ACSOL: Federal Court Denies Injunction, Allows Amended Complaint and New Motion
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.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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…