A federal district court dismissed the recent IML challenge yesterday when it granted the government’s Motion to Dismiss a legal challenge to the International Megan’s Law (IML). That challenge, filed in January 2018, was based upon alleged violations by the State Department of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A link to the court’s decision follows below.
Due to the court’s decision, the State Department is expected to expand its revocation of existing passports in order to add a “unique identifier” stating that the individual has been convicted of a sex offense involving a minor. The State Department is also expected to add a “unique identifier” to newly issued passports.
“We disagree strongly with the court’s decision in this case and we will seriously consider filing an appeal of that decision,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The State Department’s failure to request and consider comments from the public, including individuals required to register, could result in harm, including physical harm, to registrants who travel overseas as well as to those with whom they travel.”
According to the courts’ decision, the contested regulations issued by the State Department are “interpretive rules” and therefore exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA. That is because the agency’s regulations — which include denial of passport cards — merely clarified “minor ambiguities” in the language of the IML.
In its decision, the court included a brief discussion of the notification provisions of the IML which allow the U.S. government to notify other governments that an individual convicted of a sex offense involving a minor will soon travel to that country. In its discussion, the court emphasized that such notices could be sent with regard to anyone who has suffered such a conviction regardless of whether they are currently required to register.
“In a prior challenge to the IML, the federal government testified that although they have the authority to send notices about a person who is not currently required to register, they have chosen not to exercise that authority,” stated Bellucci. “Unfortunately, there are already known situations where the government has sent notices to other countries about such persons.”
Order – MTD granted – July 2018
Is anyone surprised by this ruling?
Things seem to just keep getting worse and worse as opposed to better.
That sucks. I really hope that you do file an appeal on this Janice.
Does anyone know if we send in a passport right now for early renewal if we’ll be issued one with the new stamp? Or, are we supposed to wait for a notice of revocation. I’m working to get a visa for a trip overseas, and it doesn’t make sense to have them put the visa into a passport that’s about to be revoked. I thought it might be better just to get the new stamped passport now.
If we can get the stamped passport now, is there anything special other than sending in a renewal that is necessary?
I’d much rather have a passport without the marking, but that’s looking less and less likely, especially anytime before the visa is issued for my trip.
I had something cruel and pithy ready to post on this, but I choose instead to simply say:
As long as you do not even register on your foe’s radar as an enemy, they will always defeat you.
This case was brought on a technicality that the government didn’t take the time to get feedback before proceeding. Will there be a case to directly challenge the unconstitutional aspects of the passport marker, such as freedom of movement, especially given the fact that passports are required for some domestic travel?
If you’re no longer required to register, how would the government know you were traveling? Non-registrants have no duty to report travel plans in advance as they are not subject to the IML or any federal registry laws (because the federal registry laws are all dependent on state registration).
I have a current passport and I notified the SMART office and local sheriff of my intent to travel internationally months ago. I also went to the Caribbean last year with prior notification, which included visiting four separate nations. I have never received a revocation notification but if I do, I will fight it, including filing my own suit pro se if necessary.
“Operation Angel Watch compares passenger information received from carriers pursuant to
19 C.F.R. Section 122.75a (via electronic departure manifest) with NSOR data to identify
registered sex offenders whose offenses involved child victims, and it provides notifications to
destination countries when it determines, based on an assessment of various factors, that there is
a likelihood that an individual intends to engage in child sex tourism.”
What are these “various factors” when this is very much black and white? And what is this “likelihood”? Are you serious stating that the primary reason why an RC would travel internationally is for sex tourism? These people deserve an new ring in hell build just for them for such outright lies.
I’m sick to my stomach reading this in the ORDER:
For purposes of IML Section 4, the term “sex offender” means either a “covered sex offender” (defined as “an individual who is a sex offender by reason of having been convicted of a sex offense against a minor,”
see IML § 3(3), 42U.S.C. § 16935a(3)), or “an individual required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction or included in the [NSOR], on the basis of an offense against a minor” (as defined in IML § 4(f), 42 U.S.C. § 16935b(f)).
I though the notifications were sent for people convicted of a crime against a child AND had to register. The above statement from the ORDER says OR.
@Sunny – The U.S. government reviews flight manifests for all international flights that begin in the U.S. They compare the names of the people on the flight manifests to the names on their list of registrants, which includes anyone ever convicted of a sex offense.
[T]he agency’s regulations. . .merely clarified “minor ambiguities[.]”
—–
Chevron Deference rears its ugly head once again. I reeeallly hope it gets kicked to the curb in the near future.
I am so happy you “disagree strongly”.
The registry is lifetime, no matter your conviction date, offense, or state and federal guidelines. “They” can do whatever they want and no one can stop them. These residency victories are temporary until they figure a way around them. Notice that is the only thing that ever gets fought. Eaay to make no ordinances to bypass that. You can be do your time, but will never be allowed to move forward. Tiers are a fake, because they can be changed without any reason. If you are young, single and strong, get off probation and start looking for a new life elswhere. It truly is your only chance.
Now I know what it feels like to be standing on the deck of a sinking ship bailing water with a bucket that has holes in it.
That judge was just protecting their job, credibility and reputation, NOT children with this ruling.
“Angel watch center” sounds so mawkish and putrid. They’re not protecting the legacy of Megan Kanka by defending these laws = they’re protecting the security theater cottage industry and all those ever-expanding machinations it entails.
So according to the article, I can have my charges reduced, live a perfect life, finally be removed from registry after 10yrs and still be considered a danger to all I come in contact with, thereby justifying public and international notice of the very offense that they say I am no longer required to register for. Why try? Really, besides the bullshit of ” living a good life is the best revenge” and ” don’t let it define you”. There really is no chance of getting past this.
Take a deep breath… It’s a long haul.
Janice and crew are pursuing other options,
and so should we all.
@Richard or Worried in Wisconsin:
I’m sure you just want answers, like a lot of us do, and so this is probably not going to help much.
If you read the reports on this forum in all the IML-related threads from people to whom IML applies and who have traveled overseas on an unmarked passport, the most common result is that they get a letter from the State department a week or so after their return stating that their passport has been revoked and they have to send it back in to State. So that is what you should expect if you travel abroad.
If you don’t want the visa to be recorded in a passport that will be revoked, then you might consider a brief international trip now, to get the revocation over with.
You may have difficulty getting a new marked passport. See the saga from Major Henderson for an example. Apparently, the forms for applying for a new passport don’t have a way to indicate that your current passport has been revoked. The options are to renew an expired passport or to replace a lost one, or for a first-time application. None of those are applicable, and by reports, the people who are in charge of passports in the State department don’t know about IML or don’t understand the process of getting a replacement for a revoked passport.
Nobody really has all the answers right now, and the government is functioning like the government often does, like one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing.
Maybe things will become more predictable now that the IML lawsuit has been dismissed. Or maybe not. Don’t wait around for relief. It could take many years, and it may never come.
Remember that these are not just some abstract laws. They are created and supported by anti-American, harassing terrorists. Identify those people and make them pay. They are criminal war combatants in war, treat them like that.
How much did the U.S. GOVERNMENT care for foreign children ?
Nagasaki, Hiroshima,
Preposterous!
Judge John Walter seems to be on a roll. Here, Walters forcing the LA Times to remove information from an article. If this “judge” seems so intent in violating even the First Amendment right, then maybe this judge didn’t know what he was doing in the first place when he dismissed the IML challenge.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-legal-dispute-20180714-story.html
Again I have to be terrified that my passport is to be revoked when I don’t even live in the US. And have nothing in the US all because the state I moved from refuses to remove. Me from their damned list.
So I would have to get deported back to the US and then what? Be homeless and never see my wife again?
What a crock of shit
so anyone here got the identifier or know how often do we have to renew passport with this new identifier?
Hello NY won’t let go
The prosecutors lie. Who is the prosecutor? They have a vested interest.
My bedroom is soundproofed because of the now dead upstairs neigbors’ noise. This was done at the suggestion of the judge in Manhattan housing court as he was unable to force the tenant to put padding down. The noise was unbearable for years.
During my case for possession of 5 CP images, the prosecutor told the judge and wrote in the submission-
‘Defendant has soundproofed bedroom probably to hide the screams of children being raped’.
Needless, if there had been ANY remote truth to this I would have had more charges but this is what the Sex Crimes NY Unit does.
They kill you before you die Are the initials of the prosecutor MR?. I ask because this prosecutor also delayed my case 4 times until the judge who obviously disliked the prosecutor gave an ultimatum.
He gave me 4 months jail not the 7 years wanted.
Attn: PK & NY won’t let go
I realize that you guys don’t want to share the name of the country you now live in, but some of us are getting old waiting for some resolution to this nationwide paranoid fear of anyone who has committed a crime related to the letters S E X.
Any chance you could give us a short list of a few countries where, if we could get to them, we might be able to live out the rest of our days unmolested?
I still think that some day reparations will be in order when the country finally decides to live by the constitution as written, but it appears we are still on the downslope, so instead of my grandkids benefiting as I had hoped, it will probably be my great or great-great grandkids that finally benefit from what they are doing to us.
@David Kennerly,
So what you are saying is that the rest of the Earth has also bought into this irrational paranoid fear of anyone labeled as an SO?
Jeez, I was really hoping that there was still some common sense left somewhere…
Has anyone ever thought of seeking asylum in Germany where sex offender registry is or any type of registries are strictly prohibited?