Overseas Registrant Wins Battle with Angel Watch Center

A registrant who has lived overseas for more than two years recently won a battle with the Angel Watch Center after the Center falsely notified the State Department that he was currently required to register as a sex offender. As a result of that notification, the registrant’s U.S. passport was revoked because it lacked a “unique identifier”.

The registrant, who was traveling on business, learned that his passport had been revoked after a letter was sent to the home of a relative where he had previously resided prior to departing the U.S. Because his passport was revoked, the registrant could not return home from the country where he was conducting business.

The Angel Watch Center’s determination was based upon an incorrect interpretation of a state’s registration laws. In order to correct that determination, a letter was obtained from the state police which clarified that the registrant is not required to register in that state because he had properly notified the state of his move overseas and that he is not a current resident of that state.

After receipt of the state police letter, the Angel Watch Center notified the State Department of its error and the State Department eventually issued the registrant a new passport without the “unique identifier” at no cost. This process took about six weeks and resulted in the registrant’s inability to return to his family as well as significant hotel and other related costs. The registrant is now reviewing his legal options due to harm caused by the Angel Watch Center’s errors.

Related posts

Notify of

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

F the Satan Watch Center. This guy should sue them of course.

Could this go to Federal court, so this could help everybody out? I would hate to see this as a one off thing, “settled” and private. Small wins for the individual only don’t fix the problems that caused it, thus allowing further harm to fellow registrants and their families.

…and in the infamous quote by chief justice Roberts that led to this disaster, “Registering as a SO isn’t any more inconvenient than getting a Price Club card. Uh, yeah, I think the SCOTUS needs to revisit this, and maybe let Roberts go shopping that day.

But will Tort law prevent a suit against the USG and AWC? I hope not.

I am in the same boat. – I have been an expat for 10 years now. – I have been wondering if my passport will be revoked as I am on the Florida list, but I am not required to register. Mail can take up to 6 months to get to me, if it does. I have no way of knowing if my passport is good or not, unless I ask. But, I thought it better not to ask.

We all know he can sue, lucky him though. So he was able to escape the registry by moving to another country. Hmm, wonder how thst works when he returns. Does he have the typical 5or 3 days or whatever in the US before he must once again register? is his obligations now null and void? this is interesting. Since he is no longer required to register in any state than it seems as though no registry laws could apply and he is free to move about the US with no obligations. This is real interesting as it maybe a loophole in their system. Move to another country, get relieved of your duty to register, then return anytime for any amount of time and be free of obligations to register. Think about it, you are only required to register if you are on a states registry. Probably crazy talk, but this needs more research…

Sorry Jon, but we do not know all that for a fact. This man is no longer required to register in any state, that may very well change the game. I know for a fact that there are many states that do not require individuals not subject to another states registry to register when they enter their state. Many of the laws state specifically that “if” you have to register in “any” other state then you must register in their state. The fact of the matter then is how this man not being required to register in any state effects whether he has to in any particular circumstances. No one can know that for a fact without further research. This is a unique circumstance that this man is under. Look, he does not have to have a IML badge of shame, only because of the language in the statutes, which is exactly what I am stating. We do not know the exact language of the law in this situation when a citizen moves to another country, is relieved of his duty to register in his home state, and then returns to either visit, or move. If you have a citation to the actual language addressing this exact issue then we do not know. We have to use the letter and exact language of the laws against them as they do us.

“This process took about six weeks and resulted in the registrant’s inability to return to his family as well as significant hotel and other related costs.”
What happened during this six weeks? Did he have to re-register? Does not sound like it. I am sure we would of heard about that with the story.

The last time I was in the states, I had a few days before I was told I must register (county sheriff’s office) of course I did not want to risk this so, I made sure I didn’t stay that long. If I overstay my welcome I may never be able to return to my home in my new country.

That’s the harm from the passport……they will still send a notification alert to the country and try to to get the country to blacklist him from entering.

Here we go again with the personal attacks. Joe you have some serious issues. Why are you so quick to attack one of the only individuals willing to step up and fight? Whatever dude, you are not even worth defending myself against as I did very well last time, and proved my skills. You and NPS need to go file since you are some great legal minds and want to sit on some high horse when it comes to anything I state. If you spent as much time researching and drafting a complaint as you do researching and trying to knock me down you might be a contender. Until you file and just sit around and complain and try to break me down, whatever you state is worthless. You absolutely do not know for a fact how the states treats a registrant that has moved to another country and that returns. If so cite it. If not, blow it out your a^%^%$$%$# because that is all your statements are worth. Just as NPS thought “dicta” was something to do with precedent and that “precedence” was something to do with precedent you people do not know everything. You guys are to much. What the hell is your problem? Do you not like my political views so you attack the character and claim racist and misogynistic and all that other lame crap like the radicals do? I am not arguing anymore with someone that is not willing to step up to the plate and fight his/her on fight and then wants to crap on someone that is fighting. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect others but you deserve neither at this point. Like I stated before, I really wish there was some way to prevent people like you from benefiting off of mine and others research and work. Betch your ass as soon as I win you will be jumping on the band wagon then, probably still trying to bash on me for some crap. If you have a statute with the exact language that if an individual moves to another country and returns, either for business or whatever, what the registration requirements are. Not just some citation to some irrelevant statutes either. I mean specifically addressing this EXACT issue. Also, can you tell me and cite what this individual was subject to for the 6 weeks that he was in the states?
“This process took about six weeks and resulted in the registrant’s inability to return to his family as well as significant hotel and other related costs.” Do not see nothing in the post about that aspect….Wow, some people…

There we go, now we are getting somewhere. So Ron, it appears you stated the sheriff told you that you must register? Did they send you a letter? Did they come to your location? Did they tell you while entering the country? And most importantly, did they CITE a statue with the exact language addressing this exact issue? Unlike others on here who seem to be experts and know everything, I am in no way stating I know anything about this, what I am saying is that something went down where this individual did not have to have the badge of shame on his passport as well as he was in the states for six weeks, apparently, without no explanation on what registration requirements he was obligated to for that six weeks, if he was in fact in the US for those six weeks. It took this guy a six week battle to get his rights straight. And these domestic terrorist do not go by the law unless forced to, and they would have continued to run roughshod over this individual if he just stated. “it is the law so OKAY.” like others would have you believe.
“The Angel Watch Center’s determination was based upon an incorrect interpretation of a state’s registration laws.”

Hell, I am not even sure if this guy was stuck in the US or somewhere else while all this went down. There is ambiguity to that question to me when all it states is,
“The registrant, who was traveling on business, learned that his passport had been revoked after a letter was sent to the home of a relative where he had previously resided prior to departing the U.S. Because his passport was revoked, the registrant could not return home from the country where he was conducting business.”
It sounded to me like he was stuck in the US for six weeks, but it just states “the country where he was conducting business” Could be anywhere I suppose and the guy still has to use a US passport since he is, or was, a US citizen. Lots of unanswered questions here.

And yes it is crazy talk, but I am sure this guy heard it was crazy talk that he would not be subject to the IML passport from the enemy. Just as it was crazy talk that I was entitled to half time while every CO, sargent, captain, and even my own attorney was telling me I was crazy and that I was subject to 85%. So I like when someone states something like that or proves me wrong, it is the personal attacks that is unwarranted and just plain sad…. You know I would really like to see if Joe, or other critics of mine, how they would act when they entered the courtroom like I have had to do, would you guys buckle? how about cave every time the AG or the judge states you are wrong (which has not happened yet by the way) when you know for a fact you are not? Would you speak up? Would you even have the gonads to enter the enemies lair. If so, could you explain why you have not?

Is there anyone on here that likes hearing what I have to say? If not, maybe I will not even bother anymore, as it seems that every time I open my mouth I get crapped on by this Joe character or a few others…. No I have had my dissenters before on here and will continue to have them I am sure. I bet I could say that water runs downhill and these guys would try and tell me that I am wrong because it goes both ways under pressure or some crap. You just build my ego because I prevail on every argument, and if not then I may actually learn something (not learned anything new from Joe yet, but hey, who knows, right?). Even from people that I do not like or have issues with, everyone can learn something from everyone else….

So damn smart there are you Joe. Damn and I thought i had an ego. That was my exact point, no one knows if he was stuck in the good O’l US of AAAAa. Was he required to register if he was? You do not know and are talking out your A%$% like I stated. And furthermore I am not saying that you can terminate by moving out of the country I am merely asking questions because I like to here from others. Furthermore,
“unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 >>>>>>or as otherwise provided by law.<<<< I see some ambiguity there to me. You see, I read every single word of a law and look for weaknesses like that.. You are the one going around stating this is fact or that is fact when in fact you do not know some of the things you are stating as fact.
"No one cares what I would have told him or you. The State of California would have told him that he was subject to registration after 5 days (see above). And if he hadn’t done so, would have arrested him for Failure to Register making a 6 week hotel bill his second biggest problem." You even stated yourself you have no idea if the guy was in the US or not and you just cannot know unless you are LE, and even then you might have to just turn around and let him go if you were wrong just as the watch org did. I think it is really un cool that you try and run rough shod over people on this site and act like you are some great legal mind but you refuse to fight your own fight.

I am in no way stating that leaving the country relinquishes your duty to register as I would not know without specific research on the subject, and I am in fact sure they have some kind of mechanism in place for just a case. I was clear on my point and wanted some collaboration and some productive intelligent conversation, not some insulting %^#$% laying into me every time I post. Whatever, by your other post I see, without me even in the conversation, you make people know what is up. Man your ego is almost as bad as mine, not.
But your rudeness surpasses mine by far….

And as a matter of fact, i do not believe by the language of the statute that you are required to register in CA if you have been lawfully relieved of your duty to register in any state or sense. I would not bet my ass on it but It could very well be the case with the language of the statute,
“unless the duty to register is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 >>>or as otherwise provided by law.”
That “or otherwise as provided by law” seems pretty straight forward actually…

Furthermore, no where in that cited statute does it actually state “in any other state” if you want to get particular (which is exactly what attorneys do). Actually, this language could be used to challenge out of state convictions all together. Really doubt if you would prevail on that exact issue, but being relieved of the duty to register in another state is a whole different story. Like I stated though, I am sure they have something in place for individuals that move out of the country, but I am not going to search for it right now as that is irrelevant to me at this point, that does not definitively resolve the issue one way or the other. But as of yet, nowhere in any cited material has it specifically addressed the issue of out of the country and relieved of the duty and what the requirements are required once you re-enter the country. That was my original point. Yes it is asinine to think that there would not be, but I have seen some asinine statutes and language before, so it would not be the first time. This is the full text of that cited section though. Nothing about out of the country or other states… Remember language is supposed to be construed as written. In actuality I see no clearly expressed legislative intent about out of state convictions like you see in other state statutes. Like I stated, that would be a hard argument that would most likely not prevail, but you never know. I am sure that an out of state registrant that has been relieved of their duty to register, especially with the language that I cite, would win and not have to register here if they moved here after they are de-registered in another state. I could sure as hell argue that point and technicalities win cases.
“Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:” Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.'” 503 U.S. 249, 254.
“(c) The following persons shall register:
Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in >>>”any court in this state”< or in any "federal or military court" <<< of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, subdivision (b) and (c) of Section 236.1, Section 243.4, Section 261, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses.
I would say that last part would be more consequential, but that is still only talking about CA and does not mention other states.
So I see no ambiguity in that statute.
At least we are getting some collaboration, even if it confrontational. I see PK came up with a question as to his current situation. All knowledgeable Joe, can you answer Pk's question?

I take this as a jab at me personally, whether you are smart enough to see it or not. “From the great legal mind who thinks all lawyers are inept”…. If not then I do not know what to tell you. I never stated all lawyers either, another fallacy. I stated “most” lawyers are inept, which is a fact. And I guarantee you I am not the only one on here that thinks like that….I would bet that almost everyone on here thinks most of them are worthless and will sell their first born if it benefited them.

@ E “Must be a reasonable state like CA or CO where you can be 14 days in a row or 30 days cumulative??”
Is this in some statute somewhere? if so please cite. I know that out of state rules have been on here before, but I have never seen anything about how long someone from out of the country can be here. I did not see if out of state in CA has 14 or 30 days. Since we have been discussing this I would like to know the exact statutes and language if at all possible…

Just want to give you a thumbs up. (I miss those little thumbs up/down that this site used to have.)

Did the Nazis try to force Jewish people who fled to other countries to still wear their Stars of David patches?

Thank you @ E. Yeah , I like this part that is repeated a couple of times.
“must register as sex offenders here >>>if they are required to register in their state of residence<<>>or as otherwise provided by law.”
It does not state “or as otherwise provided by CA law” either. Provided by law, I believe by the preponderance of the evidence and language, may also include any other state, or federal laws as well.

The language in the statutes seem unambiguous. The CA legislature has repeatably stated who is required to register and unlike some other statutes, CA specifically states several times,
“(c) The following persons shall register:
Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in >>>”any court in this state”< or in any "federal or military court" and,
"Persons required to register in their state of residence"
Yeah unless someone can cite another section of CA code sections refuting this unambiguous language, I would fight like hell if they tried to make me register if I am not registered in any other state.
The legislature has had many opportunities to narrow this language and detail the intent to register people whom are not required by any other state to register.
I understand this is crazy talk, but if you follow the actual language of the law, they do not mention if convicted in another state at all. there has to be some other section of the statute addressing this very issue or I would say it could be fought for any conviction in any other state and only applies to those required to register in their home state, or was convicted in CA or in military or federal court. I really doubt if you would convince a judge that the legislature intended to preclude those convicted in other states but the law as far as I have seen so far does not indicate "a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary" (“Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:” Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980).) that the legislature intended the registration law to apply to anyone, or any conviction, out of state unless they are required to register in their place of residence. For the court to add language or interpret a law where their is no ambiguity and there is not "a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary" would be usurping the legislative processes, in violation of separation of powers. Like I stated, can anyone cite language in a statutes the clearly express legislative intent to the contrary of the actual language of the statutes I have cited or addressed???? I am just thinking out loud here, and this is extremely interesting.