Source: ACSOL
A federal court today denied a motion requesting a preliminary injunction in a case challenging the SORNA regulations. The court’s decision was based upon a determination that the sole individual plaintiff, John Doe, lacks legal standing because he has already registered for the time period required by his SORNA tier. The judge then provided plaintiffs with an opportunity to file an amended complaint within 14 days as well as to file a subsequent motion for preliminary injunction.
During today’s hearing, the parties discussed whether SORNA regulations apply to individuals who have earned a dismissal and/or been granted a certificate of rehabilitation. The government argued that the SORNA regulations do not need to clarify SORNA’s application to such individuals because “it’s for the registrant to decide” if SORNA applies to him or her.
The Court appeared to reject the government’s argument and explained that federal criminal liability requires a clear statement regarding to whom the SORNA regulations apply. The Court also opined that, if SORNA regulations do not clearly state the individuals to whom they apply, then the regulations are “unintelligible.” The Court also asked how a registrant is supposed to know if they are subject to the SORNA regulations and stated that the SORNA regulations should be clear regarding the requirements in all 50 states.
During today’s hearing, the Court did not make any decisions regarding the merits of the SORNA regulations or the application of those regulations to individuals granted either a dismissal or a certificate of rehabilitation.
Meanwhile in California, ex-offenders will be allowed to seal their criminal records with the exception of sex offenders.
New California law will allow ex-offenders to seal criminal records. There’s no such thing as equality under the law
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-california-law-will-allow-ex-offenders-seal-criminal-records
I suppose that means embezzlers will be able to get jobs at banks, arsonists will get jobs at fire departments, drug dealers will get jobs at pharmacies, but the registrant will still be unable to even get a job picking up roadside trash.
Sounds fair.
I watched this and like everyone here I was shocked when she said the “registrant to decide”. I thought the judge was good in allowing to amend.
I am confused as to the over all case and it seems only this one little thing is being challenged about whether or not someone has a….oh what was it? Expungement? I think. So the case effects nothing else?
Hey FAC is it possible to use those response letters about hurricane procedures for SO’S in our pending lawsuits? Im not a legal expert but maybe lawyers can find some legal issues and add them to the discovery before our expostfacto cases go to trial. Just a thought, appreciate all the work yall been doing in our behalf. This whole hitlist scheme I believe might be coming to an end soon hopefully.
For what purpose?
Im talking about forcing us to either stay at our homes during hurricanes or “seek shelter” in jail. That just sounds all kinds of wrong but idk if that violates any specific laws we can bring up in court.
That’s exactly it, it’s an outrageous human rights abuse but one has to find a specific constitutional category it fits into in order to sue for a civil rights violation. Just being a registered citizen alone isn’t a protected category, and to an average person a jail looks pretty good during a natural disaster…as a structure it’s not necessarily less comfortable than a shelter.
Seems to me that if someone has diagnosed PTSD from their previous experience of being incarcerated, they’d have a fairly good case that they’re being effectively being discriminated against due to a disability.
Hey Dennis thanks for your input, I believe it does violate some sort of due process assuming one will commit a criminal act during an emergency situation simply because of a criminal act committed in the past. Then forcing the person to separate from their families to bunker in a correctional facility because “they’re too likely to reoffend, so they can’t go to a regular shelter or anywhere else except jail”. I can see some lawyer arguing this in court, ofcoarse it’ll be a challenge but.. maybe
I am not required to register under Missouri SORA since I have a SIS. Plea bargained prior to enactment of registry. I am now on solely based on Federal SORNA. Bow can you ne a tier 3 for life with no conviction? Just baffles my f’n mind.
Great question, how do you find the answers to that.
How can we get retro active life bans with no conviction.
Any way to post the recorded hearing for those of us missed it? Thanks !!
There was no recording – you would have to order a transcript. It was a live broadcast.
Never understood this”lacks legal standing because he has already registered for the time period required ” each time you “re-register” it states the whole process over. So who cares if I registered 20 times. I am challenging last months registration. See what I am getting at.
He has no more obligation to register under SORNA.
But didn’t he contend that the revised regs nevertheless applied to him, notwithstanding that his term of registration per his SORNA tier has concluded? There must’ve been some revision that could’ve been interpreted as applying even if your Registration obligation has ended …
I guess the judge implicitly said “if your term of registration has ended none of this applies any longer.”
??
Thank you.
Basically, you don’t have standing to file a lawsuit if the end result (winning) would have no impact on you. There must be a “case or controversy” between the parties in order for a court to have jurisdiction, and the plaintiff must be able to show that he or she would benefit from the relief requested.
“Legal Standing” has become the governments beginning argument for every case they know they will lose if it ever gets to court. The judicial branch, from the US Supreme Court to circuit courts, has gone along with this power grab by making “legal standing” harder and harder to have.
Let’s see now! The prosecutor is so convinced that SORNA is so engrained in American culture now that she doesn’t need to be prepared because whether she presents an argument that makes any since or not, doesn’t matter. Of course that’s true because SORNA never made any since from the start. So why change coarse now? Just make an appearance and the swamp will take care of the rest. Unconstitutional doesn’t matter. There convinced no judge would rule in favor of someone on the registry if they like their job.
Ok…so I have decided that SORNA doesn’t apply to me…..I am a free man now….I can travel the world, visit Disney, watch my kids play in the playground, and eat in any restaurant deemed as a children gathering place and not be afraid of being handcuffed and dragged away in front of my family, am I reading this right then?….yeap…actually I just woke up from my wonderful dream….
I don’t see how the judge could rule in favor of the government now since he clearly sees they are leaving it up to registrants to determine whether or not they are supposed to register.
The very least, we will probably get out of this is an amended sorna and then another challenge to that amendment will occur.
Sorna has seemingly been made into a never-ending, giant, legal puzzle where we, the plaintiffs, find the pieces that don’t fit and then changes are made so they do.
I’m confused. My charges were state. Done my time. Off probation. Can I tell the state to hit the road? Especially since I have left Florida for North Carolina
I do not identify as a sex offender who is required to register, the State of Florida and the United States of America have identified me as such. I only register out of compulsion on the threat of black letter law that failure to register will (not could) lead to criminal penalties.
Did anyone else listen in on the Zoom conference call Hearing this morning?
It was great fun! The judge was openly critical of the position presented by the USDOJ’s attorney and even scolded her for her lack of preparation. Furthermore, he clearly saw through some of the absurd BS arguments she was presenting! Such as “The USDOJ doesn’t prosecute a [FTR] case if the individual genuinely believes they did not have a duty to register.”* 🙄
Hmm, so I can “not have to register” simply by believing that I don’t need to register. 🤔🤨 LOL! 🙄 Yeah, sure!! Okay, guys, who’s gonna come visit me in Federal lock-up when that sh#t argument fails!!?? 😂
As I see it, the judge’s decision and “request” that the PLF submit an amended motion is actually very good in the sense that the judge is creating a very strong, hard-to-attack position for when he makes his final ruling. Whichever way the ruling goes, the losing side/party will certainly appeal the decision. In which case, the Hearing record along with the parties’ pleadings will provide a difficult-to-assail position supporting his ruling. That will be very important as this case slowly moves forward, heading directly towards SCOTUS.
Honestly, the USDO’s attorney was so unprepared and her arguments were so ridiculous, that I really suspect the DOJ just sent her into this round to give her some experience, knowing full well that she would perform poorly. Also knowing full well that this case will be appealed and then DOJ will bring out the real attorneys (assuming, of course, they have real attorneys hidden away somewhere! 😆)
Your analysis may be correct, but a part of me thinks that the DOJ and other followers of the registry cult are so brainwashed in their thinking that they simply can’t conceive of their view being wrong, thus they place themselves wholly unprepared to survive even the most rudimentary examination.
I wish I could have heard it. I have no sympathy for the USDOJ attorney being scolded – this is what SHOULD happen when you side with an argument that is a figurative house of cards. The slightest puff of a little common sense and Constitutional critical review causes it to fall to pieces.
“The government argued that the SORNA regulations do not need to clarify SORNA’s application to such individuals because ‘it’s for the registrant to decide’ if SORNA applies to him or her.“
So when I decide they law doesn’t apply to me (because no PFR in their right mind would AGREE to this!), the government will respect my determination, right? Or will they send men with guns and handcuffs to drag me away?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Yes, Moose, I found the USDOJ attorney’s argument incredibly amusing. So, to be clear, I do not have to register simply through the power of my own belief that I don’t have to register?? 🤔🤨
(Yeah, I’m a register-under-duress registrant and even I don’t believe that horseshit argument she presented!!)
🧚 USDOJ attorney presents famous “Tinkerbell Argument” at Hearing:
“.. .and Tinkerbell told the children, ‘Just believe that you can fly …. and you can fly!!’ ” 🧚
Judge was NOT amused!! 😠
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Okay now im really lost!
…the SORNA regulations do not need to clarify SORNA’s application to such individuals because “it’s for the registrant to decide” if SORNA applies to him or her…