ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org

 

National

Florida Lawsuit Challenges Continued Registration of Non-Residents and Deceased Persons

Source: ACSOL

A lawsuit was filed in a Florida federal district court today that challenges the continued registration of non-residents and deceased persons convicted of a sex offense.  According to the lawsuit, the Florida registry currently includes more than 28,000 people who do not live in that state as well as more than 1,300 people who are dead.

The plaintiff in this lawsuit was convicted of having sex with a minor (17-year-old woman) who he later married and together they had a child.  After the couple divorced, the plaintiff was awarded custody of the child who is now 12 years old.  The plaintiff permanently left the state of Florida about four years ago and does not plan to return.

Continued registration on the Florida registry has resulted in a significant lack of employment opportunities commensurate with the plaintiff’s education and training, according to the lawsuit.  The plaintiff is also concerned that his child will discover on the internet that he is listed on the Florida registry.

The lawsuit asserts two legal claims — violation of plaintiff’s right of substantive due process provided in both the state and federal constitutions as well as violation of the state privacy laws.  The plaintiff has asked the court to permanently restrain and enjoin the state of Florida from continuing Plaintiff’s sex offender registration and disseminating his personal information to the public.

Download a PDF:

Marcoux v. Swearingen – FL – out of state and dead persons – July 2021

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.
  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
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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I thought I read months ago there was another lawsuit challenging this in Florida already? Or is this that lawsuit and it’s finally going forward?

Wait! Someone is trying to introduce logic into Florida Politics? Good luck with that!
I think instead of trying to eliminate the registry in its current iteration, why aren’t we offering to keep it, but as a secured L.E. data base for everyone except people who have been labeled “SVP”, which could still be public.
That would appease the public’s thirst for information about potentially harmful people while at the same time allowing law enforcement to say they are honestly keeping track of registrants.
Job opportunities, housing, and individual rights would open up, and cases of recidivism would decrease even farther. I bet if it were done in the same quiet way that the IML and other SORNA laws are introduced, most wouldn’t even notice it. Most people don’t even know all the absurd restrictions placed on us. They just know ‘person listed on the registry living close’ and panic.
Florida is a lost cause when it comes to ANY person with a felony conviction’s civil rights. But the rest of the country still can be saved. We need to stop trying to take such a big bite out of the apple.

@Way too long

As much as I share with some of your sentiments about Florida I still believe in fighting the good fight not because it is easy but because it is the right thing to do regardless of the opposition. Never give up!

The problem with that logic is there are plenty of people labeled svp and that doesn’t mean they’re anymore dangerous than anyone else. Don’t forget many are labeled svp due to the alleged victims age alone, not because they actually did something worse than someone who did something to a victim at the age before it becomes svp. (Example would be age 12 gets you svp while age 13 doesn’t even though they committed the same offense). To fight these unjust laws doesn’t mean you have to throw others under the bus. That’s exactly what the LGBT community has done to get ahead.

I know that. Unfortunately there needs to be compromises on both sides. The public sees the registry and already thinks ‘SVP’. Just like they hear a person touched a 16 yr old and think ‘ Pedo’.
if you didn’t ‘toss’ someone under the bus, the phrase wouldn’t exist.
Thrown Under The Bus
And yes, sometimes there does have to be a sacrificial lamb. Sorry, that’s the way I feel.

So, you’d be willing to be the sacrificial lamb for others benefit?

Yes, that is exactly what he agreed to.

I do feel like we definitely need a lot more people who actively and vigorously discriminate against Registry Supporters/Terrorists (RS/Ts). Personally, I do it all the time. Every time that I have any significant opportunities to give or work with people, I find out if they are a big government taint licker or not. If they are, I put them on my denylist. Years after, if I have a reason to do so, I’ve checked with some people or businesses again to see if they’ve improved. I don’t recall anyone getting off the denylist.

I use my list to deny people lucrative business contracts, employment, housing, and anything else I can. I wage economic warfare on RS/Ts. I’d describe some of the crazy extremes that I’ve done but I’ve found that most people don’t even believe me, so I won’t waste our time. I’ve been creative though.

Long, long ago when I was first listed on the Oppression Lists, I was having a hard time getting work and then later, clients. It really angered me so I decided at that time that I was going to be the one in control and making the decisions. I was already pretty successful but that early experience really sent me off on a path to power. I do believe I have the Oppression Lists to thank for that, so maybe they are a great thing.

RS/Ts are evil. I encourage all people to deliver real consequences to them. They need to be weak and neutralized. They need to have enough problems that they have to mind their own business and leave other families alone.

That is a weaker version of what the American Law Institute (ALI) recommended in its latest iteration of the Model Penal Code (MPC) approved on June 8. It recommends that the registry apply to only 5 enumerated crimes (all sexual assault) with no public access. Dr. Ellman ACSOL published a synopsis of the MPC on this website. Just search for Model Penal Code.

The ALI and the MPC offer extremely credible ammunition for anti-registration arguments. I intend to study their analyses and comments carefully.

Veritas.

Just lawyer talk for ” let’s reign the jeanie back into the bottle before it is too late. ” And they wonder why people storm the Capitol where Congress does its business. The very instant Congress sold the sex offenders sovereignty the rest of the people went too.

I never understood them leaving people on their list who are deceased or no longer living there. Isn’t the purpose of Megan’s Law to inform your surrounding neighbors so they have the opportunity to “protect themselves” against you? It’s quite obvious that Florida has other intentions with it. I don’t see how this hasn’t already been ordered to stop doing it.

The reason that Florida keeps dead and non-residents on their registry is to keep it as big and bloated as they can. All states get federal grants to maintain their registries, the amounts depending on the number of registrants they have. That’s why the crimes of inclusion increased so dramatically over the years since ML was implemented.

The numbers cited in the suit seem low to me. Last I saw, Florida had around 72,000 registrants, of which 40,000 were either dead, incarcerated, or have left the state. I never saw how that was broken down, but it still seems a little low.

Personally, I’d like to see the ironically-named SMART office audit the funds they give Florida in particular. “Substantial compliance” is one of the things they have to demonstrate to get federal funding. I want the FDLE to show how their dead registrants are somehow reporting in person to confirm that they are in fact still dead. Or how their non-resident registrants return to the state every year or so to confirm that they no longer live there. After that, I’d like to see some federal fraud charges against them.

I can dream, cant I?

Last edited 3 months ago by Dustin

Kind of surprised they were able to reside in Canada with their strict rules

He is a Canadian citizen. Dual citizenship.

Before the tiered registry here in CAi, I use to tell my family that when I die, do what they can to get my name off the web. I feel I would be ridiculed even in death as long as my profile remained after my demise. As soon as my name was off…then I could rest in peace.

Does a state have any real interest in protecting citizens from threats not presently at hand?

Tim, you mean like the clear and present threat obviously presented by deceased registrants who also continue to be listed on Florida’s Registry”?? “Zombie sex offender seen roaming local streets!” 🧟😱

Congressional intent involved precisely the life term of the human AND NOT the lifetime of a computer database file. An important aspect to consider, don’t you think?

Keeping dead people on the government-sponsored “Megan’s Law” hit list? Man, oh man, this country is the biggest joke there is. So much of a joke that I’m probably going to take the American flag off my front porch soon.

No point flying the flag of a country that sponsors the Megan’s Law Hit List for its tax-paying citizens.

You could always fly the flag upside down since the country is in distress. Might be a long before America gets off the holier than thou pedestal.

I’ll burn the American flag for now. It doesn’t deserve respect.

Follow the money!

I’m not so sure a dead person can file a complaint. I’m not sure on what grounds a complaint could survive other than it violates them term designation as a ” life term ” within the law. Obviously, no one benefits from a broadcast of a dead man’s whereabouts except for the collective itself. Our FBI, Finger print database AFIS is full of deceased people’s prints. Same goes for DNA databases. Collections for collection sake is a hallmark of bloated unwieldy institutions.

I wonder if the family members of a deceased registrant would have legal standing to argue for that registrants removal from the Florida registry? 🤔😏

Curious, would not the registry require a place of residency for the deceased and the residency must be a housing edifice, not a park. A cemetery is a park and cannot be used as a viable place of residency. Thus, shouldn’t a deceased person’s last living residency be identified as a registrant is living there? And, thusly, the registry is affecting that new resident as well as housing market?

I think we need to sprinkle ashes on Ron’s lawn.

I do believe anyone who remains residing at the residence or resides in the residence that continues to be reported as a residence of the PFR would have some sort of standing to pursue legal action. But maybe if they could prove some sort of tangible violation of their personal rights or monetary loss. These are hard fights to prove.

One possibility would be to subpoena the online traffic data of the registry, and make Florida prove that data serves public safety. Based on the search hits by the public searches, what exactly happens when the public searches a registry database? How often does someone search for someone who moved out of state or is dead? Punishment or not, there is a liberty interest at stake.

I recall an old article that stated most of the online traffic at Megan’s Law was by registrants searching for themselves. Makes sense, wanting to know what the government is doing with you. I always thought the law against visiting the registry in California was actually to limit our knowledge.

I always thought the law against visiting the registry in California was actually to limit our knowledge.

Only after reading the review of the CA Constitution’s right to privacy law did I realize that ML law preventing us from seeing our own information is in violation of right to privacy such that we are forced not to confirm the information published against us is accurate.

Janice and ACSOL had to sue to get the registry updated with correct information (to which I have no idea if DOJ has updated with correct information).

CA’s right to privacy law is a powerful law that ACSOL needs to lean on heavily to tear the registry apart that bypasses the punitive protection of the registry.

On an odd thought, if we’re no longer under custody, then why have this banishment from looking at your own information online? Shouldn’t we have our civil rights restored, especially all of our civil rights restored under the CA Constitution? The right to privacy is an inalienable right under CA Constitution.

How does the California criminal regime try to justify preventing PFRs (People Forced to Register) from using the Registries? What are their excuses and/or lies?

@David

I believe they would. One could cross-ref the hit list entry with the obituary since the obituary usually lists family members they are leaving behind or were preceded by in death. It is not hard at that point to make a connection between them.

Is there a time limit on the listing of the deceased so the public can become informed of the passing of the person’s life? What are the numbers FLA uses when seeking USG money for their hit list? Everyone ever registered or just the lives ones still registering?

This case is interesting in a tangent to a dismissed case. In both instances, the courts deem their information no longer useable. Why is unusable information still being utilized as live information by the state registry?

CA’s PC 1203.4 specifically states, “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.”

31
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.