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!
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.
Thank you for the update and thank you FAC for everything you do for us… Merry Christmas
What are you most looking forward to when you get off the registry (If ever)
I ask myself that all the time. I have a top 10 list but will share just one of them. I look forward to a day that when the neighbors pass my house, they no longer stare at my front porch like they think they are going to see some sort of freak show.
I know this happens all the time because I look over our security camera footage daily. You would think people who have lived here for years and have known me for years would eventually get over it but they still gawk as they pass by almost crashing their cars and they try and catch a look at me doing something illegal.
@CherokeeJack
I feel ya. I have the same problem with some neighbors. Not all, but a few. But if you compare every registrant’s top 10 list, I’m confident you’ll find some things on that list in common. Being able to travel whether it is a road trip – state to state or even county to county, and also travel abroad to any country destination without the fear of harassment, detained, arrested, or be sent back, would mostly be in everybody’s list.
To ask FAC to drop this suit so that another individual can bring their own suit on the same grounds as FAC— that would be a disservice to hundreds of members who’ve funded this suit as well as thousands of other registrants.
The arguments put forward by FAC attorneys are the best I’ve seen thus far, and so far no court has denied them on the merits. Not to mention thousands that have been invested in (very helpful) discovery.
I would encourage anyone who has further ideas and is motivated to get involved, to either volunteer for FAC’s Legal Committee or (if applicable) join FAC’s suit as a plaintiff.
But please don’t jeopardize the investment of dozens of people on this forum.
If your replying to my post concerning Miami Dades SORR, my suit will not be on the same grounds, an Ex post Facto challenge, rather one of law. Doe V Miami Dade had been litigated in the Southern District for the better part of 5 if not 6 years and has been dismissed on its merits.
The District Court held that the County showed the Ordinance (on its face) was not excessively punitive toward all covered offenders thus did not violate the ex post facto clause of the State and federal constitutions.
Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add an “as applied” vagueness challenge while not contesting the courts dismissal of the ex post facto and substantive due process claim. For reasons explained in Document #67 the court denied. Plaintiff appealed and the 11 circuit found the District Court did not abuse it’s discretion by denying Does “as applied” motion.
Is my understanding correct that after thousands spent, years of litigation later, where the District Court found and the 11 circuit upheld the ordinance was not excessively punitive and did not violate the ex post facto provision, the intention is to seek declaratory relief once again under ex post facto provisions only this time “as applied”?
Let me ask you, the Board of Directors of FAC and the membership a question. If fla statue 775.215 was law of the land, that is a state wide 1,000 foot application applied only to those whose conviction occurred on or after its enactment, acceptable?
My feeling is this forum unfortunately is not open to the free exchange of ideas especially if the debate is critical of litigation.
I remember Does v Miami-Dade. That one needs a new argument and to be relitigated.
It just needs new plaintiffs and an as applied challenge
It’s getting one. Oh and not to worry it will be litigated by a highly qualified Attorney, one which I believe FAC would even highly recommended. It is not a ex post facto claim rather one of State Constitutional law regarding Statutory interpretation, that is what is the distinction between criminal and remedial law. What makes one statue criminal and the other remedial.
Michigan registrants just got lucky that the ACLU picked up their cause without organizing or fundraising. Then out of the blue Michigan elected an attorney general that agrees with the ACLU on the registry. The ACLU initiated an effort for legislative change in Michigan. Thousands will be removed from the registry just for the fact they happen to live in Michigan not because they donated a single dime to this cause.
Florida registrants have been forced to take every inch of ground with their own blood, sweat and tears.
The Does litigation removes most registrants whose offense date predates July 1, 2011. The Michigan registry will be shrinking over the next few years. New registrants not affected by the Does litigation are being added to the registry every day. Rest assured, the number of non-incarcerated registrants will fall well below 20,000. Michigan registrants are fools to sit on the ACLU’s laurels. Unless they pull it together, the Michigan registry will be back above 30,000 within the next 20 to 30 years.
Michigan registrants don’t have the fundraising infrastructure that Florida or Illinois has. Both states are making slow steady progress. I wouldn’t be surprised if either state, if not both, surpassed Michigan in removing registrants within the next 10 to 20 years.
The ACLU can’t fight everyone’s battles. Everyone should be donating to the fights in Illinois and Florida.
The ACLU picked up one of our battles. Does v. Miami-Dade. It challenged the residency restrictions. Results were not good.
Will ACLU bring an as-applied challenge vs Miami Dade, or have they given up?
I get the frustration but they didn’t lose on the merits, did they?
We are in touch with the ACLU but they are so busy with election stuff recently that we know not to revisit until that dies down.
It’s my contention that the State of Florida “created a new crime” with the establishment of sec 794.065 in 2004 (now codified in sec 775.215) The States intent was to punish not remedial.
In determining whether a law was civil, not criminal, Courts employ a two part test:
(1) Did the legislature intend to impose punishment?
(2), if not, is the statutory scheme “‘so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention’ to deem it ‘civil.’”
To date all litigation challenging the residency restriction have been limited to the second question. Applying these highly subjective seven factors of Kennedy V Mendoza make it nearly impossible to show a remedial law has a criminal purpose or effect through the ex post facto challenge. Courts almost always manipulated the 7 factors in deference to the States with only few “as applied” successes to speak of.
If a court were to find 775.215 criminal that ends the inquiry.
That’s my contention. I will argue the statutory language and the historical use of residency restrictions as conditions of parole and probation, (traditional forms of punishment), shows the legislative intent was to impose punishment.
775.215 was enacted prior to Doe V Miller precedent and “the legislature expressed concern that its statutory residency restriction could be viewed as punishment and for that reason it deliberately exempted sex offenders whose crimes preceded enactment of the State law”
I will be consulting with an attorney too bring forth this challenge. I ask FAC to put aside any further EX Post Facto challenge regarding the residency restriction while this litigation proceeds. I stood aside as Doe V Miami Dade was being litigated and respectfully ask the same of you. Having stage 4 pancreatic cancer I may not make it through litigation and it is my hope FAC will join rather than oppose.
Never before has 775.215 been challenged on its face. Is its intent remedial or punitive?
You have my email address and Gustavo my phone number. I’m prepared to coordinate with FAC in this endeavor as soon as 28DEC20 AFTER the holidays. I can assure you there will be no disagreement as far as the advocator who hopefully will “BRING IT ON” in January.
In Exile V Miami-Dade County (Case # 09-51205 CA 13) The legal question addressed was whether or not 775.215 preempted Miami Dades residency restriction. The court found that implied preemption is disfavored in Florida stating; Legislative intent turns on statutory language and interpretation and statutory interpretation is a question of law. It found that the State did not intend to preempt not whether the Statute was punitive or remedial.
so, lets ask.
You’re asking FAC to drop its ex post facto challenge?
So you can bring a different one with different arguments?
That’s NOT happening EVER.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 19-10254 D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-23933-PCH
“Some background on the ex post facto clause is helpful to understanding the parties’ arguments. Article I, § 10, of the Constitution prohibits States from enacting any ex post facto, or retroactive, increases in criminal punishment or changes in the definition of crimes. See Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 504, 115 S. Ct. 1597, 1601 (1995). A civil law that applies retroactively, like the Ordinance, can violate the ex post facto clause in two ways:
First, the law is unconstitutional if the legislature intended to impose punishment. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 1147 (2003).
Second, the law is unconstitutional if “the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil.” Id. (alteration adopted and quotation marks omitted).
At trial, the Does argued the Ordinance was unconstitutional in both ways. The District Court rejected both arguments, holding that the County had not enacted the Ordinance with punitive intent and that the punitive effect of the Ordinance was not so excessive as to transform it into a criminal penalty.
It (the County) points out that to survive a facial constitutional challenge, the County needed to show that the Ordinance’s overall effect on all covered sex offenders was not so punitive that it constituted a criminal penalty. See Smith, 538 U.S. at 92, 123 S. Ct. at 1147. After trial, the District Court held that the County made this showing because the Ordinance was not excessively punitive toward all covered offenders.
Had the 11th Circuit felt, that on its face, the effect was so excessive and punitive in effect, it would have ruled on the facial challenge alone. It declined to do so and found the District Court did not abuse it’s discretion by denying Does “as applied” motion.
I do appreciate your consideration of my request for FACS support in this matter. I pray your refiling of the ex post facto “as applied” to the new pool of plaintiffs is successful.
Wishing all a Merry and blessed Christmas and a toast to everyone’s health, wealth and very successful New Year.
Do you think the Senate ( Brandes etc) would just simply “amend” the current law allowing “specific registries” to be removed that fall under that 1994-1997 group in which the law was never in effect rather than deal with MAJOR PUBLICITY? Just curious?
Yes.
Don’t lose hope and don’t let naysayers overcrowd the conversation. God bless em, some people will cry that it’s a lost cause or go even further and claim incompetence or malice on the part of those actually bearing the fight. The initial sting sometimes pushes me toward the “lost cause” feeling. It’s complete nonsense, though.
Much love to FAC for anchoring this community and to all the attorneys and advocates fighting this with a personal passion. As the saying goes, it’s not the dog in the fight, it’s the fight in the dog. When caring people see the registry for what it is and how destructive it is for everyone it touches and society as a whole, it lights a fire. That’s the fire that will burn this monstrosity down.
Fundraising is always a delicate issue. Certainly, if someone donates only $5 it is appreciated.
I own several houses and over the years have allowed homeless people in my rooming house with no funds up front and nothing but a promise to pay when they were able. I have found that they always have money for beer, liquor, cigarettes and marijuana but no money to contribute to the household.
Currently, I am helping a young lady whose boyfriend is facing life in prison and life on the registry if convicted. I have a good investigator lined up that she needs $1,000 for. She is on probation and we are trying to negotiate her $100 month in restitution down to $50 a month. We are also trying to negotiate a temporary reduction in her rent. She smokes and we are trying to reduce what she spends on cigarettes.
When you are confronted with any situation, you can readjust your finances to find money in emergencies.
Derek receives $700/month in social security. I don’t know how much he dedicates to this cause but bet it’s more than $100/month and wouldn’t be surprised if it is more than $200/month. Derek is definitely on the poor side as far as registrants are concerned.
I have 2 registrants currently on my properties. Both are able to pay $80 a month but refuse to be a part of this cause. One will be doing computer work for this cause only because I reduced his rent. I have 3 registrants in my neighborhood and all 3 make enough money to donate $80 a month. I have asked all 3 if they would like to participate in meetings and all 3 refuse.
To say that at least 50% of registrants can give $80/month is both reasonable and realistic. I am having a difficult time getting registrants to attend meetings and I’m not even seeking donations. My old neighbor, Hal Nemecheck, was one of the first persons placed on the registry in 1995. When I told him about my efforts, his only response was, “good luck”. And this was a guy I supported when he was in prison who kept saying he wanted to get into prison reform after being released. After he got out, he totally forgot about prison reform. He was on the registry for more than 20 years before he died and seemed happy as a lark being on the registry. And this is what I found is that the vast majority of registrants will do little to nothing about the registry.
Unfortunately, the State will claim they are immune from any civil liabilities ( monetary compensation) if they out come is in the Does favor so no financial liability could be awarded by the State for what they have done to some people keeping them on the registry unlawfully ( DOES 1/2) So unfortunate.
Does aren’t asking for any $, I don’t think.
Correct – it’s a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
I am not referring to this as a complaint for declaratory or injunctive relief ( asking for $$$), I was referring to the idea if you do succeed in Does 1/2, which would be a fantastic for that “specific group” since the law was never even in affect in 1994-1997 ( pre Oct), there just seems to be no way to get any compensation for the years of additional”punishment” this “specific group” has been though. The State made sure to protect themselves on that end and that is a shame.
Anne
Although that would be great, I just want my life back. I would almost give a kidney to get off this list. Next my parents will be going out of state for Christmas and I won’t be going for two reasons. First the cost and second, even if I had the money, the hassle of registering 4 times in a week just to go on a trip and risking being harassed or worse, is not worth it.
So yeah, I am not pushing my luck if I get off the registry by seeking compensation. Just being removed would be one of the top 5 gifts in the World to me right now. Also, if we start seeking past damages financially, we might screw things up for any further success of anyone getting removed.
You catch a bird with a morsel of bread, not the entire loaf.
Anne, I think you may be referring to the 11th Amendment. But it too has exceptions and states can be sued. In some instances, the state actually waive their right to sovereign immunity as a matter.of law. Im not a lawyer. But I do know there are plenty of cases where people have succeeded in their law suits against various states and even the feds. So, don’t be discouraged.
I’ve long wondered why no one has ever included the Changed Circumstances Doctrine from US v Carolene Products (and Chastleton v. Sinclair). Carolene is the beast that created Rational Basis analysis but it’s also where SCOTUS reiterated that changed circumstances require judicial review and possible striking of a previously constitutional law.
From Carolene: ” [T]he constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing . . . that those facts have ceased to exist.” (citing Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 44 S.Ct. 405, 68 L.Ed. 841 (1924)).
As well, in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 38 n.68 (1969), SCOTUS said, “[a] statute based upon a legislative declaration of facts is subject to constitutional attack on the ground that the facts no longer exist; in ruling upon such a challenge, a court must, of course, be free to reexamine the factual declaration.
Also, in Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405, 415 (1935), SCOTUS stated, “[a] statute valid when enacted may become invalid by change in the conditions to which it is applied.”
So why can’t one use any/all of these cases to argue that, even assuming arguendo “frightening and high” and “80%” were true when Smith was decided, circumstances now are different. Academic and governmental studies have shown over and over that the “facts” in Smith are incorrect. Arguing they were wrong then seems futile but predicating them correct and then saying, “but they’re not now,” seems like it would have some traction.
Just a thought that has nagged me for a couple years.
AJ – this is actually very good research and thought. I’m sharing it with our network of attorneys.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. I hope it helps! It should at least force a judge have to sit up and think a little bit. Given the “facts” are total BS, and given this case law says a court CAN dig into the genesis of those “facts” (the facial declaration), I don’t know how any State or the Feds will have a valid response.
AJ
darn you Aj, and here I am still trying to master my Abc’s and you come along and get all “Matlock” on us LOL 🙂
And thank you FAC for recognizing someone for useful info and input.
Well done
The network of attorneys working on registry litigation appreciate it too.
Question…
Assuming the case laws are still valid, could they be a foundation to address the Federal SORA as well?
@SC: The case laws ARE still valid.. (I wouldn’t have posted and suggested them were they not.) In fact, the 1st CCoA cited the applicable portion of Carolene, and thus Chastleton by reference, in a case in April, 2020. See: United States v. Vaello-Madero, 956 F.3d 12, 23 (1st Cir. 2020).
The cases could indeed be used to challenge the Federal SORNA, though I suspect most judges would decide it’s not “enough” of a burden (read: punishment) to overturn. I’d love to see someone take a shot at it! Me, I’ll have to win Powerball to take a stab.
@AJ: No worries at all. When I was actively researching case law I would come across items that fit exactly what I needed only to find out they were no good due to a more recent ruling. I applaud your diligence and others like you who divulge pertinent information so freely. Cheers!
What can I say, I groove on constitutional law!
mp:
$5 helps but as long as FAC members keep donating small amounts the longer before they see any relief. Registrants should be donating until it hurts. If you are not donating until it hurts, then the registry isn’t that painful to you. At least 50% of the people on the registry can afford to contribute $20 a week but how many do?
If members are really interested in getting off of the registry then they should do autopay to FAC for $80/month.
I have learned that 1% of the people are doing 100% of the work in this fight. The other 99% like to complain but do nothing. They deserve to be on the registry and to suffer all of the disabilities that being on the registry entails.
@Detroit,
I respectfully disagree with your statement:
“At least 50% of the people on the registry can afford to contribute $20 a week…”
What is the factual basis of this claim? The registrants I know can either barely pay their bills or get help from others to do so. $80/month is a lot of discretionary income to many of us.
There was once a pos[t]er on here who claimed to be a millionaire. When I called him out to donate enough to cover our legal challenges he disappeared.
In my humble opinion, we need more registrants to give something instead of trying to squeeze the few who do donate to give more.
One of the most uncomfortable parts of being on the board of FAC is having to ask for donations. I hate doing it because I know so many of our members are struggling. The truth is, it’s necessary because this case would not happen without the contributions of our members. If we didn’t solicit donations, it simply would not be possible.
There are some who can give $5, some who can give $5000 and some who need the $5 to feed their kids and can’t give anything. We get that and trust everyone will do what they can. If someone can’t afford to help financially, they can always volunteer time, which is also desperately needed.
Glad the lawyers didn’t just throw in the towel and say “We fought a good fight, maybe next time”.
The best lawyer(s) are ones who believe in you, believe in your cause and are not just in it for the money. The money is essential but when an attorney or group of attorneys believe in you and are not afraid of the judges and the system, you keep fighting until you cannot fight any more.
Just hope when it is time for me to petition to get off, I have someone who knows what they are doing.
Do these people know that we’re never gonna go away ? lol. They might as well give up and give us what we want already. Our lives and full rights back. It’s inevitable.
I’m not confident at all that the Hit Lists are going anywhere any time soon. Registry Terrorists/Supporters (RS/Ts) are conducting a war and they are doing just fine. I think they’ll be able to survive for decades and continue harassing families. They are scum who aren’t going to give that up.
The biggest mistake that I could personally make is to allow the Hit Lists to exist in peace. That is what the scumbags want. They want their BS harassment Hit Lists and they want everyone to love them and gush about how wonderful they are. What they need is nothing but a giant “F you”.
As long as the Hit Lists exist, I have been given permission to wage complete war against RS/Ts and any of their enablers. I have been relieved of any duty to be a good, helpful, contributing citizen. I’m going continue succeeding and doing much better than everyone else, but I’m not going to worry at all about any RS/Ts. We know what those people are about. We know what they deserve.
I’m obligated to ensure the Hit Lists are worse than worthless. I’m obligated to help ensure that they do as much harm to society as possible. I’m obligated to ensure that they only exist at the absolutely highest cost of time, money, goodwill, peace, and other limited resources.
I pledged long ago that I would not let the Hit Lists exist without consequences. I’ll continue. RS/Ts should know no peace. All good Americans should do everything possible to take resources from big government and their law enforcement criminals.
The registry may not go away but there is no reason to keep people on the registry after their probation/parole and damn sure not for life. Nice way of this “great country” proving it’s built on “Christian values”. Funny how human beings get to determine what’s forgivable and what’s not.
Maestro
That is because the public sees us as monsters and not people. Just like many people are against the death penalty but not many lose any sleep when a man they did not know is executed for kidnapping and killing 5 women.
We mostly find sympathy with those who are affected by what has happened to us. I myself have always tried to see the good in people but all of us have or have had some prejudices in our lives.
We have more passion for a cause that directly affects us or a loved one. For example, I never donated to cancer research until my Father was diagnosed with it 11 years ago when I was still working. Now days I feel blessed to find a penny on the ground.
There is no reason to have the Hit Lists at all. There is no informed person with a brain who actually cares about public safety who thinks that the Hit Lists are a good idea. I defy anyone to show me one single person who makes that statement wrong. Just one. In all of America.
I am the head of my house and a lot of people live here, including children. I care about public safety and more so about the safety of my family. I have a lot of new neighbors around me. I’ve never looked at the Hit Lists for safety reasons. I’ve never looked to see if any neighbor was listed. No need. The only thing that I’ve used the Hit Lists for is to see how much resources my governments are wasting and who is near me that can be a soldier to help me harm the criminal governments. That’s it.
I don’t have any need or use for the Hit Lists. Because I have sense. I know that even if my glorious criminal governments don’t have my new neighbor listed, that person could be a raging, active child molester. So it does me no good to know about some other person who committed crimes years ago. In fact, that might distract me from actually being vigilant with everyone. I’m not dependent on big government to help keep my family safe.
will
I beg to differ. ( on no one ever looking at it ) . I have lived in at least 30 different places since being put on the registry. I am NOT required to have community notifications when I move somewhere.
Having said that, within a week or so of moving somewhere, almost everyone knows because someone looked at the registry then let everyone else know.
I do agree it shouldn’t exist, I do not however agree that no one looks at it. To add to that, now with Nextddoor app, it is even worse as they proactively recruit people to be a neighborhood watch group and gossip about every single thing. I know because my neighbor tells me everything they say.
Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say that no one looks at the Hit Lists. I said that my family does not look at them or want or need them in order to help improve our safety. I don’t care if nanny big government (NBG) wants to tell me that “sex offenders” live or work near me. And the simple reason for that is because my family assumes that every single person should be listed on the Hit Lists. Since we do that, we don’t need an incomplete list from NBG and we are better protected than anyone.
People definitely look at the Hit Lists. America is FULL, FULL, FULL of terrible, self-righteous, entitled dipshits who LOVE gossip and harassing other families. Full. So yep, those people love the Hit Lists. But it has jack to do with public safety or protecting children. It has to do with getting their jollies and getting themselves off.
I expect you fully agree with and understand this but, just because people look at something that does not mean it should exist or that it is smart or moral. If you put everyone’s credit report on a web site I guarantee you that site would get views that would put the Hit Lists to shame. People would be looking at that all the time. For “public safety” or some other nonsense lies that they would spew.
Oh yea! It’s on! Here we go again for another round. Like Detroit commented earlier. Never surrender!!!
Bob:
Thanks for the post. I don’t know if the Oliver Law Group is seeking monetary compensation in Does II or not but hope they are. I believe anyone kept on the registry after Does I became final should be seeking monetary damages. Let’s see how this whole thing plays out. This could get interesting.
Detroit, I hope they do sue for monitory damages, for the pain, suffering, emotional stress and lack of employment. When people start getting $$$ for their bull, then stupid laws will stop being made.
Let this be a reminder to donate as well. Even $5 helps. May everyone be having and have a blessed Holiday Season.
Thank you FAC for all you do!
NEVER SURRENDER!!!
Relentless!!! 👍 Love it!!! 😁👍👍👍
You realize that ex post facto is a means to force the government to handle millions of convictions, to track what laws are ex post facto and what laws must be applied.
For example, the jerks voided my passport, in violation of ex post facto, IML was not a law, when this idiot conviction took place. Therefore, all IML / passport branding is unlawfully applied to me, just can’t find a freaking attorney to challenge it in SF area.
This would cause such a freaking headache for them, it is not even funny, especially when moving to other states.
California loves to have people violate their 5th Amendment with their forms, my having them initial everything, even when the form says something unlawful, by ex post facto.
I believe they would drown in their red tape, for those forms, they would have to have a million of them.
For anyone who feels discouraged or hopeless, please follow the link below. This is an unrelated case but what happened to the woman can happen to any of us. So we must all keep fighting.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-grandmother-arrested-naked-2-4-million-settlement-fremont-county-carolyn-oneal