Motion to Alter or Amend filed in Ex Post Facto Plus Case
As promised, the Ex Post Facto Plus case has not seen the end of the road. Yesterday, attorneys for the Does filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Order. A copy of the Motion is below, but in lay terms it argues that the very recent 11th Circuit Court Case upon which the court relied should be distinguished from this one and/or the case should proceed as to the current Plaintiff’s obligations under the changes to the registry made within the statute of limitations (4 years prior to 2018) and/or the case should be amended to add a plaintiff who was added to the registry within the past 4 years as to the facial and as applied challenge of the entire registry statute.
And as promised hereafter, even if the current Motion is not successful and the case needs to be refiled with named plaintiffs who are all added to the registry within 4 years, the challenge will continue.
If you take a moment to read through the Motion, you will see the significant amount of work that has gone into this case and you will appreciate the efforts of the attorneys who are giving their all to fix this for us. We should also appreciate the donations of our members who helped fund this case.
We fight on!
Does v. Swearingen – Motion to Alter or Amend
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speaking about registrants working as a group.
ACSOL knocked out a win in the California Supreme Court today.
This should be very encouraging to any one who has donated to FAC.
Rest assured, challenging the registry as a group will lead to better results.
Meanwhile, USA today has published an article that may be of interest to everyone. Notably, the subject of the article used someone else’s computer to access CP (and apparently confessed). Same thing happened to me, but the other guy never confessed because LE failed to interview him. At my trial they claimed to not even know about him (perjury) even though the prosecutor produced him as a witness against me and he verified using my computer without my knowledge. Yet, I got the wrap and he got immunity to testify.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/12/23/cheerleading-cheer-sexual-misconduct-complaints-usasf/6484248002/
CMC:
Thank you for your post.
You have to remember that persons posting here have varying degrees of education and legal knowledge. Most have little to no understanding of the legal system outside of their individual experiences. There are some who became “jailhouse lawyers” in prison. Most of these have no understanding of the law and rarely get any type of relief in the courts. A very small number of these jailhouse lawyers become quite good and can function as well as many attorneys.
The Does v Miami-Dade litigation was anything but a waste of money. First, it was litigated by the ACLU so FAC may not have contributed to the litigation. Apparently, FAC is pursuing an Ex Post Facto claim outside of Does v Miami.
These registration laws are a novelty so there is a paucity of case law on the issues raised. The attorneys in Does v Miami-Dade know the law. What they didn’t know is how the courts would rule. We now can get a grasp of what to expect in the 11th Circuit. FAC is preparing an Ex Post Facto Challenge. Rest assured, their attorneys will be studying Does v Miami-Dade. Thanks to the Does litigation they can fashion their arguments with that litigation in mind. Does was a bruising “loss” for registrants but they did gain clarity in what to expect from the courts.
You mentioned that you anticipate filing your own challenge. I disagreed with the arguments in the original Does v Miami. I felt there were better arguments, so I believe we can agree on that point. It appears that you have read and have an understanding of the law better then most who post here. But going it alone in litigation is not advisable unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to pour into litigation. You especially don’t want to file in pro per because these lawsuits usually wind up in a train wreck and only serve to get bad case law on the books.
I thought the ACLU had better arguments in Does. I didn’t make any suggestions because there was no way that they could lose in this litigation. Both the trial court and the 11th Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs so they “lost” in the eyes of most people. What they gained was insight into how the courts will rule in this novel litigation. Now it is up to attorneys involved in this litigation to build their arguments with this new knowledge in mind.
FAC has an important role to play in this litigation. You don’t want to address these issues piecemeal. When attacking the registry you have to view each issue within the context of where it fits into the whole scheme. You have to have an overall game plan, prioritize your issues and make the best use of your limited funds. When individual registrants hire attorneys, or worse, file in pro per, you are attacking the registry piecemeal and will get piecemeal results or worse.
Apparently FAC has a board. What this gives you is a group of persons who can sit down, identify the issues and prioritize them. Mistakes will be made. But fewer mistakes will be made by a group than an individual. This is a long process. The board will evolve and learn from mistakes and get better results in the end.
I am not asking that you that agree with the decisions by FAC. What I am suggesting to you is to file any litigation within the framework of FAC. I don’t know your legal abilities or anything about your intended litigation. I do know that when persons with limited funds take on the resources of the state, it usually doesn’t go well. If you can burn through $100,000 without a problem, then go for it. But if you don’t have this much money to burn, you are best to work within the framework of FAC.
If you disagree with FAC’s decisions, your efforts are better spent working with FAC. If you have legal research experience, you can put it to good use by sharing your thoughts with the FAC board. FAC is addressing the issue of the Ex Post Facto Clause and have the benefit of the Does decisions and their current attorney contacts. Rather than filing individual litigation, I suggest that you ask FAC to allow you to present your arguments to their attorneys. Their attorneys may adopt your argument or work it into their litigation. This will also give you the opportunity to run your arguments by their attorneys. After speaking with their attorneys you can find ways to improve your arguments or perhaps decide to work within the framework of FAC.
If you disagree with FAC, it would be better that you discuss your disagreements with them rather than pursue litigation on your own. If you do decide to pursue any legal claim on your own, I wish you the best.
Whatever you decide, good luck.
Thank you Detroit. This is a reminder that at the end of the day, we all want the same thing.
FL’s state residence restriction is not ex post facto.
But is it punishment?
Yep, many jailhouse lawyers are not good, but how many people are in jail & prison who suffered from a “garbage attorney” who is certified by the Bar?
Please don’t insult the jailhouse lawyers, because my experience, is the bar licenses some pretty bad attorneys and jailhouse lawyers are important part of helping those who’s attorneys should be dis-bared.
Then don’t get me started about those prosecutors that are just mean / vindictive and cruel, and should be dis-bared also. The judges know who they are, and ignore it.
I don’t disagree with FAC, the withdrawal a liberty interest to reside within a certain geographical area, “is among the most basic punishments that society can exact. Without question, it is an affirmative disability that has historically been regarded as punishment.” Unfortunately the 11 circuit sees it as merely remedial and hasn’t even gone as far as to apply the seven factors of Mendoza.
To date there hasn’t been judicial review or statutory interpretation of 775.215 at State level. If after judicial review it were found to be criminal not remedial, the 1000 foot restriction a punishment, it would become the uniform law of the land.
Counties are prohibited by the constitution from creating new crimes and imposing punishments, that power granted to the legislature of Florida.
Does v Miami-Dade is only round one.
Rest assured, no one wasted their money on this litigation.