continue to believe that the State Department completely lacks authority to deny passports cards to registrants.”

The IML lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District, of California on January 11, 2018. The agency’s response was initially due in March 2018, however, the agency requested and obtained a three-week extension for that response. Today was the deadline for the agency’s response.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

181 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m thinking that the fact that they asked for an extension and then waited until literally the last day to file their motion, they’re not confident in their stance. They just can’t roll over as it would look bad.

I have an interesting question. I first admit this law isn’t good! I do understand (correct me) the government stamps the passport with a seal and I would think calls ahead or contacts the individuals foreign destination when traveling? What about non child related offenders?

I’m wondering whether anyone is going to challenge the unconstitutionality of IML. Does anyone here know?

If tweets from the president are considered executive action, why not a press conferences be an issuing of a regulations?

“the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it issued a final rule implementing the IML without first requesting public comment”

I wonder what their response was to that in their Motion to Dismiss.

Would love to see the text of their motion, must be laughable. “Not a regulation, but a website update”. Are they taking the piss?

As I had posted in general comments, I got my passport and it does not have that identifier. It makes me wonder if I’ll be able to travel. But, I would like to say that the State Dept. Has no leg to stand on as this law is clearly a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments. With Justice Got such on the bench, I think he would rule in our favor.

I wonder what they are filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for? As much as I hate the IML and wish it was declared unconstitutional, and cruel & unusual punishment, but what violations took place and what was done that got the IML to pass?

U.S. GOvt moves protect foreign nationals from Americans. Sound familiar?

Where in God’s name was that role defined in the constitution?

IS THIS BIZZARO WORLD ?

As someone who is looking to travel abroad one day, I am hoping this motion is deined and Janice and her team are able to take down this rediculous law.

…on a side note, I will be finishing my MBA next summer and will be looking for some job opportunities…any ideas? I’m not opposed to moving to a new state or even to a new country. Any guideance is much appreciated!

Interesting. I have an expunged/non child offense. I’ve visited Canada several times, but I’ve avoided this since I was under the impression everyone is/was banned?

Here’s State’s Motion to Dismiss: https://ufile.io/79604

I haven’t read it yet. It’s only 33 pages (including “junk pages” at the beginning), so it shouldn’t take too long.

Congrats Mike. I obtained my MBA some years ago. Your conviction will unfortunately hinder you? Expunged? I went into the banking industry (not in branch/headquarters). I cleared the background check (expunged). You could do operations/certain finance jobs and possibly LA County. Like most people, see what states are more lenient. Some states only require a certain amount of time to register! Good luck

Well JW if I can stay in the game with my suit I am directly challenging the equal protection as you have stated so we will see what happens. I read the Motion to dismiss and it seems pretty solid. Janice and team are very talented and I am sure they will give they gov. a good fight. I really hope they succeed as they have in many other instances but I think it is going to be a tough fight. These gov attorneys are powerful and have endless resources and manipulate everything every chance they get. It is really disgusting because the courts and even the justice department was created as a buffer between the legislative and executive branches and only have three jobs, to be a mediator during a trial (which they were supposed to protect the constitution) and to sentence people and to protect people’s constitutional rights and liberty interest but has become just another arm of their branches.

By the way USA I took what you said to heart my friend and you were kind of right. I will try to tone my ego down and be a little more humble I just am fighting the gov. and am trying to keep my confidence level up but I was kind of losing focus on the real issues of getting us and myself relief instead of ego building. Thanks for speaking your mind and even though I do not always agree with you I respect the fact that you always speak up like you did.
With that being said I wish Janice and everyone best wishes in this suit and appreciate the fact that we do not have to worry about those damn residency issues it takes a lot off of my mind which in turn helps me concentrate on learning the Fed rules of the court, which is extensive and to be honest pretty overwhelming. Nonetheless I will give it my best shot and effort.

Just FYI, here’s a new NARSOL post regarding the author’s passport being revoked. (State Department letter attached to post.) https://narsol.org/2018/04/passport-revoked/

The “required to register in any jurisdiction” component is confusing and problematic. Take me, for example: I currently live in CA, but was convicted in FL (so I’ll be on FL’s registry for eternity). So if CA’s pending “Tiered Registry” enables me to get off the CA Registry, what then? It’s confusing because I would still be listed on FL’s Registry (with an ancient photo, a long-ago FL adress and now-defunct driver’s license #, etc). But, although I appear on FL’s registry, I am not “required” to register in FL: FL does not send me any registration paperwork and I’ve never been required to submit anything to that State since I left nearly 20 years ago. So clearly, living in CA, I am no longer “REQUIRED to register” in the FL. Similarly, when the IML says “required to register in any jurisdiction”… well, New York and CA are jurisdictions in which virtually anyone convicted of a sexual offense is required to register for life. So, John Doe who lives in NJ and was able to get off the NJ registry, is still “required to register in any [NY, CA, FL] jurisdiction”. Mr. Doe may never have set foot in NY, CA or FL, but those States nonetheless exist as jurisdictions in which he is required to register should he ever visit them for their mandated reporting number of days.

The IML should clearly distinguish state “are required to register in the State in which they reside”, not “any jurisdiction”. “Any jurisdiction” is too vague and imprecise.

I live in California.
I applied for Uber and was denied.
Background check showed that I was registered, and that my conviction date was 1986 for an offense in 1985.

So, yes California background check will show registration status.
And yes, California background goes way back in history.

Thank you JW for your insightful post on April 29.

Mine was an offense on the internet, no real victim just a officer i was talking to was pretending to be 14 i believe . I am a level 1 in NJ and havent tried to renew my passport, but i have found out i am blocked from traveling back to the philippines already, will i have problems going to other places as well??

1. Did you have to leave job? I had to depend on SSA
2. Did you have family / friend support? only Dad.
3. Have you lost housing? yes. a rock was thrown at my window. Forcing me to move.

I found new friends who don’t care about my past.

NPS…

Expunged misdomeanor offense and never listed?
Family support and a woman?
Please! Doesn’t even come close to qualifying!
Men don’t judge women the same as women judge men. Most laws are geared towards men’s offenses due to the fact that women are a bigger voting block. Proof…..
1.A female teacher has sex with a student; WOW what a licky student!
2. A man makes a verbal pass at a 17 yr old woman that looks older; What a dangerous sex pervert!

I agree, NPS and the others that are not on the publicly available hit list can not compare at all. Although I have been able to get a frigging ten dollar an hour job (50 year old man used to making 50 or more an hour before this) before I went back to college it does not look good for those here in Cali on the list. Thing is Cali has a background limit law but it doesn’t cover the registry and 290 even states that any employer can deny employment on the “person at risk” theory…It can be done for sure and no none should ever give up or in, reality is a bitc&%^%. Hey goodluc how about passing that internet business idea around and let others jump aboard??? I know myself for one would love to bring home 100 grand/year at this point. A matter of fact how about any one that has any solid ideas to help a registrant get a paycheck from whatever source throw it out there….

That “person at risk” is unconstitutionally vague…Your opinion on what “person at risk” means as compared to Joe blows interpretation of those words may be on complete opposite ends. That is what I am saying. There is no absolute description of what or who a “person at risk” is. Anyone can use that as an excuse to deny employment. And what you stated about the background checks, you are absolutely right, CA limits background checks to 7 years but it kind of does not matter when all you do is google my name and my status and profile pops up. Kind of nullifies the 7 year limit law. I do not know what would happen if I did a background check on myself, I really doubt if my conviction would show but I could be wrong. As far as you online business I was considering looking into buying over seas and selling here. I hear that it can be very profitable and if you have details on how someone could do that or how someone can do your business I was saying please share, it is not like the whole country is going to be jumping on your niche but it could help many on the list. I know you do not know these people but anything that can help even one person (like they say:if it saves one child”) on the list get ahead than I say post some details…..I would love to make a hundred grand a year while going to college.

Anybody ever considered taking up IML with Interpol? Maybe you couldn’t get the “identifier” removed, but they do have a constitution and maybe they honor it more than our country does with ours?

“Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”