No one has been able to come forward with this information as of today with an actual civil judgement from 1995 showing it. This is a needle in the haystack. I’ve read them both an neither are anything like this. How many of those Doe’s have an actual retroactive civil judgement that states not for public notification? None. Nada, Zero. FDLE hit me with Smith v Doe then lied to cover their ass. That alone makes me want to say challenge accepted. He ain’t me.. I’m able to show what was hidden right from the start they tried to hide. As I’ve always said and mean it, I’m not here to destroy it, just fix it like a professional would. I’m sure LCSO / FDLE have the legal documents just not saying it. This conviction was sealed from public notification by the court. So what law gives them the right to disregard the court ruling and unseal it? None that I know of.

Thank you with saying is. Pouncing stuff off helps me find things. Trust me, I don’t want to come forward, I really don’t care about it for me. It’s these kids who screw up in their young age who will pay the price if we don’t keep fighting them. I run away, I hate it. I don’t care what they have done to me today they can’t hurt me. I leave because I say screw it. It’s not worth the aggravation. Then something draws me back to this that won’t let me go. I’m the other half of the foundation of Megan’s Law. I read all of these court challenges an it’s like dancing around a circle but no one dares go in the center. Well here I am.

In Florida there id no level that is free from public notification. You state “additional punishment” and believe me, we agree with you that it’s punishment. But until a court deems it so, the State feels it is not punishment, their statute says its not punishment, and until a court that has some binding authority over the State of Florida tells it otherwise, it unfortunately is what it is.

That is a very valid argument, but unfortunately until a higher court deems registration and all that comes with it as “punishment”, the argument won’t hold water.
The closest we are coming to having a collateral consequence of registration deemed punitive is residency restrictions in the Clements case, which is currently pending. We also have Does v. Glass which is coming up for trial in a few months.
Unfortunately the stigma associated with public notification has not (yet) been deemed punishment.

Yes, this ruling it has EVERYTHING to do with my retroactive civil judgement, Florida and FDLE. This was the first one ruled Constitutional. I’m not fighting the Constitutionality of it. I’m fighting against the public notification. I don’t care about the registry, I do have a problem when I fought for it NOT be on a public registry in a court of law on this ACT (Civil Judgement) to just have the retroactive civil judgement used by another state, reclassified now as a sexually violent offender, then placed on public registry that I fought in court against under the Due Process I was granted under this ruling… When the civil judgement specifically states not for public notification, they can’t just use the judgement and ignore it.

A state cannot retroactively change a judgment to increase punishment for past conduct.

Due Process: The Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from depriving individuals of liberty without due process of law, which protects against arbitrary changes to final judgments.

Modification Limits: A state cannot generally alter the substantive terms of a final judgment from another state, such as changing the amount of a debt or the length of a criminal sentence, because that would violate the Full Faith and Credit requirement.

Sooo, your saying Florida can use this “Court Ruled” retroactive civil judgement from New Jersey that was determined by the court not for public notification as it would be an additional punishment.

Then the state of Florida can use this but change this judgement from low level to now a moderate level, from not for public notification to public notification? I don’t know about that…

In Florida, if you were on any sanction relating to a sex offense as of 10/1/97, you are required to register as a sex offender here. Please remember this is a FLORIDA forum, so when we speak of “registration requirements” we are referring to FLORIDA requirements. If you are referring to laws of other states, please be mindful that the people reading this are, for the most part, dealing with Florida requirements. We do not want people to come on here and make general statements about requirements that may very well be the case in other states, but are completely inapplicable here. People might rely on that and get arrested.

Let me explain what I meant. The state of Florida law started on 10/01/1997 It was non retroactive for people in Florida meaning there is no retroactive due process. What they changed was that if you ever had to register in another state before their 10/01/1997 law. THAT is how they have a lot of retroactive from other state registries. Now if you were convicted prior to this date in Florida and were released after 10/01/1997, I have no idea, I’m from New Jersey. I know a lot of the states got smart an started making retroactive register before release.

You do understand that what the law was in 1995, or even before that with the Jacob Wetterling Act, was replaced by SORNA/AWA in 2006. SORNA is retroactive. That was already tested in the Supreme Court of the United States (Gundy v. United States– 2019). SORNA is a floor not a ceiling. It sets the minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification programs that states, territories, and Indian tribes must follow, rather than the maximum limitation. Accordingly, states are free to set more stringent standards and Florida, particularly, has set much, much, much more stringent standards.

The case you mention, John Doe, etc. v. Deborah Poritz, Attorney General, was a New Jersey case, which has no bearing on us here in Florida. Still, in that case the NJ Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Megan’s Law’s registration and notification components but modified its implementation to require procedural due process (judicial review) before certain notifications are made for certain tiers. That court actually held the NJ registry does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, Double Jeopardy, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Bill of Attainder, Equal Protection, or Right to Privacy provisions of either the U.S. Constitution or the New Jersey Constitution.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m still not following what you have that applies to Florida or FDLE.

Hey Brother >> I knew a few people who were here before 10/01/1997 because they didn’t register in another state they didn’t have to register here. We sent 2 of them from New Jersey right out of custody before they registered because the state didn’t have a registry yet.

YEP, It’s the documents that they are trying to hide with a lie.