Source: ACSOL
An amended complaint was filed in federal district court yesterday in the lawsuit challenging SORNA regulations which became effective in January 2022. The amended complaint adds three plaintiffs using the pseudonyms “John Does 2, 3 and 4.” The amended complaint also includes the two original plaintiffs — John Doe 1 and ACSOL.
According to the amended complaint, John Does 1 through 3 are no longer required to register in the states in which they currently reside, however, they are required to register under SORNA. John Doe 4 is required to register in two states, the state where he was convicted and the state in which he currently resides.
The amended complaint includes four legal claims — two violations of the federal Administrative Procedures Act as well as a violation of the due process clause and First Amendment. These are the same legal claims stated in the original complaint.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed both the original and amended complaints. The amended complaint was filed after a federal district court hearing held on September 26, during which the judge denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and granted PLF authority to file an amended complaint.
According to lead PLF attorney, Caleb Kruckenberg, a second motion for preliminary injunction will be filed next week. The hearing date for that motion could take place in late 2022 or early 2023.
Download the complaint:
Filed Amended Complaint – Oct 2022
Great Amended Motion!! 😁
Go PLF!! 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
I hope the Hearing will be available via Zoom (like the last one was)! 🤗
Fantastic! A variety of Does, in a variety of situations…but all at risk of Federal FTR charges that require registration that is not allowed. Even if allowed, CA doesn’t collect all required data, which can be used as a FTR violation, despite the impossibility of compliance. We all face that issue.
There is still the Facial ambiguity of the regulations as well. Not sure how that can be avoided. The regulations, as written, are ambiguous! I’m just supposed to know…what garbage!
The AG’s team is Going to have to do quite a bit to dodge all of this.
@Legal team: WELL DONE, and THANK YOU!!!
We are losing at everything
Good luck with this lawsuit. It is just sad and frustrating to see how much one has to fight for their rights. Especially for those who have stopped registering, earned their 1203.4, COR, etc, have not offended, are no threat to anyone. WHY are they fighting so hard to punish people? Why are they spending so much time enacting new laws for people who have served their time and just want to move on. Where is all this hate coming from? Haven’t we learned from the past that hate does nothing in this society?
Go Team!
Sure, end of this year or next year. I can imagine myself going to register in about a month at a department that would love to get me, asking me for more information based on Federal Sorna so that i can be the Ginny Pig who refuses to comply. Still no word from anyone with any expertise on if a person in that situation could be arrested and charged with FTR by State or Feds.
It’s really hard to stay positive through this. I just got hired at a job out of state and hoping they don’t nab me. I’ve been off the hate list for about 5 years. Was removed with the help of my attorney and my time was more then served. Very nervous now. The registry doesn’t just affect those one the hate list but those whom are off it. Because of the constant threat of going back on it and have broken no laws to put me back on to. The constant worry of this bs is driving me crazy. Is that a violation of my rights as well?
What I truly do not comprehend is how an FTR violation can possibly be considered an additional “sex offense”??
There is no assault victim, there is no sexual gratification or intent involved, there is no indecent exposure … How can this possibly be considered another sex offense and thereby considered sexual offense recidivism?
(If you get convicted of DUI and are required to attend driver safety classes, if you fail to attend those classes, you are not charged with a second DUI. [Nor should you be!] 🤷🏻♂️ )
The ‘Separation of Powers’ clause has been urinated on horribly by Congress by allowing the AG to make the sorna guidelines.
The AG is is an ‘Executive branch’ of the government-not ‘Legislative’, but the president and Congress has unconstitutionally granted the AG to make laws concerning sorna thereby horribly violating the ‘Separation of Powers’ doctrine.
Also, it would be great if we could all sue the AG for calling all of us ‘irrefutably dangerous’, which he has no proof at all that all of us are dangerous.
Many of us are compelled to accept a label we are not just because ‘he‘ says so.
I am still confused or maybe just mistaken. I thought in the oral arguments, the Federal attorney said that a person with a dismissed withheld adjudication did not trigger SORNA registration but SORNA’s site says “SORNA’s registration and notification requirements apply to individuals convicted of sex offenses[7] under federal, military,[8] state, territorial, local, tribal, or foreign law.[9] For the purposes of SORNA, a “conviction” may arise from a finding of guilt, but it also covers other findings such as withheld adjudications[10] and certain convictions of juveniles.[11]“
I will be off of the registry in my state in a year. However I visited Florida for a vacation 10 years ago and registered my time there. During a recent background check I showed up on the sex offender list there still as of today. I frequently travel internationally and have had to notify 21 days in advance. When I am off of the registry in my state do I still have to notify 21 days in advance even though I don’t live in the other state that I’m registered in? Any information regarding this is much appreciated. I’m trying to figure all of this out before I’m off the registry in my home state of Michigan.
SORNA is not based on any science. It’s useless at protecting anyone or promoting moral behavior. Like the laws that authorize Iran’s morality police, it’s only there to make our otherwise corrupt leaders look virtuous and so cling to power.
I have asked this before and I will ask again. How can a law be justified based on a blatant lie that is easily debunked? It’s like a student receiving a “D minus” in Math because he says that 4+4 is eight, and the teacher is saying it is ten. Obviously, anyone can prove it is eight, yet he still gets a “D Minus”. So absurd that Smith vs Doe is still the leading cause why the registry is in effect, DESPITE the FACT that anyone can prove them wrong with their “Frightening High” BS.
THE JUDGE SPECIFICALLY STATED (he-Judge BERNAL Fed RIV) wants NAMES not any more JOHN DOES and more than one Plantiff. Unless I am tone deaf. THAT was the Judges’ concerns about this FIled Complaint. It was quite clear, we will have to wait if this same Judge resides the comment during the first. Hope PLF KNOWS what they’re doing in regards to the Judges Request this amended filing Janice Bellucci, Esq. (?) Help?