Comments on: Certiorari DENIED in Snyder and Karsjens – SCOTUS and Florida Sex Offenders

By: DW

DW — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:11:28 +0000

In reply to Florida Action Committee. I'm not going anywhere. Just waiting to hear.

By: DW

DW — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:00:11 +0000

In reply to JoeM. You are correct Joe, as I understand it, if you manage to take the old eternal dirt-nap, floriduh keeps you on the registry. Thanks for the information though. Hate being on the registry here, there or anywhere. Was just hopeful that all the other accouterments floriduh has added over the years would go away.

By: JoeM

JoeM — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 02:58:56 +0000

In reply to Debbie. Of course, the other states will try to say what the SG said and claimed that there laws are different. They only problem with that is that some of the laws are WORSE than in Michigan. Alabama may be a good example. Same with Florida because by action or inaction, they permitted/condoned the ex post facto application of draconian residency requirements, etc. well in excess of the state restrictions by counties and municipalities.

By: JoeM

JoeM — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 02:55:22 +0000

In reply to Florida Action Committee. Am I correct in thinking that one of the successful challenges to to the "enhanced" Georgia laws was heard by the Us District Court in Atlanta? I remember that the Georgia Supreme Court really lowered the boom on the state, but I seem to recall that one matter, maybe the retroactive application of residency restrictions that threw people out of homes they already occupied might have gone before the Federal court.

By: JoeM

JoeM — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 02:52:56 +0000

In reply to Florida Action Committee. Even if you are out of state, you are still on the Florida registry forever.

By: JoeM

JoeM — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 02:51:59 +0000

In reply to Bobby. I wound't get you hopes up too high as the BASE level registry is still considered to be valid by the SCOTUS

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 21:59:21 +0000

In reply to TXSO4life. you've asked this question on the california blog too. Why don't you write the attorney's office and ask them.

By: TXSO4life

TXSO4life — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:12:34 +0000

Was wondering, the attorney in the McGuire case did not cited the troubling statement in the Packingham case. The Packingham parenthetical is a very powerful antidote to the registry. Numerous opd-Ed articles and lawyers have referenced it. Judge Matsch (Colorado case) has used it in his opinion. One Federal circuit (2nd) mentioned it in dicta (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1870134.html) panel from a state appellate court in Indiana (John Doe, et al. v. The Boone County Prosecutor) read it during oral argument. When combined with cert denial to the Snyder case, I think it speaks volume! That’s why I was curious as to why (even in the latest addition to his briefing) the attorney in McGuire case did not used it to empowered his arguments! I mean if THAT has being used by judge to help his decision carry more weight, it surely has to be important!

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 14:44:19 +0000

A point of interest: Karsjens v. Piper was denied cert BUT the amicus brief from ATSA was granted. SCOTUS now has a document that was prepared by professional therapists in their grasps to review. Snyder was a win but this acceptance of an amicus brief supporting the “truth” about sex offenders is ALSO a win.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100217zor_o7jp.pdf

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 14:06:05 +0000

In reply to Bobby. Bobby, FAC cannot answer that question. We are a Florida based group. You will need to have a Michigan attorney answer that for you.