First lawsuit challenging Int’l Megan’s Law filed in CA federal court

San Francisco . . . A lawsuit was filed February 9 in U.S. District Court, Northern District, San Francisco Division, challenging International Megan’s Law, which requires the Secretary of State to add “unique identifiers” to the passports of American citizens. The law requires federal agencies to notify foreign countries that American citizens will be traveling to their country.

“For the first time in the history of our country, a Scarlet letter will be added to the passports of American citizens,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “Today the Scarlet Letter will be used to punish sex offenders. Tomorrow the same or a similar letter could be used to punish Muslims, gays and/or drunk drivers.”

President Obama signed the International Megan’s Law bill into law on February 8, only four days after the White House received it. Congress passed the bill on February 1.

“Congress failed to provide adequate attention to this historic legislation when it passed the law by voice vote and without substantive discussion or debate,” stated Bellucci. “The process used for the vote – suspension of the rules – was an abuse of a Congressional rule that is supposed to be limited to noncontroversial bills, not historically significant bills like International Megan’s Law.”

The original version of HR 515 was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 26, 2015. The U.S. Senate amended the bill on the Senate floor on December 17, 2015, by adding the passport provisions.

“The citizens of this nation should be afraid, very afraid, that a unique identifier will be added to their passports,” stated Bellucci. “Only Nazi Germany and Communist Russia have marked the passports of their citizens in this way and that was done decades ago. “

Passports today are used as a primary form of identification as well for entry into a foreign country. A passport symbol that identifies an individual as a registered sex offender could place at significant risk that person as well as others traveling with them, including family members and business colleagues.

“The notification provisions of International Megan’s Law will harm thousands of Americans who have been declared by a state to be rehabilitated and are no longer required to register as sex offenders,” stated Bellucci. “The federal government in such cases will substitute its judgment, which will not be based upon an investigation of an individual, for the judgement of a state government that has conducted such an investigation.”

42 comments for “First lawsuit challenging Int’l Megan’s Law filed in CA federal court

  1. JEV
    April 4, 2016 at 8:55 am

    I plan on taking my mom to Sicily. As a RSO I contacted local authorities and they said no problem. Then I called international italian Interpol and authorities, they said no problem. I asked about International Megan’s Law passport identifier and Italy Policia customs told me that’s a American Law and does not apply here in Italy. So therefore even in this case Italy does not take our outrageous sex offender laws seriously. If you are sex trafficking children, Interpol knows and will investigate. Most of these criminals are foreign born. Asia and South America are the hot spots for this. Identifiers of all USA RSOs will only complicate solving these crimes against children.

  2. Tod
    March 30, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    I have read a lot of these comments and understand everyone frustrations and anger, I to have those. I am an RSO, 12 years on probation in CO, 10 – life sentence, and they found an excuse to extend another year, plus the time to take it to court. Colorado is one of the WORST states when it comes to SO offenses, mandatory minimum sentences, most are getting 20-life, and most will never get off of probation, and even after we do, we still have a minimum of 10/20 to register. I am one of the few that successfully completed and was terminated 2 years ago. This ALL sucks, and the IML is brutal and terrible – I hate it!

    One thing I learned in ‘treatment’ was to focus on what I DO have, not what I don’t – it will eat you up inside. I saw so many guys whine and complain and yet never did anything about it – I was different, I challenged those in power (and was punished at times for it) but I was aggressive about wanting to make my life better and NOT LET those control me. When they said ‘no’ to one thing, I found something else, or a way around it. The current international registration form has several places that it says ‘if available’ – when i traveled to Europe this summer, the only thing that was set was my flight to London and then was going to see where I wanted to go from there – I told them that, and a lot of trips are not completely set like that – didn’t have hotel reservations, and wanted to get on a train to see what was out there – nothing ‘illegal’ about it. I traveled to 4 countries and had no issues at all. Yes, Mexico says no – one of the most corrupt countries in the world, do you think you can find somewhere else to go – probably.

    There is a reason why we are on the registry, we committed a crime, and in MOST cases, hurt someone – directly or indirectly. Yes, there are some that are much worse than others, we broke the law. Is it right that we have to keep paying for it, and treated this way, no, but there are a lot of victims out there that are living with this every day, forever.

    That being said, you can post your ‘comments’, complain, bitch, and whine – OR – you can do something about it. Here in CO, we have a ‘SO management board’ that I have been attending – it is scary as hell, but I have gotten up in front of PO’s, attorneys, and even a judge to share MY experience and tell them what REALITY is, they have their heads so buried in stats, that that have NO clue what it is really like on our side. If WE don’t stand up and DO something, like RSOL is doing, nothing will change.

    As Red said in the Shawshank Redemption – “get busy living…..” I am NOT going to let these asses stop me from living and enjoying life.

  3. Maestro
    March 15, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    I have a question which I’m sure no one here can answer with certainty or absolute knowledge. Perhaps the embassies of the countries themselves would be the ones you’d have to ask but it’s a question that maybe CAN be thrown into the discussion with the border patrols when trying to enter any given country. For example: Canada. As far as I know, Canada’s legal age of consent was 14. While I was incarcerated, I heard a news broadcast which spoke of Canada wanting to raise their age of consent to 15 (big move there, eh?). If your “offense” in the USA was with someone under the legal consenting age of your state (let’s say the legal age is16 but the person was 15), and the act WAS considered CONSENSUAL (albeit illegal) by the court (sex assault 2nd) then why would a country like Canada refuse your entry when their law IS 15 and your “crime” was non-violent?
    How does a country justify declaring you a threat if -in their country- having the same relationship is NOT a crime?

  4. Dave Davidson
    February 18, 2016 at 5:28 am

    I would advise young men who are suffering under threatening and repressive sex offender laws to leave the United States. Now is the time to make plans, pack bags, and start a new life. We should not repeat the errors of the past, and remain in the danger zone until all escape routes have been cut off. Already things have progressed too far. And there is almost complete silence about these developments. Do not be fooled by daydreams of reform. Let those who must stay behind endure what is coming. For those who can make a move, now is the time.

    Take this message seriously.

    • JEV
      April 4, 2016 at 9:06 am

      Outrageous! So maybe all The Muslims and Mexicans should leave as well? Soon Muslims will be registered and undocumented Hispanics hearded back to their countries, so why not send all the Sex Offenders with them.. and while your at it, how about everyone of color? Outrageous, if you leave you are a quitter of the fight for reform! Take this message seriously

  5. Jurne
    February 15, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    This is ridiculous and saddened… debt has already been paid and this means there are no true second chances how are you supposed to live a regular life and carry and they’re setting it up that everything around you reminds you of your pass….My husband falls under this category and his already ashamed of his pass…. jobs are limited…living is limited…they watch you like a hawk and my family traveling will be limited…. and what gets to me the most is these are the same people that are doing the same crime or worse if their skeletons were unfolded…i have no more words but i hope we conquer this!!!

  6. Maestro
    February 12, 2016 at 9:46 am

    I’m sure Miss Bellucci knows what to argue in a matter like this. But I would just like to throw this reminder in for her to consider using in part of her argument – Although a sex offense can happen anywhere by anyone, the majority of people who travel for sex are more likely to go to Asian countries such as the Philippines and Cambodia where it’s known that young people are prostituted. Knowing this, it’s also no great mysterious discovery to find that many, many wealthy business men with NO CRIMINAL RECORD OF ANY KIND have and still do travel to such countries with the INTENT of partaking in this underground prostituion practice. So what exactly are you (the gov) actually stopping from happening by making it difficult for a person with a former sexual offense to not be able to go to Italy on his/her honeymoon?

    Please, Janice, throw this in their faces and watch them wince over a lame excuse to give back at you. That’s when you know you’ve got them.

    • Paul
      February 13, 2016 at 11:54 am

      Maestro, it all comes down to the 5-4 majority. When you have a Supreme Court that just ruled 5-4 where five of the justices don’t take seriously the notion that climate change exists, I have a hard time believing we have any chance. In other words, irrationality cannot be defeated by solid, fact based argumentation. It just can’t. If the Supreme Court is configured in such a way as to be predisposed to believe something is true because public opinion demands it of them, anyone short of Jesus of Nazareth would have a hard time convincing them otherwise. We may win some battles in the lower courts but as long as we have a Supreme Court unwilling to break away from the 5-4 divide, it’s a nonstarter.

      The public as a whole really doesn’t believe that any one of them could be placed on the sex offender registry…save for the people who actually know someone who is on the registry. Until that “aha moment” when the public finally gets it, we have a lost cause. Anyone can be falsely accused. Anyone can make a tragic mistake. Anyone may find the need to urinate if running along a trail with no bathroom in sight. Until we get the public to believe that this could happen to them, we’ll have no movement. It’s gotta hit home. Because they have no sympathy for us. We’re an “other”.

      Most people would say “Well, I would never end up on the registry to begin with”. And that’s when we’ve got to bombard them with stories. Endless stories of people just like them who this has happened to. And then perhaps, public perception and policy will change, which is the only thing that will effect the higher court in the long term because despite the myth, they are a political entity.

      • Paul
        February 13, 2016 at 5:35 pm

        While I mourn for the Scalia family, my above comments have become all the more relevant. Will the current president be able to appoint someone in the next year without congressional obstruction?

    • Fred
      February 13, 2016 at 11:17 pm

      The government has a skeleton in their closest they are hoping to keep hidden. By passing this law, they will never be suspected of being among these many, many wealthy men you mentioned.

    • Anne
      February 14, 2016 at 8:01 am

      I don’t want to derail this conversation, but feel compelled to say. Don’t vote for anyone that is already in office. The only way we are going to take the country back and stop “tough on crime” laws that are based on feelings instead of supporting data, is to get rid of the career politicians.

  7. Paul
    February 11, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    I have two gut reactions to this: one is ideological and the other is pragmatic mixed with cynicism. I’ve visited relatives in a nursing home whose elderly friends lived through the holocaust. I’ve seen the tattoos with serial numbers affixed permanently on their arms as a reminder of their trauma. It has always affected me on a deep emotional level. Reading about it in a history book is one thing but actually seeing it in person is another. I was about 10 years old at the time. My thought was “Thank goodness that we live in a country where this will never happen to me”. Of course I had heard about how slavery existed but my naive 10 year old mind believed what he was taught in school; that those days were over. That we are a society were progressing and learning from our mistakes. And now this….boy was I duped.

    I am deeply disappointed in our president. As a minority himself, a so-called constitutional scholar and one who recognizes many of the flaws of our criminal justice system, he knew better. Had Donald Trump signed this bill (sorry, hope I am not offending anyone) I wouldn’t have even been disappointed. But this is a man who preaches forgiveness, a man who makes deals with our enemies in order (in his mind) to maintain the peace. And yet both his pragmatism and idealism were absent when he put his pen to paper to sign this bill. I will never view Obama in the same way, again. A little like Regan ignoring the AIDS crisis because it was a “gay” disease. A little like Roosevelt signing an executive order to round up tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and put them in camps. These men may be considered great presidents but these “blips” on the radar (and I would call them more than blips) cannot be forgotten or forgiven. This was an unforgivable act.

    But on the pragmatic side: This is nothing entirely new. Canada and Mexico (to my knowledge) do not allow RSO entry. Unfortunately two things have happened to make this go under the radar. The intensity of the presidential campaign has monopolized most of the 24 hour news cycles AND, this law doesn’t make most Americans blink twice. It’s not controversial, and that’s the problem. Janice Belluci (and God bless her) is helping up to get this issue out there, but frankly we need more. I’ve seen and heard all of the arguments made for our side that would be argued and court and while we are on the winning side of the argument, it won’t matter. Why? As long as there is a 5-4 majority, we’ll never have a chance. Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court is not a political entity should think again. There is no way that Justice Kennedy would have voted for gay marriage twenty years ago. The court of public opinion swayed his vote, this much I know. We need that to happen here. We have an uphill battle; we’re viewed with much more scorn than gays. But we need to be humanized. That’s the key. And I’m not just talking about the Romeo and Juliet scenarios. Even the most dogmatic lawmakers will concede that it is absurd to include this group on the registry. No, we ALL need to be humanized. Because when people understand that ANYONE is a potential target for this, they’ll take notice. Themselves, their kids, their spouse, anyone that they care about. This could happen to them. Do they want an identifier on their passport? Do they want to be homeless? We need to ask the general public these questions. That is the only way that public opinion will be swayed.

    • Fred
      February 11, 2016 at 9:44 pm

      I am deeply disappointed and saddened by Obama signing this into law without a second thought. I had always defended him to his critics and I feel very let down.

      As I said before we can not fight this the legal conventional way. We have to use unconventional means. I wish there was private chat room where we could discuss this among ourselves.

      Are there any ideas on how we could communicate among ourselves in a private forum?

      • rwvnral
        February 11, 2016 at 9:48 pm

        If you are members of RSOL, or become members of RSOL, there is a private forum for our members available in the Wild Apricot system that we use for that purpose…and we encourage our members to utilize that forum for just this sort of need. Admin.

        • A dad, husband, son, sibling & friend.
          February 12, 2016 at 9:24 pm

          After a lengthy term of incarceration in NY, I am also on probation for 10 years. If my PO found out that I am fighting the sex offender registry, and HR515 and the local SO laws and the probation restrictions that are in no way connected to my sex crime, she would take my head off with a large sword. Then she would impose more restrictions on the dead body. I can’t take the chance.

        • rwvnral
          February 12, 2016 at 10:28 pm

          You must do what you feel comfortably safe doing. The sex offender registry is a “civil regulatory scheme” which, much like unreasonably high taxes, you have every right to oppose and advocate against. My response to Fred was in an effort to let members know that there IS a private forum available for them to use. Membership in RSOL is $20 a year. Membership in RSOL is strictly confidential and certainly never shared with others.

        • Fred
          February 13, 2016 at 11:25 pm

          Thank you. I think I will be joining soon. 20.00 isn’t bad even on my limited income I think it will be worth it. I am hoping some of the others voicing opinions here are able to join as well if they haven’t already, because I would very much like to brain storm with some of you.

  8. IML and SORNA Travel Notification??
    February 10, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    Can this be expanded to include SORNA travel registration since it is essentially the same with regard to notification? Both bills have that requirement for notification by the USA to the destination country – duplication as I see it. If I am off here, please reply and advise.

  9. John
    February 10, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    In the conference call on Wednesday night they said they were recording the presentations section. How do you listen to that recording?

  10. Justice Granny
    February 10, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    How do you get a link to this page. I want to put it on my Facebook.

    Also does RSOL have a Facebook Page. If you do it is very primitive.

    • rwvnral
      February 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm
      • Victor Palma
        February 13, 2016 at 9:49 pm

        Wait a second. Facebook has a published policy that forbids sex offenders from using Facebook! My PO enforces that rule – I cannot use Facebook! He will sanction me if I violate that rule! What gives? Victor

        • rwvnral
          February 13, 2016 at 10:04 pm

          We recognize that most registrants are barred from accessing Facebook either 1) by statute or 2) as a consequence of FB’s own policy barring registrants from creating accounts. Nevertheless, RSOL does have a FB account for use by those people (most Americans) who can legally access the RSOL Facebook page. IF you cannot legally access or visit our FB page, please DO NOT. -Admin

        • Maestro
          February 28, 2016 at 6:46 pm

          This is exactly why we need to do away with the probation department all together. It’s a useless waste of tax payer money. You can’t do this or that or that or this, but when your probation is over, you can do whatever you want, even tho your crime still happened when and how it happened. Many people turn down plea bargains in favor of taking MORE time in prison to come out with NO probation. That in and of itself PROVES there is no need for probation. I don’t care if it’s a sex offense, DUI, armed robbery or tax evasion (ever wonder what people on probation for tax fraud could possibly have for restrictions!!!?? WTF??) anyway, probation eventually comes to an end. Whatever you haven’t been allowed to do while on probation (such as drink alcohol) you can freely do once you’re done with probation.
          If the judge and prosecutor decide that your crime which can carry up to 10 years, you’ll only have to serve 2 years in prison, then serve the 2 years, walk out, carry on with life. No 10 years of probation with 8 more years of prison time hanging over your head if you happen to violate over something as trivial as walking by a playground on your way to the corner store for a pack of cigarettes.
          As for Facebook (those low life idiots!!) they have no business judging ANYONE for ANYTHING and have no business telling someone who was convicted of a “sex: offense that they (Facebook) do not even know the details of, that you cannot use their social media. But yet they allow Bloods, Cryps, Latin Kings and any other drug trafficking gang members to have FB pages. WTF is THAT all about?? Cyber crime is cyber crime no matter if it’s sexual or narcotics related.

  11. Depressed
    February 10, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    Crimes against humanity are certain acts which are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population or an identifiable part of a population. Crimes against humanity have been prosecuted by International Courts – such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court, as well as in domestic prosecutions. The law of crimes against humanity has primarily developed through the evolution of customary international law. Unlike war crimes and genocide, crimes against humanity are not codified in an international convention, although there is currently an international effort to establish such a treaty, led by the Crimes Against Humanity Initiative.

    Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can be committed during peace or war. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; massacres; dehumanization; (State-organized dehumanization has historically been directed against perceived political, racial, ethnic, national, or minority groups.) extermination; human experimentation; (physical and/or mental) extrajudicial punishments; death squads; forced disappearances (banishment); military use of children; kidnappings; unjust imprisonment; slavery; cannibalism; torture; (physical and/or mental) rape; enforced sterilization; political, racial, or religious persecution that may include the use of blasphemy laws or laws against defamation of religion or other similar wording, or inappropriate hate speech laws; and other inhumane acts may reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

    The United States Government has systematically and without any empirical evidence, chosen a path of persecution of a group of US citizens after their crimes against society, as set out by the Judicial Branch, have been paid in full. The Legislative and Executive Branches of government have chosen to force people into experimental mental health programs without due process. Those branches of government have denied them rights that are unrelated to their crime in violation of judicial processes. The Legislative Branch has passed laws, rules and regulations placing restrictions and obligations upon a disfavored group of American citizens, denying them many privileges that are afforded to all other American citizens.

    In the United States as part of our Constitution our forebearers saw the need to limit the power of government. One of the ways that they did this was within our Constitution where they placed some specific constitutional bans. The United States Constitution forbids Legislative Bills of Attainder under Article I, Section 9. The provision forbidding State Law Bills of Attainder, Article I, Section 10, reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue.

    Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding Attainder Laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the Legislature to perform Judicial or Executive functions—since the outcome of any such acts of Legislature would of necessity take the form of a Bill of Attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was partially reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed”.

    Now the Legislative Branch without any empirical evidence to justify the laws, nor thought to the damage socially, mentally or physically that their discriminatory laws have on this disfavored group as well as their family members have again chosen a path that not only is unconstitutional (remember a person’s reputation is a constitutionally protected liberty interest), but also appears to fall into the range of crimes against humanity, except this time, a group of people are looking to challenge the law in hopes returning constitutional sanity to our country. They are looking for plaintiffs to join them in a law suite.

    • GVV
      February 10, 2016 at 11:01 pm

      I will join in this fight with you, it seems this country just ignores certain sections of laws to suit their own feelings about people they don’t even know. This must stop. We need to join together and fight for each other’s human rights.

    • Mike
      February 11, 2016 at 7:48 pm

      This is true. Not only was I deprived of the right to travel, I was deprived of thousands of dollars of pvt property as I was returned from the airport. When I told them of all of my property I was told it was just too bad. I cost me a couple of thousands of dollars to get half of my property back but still all of this was without any notice or due process.

    • PHYS ED
      February 20, 2016 at 12:35 am

      DEPRESSED–

      I will join such a group gladly – please tell me where, when, and how. I want to sign up!

  12. Depressed
    February 10, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    No it should be prosecuted at the Hague. Crimes against humanity. File charges against all of congress and all the legislators. Our great country and politicians picking on one set of people is against all humanitarian treaties.

  13. Nick
    February 10, 2016 at 11:54 am

    I really think Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116,125 (1958) needs to be heavily relied on in this lawsuit.

    “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment.”

    Unless your sentence strictly imposed travel restrictions, one must get due process before removing this Liberty. This IML clearly provides no due process and this is clearly a violation of the 5th Amendment. I don’t know how anyone could decide differently.

    While the government might argue that they are not explicitly restricting travel (“we’re just being the good guys and letting other countries know who is coming in, with the vain hope that these countries will do the same to us”), the court will see through countless personal examples that these notifications have the effect of limiting travel. Thus, the effect of the legislation must be looked at, and the courts have always held an extremely narrow exemption of whom you can deny travel to. I see this law falling to pieces pretty easily if properly argued.

  14. Emil S
    February 10, 2016 at 10:49 am

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me…….

    • Paul
      February 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm

      I am a socialist

  15. ab
    February 10, 2016 at 9:36 am

    1. Siege this law from every angle, position, state, and perspective humanly possible.

    2. Don’t stop there. Bury the entire system by making it implode on itself.

  16. D
    February 10, 2016 at 6:45 am

    As someone who lives permanently overseas (for over a decade) and who was convicted of a sex offense 25 years ago, this is a major blow to life as I know it. I have rehabilitated myself and gone on to earn my bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees since leaving prison. This petty law may well get my deported from the country I live in and cause me to return to the United States. My

  17. Charlie
    February 9, 2016 at 9:47 pm

    This seriously makes me want to cry.. it just gets worse and worse… i’m so depressed about this i feel like there is no way out, my crime was labeled non sexually motivated i happened to be a internet service provider and got hit with aiding and abetting… stuck on the federal registry for years….now this..I completed supervision had it cut in half……… was also declared low risk if any at all… how long will it be until they come with pitch forks or guns and kill us all… might as well…. this kills any hopes or dreams of ever seeing the world……we are locked in a jail… I wonder if this would give grounds for asylum in other countries…

    • Nick
      February 10, 2016 at 10:30 am

      I actually do think that this can be grounds for asylum. Most countries consider “harsh and unfair prosecution” to be a cause to seek asylum. More progressive parts of the world, mainly Europe, have even chastised our sex laws in court. I believe it is likely that they could be compassionate to an asylum claim, especially if the conviction was a while back and had mitigating circumstances. This would be a good thing to call a European embassy to look into. I would try Germany or a Scandinavian country.

      • Emil S
        February 10, 2016 at 5:32 pm

        The problem with Sex Offender label is that other countries do not want to touch this matter, regardless of the nature of offense. I hope there are few countries which are willing to accept after they do their investigation.

    • JR
      February 10, 2016 at 5:28 pm

      Charlie, hang in there my friend. I don’t know the specifics of your situation but anger and depression are negative thoughts that can lead to irrational thought. Irrational thought can lead to bad behavior and we’re right back to what got us here.

      We’re not done yet! We have to work through each of these issues one by one. This passport thing hasn’t even started yet… Someday we’ll meet up in China or something!

  18. Nick
    February 9, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Janice Bellucci is my hero! What a great person to fight for justice and liberty against oppression. This lawsuit being ready to go the day this crappy law is signed is beyond impressive!!

    I have some concerns about this law that maybe someone might know the answers to.

    1. I see the Scarlet Letter in passports applies only to currently registered SOs (even Rep Smith says this in his comments), but what I don’t get is if everything else applies even if you are no longer registered?

    2. How is this 21 day notice supposed to work? Do you go online and fill out a form? If you aren’t registered (and your state registration system has a mechanism to report this kind of travel) or on supervision (where I guess you would report it to your PO), I don’t even get it! Do they plan on just arresting everyone coming back into the country who didn’t give 21 days notice and giving them 10 years in prison? Where is the due process there? I didn’t know coming back to the country you were a citizen of was so criminal! Was this Rep. Smith’s plan all along? Where is the equal protection? I think countries would also be interested in convicted drug traffickers (but I would still firmly argue against applying any legislation to them like this IML), but it seems like this group (SOs) has been singled out unfairly.

  19. Fred
    February 9, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    How long is the wait typically before we hear a decision?

    Also where can I find out about the Michigan Supreme court considering the registry on grounds of Cruel and Unusual punishment and the 6th Court of Appeals considering the constitutionality of Internet Identifiers. Both of these cases were started last month. How long will it be before there is some kind of update?.

    • February 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm

      The Michigan case has now moved to the 6th Circuit Court were oral arguments on the Residency Restrictions have already been presented. In April 2016 both sides will present oral arguments on other areas of the Law, and as I understand it this will mainly be on the retro application of the law as applied to changing the number of years a person must register for by increasing that number. Some are predicting the court will rule on these issues sometime in the summer of 2016. Based on when the case was first presented to the Eastern District Federal Court of Michigan and the amount of time it took for them to rule very favorably for the ACLU I think it will take longer then sometime next summer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *