Comments on: EPF I – Does v Glass, lives on! 4th Amended Complaint Filed

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Fri, 01 May 2026 00:53:38 +0000

In reply to Connie. When a legal matter is “in litigation,” it signifies that a formal dispute has entered the court system for resolution.

By: Connie

Connie — Fri, 01 May 2026 00:41:12 +0000

In reply to None Ya. What does in litigation mean?

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:23:48 +0000

In reply to Just Sayin. Absolutely agree! We've posted some deep dives into this decision a few months ago and registry meets all the elements that Justice Thomas said constitute punishment.

By: Just Sayin

Just Sayin — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:12:08 +0000

In reply to None Ya.

The Supreme Court did make something clear in Ellingburg v. United States (2026): courts must look at what a law actually does, not what it’s called. If it imposes ongoing, state-enforced burdens tied to a past conviction, it can qualify as punishment—even if labeled “civil.”
Florida’s registry laws require continuous reporting, restrict travel, and impose criminal penalties for noncompliance long after a sentence is complete. That looks more like ongoing punishment than regulation.
And in cases like mine in a federal possession of CP case, where no specific factual findings (such as victim age) were ever determined, the state is adding new consequences based on facts that were never adjudicated. That raises serious constitutional concerns.

By: None Ya

None Ya — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 18:08:34 +0000

In reply to FAC-3. Gosh.... that's disappointing. Thank you for the response!

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:16:52 +0000

This is the first time I’ve encountered the verbiage “irremediably depraved perverts” in a Federal court filing.

Notice how Val and Todd never give up!

By: tearfuleagle

tearfuleagle — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 12:35:34 +0000

Just a quick question. So is this 4th amended complaint just to force FDLE to allow out of state travel to reported via the online portal?

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 12:02:06 +0000

In reply to None Ya. It is in litigation. The Ellingsburg decision was not about public safety. It was about restitution.

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 11:23:54 +0000

In reply to J.

Please send us a copy of that letter IMMEDIATELY! legal@floridaactioncommittee.org

By: None Ya

None Ya — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:56:48 +0000

The 2026 Supreme Court decision in ***Ellingburg v. United States*** has handed the Florida Action Committee a massive victory in the fight against unconstitutional registry laws.
For too long, Florida has dodged the **Ex Post Facto Clause** by claiming the registry is just a “civil safety measure.” ***Ellingburg* just called their bluff.** The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot avoid the Constitution simply by putting a “civil” label on what is clearly a punishment.
**Why this changes everything for our Ex Post Facto cases:**
* **Labels Don’t Matter:** If the Supreme Court says a financial payment is “punishment,” then a lifetime of reporting, GPS monitoring, and residency bans is definitely punishment.
* **End Retroactive Changes:** The Constitution forbids increasing a sentence after the fact. *Ellingburg* gives us the legal teeth to argue that Florida can no longer retroactively apply new, harsher rules to people whose cases are years or decades old.
* **The “Civil” Loophole is Closing:** This ruling signals that the highest court in the land is ready to strike down laws that use “public safety” as an excuse to ignore our fundamental rights.
The Florida Action Committee is ready to take this fight to the courts. If the state can’t retroactively change a fine, they shouldn’t be allowed to retroactively change your life. **The time to litigate is now.**