Jacob

There are a “Ton” of lawyers on this forum. They call them “Armchair lawyers”. People who think they know more than a real lawyer. Most people do not realize that most judges were at one time a lawyer themselves.
On that point, lawyers are not gods, neither are judges, but judges have more power that decides your fate and outcome. A lawyer can have the most powerful case in history and still be struck down. Most cases can appeal and go over the local judge’s head, but on being removed from the register doesn’t seem to have that kind of system. I tried that and the buck stopped with the judge. Yes, you could do a Doe’s style case and go to the supreme court but look how many years that has been ongoing.

None ya

Unfortunately, (And not to be a nay sayer) the other side will find some way to deny and delay, stretching out any court case. Look at the Smith vs. Doe cases that have been ongoing for years.

I hope and pray for the best, but in reality, I cringe every time we get a letdown (No fault of the lawyers, FAC or other hard-working heroes) We are in a David Vs. Goliath situation most of the time on major cases. The smaller cases like Halloween decorations are easier to win because cities do not want to spend tons of money out of their budget over a trivial matter to them.

When a powerful judge or a group of them finally admit the truth of the bad word (Punishment) then maybe eyes, hearts and freedom will be open season.

So D, What are thoughts on the July 2026 trial outcome?

I am in total agreement with you, Connie. My interest in FAC is with a relative of mine. And like you, I don’t understand most of what I’ve read about “Ellingburg.” Layman’s terms would be great.

“Restitution under the MVRA is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Whether a law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause requires evaluating whether the law imposes a criminal or penal sanction as opposed to a civil remedy. That question is one “of statutory construction” that requires the Court to “consider the statute’s text and its structure.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84, 92 (quotation marks omitted). When viewed as a whole, the MVRA makes abundantly clear that restitution is criminal punishment. The MVRA labels restitution as a ‘penalty’ for a criminal ‘offense.’ 18 U. S. C. §3663A(a)(1).”

“The Court’s precedents have understood restitution under the MVRA to be criminal punishment. See Manrique v. United States, 581 U. S. 116, 118. And the Court’s precedents on related issues further buttress the conclusion that MVRA restitution is criminal punishment. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U. S. 321, 328; United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S. 354, 363–366.

“Finally, while Congress intended restitution under the MVRA to both punish offenders and compensate victims, victims cannot initiate or settle the restitution process as they would if it were a civil proceeding. The text and structure of the Act demonstrate that Congress intended restitution under the Act to impose criminal punishment.”

On page 4 of the rling: As the Government cautions, not everything that occurs at criminal sentencing or even that appears in a criminal judgment may necessarily be part of the punishment. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 22–23. But we need not explore that point further here because, for the reasons we have explained, MVRA restitution is criminal punishment.”

“Amicus relies heavily on Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84. There, this Court considered a law requiring a defendant convicted of certain crimes to register as a sex offender. The Court held that the registration mandate was civil. The legislature adopted “distinctly civil procedures” for the imposition of registration requirements. Id., at 96 (quotation marks omitted). By contrast, to reiterate what we said above, MVRA restitution is labeled as a penalty, is codified in the criminal code, is predicated on a criminal conviction, is imposed against a criminal defendant, is sometimes imposed in lieu of other penalties, is ordered at sentencing where the United States is the adverse party, and can result in resentencing when the defendant refuses to pay. So Smith v. Doe does not control.”

Sounds like a lot of a double standard here when looking at this then looking at Smith v. Doe. But the big difference here is that the gov’t didn’t use that disclaimer that restitution isn’t meant to be punitive, which is what we hear with every registry law.

Dazzler
I am 1000% sure Rabi is not stating they want a second chance to re-offend. A second chance OFF of the registry and have somewhat of a normal life without being harassed I am sure is what they are saying.
Anyone who is selfish enough to re-offend deserves what they get because if the Hell all of us have gone through, if we have not learned our lesson by now, God save us all.

I don’t know of any lawyer by the name of dfhdfghfghjjhfgj. Their comment appears generated by an AI prompt.