The fight goes on

By now everyone knows that the motion for a preliminary injunction in the IML case has been denied by a federal court in California. The mainstream news reports the details here and here.

In brief, the judge felt a ruling at this point was premature because it is not yet clear what form a passport identifier might take. In legal jargon, the Court found that the issue is not yet ripe for determination. Kudos to CA RSOL for such hard work and for presenting the case.

Last night’s RSOL Review telephonic session explored, among other topics, the hearing and the judge’s decision. Some excellent questions were asked and answered. One was so poignantly asked, and its answer so significant for our supporters, that we want to be sure everyone understands it fully.

“Does this mean the suit is over?” NO. It absolutely does not mean that. Ms. Bellucci and CA RSOL have made that clear on their website, and we want to be sure that everyone understands it. Numerous pre-trial motions are routinely made according to our attorney guest on last night’s program. An Injunction prohibiting enforcement of a law is an extraordinary remedy, and such motions are not often granted.  Sadly, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied at this time.

That is but one battle. It is not the war. The suit continues. There will likely  be more pre-trial motions put forth by both sides. In the meantime, CA RSOL and the law firm of Ms. Bellucci go forward preparing for trial.

It is not over.

You may listen to the full podcast of the program here when it has been posted, which will be soon.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

25 Thoughts to “The fight goes on”

Leave a Comment

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

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please do not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.

  1. Richard

    Keep fighting the good fight!

  2. Matthew

    I am not an attorney, so if I am way off base I will not be offended someone tells me so.

    I wonder if an argument could be made hat IML – and the sex offender registry itself – is a bill of attainder?

    1. Paul

      I’m not an attorney either, but I certainly think so. The registry marks one for future risk, thus imposing a “guilty” sentence upon us with the assumption of a future crime in mind. Civil commitment has been cleverly disguised as a non criminal proceeding though everyone knows that the punishment for it is just as impactful as a prison sentence.

      Amendment XIII
      Section 1.
      Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      But if we don’t register, that’s considered a crime. And registration is involuntary servitude. We all have guns pointed directly at our heads. If we don’t register, we go to prison for ten years. Most of us pay a yearly fee for the privilege of being on the list. So yeah, I would classify it as involuntary servitude. But as they say, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on television.

      1. Ray

        The scheme of registry only capitulates one into the conformity of this system, which clearly sets a snare and trap if not adhered to. The registrant is meant to bore or defrock the cost of the obvious framework and machinery. As we blindly go into it from one state territory to the next, it differs conceptually by each municipality due to the demand and social inclination of their own demographics. So see the upper middle class communities viewing registrants as a unwanted stain on the sidewalk to the middle and lower class casting registrants as lepers whom need to live elsewhere. So you are left with a disenfranchised person with very few options. The minute we try to dress the Statue of Liberty with new clothes and sunglasses explicitly means we are trying to conceal her tears, the second we try to poof purple haze at the bench in the magistrates face we dilute and veil jurisprudence, the day we damn the queen and entrust the throne to a band of tyrants , the castle has doctrine no more, you’re heart doesn’t belong to you, your sovereignty is senseless and your patriot ways are set aside……….a nation no more solidarity sunken at sea

      2. Paul

        Correct Ray. This is evident whenever any of us attempt to travel. The State Police will tell you one thing about how long you cay stay without registering, the Sheriff’s office another and the police in the city you are traveling to, yet another. Sometimes I wonder if they do that on purpose, just to confuse registrants or discourage us from coming. More likely, many of them really don’t know the answer so they just make up one. I’m serious. It’s not like they are going to be called out on it. My dad has a couple of friends on our local police force. They claim total ignorance about the mechanisms of how the registry works, such as the number of days one has in our state before they have to register. It’s pathetic.

        One thing they are all trained to say is this: Even if you come and don’t stay X number of days where you required to register, as a courtesy, tell us you are here anyway. “As a courtesy”…….I love it. Has anyone else had that happen to them? Every state I have traveled to has given me that line.

  3. Fred

    I know this sounds discouraging to people as if it was a loss. It is hardly that at all.

    In simpler terms, the legal team asked the Judge to put IML “on hold” for the time being while the case goes forward. The judge said no and that the law can go into effect while it is still being challenged on constitutional grounds.

    So really nothing has changed. Even if the judge decided to grant the injunction, chances are the final ruling would re-enact IML anyway. So really this is nothing and so much weight should not have been put on this motion in the first place.

    As skeptical as I am about any progress that might be achieved in our favor in the courts, I certainly do appreciate the efforts as they are making it clear that is not something people are going to just allow with out a fight. However, I maintain my usual stance, legal actions alone are NOT going to help us. We have to come together and show our numbers and make them hear how loud we are. We can not hide behind lawyers anymore if we really want results.

    Civil rights were not won because lawyers consistently challenged the legislation. Civil rights were won when the oppressed came together and loudly declared that they will not stand for this any longer. Only then were Judges and politicians moved.

    As it stands now, they only see a small team of attorneys. They don’t see who those attorneys are fighting for. To them it probably looks like those attorneys are defending a ghost and that isn’t going to concern them.

    We have the power to change that. The question is when are we going to stop making excuses and do it?

    1. Larry

      Thank you for the well reasoned response. I agree with all your points.

    2. Emil S

      They don’t even allow registered sex offenders to congregate unless it’s like in a therapy. These foxes in the government know how to discourage change.

      1. rwvnral

        Registrants who are no longer on probation or parole are well within their rights to peacefully congregate. There are, of course, proximity restrictions in most states governing where registrants may reside and upon what premises they are permitted to enter. But we are not aware of any state that has imposed a blanket prohibition on registrants’ First Amendment right to assemble.

      2. Maestro

        Since most probation terms are extremely long (10 yrs in most cases), then you can bet there won’t be many people off of probation to gather together and fight this battle. Most of the battle may even have to do with the draconian probation conditions. And unfortunately, when people are done with probation, they move on and don’t care to look back to fight anything.

        I’ve made this argument time and time again and no one listens because we all are somehow brainwashed into believing that probation is needed as part of a sentence. It is not.

        We all know (or should know) that probation can be avoided by taking longer prison times. This is reason #1 why the probation department is a waste of tax payer money.
        The 2nd fact that probation is pointless is that once we do complete it, all those LEGAL things that we were not allowed to do….we can suddenly do! Omg! I can use Internet, own 20 laptops if I want, go where I want without asking permission or travel passes and guess what…. I’m STILL the same person who once committed a sexual offense 10 yrs ago.

        We may all be scared to congregate but think about this for a moment – If 5000 SO’s on probation in a particular state made a stand together, do you REALLY think that any state is going to have room in the jail/prison system to put 5000 people in it on the spot? They couldn’t. The courts would be dumbfounded at having 5000 people taking turns standing before a judge on top of all the other cases that judge needs to hear.

        Police probably don’t even have 5000 pairs of handcuffs. Probation officers would lose a LOT of clients (aka Job Security).
        If a person can submit themselves to an extra 1 or 2 years (for example) during their initial plea bargain in order to avoid having probation after release, then no one needs probation at all. Not an SO, not a DUI, not a car jacker, NO ONE. It eventually comes to an end anyway and then what? We fear the person more? If someone has a criminal mindset, they’re going to do it on or off probation. Probation is yet another one of the “false sense of security” schemes and even many of us on it fall for it. It’s BS!
        But no attorney or groups of attorneys are ever going to fight to end a “business” that’s been making money for something like 100 yrs or so.

        I challenged the probation dept. I filed a civil rights complaint against them.
        When the day came to go to the organization to make my argument (it was myself and a probation director) as to why I feel that probation was violating my civil rights and overall treating me as if I am inhuman, the person I spoke to was as brain dead as most people are in saying “You just gotta play their game and ride it out. It’ll be over before you know it”. Well that’s not exactly the type of life I’m trying to live. I’m not interested in playing games and pretending that I’m not interested in the ever changing ways of technology and socializing. Sorry probation officer person, but I’m not exactly privy to being a loner for 10 yrs.

        It’s so obvious that probation is more a hinderence than a help for ANYONE. Client, victim (if there is one), family and community.
        Story after story we hear about PROBATION causing people to become homeless because even though there may not be actual residency restrictions in your area, your probation officer can refuse you to live certain places. Like what happened to me and why I attempted to challenge them.

        Probation officers coming to your home (provided you have a home) at hours as late as 11pm and expect you to get out of bed and come to the door. God forbid if you’re sleeping and the next time you see your PO he/she starts grilling you about where you were when they came-a-knockin!

        This is how I see it and I don’t truly wish this on anyone so please understand what my point in this next statement is – If the courts don’t TRUST us for the 5 or 10 yrs they would give us on probation, then just either A) Keep us in prison for the rest of our lives or, B) Put EVERY criminal offender on probation for the rest of their lives.
        Because it truly doesn’t make any damn sense that a person can’t use a computer or have a cocktail with friends for only a DURATION OF TIME. We are on the OUTSIDE, not locked up on the INSIDE any more and when I’m working and I know that MY tax dollars are going into the paychecks of a legalized BULLY SYSTEM, I am not a happy camper.

      3. Maestro

        And P.S.: What exactly is TRUE reasoning for felons to not be allowed to interact with each other?
        Is it the opinion of the legal system that if convicted criminals congregate they might conspire to commit a crime?
        Oh my goodness! Because, you know, people with NO criminal record have EVER done that. Smh

      4. Fred

        That is the most common excuse I hear and I don’t buy it, but even if I am wrong that is not stopping the family the family and friends from participating.

  4. Paul

    Most of us have been through this system. Most of us know the long and winding road of this thing we call the courts. If this were Mount Everest, we have just taken a few steps up the mountain and there’s no guarantee that we’ll make it to the top. But we have to try. These prelim motions are just the beginning. Let’s pace ourselves emotionally. I say that to myself as much as I say it to anyone else. Any defeat feels totally deflating but we have to be in it for the long haul.

  5. Dad

    Keep Fighting And Fighting. We May Win, We May Loose, But We Will Fight Harder, And Stronger Tomorrow Than We Have Fought Today & Yesterday . . For All The Tomorrow’s Forever!!! I Am Preparing To Fight Stepping InTo My Grave, And By That Time There Will Be 2 Million+ Registered (Sadly. But There Will Also Be More Violent Theives, More Domestic Abusers And More CONVICTED POLITICIANS Though Not One Registered). Let’s Do This People!!!

  6. Dad

    I am the guy on 10 Years!!! Of Intensive Sex Offender Probation for cp. Though I am allowed internet, f my proba officer knew I was “wasting my time & rehabilitation” on reforming SO laws, she would be pissed. Probably take away the few small privileges I have been granted thus far. I don’t want to loose those because they would ultimately hurt my wife & kids. 10 YEARS of Intensive!!!

    1. Fred

      I don’t doubt that you live in real fear, but to me that is all the more reason to fight. What are you going to do in 5 years when they decide to tweak it again and make things even more restrictive for you? Are you just going to go along with it and not make any noise for fear they will punish you for having a voice? You are still an American. You can fight for yourself and your family. Currently (and I am sorry to offend you) you are basically just rolling over and letting them have their way with you. I promise you in the long run you are not helping your family.

    2. Fred

      But, I am confused after reading your previous comment where you said ” I Am Preparing To Fight Stepping InTo My Grave,”

  7. Dad

    Fred, 1) I am starting slowly and finding small ways to help/contribute. Yes I’m scared & confused. 2) My family can’t stand and more pain (child protective services/probation & police at my home). My heart is aching for them. What amazing/beautiful human beings they are. Amazing but they are falling apart mentally. 3) They are afraid & too broken to fight. They are too fragile and they Don’t Want any more harm done to me!!! They encourage & beg me not to make waves as I Have Been dragged back into court by probation for bs!! Terrible, Terrible, Terrible for my poor children. Please don’t blame them for their extreme fear.

  8. Dad

    These are the conversations we need to have & thank you all.

  9. Charles

    Are there any countries we can immigrate to? I served my country for over twenty years and I feel the only way I will ever be free is to leave, sadly

  10. Dad

    RSOL, the message/theme you are focusing on for the National Conference 2016 really hits home with me. I couldn’t believe it as I was reading the promotional page. On another note, the extreme shame I suffer from because of how I have hurt so many people that I Love so much. & how I viewed the children in cp, should Never, Ever be lost or thought to be minimized because I fight for reform. In actuality, This Reform will protect many, many children from harm & pain be redirecting & focusing resources to More & Better Prevention. I look so forward to safer, happier days for all of humanity.

  11. Ty

    There is an inherent problem with the judge’s decision that all US taxpayer’s should be concerned with. That is the theory that the government should pursue the time and cost of designing a system that ultimately might be deemed unconstitutional. Whether the identifier is bold and easily noticeable or disguised is irrelevant if the underlying basis of assigning it is a violation of an individual’s rights. Why waste the taxpayer’s money to develop something that should never see the light of day.

    According to my reading of the decision, the judge was in some doubt as to who would be affected. That is obvious hogwash as the law was fairly specific on who would be subject to the scarlet letter. It sure wasn’t organized crime or other groups that are most likely the perpetrators of sex trafficking.

  12. Alexander C. Miles

    It is obvious that the United States Constitution does not pertain to persons convicted of a sexual offense. Anyone who assumed that is delusional!

    The U.S. public has nothing against paying extra taxes to persecute this category of citizens further; and in fact would welcome a tax increase in order to amend and increase the restrictions embodied in the SORNA and IML.

    In the wake of U.S. v. Nichols, it is foreseeable is that U.S. citizen RSOs will not be allowed to expatriate, and will have to register while living and visiting abroad; quite possibly with local authorities paid by the U.S. government. Naturally U.S. citizen RSOs will also be subject to international residency restrictions and the like, enforced by local law enforcement, again on the U.S. payroll. That is indeed the least the United States, as the bastion of democracy and human rights, could do to protect fellow innocent humans in foreign countries from being preyed upon by mentally deranged U.S. citizen predators.

    These restrictions will not be considered punitive in nature, as they merely further a legitimate government objective and the regulatory purpose of protecting members of the foreign public. These added restrictions will also ensure that RSOs continue to enjoy the benefits and protection provided by U.S. law, no matter where they attempt to reside. The United States only wants to help its own citizens, and citizens of the world!

    Representative Smith could run for office based on this worthy crusade alone!
    We should make the future crown on his head lighter by faxing and e-mailing him various creative ideas of how to increase the restrictions on RSOs living and travelling abroad, to make the U.S. government safety net impenetrable.
    In order to guarantee that RSOs get the supervision and help they need for their intractable condition. The American public will love it!

  13. After doing the mental gynanstics in evaluating this scientific empirically (cross validated?) based program(1)/publication.

    It appears that this program(1) has a ZERO recidivism rate?


    1) “… The RESTORE Program of Restorative Justice for Sex Crimes: Vision, Process, and Outcomes Mary P. Koss, PhD1 Abstract Journal of Interpersonal Violence …”

    “… The article reports empirical evaluation of RESTORE, a restorative justice (RJ) conferencing program adapted to prosecutor-referred adult misdemeanor and felony sexual assaults. RESTORE conferences included voluntary enrollment, preparation, and a face-to-face meeting where primary and secondary victims voice impacts, and responsible persons acknowledge their acts and together develop a re-dress plan that is supervised for 1 year. Process data included referral and consent rates, participant characteristics, observational ratings of conferences compared with program design, services delivered, and safety monitoring. Outcome evaluation used 22 cases to assess (a) pre–post reasons for choosing RESTORE, (b) preparation and conference experiences, (c) overall program and justice satisfaction, and (d) completion rates. This is the first peer-reviewed quantitative evaluation of RJ conferencing for adult sexual assault. Although the data have limitations, the results support cautious optimism regarding feasibility, safety, and satisfactory outcomes. They help envision how conferencing could expand and individualize justice options for sexual assault. Keywords restorative justice, sexual assault, rape, sexual crime, criminology, victimology, law and justice, offender treatment, victim–offender dialogue, violence prevention. …”

    Source: University of Arizona, Tucson, USA Corresponding Author: Mary P. Koss, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Street, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. Email:

  14. From what I understand this is what you call “PARADOX*” when evaluating variables or degrees of variables when doing any kind of experiment, study, research where the observer effects the outcome of the study, research or experiment in absence of independent studies.

    Just like in placebo research, the one who initiates (the seeker of the data) the experiment, study or research cannot be involved in its outcome or in the research itself. All scientists know this and the lay person should point this out and “YELL IT FROM THE ROOF TOPS” because the scientist will not, nor will the legislators or justices because it simply has not been revisited and really evaluated in reality!

    I am quoting the below reference to illustrates a point although I am no expert on this subject. I leave it to the reader to think critically about any kind of research/ publication touting or parading itself as hard empirical cross validated scientific fact?

    In essence I liken this (modern day sexual hysteria) to what is called in social structure and theory “victims of a self-fulfilling prophecy.”


    *Source: January 24, 2008, 11:35 pm
    “How Likely Are Sex Offenders to Repeat Their Crimes? – The Numbers Guy”

    “In debates over laws monitoring released sex offenders, it’s common to hear claims that they’re sure to commit more sex crimes. “‘What we’re up against is the kind of criminal who, just as soon as he gets out of jail, will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time,” a California legislator told the New York Times in 1996. (Other examples of such rhetoric are collected here.) Fox News — like the Wall Street Journal owned by News Corp. — said of child molesters in 2005, “Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing children, but some eventually kill their young victims.”

    But as my print column this week points out, the numbers don’t bear this out. Recidivism rates vary widely depending on which crimes are counted, the timeframe of the studies, and whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self- reporting. But even the author of a widely published report suggesting a recidivism rate of 52%, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren, told me of the notion that all sex criminals are likely to re-offend, “THERE IS NO RESEARCH TO SUPPORT THAT VIEW, PERIOD.”

    Dr. Doren, evaluation director at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wisc., added, “You’re not talking to a bleeding-heart kind of guy here.”
    Yet incorporating convicted sex offenders’ undetected crimes can lead to higher numbers, such as one controversial Canadian study that found long-term recidivism could be as high as 88.3%. (It was debated in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 2006.) Critics say “THAT RATE WAS ARTIFICIALLY INCREASED BY DESIGN.” …”