State files Motion to Dismiss in Ex Post Facto
As anticipated, the State responded to our Ex Post Facto complaint with a Motion to Dismiss.
Their motion, a link to which can be found below, was completely expected. Naturally, this will be replied to and we will continue to keep you updated as things progress.
Does v. Swearingen – Mot to Dismiss
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“dissemination of truthful information” about a criminal record “in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective” does not constitute punishment, Smith at 99; that the law imposes no physical restraint and does not restrain sex offenders from changing jobs or residences, Id. at 100; that the law had a legitimate nonpunitive purpose of public safety that was not a sham or pretext, Id.at 102-03; and that the law was not excessive because “the regulatory means chosen” were “reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective.” Id.at 105.” ….
BUT what about vehicle information, employment info, email info etc… criminal records don’t include that or did you forget!
Did anyone else catch the contradictions: For example (paraphrasing):
“We do not care where you go after you leave the state; we just want to know the initial address where you claim you will be staying. If, after you arrive at that initial address, you decided to leave and go spend a few days here, a few weeks there…no worries…you do not need to let us know”. WTF? Then why the nonsense of requiring an initial address in the first place?
“We know people may ‘hotel hop’ and, in doing so, will not trigger the address registration scheme…no worries, if you hotel hop then no need to let us know where you are.” Then why the freaking requirement to report travel in the first place?!
And the keep referencing the Smith case without venturing into the ginormous “trip wired” criminal scheme their so-called ‘civil scheme’ has morphed into, although it has always been criminal from the beginning. And they only gave a yawn’s worth mention of the recidivism facts elaborated upon in Plaintiff’s lawsuit. In my opinion, there is nothing else to conclude than that Florida’s useless AG is grasping at straws and hoping the court is utterly stupid.
(State vs Marcel 67 S0 3d 1223 “Birthday Rule” see where they compute years as time between two dates not Jan1 to Jan 1. So Days means midnight to midnight but years means “fiscal” now.
Write this down keep it you pouch. 943 requires years of legal knowledge, case history from its creation in 1977 and cases not even from this state to construed it. How ever the “tie must goto to defendant” Key Words “Florida Rule of Lenity”.
before, “`[o]ne of the most fundamental principles of Florida law is that penal statutes must be strictly construed according to their letter.'” Id. (quoting Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla. 1991)). “Indeed, our system of jurisprudence is founded on a belief that everyone must be given sufficient notice of those matters that may result in a deprivation of life, liberty, or property.” Perkins, 576 So.2d at 1312; see also United States v. Santos, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025, 170 L.Ed.2d 912, ___ (2008) (plurality opinion) (“Under a long line of our decisions, the tie must go to the defendant. The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.”); State v. Winters, 346 So.2d 991, 993 (Fla. 1977) (“Penal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused where there is doubt as to their meaning and must be sufficiently explicit so that men of common intelligence may ascertain whether a contemplated act is within or without the law, and so that the ordinary man may determine what conduct is proscribed by the statute.”).”
1997 (not1977)
If this is civil why can’t we just all plead the 5th amendment in full text? Most all the questions “asked” are because we really are under criminal investigation selectively with no mirada protection with out due process for prosecution with regards to an 943. 0345 offense.
We have to give this testimony to the Law which hands the information over to the same branch, an investigator that patrols the web, residence, autos, to build a case against you based solely on your word (where you say you’ll be) between what you or testimony where they can monitor you better, warrantless and then prosecute you for things that aren’t really even a crime except your “subject” to the jeopardy of original crime. They do this searching for discrepancies in what you say and what they see even though what they see isn’t at all illegal in any other sense except your past crime… “subject”.
There is alot of case law where during incarceration offenders invoking the 5th (in full text only) were upheld refusing to answer court ordered treatment questions of past or post crimes. (related and unrelated to the original)
Lifetime testimony and giving possibly incriminating statements, when due diligence is the responsibility for police and public is extortion. The tax payers pay for this information (and I understand there isn’t a very high demand for for it) and law enforcements makes wages, some of which are private “for profit” affiliates. There is no pay check in my mail every time I spend the day changing addresses, this information is being taken from me under duress, Ive made no infraction to criminal laws. Only criminal prosecution or rouge law takes away ones freedom of movement by restrictions (imprisonment). Not having a firearm isn’t a restrictive punishment but an avoidance punishment. Avoidance is not all we have todo.
They complain that plaintiffs are not “clearly reading” to statutes. I complain that defendants are not “clearly reading” the Constitution.
If I were guilty of violating the Constitution I suppose I would want a dismissal also. I trust they will not get away with it. It’s amazing how twisted our interpretation of the Constitution has become over the years. Even ‘freedom of speech’ would be unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.
@Capt.: I would certainly NOT bet they won’t get away with it because there is a good possibility that they will. (Janice Bellucci, Esq. of ACSOL’s last lawsuit against IML was based on the U.S. DoS violating it’s own Administratvie Law requirements. It was clear that they had done so. Nonetheless, DoS’s Request for Dismissal was granted.)