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
  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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest article we will not approve your comment.
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

So not allowing people to travel, people who have paid there debt to society and met every condition of the judicial system, means it is working? It does not list a statistic of people on the registry that were convicted of reoffending overseas, and we all know that if that statistic was even remotely concerning it would have been in the headline.

How about a law that says any politician falsely presenting information to the public can never be involved in politics again, Now that would give us some results.

Smith has effectively combined sex offense against children and sex and labor trafficking in the same bucket. Sex offense are primarily against children that child knows and sex and labor trafficking are commercial sex and labor activities that are product of drug trafficking gamesters. IML does nothing to protect anyone in then sex and labor trafficking as Mr. Smith claims.

This statement says it all,
“The law is working,” said Rep. Smith this week. “In just about two years, 10,541 covered sex offenders had been noticed by the U.S. government to foreign countries — and 3,681 individuals as of July who were convicted of sex crimes against children were denied entry into those nations.”

Yes it is working perfectly just as they planned, further punishing and shaming and disenfranchising with no public safety benefit needed.

We cannot allow politicians like Chris Smith to control the narrative that IML is working and promote stereotyping of Registrants.

He may be influential but he is only one voice. We have collectively hundreds of thousands of voices that can drown out his by putting out YouTube videos educating the unitiated masses, podcasts to put a humanizing voice of Registrants, writing letters to our local politicians to show that we are a political force to be reckon with.

These campaigns to repress our Constitutional rights are only made by a small group of politicians and law enforcement seeking to promote themselves by stepping on the backs of Registrants. And since the dehumanizing label of $ex offenders are put upon us, society is okay with that.

We need to teach the unitiated that being labeled $ex offender is like labeling an African American the N-word. They are both derogatory and promotes ignorance of the worst kind.

Allowing the label to continue promotes the idea that this is in our nature to be deviants, not people who have made their mistakes, paid their dues, and are living a lawful existence.

Spread the word, drown out the few that want to oppress us, and get back what is rightfully ours!

The entire line of reasoning confuses me.

– They don’t want them out in public because of the supposed threat registrants pose.

– They don’t want them in prison for life because of prison population.

– They supposedly don’t want them to be homeless because it makes it too difficult to “track” them (read: watch them do nothing).

– Most want registrants to die (and die slowly, at that), yet they won’t give the death penalty.

So what exactly is the purpose of preventing registrants from leaving the country?

“The law is working,” said Rep. Smith this week. “In just about two years, 10,541 covered sex offenders had been noticed by the U.S. government to foreign countries — and 3,681 individuals as of July who were convicted of sex crimes against children were denied entry into those nations.”

Talk about misleading statistics!! The way they worded this makes the uneducated believe that 3,681 were “convicted of sex crimes against children” while traveling overseas. A bunch of crap! What it is saying that of the 10,541 covered offenders 3,681 were convicted of sex crimes against children before they even went overseas. This wording was created to make a crappy law look like it is working – which it is not. All it does is prevent someone like me from traveling freely around the world. In my case my boss asking me if I would accompany him to Europe on business (I work as his consultant). I am very lucky to have a great job even being semi retired. Unfortunately I have to tell him no, I don’t want to go only because I don’t want to have to put up with the scrutiny while traveling. I can provide a service to him by staying behind and watching his business while he and his wife are traveling.

My partner keeps asking me to go on a vacation overseas or to the islands and I just don’t want to have to deal with the crap. At this point I don’t even leave my home state of Penn. The ironic part about it is that I am off paper and have been for 5 years now. He is on probation and he has more freedom to travel in the states and overseas (granted by his probation officer) than I do. How F’d up is that?


It’s disturbing isn’t it for what passes for reasoning?

Chris Smith is selling snake oil to the unitiated because of this misleading and derogatory label of $ex offender. Most people don’t know how many types of offenses can land an individual into this label. Most people only assume the worst stereotype: child mole$ter or rapi$t.

It is in these marginal recesses of ignorance that these politicians thrive on to mount their campaigns to create policies that will make them look good for re-election.

If we take away the myths and outright lies about us Registrants by voicing ourselves in the form of podcasts, YouTube videos, and letters to politicians, then these issues of the Registrants will no longer be the the low hanging fruit that these politicians can easily grab to further their careers.

One tiny little detail that Rep. Smith is leaving out: He has no idea what the intent of these people was when they were denied travel. And neither does anybody else. He is making the assumption that because somebody is a registrant, that any time they travel, they intend to commit a crime. And the overwhelming majority of both the professional liars, and the voters who put them in office, never bother to question what he is spewing. In fact, it never even occurs to them to challenge what he is saying.

***”We know from law enforcement and media documentation that Americans on the U.S. sex offender registries are caught sexually abusing children in Asia, Central and South America, Europe, and, frankly, everywhere,” [Smith] continued.***


I haven’t even heard of one recent case. Have you? He has “stats” on everything else; where are the stats on this claim?

Just another Representative with a crystal ball, certain that all registrants only want to travel to engage in illicit sex.
Just the facts sir.
You’ve done nothing but prevent many good people who have already served their sentences, people who would like to travel for the same reasons most people travel, vacation, adventure, culture, etc, from living their best lives.
This representative is promoting to the public that these laws are stopping “human-trafficking,” insinuating that all those on the registry are somehow involved in human-trafficking. It’s sad that these kinds of people get elected and lie to the public with straight faces.
Speak up, we can drown out their voices with our own voices, with the truth about the registry.

President Trump signed a EO yesterday but the text of that EO isn’t on the Federal Registry yet. I’m very interested in reading what it says.

When I was in the 4th or 5th grade, I mocked a fat girl whom I apologized to several years later after realizing the harm I did by bullying her.
Does that make me a bully?
I used to gamble when I couldn’t afford to lose before I saw the errors of my ways.
Does that make me a compulsive gambler?
Should our every bad deed label us for life with the assumption we can’t learn and grow into a better person?

I emailed Rep Chris Smith through his website . He only allows those in his district an opinion. Use zip 08527, address noneyourbusiness or anything, city noneyourbusiness or anything.

Mr Smith, the article at is highly misleading to the public.

You do not state how many previously convicted of a sex crime have committed a new sex offense via international travel.

I believe and suspect that you do too, that very few previously convicted of a sex crime have gone on to commit another sex crime. Statistics show 95+% never do.


Rep Smith is from NJ, right?

So why doesn’t someone asked about the 20-year study done by NJ and the Bureau of Justice that stated there was no difference in recidivism 10 years before the registry was created and 10 years after it was created. The conclusion was it was a waste of time, money, and resources along with the recidivism rates were low.

I used to have the link of the abstract from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) about the 20-year study. But I do have an article referencing it from the National Institute of Justice.

NIJ link:

If this 20-year study proved that the registry program didn’t change anything before and after the implementation, then the extension to the IML would also seem fruitless. There is also a difference between a individual sex crime and a crime ring of prostitution. Anyhow, has there been an extensive study on the IML implementation before and after like the NJ study? Shouldn’t we have the right to face our accuser that we’re not redeemable human beings, which is the state or federal government?

And then there is the gorilla in the room. With all this patting on the back for the large expansion, how did they miss out on Mr. Epstein?

I think we can use his affinity with the Trump administration to get him out of office once and for all now. Gotta make it clear to the public the guy’s a misogynist.

I am going to make it my civil duty to find dirt on this p.o.s.

Just sent this to Smith’s email.

Mr. Smith,
You have absolutely no idea what you are doing. You have made the USA take the path of Nazi Germany with your IML law. Marking passports is like Hitler marking the Jews like me and my Grandfather. How dare you!! You have no idea what people on the S. O. registry go through. You have fostered an unconstitutional scheme that must fail and fall to scrutiny of the SCOTUS. You will lose because this is bad law. Get a clue and do the right thing. Your idea of human trafficking is warped and flawed. I f you really want vote, like I know you do, take measures to dismantle this absurdity that you created. There are ONE MILLION PEOPLE ON THE S.O. REGISTRY. You want votes????? Pander to them!!!!!!

Comments, cheers or jeers.

I just copied and pasted the following just to see what came up,
“U.S. sex offender registries are caught sexually abusing children.”
Sure as hell no stats or reports on sexual offending from US registrants. All negative towards the registry. I find the following that came up interesting,
“These policies have led to multiple collateral consequences, creating an ominous environment that inhibits successful reintegration and may contribute to an increasing risk for recidivism. In fact, evidence on the effectiveness of these laws suggests that they may not prevent recidivism or sexual violence and result in more harm than good.”

Another Government site.

We really need a page or post that everyone that comes across these gov. sites stating exactly what that page stated. I can start it, be nice if ACSOL would put this as a access point an their sites. Everyone should be using and pushing these stats. This should be posted on every site that we can possibly post it.
1. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2017 Outcome Evaluation Report: An Examination of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2012‐13. Of the 3,313 sex‐registrants in the FY 2012‐13 release cohort, 1.2%, of the total released were convicted of a new sex offense. [p. 41] [visited December 12, 2018].
2. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2016 Outcome Evaluation Report: An Examination of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2011‐12. Of the 7,217 offenders required to register as sex offenders and released during FY 2011‐12, 1.2% were convicted of a new sex offense. [p. 35]. [visited December 12, 2018].
3. California Department of Corrections 2015 Outcome Evaluation Report; An Examination of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2010‐11. Of the total 8,989 released offenders, 0.34% were reconvicted of a new sex crime. [pp. 30-31 Table 13-14] [visited November 15, 2018].
4. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB); “After about eight to nine years offense‐free in the community, people who have committed sexual offenses and are assessed as average or above‐average risk to reoffend pose no greater risk of committing a new sex offense than any other type of offender.” [p. 9]. [visited December 11, 2018].
5. CASOMB Educational Pamphlet WHAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW About CALIFORNIA’s SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY Other Hard Facts, Data, and Visuals; “Criminal offenders with no prior sex offense history are rearrested for a subsequent sex crime more often than low risk convicted sex offenders. Expenditures of registry programs include: [] local law enforcement efforts to register offenders including paperwork and computer entry of records [] compliance efforts to verify residence addresses of registrants [] prosecution for registration violations [] technological improvements to build and maintain online registries [] updating and connecting registry systems with other databases[] When quantifiable costs are summed, they are estimated to range from $10 billion to $40 billion nationally per year. These costs could be reduced if the registry did not try to track everyone for life.” [p. 12]. [visited December 8, 2018].
6. Patrick A. Langan et al.; Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994; BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003): Re-arrest “Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, [] The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders (a category that includes the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2%.” [p. 1] [visited November 15, 2018].
7. Criminal Recidivism in Alaska; Alaska Judicial Council January 2007; Recidivism in Alaska Executive Summary: “Sexual offenders were the group least likely to be convicted of the same type of offense that they were convicted of in the 1999 sample.” [p. 8]. “Offenders whose 1999 felony charges resulted in conviction of a Sexual offense were among the least likely to be re-arrested, have new cases filed, be re-convicted, or return to custody.” [p. 12]. [visited November 15, 2018].
8. Dr. Karl Hanson Declaration in United States District Court for the Northern District of. California. Civil Case No. C 12 5713. Filed 11-7-12: “Research also contradicts the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan. Most sex offenders do not re-offend. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 19-25; Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 13-15. The longer offenders remain offense-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 7-13, 22, 26-38; Abbott Dec. ¶ 16. On average, the likelihood of re-offending drops by 50% every five years that an offender remains in the community without a new arrest for a sex offense. Hanson Dec. ¶ 27. Eventually, persons convicted of sex offenses are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence. See id. ¶¶ 28, 31-33. For example, offenders who are classified as “low risk” pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶ 30. After 10 to 14 years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶¶ 30, 34. The same is true for high-risk offenders after 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense. See id. ¶ 35. Ex-offenders who remain free of any arrests following their release should present an even lower risk. See id. ¶ 39. Importantly, post-release factors such as cooperation with supervision, treatment, can dramatically reduce recidivism, and monitoring these factors can be highly predictive. See id. ¶¶ 23, 39-40; Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 17-18. Based on this research, criminal justice and recidivism experts recommend that “rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.”. Dr. Karl R. Hanson Declaration [visited November 24, 2018]. Also see, Doe v. Harris 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014).
9. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014: “Time for a change: Under the current system, many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result, law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers now in the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those – such as families – whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.” [p. 12-13] [visited November 15, 2018].
10. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) – Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16 “Research recently conducted in California by one of the most highly respected researchers in the world [Dr. Karl Hanson] has found that the recidivism rates for sex offenders who have been identified by SARATSO risk assessment instruments (cf. ) as “Low to Medium risk” fall in the range of 1 to 2 percent.” [p. 2]. “It is worth noting that none of the statements and arguments made by proponents and supporters of this Bill and none of the Analysis provided by the Assembly Committee on Local Government have made any reference to these highly credible authorities.” [p.4] [visited December 15, 2018].
11. California Sex Offender Management Board 2016 Video presentation; with several of the leading California expert’s testimony of facts along with the fallacies of the California registration scheme, see [visited April 13, 2018]. Complaint pp 4 ¶ 12.
12. From Justice Policy Institute: “Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses and may even distract from more effective approaches. Given the enormous fiscal costs of implementing SORNA, coupled with the lack of evidence that registries and notification make communities safer, states should think carefully before committing to comply with SORNA.” [p 1]. [visited November 15, 2018].
13. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America: Abstract: “The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.” [visited November 15, 2018].
14. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Are Sex Offenders Dangerous? Abstract: “The results of the research indicate that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders were not rearrested for another sex crime. This finding is surprising given the way in which DNA collection, registration, and notification policies have come about. Research would indicate that robbers may be better candidates for DNA collection, registration, and community notification than sex offenders.” “The extension of sex offender policies to nonsexual offenders appears unjustified and would have little effect on preventing future sex crimes. The results indicate that policies can be founded on misconceptions, and these misconceptions not only have financial consequences, but also can affect the likelihood that the policies enacted will achieve their goals. Policy makers need to become better informed on the issues they subject to far-reaching and costly legislation. [visited November 15, 2018].
15. David Finkelhor et al., Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates & Characteristics, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN 8 (Aug. 2008): “Using proxy interviews to obtain information on crime victimization and other sensitive topics has never been a preferred methodology and has sometimes yielded poor results” [p 10]. [visited November 15, 2018].
16. Michael Planty et al., Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2013): “The data in this report were drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police from a nationally representative sample of persons age 12 or older who live in U.S. households.” [p 2]. “Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on the results presented” [p 10]. [visited November 15, 2018].
17. Static 99R Risk Assessment Tool; Static 99R risk assessment that is a tool that is widely used by the CASOMB and is the leading risk assessment tool: “The Static-99R was found to be very accurate in predicting who would reoffend, accurately predicting which offenders would commit a new sex offense in about 82% of cases. High risk offenders had a sexual recidivism rate of over 29%, while low risk offenders had a recidivism rate of only 1.6%.” [p. 5] [visited December 6, 2018]. [visited November 15, 2018].

Here is the 1 million dollar question. I read that those passports of child related offenders would now be marked? Furthermore, the article states the US would notify their incoming country. So, what about those (past offenders) who haven’t been convicted of child related offenses? Furthermore (Ca), what’s the protocol if you travel International?

I kind of think that this passport identifier is a form of “Forced Speech”. Most people have the assumption that any registrant traveling overseas has the intent of abusing a child sexually – is this not the reason why IML was created? Is this not the thought that Smith is attempting to broadcast in his statement.

Well if this is the case then why is the identifier on the passport not considered “forced speech” which is against the constitution. The statement alone in word (the way people interpret the identifier) that you are stating that you are traveling to abuse a child/adult in another country. This is the reason why the US notifies the country you are traveling to isn’t it?

Really the yard signs in Georgia basically implied the same thing to anyone reading or approaching them. It was implied that the person who lives their is stating you are in danger by being on my property because I am a registrant.

Well isn’t this passport identifier stating basically the same thing to a custom’s agent in country you attempting to enter. Aren’t you telling that country that you are a treat?

In my eyes Smith is broadcasting this loudly without even knowing it.

Whether a statement is written on a yard sign or a passport the intent or interpretation of the words is what matters – this is forcing speech IMHO.

Smith’s district is riddled with corruption. I should know, I lived there. Redneck Republicans, African Americans herded into a ghetto Asbury Park, Catholic bigots run riot, the new Orthodox Jewish right and all the bigots you can think of. Smith cares about Chinese Muslims? What a joke. This scumbag showboat could not run in several districts. He got lucky in Monmouth County.

All great feedback people.