Amendment to H.R. 515 Is Based On Lies.

The U.S. House of Representatives was set to vote last week on the Amendment added to H.R. 515 by the Senate which would essentially ‘brand’ the passports of individuals require to register. Due to extreme weather in DC the House declared a snow week and will return on Monday, February 1, 2016. According to U.S. House Majority Leader, Representative McCarthy, under suspension of the rules, he will permit consideration to concur in the Senate Amendment – International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders (Sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith / Foreign Affairs Committee).

Click on this link http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and in the upper right corner of the screen put in your zip code to find your representative. Call their office and identify yourself as a constituent and ask the staff person to pass on your request concerning the passport amendment to H.R. 515 added by the Senate. You can also send an email with the same statement using the form on their page.

When the Senate amendment to H.R. 515 is called for vote please do not concur.  Return to regular order and return the bill to the Foreign Affairs Committee for discussion.

The Senate amendment states:

… the Secretary of State shall not issue a passport to a covered sex offender unless the passport contains a unique identifier, and may revoke a passport previously issued without such an identifier of a covered sex offender.

Since this is the first time in U.S. history that any such special designation will appear on the passports of U.S. citizens, it is clearly worth discussion prior to a vote especially since the word ‘covered’ is subject to interpretation at many levels.

Not only is there no empirical evidence indicating that recidivism for individuals required to register increased during international travel there is no justifiable reason to increase our country’s debt by $12,000,000 since we are already in debt for nearly $19,000,000,000,000.

A few high profile arrests Reported by the media does not mean that sex trafficking is rampant in the United States. As of today there is no empirical evidence indicating that assumption to be true. This type of misquoting of facts by media and politicians is at the root of the existence of the registry itself. Legislators, and the Department of Justice have long misrepresented the total re-offense rate for people that are on the registry at around 80%. When in fact, the possibility of someone on the registry being involved in a new sex crime is less than 1% with an empirical data to back up this statistic.

Lawsuits challenging any punitive law enacted will no doubt be filed and while that may certainly be the way our Framers planned our democracy to work in a changing society all monies used on this issue could be better spent on Sexual Abuse Prevention Training programs for children teens and parents here in the U.S. of America.

A person’s reputation is a liberty interest. The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (hereafter “Roth”).

In Constantineau, the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who “‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that “[i]t would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. at 437. as well as the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Hawaii vs. Bani  . The acts of these government officials opened them and the agencies that they operate out of to million Dollar lawsuits under U.S.C. 1983 actions , as well as the possibility of them facing federal charges under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights and Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
Please share this eletter within anyone who will contact members of the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose HR 515 or oppose it online at POPVOX.

8 comments for “Amendment to H.R. 515 Is Based On Lies.

  1. kayt
    January 29, 2016 at 8:01 am

    About two weeks ago I opposed HR 515 on line using POPVOX on line because It would not only be detrimental to any person who would have the scarlet letter on their passport or any ID, it would also be detrimental to their families and loved ones in all types of circumstances.

  2. Will Bassler
    January 29, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    People on the registry and their families are not the only ones that see the evil that has been perpetrated on American citizens by our legislators . It is time that our legislative bodies stopped listening to lobby groups that are supplying them with false information and started doing research into if that information is in fact, verifiable.

    I am quite sure that there were newspapers and groups of people in prewar Germany, who raised the flag disclaiming the actions of the government at stealing citizens rights . I hope that that trend of history is not repeated in this country, because politicians again refuse to stand up for the rights of the people. Even the ones that they dislike.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/06/the-yellow-star-the-scarlet-letter-and-international-megans-law/

  3. January 29, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    It is interesting to note that TWO versions of IML were introduced in 2015, so for the first time, the Senate had their own version of IML. In fact, the “House” version was COMPLETELY replaced with the Senate version. The Senate version, not the House version, contained the nasty “unique identifier provision. The Senate pulled the ol’ switcheroo on us! I hope this helps put a few bumps on the IML fast track.

  4. Scott
    February 2, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    I am interested to know just how many other countries are on board with this?? Will those other countries be forced to comply with this law?? As it is, this country is already secular and many people haven’t come to realize it yet.

    • Twisted arms for foreign aid
      February 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm

      How many countries will come on board with this? Here is how our government will help them come on board – withholding foreign aid, e.g. military, food, security, etc. That is what the Feds do now to the states, withhold Federal Aid with it comes to things the Feds deem critical. It is essentially coercion at its finest. The states don’t have to take it, it is their right. However, how many foreign countries who depend on us for aid would be willing to turn away from our money in return for non-compliance with this law? My two cents

      • Scott
        February 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm

        That statement surely proves a point for the citizens of this country that are yet to unfold. Suppression works. Yea?? That never seems to concern anyone else until it directly effects them personally. I have talked to people who really don’t know much about how the registry works and the laws or regulations we have to follow. I filled them in and they were clueless to know how much we actually went through. i ended their amazement with a statement telling them if it can happen to me they would do it you as well.

        I told them, they always pass laws on a daily basis while people are out working and doing their daily living and most people have no clue things are against the law until they are caught up with including petty laws that are hardly worth it.

  5. Steve
    February 14, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    I think Angel Watch under Homeland Security has made it nearly impossible to travel anywhere in South America since 2015. No trips to mexico, or anyplace else down south. The International Megan’s Law seems to be just codifying what they had already been doing, and it pulls the Angel Watch program out from under Homeland Security and gives it it’s own budget, and makes it, it’s own entity. At least that’s my interpretation of things. Also, if you read the law, it only speaks of “convicted” sex offenders, which makes me think they are on shaky ground sharing the name of someone who was never convicted. Those who pled for differed adjudication. I’m really not sure how they can claim to other countries that a person is a criminal, when there was never a conviction.

  6. Curt
    April 7, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    I committed and plead guilty to one of these crimes while serving in the USAF in 1983. I served 3.5 years in Ft Leavenworth, was released from parole 1 year later and also spent another 7 years in counseling. Approximately 150 days before committing the offense, I was T-Boned by a drunk Greek national in what was estimated to be a 140mph impact. Among issues to my neck, back, shoulder and knee, I was later diagnosed with severe brain trauma. The brain trauma was a MAJOR contributor to my action but, 32 years later, all is well. I had NEVER been in trouble before, nor after. I’m now 60 and retired and my wife and I are going to Costa Rica in May for vacation. We already have our passports, tickets and condo – THEN I read about this law. I am NOT on any State or Federal Sex Offender Registry and haven’t been required to be on one for 22 years. Still, this HR 515 makes it sound as though I could go to jail if I don’t tell someone that I am going on vacation. I do NOT know “WHO” to tell though. I have wrote the Congress people who wrote/sponsored this bill (Rep. Christopher Smith, Christopher [R-NJ]) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and my own Senator (Patty Murray, D-Washington) for guidance on 1.) What I am required to do. 2.) Am I required to do/notify anyone? 3.) Am I now required to get a new passport?. Unfortunately NOBODY will write me back. I did contact the Costa Rican Embassy and they said since my conviction was over 10 years, I was welcome. My FEAR is coming back into the United States….

Comments are closed.