Ex Post Facto Lawsuit Filed
A lawsuit was filed in Federal Court challenging the Florida Sex Offender registry. The suit is a facial challenge, filed on behalf of persons required to register in the State of Florida.
It argues that the registry violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the constitution, constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment, violates Procedural Due Process, violates Substantive Due Process, is unconstitutionally Vague, has no rational relationship to its purpose and asks the Court to permanently restrain and enjoin the FDLE from enforcing the registration statute.
This is the suit we have been waiting for!
FAC offers a special thanks to attorneys, Val Jonas and Todd Scher for bringing this case, to Beth Weitzner, Jeanne Baker and all the other attorneys who assisted in researching and drafting the complaint, and to all of our members who contributed to help make this possible.
A copy of the complaint can be found here: Does v Swearingen – Complaint
We will keep you apprised of the progress.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Latest NARSOL article points out a little noticed but potentially significant precedent set by Packingham— that a restriction of SO rights must serve a “significant” governmental interest, not just a “valid” one.
Not to nitpick the lawyers who have done such an outstanding job here, but would it be feasible to file an amendment? NARSOL refers to the new standard as “a game changer”— IF used in petitions.
Regardless of anything, these lawsuits always go through several rounds of Amendments. I know that our lawyers are on top of things.
I encourage everyone to read up on what’s happened in other states and the success which has been achieved by those who’ve gone before us. Though every State has its own laws, this is a good place to start to get a very general sense of the nuts and bolts of what hopefully will happen in Florida. I’ve had a youtube page keeping track of successful cases going for some time now called “Solution Focused.” This case in particular will give a lot of information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toz69r6fNFE&t=945s
and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQXsg3kJwxI
Different States, but similar process.
Since the courts have ruled that one can be a citizen of the ‘United States’ AND of the ‘State wherein he resides’, and since Congress has given ‘United States’ several legal definitions (including a ‘Federal corporation’), I’m wondering if one can renounce citizenship from the Federal zone (as SCOTUS previously referred to it) while maintaining citizenship in his/her domiciled state and, in effect, void the effects of the Federal SORNA?
One registrant previously sued to renounce his U.S. citizenship based on the ‘United States’ being at war (i.e., endless and currently ongoing war on terror, as originally announced by George W. Bush) and, after originally challenging it, the DOJ ultimately dropped its challenge:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/08/doj-abandons-challenge-of-sex-offenders-desire-to-renounce-citizenship.html
In this particular case, the man assumed that ‘United States’ meant ‘the 50 states comprising the union’; however, I wonder what would have happened had he challenged it based on one of the other ‘legal’ definitions of ‘United States’. There are even sections of the U.S. Code that simply refers to the “United States” and then in other places specifies “the 50 states”). It is important that everyone be aware that a word or term is given a “legal definition” by Congress (and the attorneys who assist them) when it loses its everyday, ordinary dictionary meaning that usually comes to mind.
For example, in the Uniform Commercial Code and its state equivalents, the ‘United States’ is legally defined to be “located in the District of Columbia”. Um, excuse me…are you telling me that ALL 50 of the states are somehow located inside that tiny 10 square miles? Are are you now telling me that ALL 50 of the states actually comprise the District of Columbia and, therefore, we are all considered to be living in D.C. and citizens thereof? Congress controls D.C. outside of the Constitution, and that might explain the Federal overreach when it comes to registrant issues…if we are all somehow viewed as or somehow contracted to be “U.S. (D.C.) citizens’. Just food for thought.
I think Congress at some point passed a law saying, in effect, people need to stop flooding the courts with such claims, they will not be considered.
Don’t go there. I believe you are referring to the so-called ‘sovereign citizens’ movement. I was not even close to referring to that. I was simply referencing what is printed in black-and-white in the United States Code and an actual case brought by a registrant (who apparently won), and pondering if perhaps the subject could be approached from a different angle…nothing more.
I misread.
The Cato Institute has drafted one of the best amicus briefs to SCOTUS that I have read so far (for the North Carolina case):
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/bethea_cert-stage.pdf
Thanks Johhny. The Cato Insit. gave the SCOTUS a wake up call to go back to the old Ex Facto Clause
As one of the John Does in this suit, I am thrilled that it has been filed, and am very grateful to Val and all of the others who have worked on it. I have learned a lot by reading the comments here. I have felt so alone but now see there is an active community of concerned SOs out there. So thanks to everybody. I’ll be watching this space for more news and comments.
Hi JJ,
I wish you, your fellow plaintiffs and Val the very greatest of success!!!
I feel comfortable speaking for all Registrants in wishing you all the success in the world on this very important lawsuit!!
– David*
*Convicted in FL and still on the FL registry.
I like the compare and camparison part It was so easy to understand and very concise. but i notice some of the offenders had soft sex crimes. nothing like sexual battery or child molestation being mention if it did. I did not see it all. I was wonder with it being filed, appeals from both sides and then final judgement what kind of time frame we looking at? 2 to 5 years?and if my crime was in 1991 way before Fsona act of 2007 would I get relief as well?I have Fla. conviction but live in different state I know you might have answer these questions but I have not seen the answer maybe it my eyesight or I just not seeing it. Please used layman terms I want to thank the Attorneys their helpers and the volunteers who made it possible Lots of HUGS and KISSES to you at FAC,and staff who helped
Joseph – we addressed timeframes in our Weekly Update last week. That can be found online. Rather than address the numerous posts and emails asking the same, we addressed it once for all.
FSORNA was 1997, not 2007 and YES, it will benefit everyone who has an offense prior to the enactment of a new “requirement” under the statute.
The lawsuit ONLY addresses the constitutionality of the Florida Statute, we do not challenge any other state’s statutes. A victory will not impact the statutes of other states except as persuasive precedence.
If you live in another state and are on the Florida registry, to the extent you have to comply with Florida registration requirements, it will benefit you.
Thank you for answering my questions
Joseph, with regard to “soft crimes”, it is common for attorneys to choose plaintiffs/clients who will stand as the best (and most sympathetic) representatives of the arguments they are making. To choose an client(s) with a heinous crime would only muddy the waters and place the lawsuit in a bad light, weakening its chances of success.