I think what Mike is asking for is transparency not only in the cases being pursued but also financial statements of FAC quarter annually or at least annually.

Lets assume, after an initial consolation, the legal committee agrees a challenge has legs. Now lets further assume there are 650 members in FAC. a one time special assessment of at least $100 brings in $65,000.00. Realizing more than half the members can not afford this assessment, let alone a burger and fries, perhaps 10 or 20 members would be willing to contribute $1,000 or more.

The legal committee needs funding. An escrow account could be set up, if not done so already, requiring two signatures, that of the President and Treasurer of FAC. for any authorized disbursements.

I am a card carrying member of the ACLU as every member should be. What about FAC? Surely a significant annual contribution to the ACLU from FAC would be greatly appreciated and helpful.

A separate account should be set up for the collecting of administrative costs funded by the membership dues.

There is power in numbers. And as DS said and to which I agree, we need to take our fight to the courts. I could have went to this County meeting, however it would have been a fruitless endeavor bringing unwanted attention and perhaps retaliation my way. If and when the residency restriction falls transiency among RSO should plummet anyway.

The fight is against the SORR. Let them have their show. I refuse to be their star.

So I agree with FAC that we can’t afford to challenge every B.S local ordinance. Our focus and resources must be directed at both State and Federal levels, that which will give us the best bang for the buck.

Thanks Derek.
The address for today’s meeting is on the call to action on our website. Let’s see who shows.

My beef tonight is not with FAC, but with those of you who read this but complain about what to do while not actually doing it. FAc, like my website, and like numerous other groups out there, are all grassroots campaigns. We don’t have the funds to fight legal wars, and that’s quite frankly while I have stated the legal route is our least desirable path. Bills are easier to fight than laws. Laws require expensive lawsuits, with expensive attorneys. A certain other person wants $100k to fight IML. That’s a lot to ask about a bunch of poor folks. However, here’s a bill not yet law that can be challenged with less money.

Having stopped numerous bills in various states, I know that many bills get passed into laws because no one challenged it, and many bills don’t become laws because someone challenged it. Now, from a financial standpoint, it makes sense to challenge bills than file lawsuits. Bill challenging is an ounce of prevention while lawsuits are very expensive cures (that sometimes don’t cure).

The cost of a few minutes of your life to testify against a bill is cheaper than the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of bucks it takes to file a lawsuit that could get dismissed. So why is it when I watch testimony from any legislative meetings down in FloriDUH I don’t see a room full of opponents to the law? I don’t know just how big a BOD this group has but I know lots of folks not BOD read this site. So why are you depending on FAC staffers alone to do the job? Hell, I was willing to travel to testify against these disgusting Books, and I’m just some guy collecting a $770 per month gov’t check and food stamps. I stayed at the camp a few days just to talk with folks and try to gather some resources for those in need. So why is it more of you living down there not joining the efforts in person?

We need people there IN PERSON. Like I said, I wanted to. I put myself in debt trying to do my part. I did contact the commission for what it is worth. But those of you who live close enough to drive, what is your excuse not to fight?

involved?

@DS

lol, Glad you are. Enjoy it. 🙂

@Mary
I agree with you completely. 😄 right now I’m vacationing in the 6th circuit. Oh what a relief it is flop flop fizz fizz…

@DS

Have a little faith 🙂

I see it differently. I think both issues or cases can be easily won if the courts only follow the law and recent rulings by SCOTUS and other Federal courts.

Anything that is not aligned with 2003 Smith V. Doe should not exist. That includes residency/proximity restrictions and internet identifiers ( among many other things, but I won’t get into that ) When courts rule, they follow that 2003 ruling as a guideline. It’s how the 6th circuit ruled, it’s how SCOTUS checked to see if that’s how the 6th circuit ruled and it’s how the SG briefed it to SCOTUS that indeed that’s how the 6th circuit ruled. The 6th circuit judge said it in her opinion that Smith V. Doe is not a blank check for politicians to keep mounting future laws onto it. The 6th circuit got it correctly(Solicitor General’s opinion to SCOTUS), which is why SCOTUS didn’t touch it. They have thousands of cases presented to them. They are not going to accept a case just to agree with a case. The Packingham case was different because it’s never been done before(first amendment rights on the internet not just for sexual offenders but for everyone else in general)

The Snyder 6th circuit ruling bypassed by SCOTUS is the precedent for other courts to follow which is what the 11th did when they remanded back to the lower district court. The lower district court can disagree all they want, but then it can be sent back to the same higher court that remanded it in the first place. I actually wished it did. That way if they rule in our favor, Georgia and Alabama can get rid of this ridiculous mess as well. There is also a similar case to the Snyder case in the same 11th circuit court pending(in Alabama).
I believe it’s the McGuire case. Should be an interesting and important case to follow.

Nothing is ever guaranteed, anything can happen, but the outcome looks a lot better than it did more than a decade ago for RSOs.

Mike, please take a few deep breaths. DS is very involved and valued. We should not be disrespecting each other.

We have the ACLU already representing us in a HUGE case! Florida Institutional Legal Services picked up another and the Florida Justice Institute is co-counsel in our Internet identifier case. These organizations are not getting paid. In fact, they front costs that we’d never be able to afford even if we applied our entire year’s budget.

If you can find other lawyers who will take these cases PRO BONO, great! Please tell us about them, because we’ve not found any willing to not only eat their billable hours, but cover filing fees, expert witnesses, depositions, transcripts, etc.

We regularly reference our active legal cases and the information is all publicly accessible. These are federal cases and on PACER. We give at least as much “talk time” to legal as we do to legislative.

If ANYONE, absolutely anybody, wants to get involved and help find attorneys, legal aid organizations, law school clinics, etc. who are willing to take on one of our cases for free. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE get involved and help find them. Reach out to legal@floridaactioncommittee.org and volunteer.

Don’t patronize me. I know how it works too. You have no idea of where my activism comes from. I have been involved in this fight since 2003.

I have been told that lawyers won’t do anything for us in Florida unless they get paid, but I don’t see a weekly post asking for donations in active cases. It’s worth it to keep everyone updated on how much money we have/need and keeping everyone informed as to what direction we are headed.

FAC keeps us advised with the bills each calendar year…..why not with lawsuits. We stand to gain if everyone knew what was going on.