Comments on: Ex Post Facto Lawsuit Filed

By: Edward Villegas

Edward Villegas — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:39:16 +0000

the US Supreme Court rule expost facto in applied to criminal cases not civil case However the writers of the constitution didnot express that throry or belief I belive when a perons liberty is strip without a hearing or during a court sentence that was injoyed prior to having liberty removed is a violation of the expost facto law >>WHY when someone is sentence to incarceration their liberty is strip from them to be confined in and limited prevaledges are allowed, when a statute strips a person from thier liberty taking them out of thier residence taking their jobs and causing them to live homeless and below profety with out an oppertunity to get a job is punishment,, thus EX POST FACTO DOSE APPLY.

By: David

David — Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:50:56 +0000

In reply to JoeM. @ JoeM: I think people do care about discrimination, but it's very difficult to prove such cases in the courts.

By: David

David — Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:44:33 +0000

In reply to Duke. So true, Duke. PLENTY of blame to go around to ALL the pandering politicians!

By: David in SoCal

David in SoCal — Wed, 18 Nov 2020 16:27:35 +0000

In reply to JJ.

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.

By: Derrick

Derrick — Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:28:47 +0000

What has come of this case? Plus is there an attorney in Saint Petersburg fl, that would help with my case? Charged in 89, forced to plea in 90, on a hearsay, no evidence charge. Placed on registry in 2006. Suffering ever since.

By: John Doe-TEXAS

John Doe-TEXAS — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 22:10:40 +0000

Sounds almost identical to the Texas case that just got thrown out from a motion to dismiss posted recently on 11/21/2018. Any update for the community to be aware of?

By: Florida Action Committee

Florida Action Committee — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:20:42 +0000

In reply to Jacob. Regardless of anything, these lawsuits always go through several rounds of Amendments. I know that our lawyers are on top of things.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:09:52 +0000

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.

By: rpsabq

rpsabq — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:51:31 +0000

In reply to rpsabq. I was mainly referring to the Bush years when he signed the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA was begun. Everything took on a whole new level. But you're right, Megan and Wetterling were during Clinton and was where it all began.

By: rpsabq

rpsabq — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:38 +0000

In reply to Duke. Totally agree!