ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
10/20 – Los Angeles, 11/17- Phone, 12/08 – San Diego

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

General NewsNational

FL: Ex Post Facto Lawsuit Filed (FAC)

A lawsuit was filed in Federal Court challenging the Florida Sex Offender registry. The suit is a facial challenge, filed on behalf of persons required to register in the State of Florida.

It argues that the registry violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the constitution, constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment, violates Procedural Due Process, violates Substantive Due Process, is unconstitutionally Vague, has no rational relationship to its purpose and asks the Court to permanently restrain and enjoin the FDLE from enforcing the registration statute. More from Florida Action Committee

Join the discussion

  1. Ron

    Wow, that is a large law suit. It seems as if everything is being challenged. This will be in court for years. It does raise many good points.

  2. Tim

    Damn! They are challenging every single possible violation under one umbrella. That’s awesome !!! I hope they pull through with a win when it comes down to it. My best wishes to FAC, the attorneys involve and the RCs in FL.

  3. AO

    Well, this is a big one we’ve all been waiting for. I just hope it doesn’t get shut down as hard as CA’s lawsuit against the passport mark.

    • David

      @ AO: ACSOL has attacked IML and the Passport Identifier and I am certain will continut to do so. I see ACSOL’s previous attacks as being “from the side”. I suspect the next suit will be head-on when someone bearing a marked passport suffers negative impacts as a direct result of the marker. Such a lawsuit would be much harder for a judge to simply dismiss out of hand.

  4. matthew

    This will determine if the case goes to the Supreme Court to be honest. If the court says as we hope, other states will disagree. That will pretty much guarantee sometime the SC will have to hear it. I think attorneys should present the idea that a person can simply just google a name and it pop up without wanting to find that information. They must see that only a small percent reoffend and that it does hinder our own pursuit of happiness.
    It does put families in vulnerable positions and hurts us being a contributing member of society. Third parties will continue to blast old information.

  5. AJ

    Note to FAC: your Declarations for Does 2 – 5 have a recurring typo. Every Declaration starts with, “My name is John Doe 1.” While correct for John Doe 1, it’s wrong thereafter. Ooops.

  6. PK

    That place is harsh. I guess I will never get the chance to go to Disney World in my lifetime.

    • ma.concerned.citizen

      I’ve been to the mouse twice since signing up for my Costco membership. Just kept a low profile, and had a great time with my family both times. Flew once and drove once. We’re actually planning another trip in the spring. I refuse to let these morons ruin my life.

    • Jack

      There are ways to get around such non sense. I’m in Florida and have been staying in other parts of FL for weekends and long weekends. Orlando amusement parks as well. Always rent a car and never under your name and you never drive ( always with trusted people like family). Staying at a hotel never under your name. Pay cash at the windows of those amusement parks. Keep it low key and never attract attention to yourself – have clean wholesome fun. Has it been illegal for me to do those things ? Yes, but it is also illegal, unconstitutional and inhumane what they are doing to us. Not going to let it deprive me. Just do it smart and well planned.

      • R M

        Doing it in anyway shape or form (illegally) can lead one to many years behind bars. But I agree in the fact that “it is also illegal, unconstitutional and inhumane what they are doing to us.”. Not only that, but you just posted that you commit crimes for the whole world to see. People other than “us” see these posts.

        • Will Allen

          Are those activities illegal? That seems outrageous. Who could respect any criminal regime that makes such things illegal? F them. They are lucky they aren’t burnt to the ground. Wage war, people. People who support the Registries are not our fellow citizens.

        • Muriel THOME

          What the RC is doing is NOT ILLEGAL!! It is a valid work around the laws in Florida. Our lawyer stated that it is perfectly legal so long as you stay and report it to the sheriff’s as your would for any other trip lasting more than 48 hours. Devious maybe, but not against the law.

        • Will Allen

          Muriel THOME (October 11, 2018):

          There is nothing “devious” about living a normal life and keeping criminal regimes from harassing you. And even if “Jack” did actually do something illegal, he certainly did not do anything wrong.

          But he did say “long weekends” and I’m assuming that is longer than 48 hours. Perhaps he was supposed to tell a criminal regime about that?

          And I just can’t let it slide … anyone who thinks it is acceptable that a person who is not on probation or parole is supposed to tell a criminal regime if they are going to be visiting some area for more then 48 hours is a person who does not deserve to live in America. They are certainly not Americans for whom any of us should have any concern. We need to get them out of our country.

        • R M

          @ Will and Muriel: He himself (Jack) stated “Has it been illegal for me to do those things ? Yes….”. I do understand the difference of something being illegal and what’s right. Non-the-less, he stated he committed crimes.

        • Will Allen

          R M (October 13, 2018 at 12:36 pm):

          I saw that Jack said something was illegal. My question was/is – is it actually illegal? What and why?

          I suppose the “long weekends”? If that is the case, the criminal regime that forces that, and ALL of its supporters needs to be burned to the ground. No American could support them.

      • Tim

        ” Yes, but it is also illegal, unconstitutional and inhumane what they are doing to us. ”

        Well said Jack, and that is exactly why this lawsuit with every possible violation towards us was file. Hope you guys win and we can finally enjoy our lives the normal way.

  7. G4Change

    Wow! They threw everything but the kitchen sink into this one!!! I pray the plaintiffs win.

    • PK

      I heard that in order to have a successful lawsuit, the initial challenge should be narrow in order to provide for a more surgical approach to cut-away at the bigger problem.

  8. PK

    You would think this would be a big deal for everyone who participates in this blog no?

    • matthew

      Strongly agree.

    • Scotus Save Us Now

      Its only a big deal if it makes it to SCOTUS. Otherwise it only effects that area of the country

      • Tired of this

        Oh, I think it’s a big deal regardless. If successful, it sets legal precedent and opens the floodgates for similar challenges nationwide. Not only that, the fact that such a suit was filed at all should give all of us hope that the constitutionality of the registry is finally being seriously discussed. It wasn’t that long ago that we saw nothing but bad news and no one was even challenging these laws. The tide seems to be turning, slowly but surely.

      • matthew

        Think big picture on opinions of courts and their reasoning.. This is huge for everyone on this board.

  9. HOOKSCAR

    I think Janice et ell should perform the same suit here. If the registry is going to come down, it has to be gang tackled along with the Gundy suit to be decided by SCOTUS.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Hookscar – We have a major obstacle in California that they may or may not have in Florida. We have a state supreme court case which ruled that a plea bargain is a contract that can be unilaterally changed by the government, but not the registrant.

    • PK

      I think anyone considering challenging their State’s Ex Post Facto violation should consider waiting-it-out until there is a final decision in this Florida case. Whether it be the Florida State Supreme Court or SCOTUS.

  10. Tim Moore

    Agree. RE: Gundy is limited. The AG shouldn’t be allowed to determine who gets punishment and who doesn’t (yet basically that is how it works at the county level), but neither should the Congress decide a group of former offenders should be punished after the fact, simply because they have a common conviction type. That, I think is where the evil springs.

Leave a Reply

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 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.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

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

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *