A second amended complaint was filed in Does v. Swearingen on Friday.
As usual, Val Jonas, Todd Scher and their legal team did an exceptional job pleading on behalf of those required to register.
You can read the amended complaint here: Does v. Swearingen – Second Amended Complaint
Wow. That is some filing!
I like how, in their original motion to dismiss, FDLE did not even attempt to argue that persons on the registry are dangerous, or that the registry promotes public safety. To my recollection, they barely even attempted to argue the merits at all. Instead, they seemed to argue, the law allows us to do this, plaintiffs are procedurally barred from bringing this action, etc.
Compared to that especially, this complaint is beautifully argued. Even if relief is granted to Does individually, the state will have a hard time fighting these.
Great job! When do you expect a final ruling? This first ruling will affect only those alleged crime/crimes took place before 1997 correct? Is there any chance you can sue for civil liability if you do indeed win? I would think so with the mental anguish and social stigma that prevented employment etc? But the state will probably claim immunity from civil liability?
No, Anne. It will not only affect people pre-97.
These cases take years. We don’t expect a final ruling for a while.
The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Getting our lives back.
I surely understand they can take years but for the people pre-97 is there not also a “biased” arguement in that anyone sentenced after Oct 1997 is at least told by a court they are being designated as a sexual offender and are told the requirements? I know someone who took a no contest plea in 1994 to standard probation only and 2 months before early termination from probation ( no objection from the state) was made to register in oct 1998. That is unfair and ex post facto for sure. they will be eligible in 2023 or 25 years unless they get the full pardon. good luck on your victory, we are following closely. Thank you for all you do!
The lawyers did a great job on this for the 6 plaintiffs named.
I don’t understand why the lawsuit was written to only benefit those whos’ offenses were before the 1997 enactment of FSORNA. Why couldn’t it have been a class action suit for all SO’s?
It seems to me it should have been written to benefit all SO’s due to the impossible constraints imposed against anyone on the FSORNA.
I am sure the majority of offenders will not meet the pre 1997 time of their offense to have any benefit should we get a positive verdict.
You are incorrect Jed. We discussed this on the call. It is not written only to benefit pre-97 registrants.
FAC, Can you give us a hint as to whether we’ve reached (or come close to) the 5K target yet?
There is a thermometer on out site. We are about halfway there.
After reading the entire argument, the use of and/or has me concerned that the Does could be granted relief by the courts but the rest of us would be left to get our own attorneys and use this case to fight individually ?
Not saying I wouldn’t be happy for any win but a win does not seem to be an automatic win for all since the use of and/or . Giving the courts the choice to give the or ( the does ) a win and leaving the rest to fend for themselves.
If I am wrong, correct me and not trying to be negative at all. Just piecing together the legalese and trying to make sense of the that wording. Some cases are won or lost ( even partially ) on one single word. Also sometimes there are small wins where part of a case is found to have merit.
On an ending note, they put together a fantastic case but am sure the state, the FDLE and the lawyers for them will hit back with equally powerful arguments how we are all scum of the Earth and need to be put down like rabid dogs. ( Maybe some of that hate will affect one of the judges with a heart and realize this is more about control than protecting the public interest as a whole )
Excellent Work. Thank You
This shows good reason as to why we need to donate when possible. Forgive me for jumping in, but please note we have someone who is willing to match our donations up to $5,000!! till the end of December. I know most can barely give and others can….just please do what you can now so we can get those extra bucks!!!! Merry Christmas and wishing us all the best for the New Year!!
Yes – thank you for reminding everyone.
May God and His Mercy shine on us to come away with a victory. May He open the judges eyes and ears to the truth of the families being torn apart and that He knows each of our hearts.
May He guide the Lawyers for the people to know just what to do and say to restore us and our families to the freedom that has been long coming.
“For the Lord your God is He who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.”
Deuteronomy 20:4
This is so powerful. Will a judge(s) take the time to read all of this?
I think the court will read everything from both sides.
The Constitution of this State or of the United States create no “Rights” rather they protect LIBERTIES. They say “Congress shall pass no law”…, things the Government may not do and what they cannot interfere with the individual’s ability to do. The first amendment does not say the Government must provide for our free speech or religion. Government is not to interfere with it. We are at LIBERTY to act in our own way without Government interference. UNLESS by due course of the law. (Punishment).
This is an extremely important distinction. It does not say the Government is to provide and thus control in these “RIGHTS”. The Government is not to interfere in our freedom to act (or not) in these given enumerated areas as well as non-enumerated ones. ( See the 9th). We are the land of the FREE, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all.
Or so we are to believe.
The U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights is called that for a reason; it enumerates rights. Natural Law Theory you seem to be discussing asserts that we are born with certain rights such as freedom of speech and the right to defend ourselves.The U.S. Constitution was written to enumerate such rights and keep any government from taking them away, hence the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Before the Equal Protection Clause , the Bill of Rights was limited to the protection of individuals from the U.S. Government. Once the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the U.S. Constitution was extended to provide protection from State governments. So, a better way to express it maybe “What rights does the U.S. Constitution prevent the the Federal Government and the States from taking away?”
Wow! I just finished reading the case so thank you for posting. Definitely the most powerful case i’ve read in awhile. The thousands of hours spent and the wealth of understanding regarding the entire issue, legal and otherwise, will be plain to all who read it. Well done and thank you FAC, staff and attorneys! This is so exciting!!
Every time I see a filing associated with this case, it makes my day.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.