News Sharing and General Commentary
Members, advocates, and all followers of Florida Action Committee’s news website:
Please use this post to bring our attention to fresh news or media content. You may also use the comment area on this post to leave comments on any topic relevant to FAC’s journalistic mission.
Question: Why does this post exist?
Answer: FAC comment policy for all other posts is that comments must be relevant to the post topic and cannot contain links. For this post and only this post, these policies are suspended. You may comment on any topic and may share links. Comments must still be news worthy or informative, as well as related to the registry in some way.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Chuckie Ghe
Tue, Apr 21, 5:49 PM (8 days ago)
to membership
To Whom It May Concern,
I am reaching out to determine whether there is interest in pursuing a focused legal challenge to the retroactive application and continued expansion of sex offender registration laws, and to offer myself as a potential named plaintiff.
My situation presents a clear and stable factual record. I am subject to lifetime registration requirements that have expanded significantly over time, including in-person reporting every 90 days, unannounced compliance checks, and ongoing restrictions affecting travel and residence. These obligations differ substantially from those in place at the time of conviction and have been increased through successive legislative and local changes.
For clarity, the relevant timeline is as follows:
Offense conduct: July 1, 1988 – September 30, 1988
Sentenced: July 10, 1989
Sentence completed in full: February 25, 2007
Individually assessed prior to release pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, with no civil commitment ordered
All current registration obligations were imposed after these dates and have been expanded repeatedly over time.
As applied, this framework presents a direct and substantial question under the Ex Post Facto Clause that appears well-suited for review under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cumulative effect of these requirements now closely resembles ongoing supervision, imposed long after the completion of a sentence and without any meaningful mechanism for reassessment.
Courts have already begun to recognize the constitutional implications of these evolving schemes, including in Does v. Snyder, where similar registry provisions were found to be punitive in effect. Members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have also signaled that continued expansion of these laws may require renewed constitutional scrutiny.
The inconsistency in the current system is difficult to ignore. Although I was individually evaluated under the Jimmy Ryce Act and not found to meet the criteria for civil commitment, I remain subject to a separate framework that imposes significant, lifelong restrictions without any comparable opportunity for individualized reassessment. In effect, the State has demonstrated the ability to assess risk on an individualized basis, yet does not apply that same standard when imposing or continuing these obligations.
At the same time, there does not appear to be a clearly accessible or organized avenue for individuals directly affected to participate in or initiate well-structured challenges. In my experience, efforts to proceed independently have been met with hesitation or discouragement due to concerns about interfering with other litigation. This has the practical effect of leaving those most impacted without a meaningful path to present their claims.
While I have developed a working understanding of the legal issues involved, I recognize that procedural requirements are a limitation for me. A challenge of this scope requires experienced legal guidance to be properly advanced.
Because I remain in full compliance with all current requirements, my situation presents these issues without complication or distraction. It offers a consistent and factually grounded platform from which to evaluate the constitutional limits of these laws as applied to individuals whose convictions predate their enactment.
In the absence of a clear path forward, I am willing to step into that role and serve as a named plaintiff. I understand the responsibility that comes with it and am prepared to see the process through so that these issues may be properly examined.
If this matter is of interest, I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional information.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Charles D. Gaskin, Jr.
Hey Chuckie,
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-articulated post. You clearly laid out both your factual history and the constitutional concerns at issue. The circumstances you describe are compelling, but keep in mind your situation reflects that of the overwhelming majority of individuals placed on the registry between 1997 and 2026. Unless someone was convicted within the past few months, everyone subject to registration today is living under a statutory scheme that has been amended more than two dozen times. Each amendment has incrementally added new reporting requirements, restrictions, and obligations after the completion of a sentence—resulting in a framework that looks very different from what existed at the time of conviction.
As you correctly identify, this raises serious concerns under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The challenge we face in advancing these claims is one of precedent. Courts in Florida and within the Eleventh Circuit have largely relied on Smith v. Doe (2003) to conclude that registration requirements are civil and non-punitive, and therefore do not violate Ex Post Facto principles. While the case you cited, Does v. Snyder, is an important and encouraging development, it was decided by the Sixth Circuit and is not binding authority in our jurisdiction. The state of Michigan has now spent a decade pushing back against that decision. Unfortunately, that’s the legal landscape we are currently navigating.
That said, please know that these arguments are not being abandoned. To the contrary, Ex Post Facto claims continue to be included in our legal challenges, with the goal of demonstrating that the modern registry scheme has evolved to a point that is materially distinguishable from the framework considered in Smith v. Doe and subsequent Eleventh Circuit decisions. We remain confident that these issues will ultimately receive the scrutiny they deserve.
We will keep your information on file, and we encourage you to complete a Case Consideration form if you have not already done so. As we move forward with additional litigation, we will be identifying potential plaintiffs whose circumstances may help advance these claims.
To that end, we want to share that a municipal challenge was filed this month, another is expected to be filed next month, and we are actively positioning for a broader challenge to the state statute. That case may provide an appropriate vehicle for the type of claims you’ve described, although final decisions will rest with the attorneys leading the litigation.
We appreciate your willingness to step forward. It takes courage to offer yourself as a named plaintiff, and participation like yours is critical to advancing meaningful reform. If more individuals were willing to do the same, progress could be achieved far more quickly.
would the recent Supreme Court decision of Ellingburg have bearing on the civil vs criminal nature of SORNA and therefore ex post facto?
i believe it would give strength to an ex post facto challenge if the person seeking relief was convicted before the enactment of sorna.
Alabama has some of the strictest and most draconian sex offender laws in the US. But all those laws failed!
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-alabama-girls-high-school-basketball-coach-charged-deviant-sex-student-dumped-husband
Copy/paste
Lawyer for Trump Sex Accuser, 13, Demands President Testify Under Oath
William Vaillancourt, Sarah Ewall-Wice
Thu, April 9, 2026 at 6:53 PM EDT
2 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
Add Yahoo on Google
2.2k
The lawyer for a woman who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her when she was a child is calling on the president to testify under oath.
Attorney Lisa Bloom is calling on President Donald Trump to testify about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. / Evan Vucci / REUTERS
Attorney Lisa Bloom is calling on President Donald Trump to testify about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. / Evan Vucci / REUTERS
(Evan Vucci)More
Lisa Bloom represents the woman who claimed that Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Trump in 1984, when she was about 13 years old. An FBI report released as part of the Epstein files revealed the woman told interviewers in 2019 that Trump had forced her to perform a sexual act on him.
She claimed Trump then punched her on the side of her head after she allegedly “bit the s–t out of” his penis. Trump has denied the accusations.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bloom, in a statement to the Daily Beast, referenced Melania Trump’s shocking press statement, where she denied having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes—or any relationship with the disgraced financier.
“While Melania Trump seems primarily concerned about her own reputation today, she does call for congressional hearings. We agree,” said Bloom. “And the man who is mentioned probably more than anyone else in the Epstein files should be subpoenaed to testify: Donald Trump.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Bloom represents 10 other Epstein survivors. Two other Epstein survivors, Maria and Annie Farmer, issued their own statement on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We can’t speak for other survivors, but what we want is accountability, transparency, and justice. The federal government has long mismanaged the Epstein investigation by repeatedly ignoring survivors, violating their privacy, and refusing to release the remaining records held by the Department of Justice—including my complete FBI records from 1996. If the federal government is truly committed to supporting survivors, it would ask us what we want and should follow the facts wherever they may lead.”
Trump delivers remarks regarding the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein from the Grand Foyer of the White House. One of Epstein’s victims has since called on her husband to testify before Congress. / Evan Vucci / REUTERS
Trump delivers remarks regarding the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein from the Grand Foyer of the White House. One of Epstein’s victims has since called on her husband to testify before Congress. / Evan Vucci / REUTERS
More
Melania, in her statement to the press, said Congress should give Epstein’s many victims a public hearing “to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony.”
Some lawmakers responded that her husband’s administration has made that difficult, citing former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s refusal to look at victims during a February hearing.
Melania also denied having a relationship with Epstein, who she said did not act alone. The first lady did not take questions after her White House statement.
View comments(2.2k)
Dear BFAH,
Nextime, just post a link to the article itself so we can evaluate its origins instead of a copy and paste method that also copies and pastes the advertising sections but not the source of the article you’re trying to share. Also, just so you know, Lisa Bloom represented and counseled Harvey Weinstein. She has zero credibility with me.
In two post regarding the 17 year old on the registry for life, there was the mention of “getting off supervision” & another mention of supervision?
I understand you are referring to parole or probation however, it is my thought that I have never gotten off supervision??
Still under someone’s thumb??
The Texas registry failed as multiple firemen stand accused of sexual misconduct against a cadet who is a minor.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/multiple-community-honored-firefighters-charged-child-sex-abuse-case-targeting-same-juvenile-victim
Another one where the cops pretend to be adults looking for companionship on adult sites (and Instagram) then switch their ages. 18-21 officers used to create crime and nab 16 suspects, more wasted resources.
https://www.aroundosceola.com/news/16-cons-traveling-meet-minors-sex-arrested-multi-agency-sting-operation