If you are on “sex offender” probation:

948.30 Additional terms and conditions of probation or community control for certain sex offenses.

(1)(e) If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition on contact with a child under the age of 18 except as provided in this paragraph. The court may approve supervised contact with a child under the age of 18 if the approval is based upon a recommendation for contact issued by a qualified practitioner who is basing the recommendation on a risk assessment. Further, the sex offender must be currently enrolled in or have successfully completed a sex offender therapy program. The court may not grant supervised contact with a child if the contact is not recommended by a qualified practitioner and may deny supervised contact with a child at any time.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0948/Sections/0948.30.html

If you are not on probation, I see nothing in s. 943.0435 nor s. 775.21 which prohibits contact with minors:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.0435.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.21.html

FAC, please correct if I am in error.

“No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.”

Unfortunately, registrants are not a protected class. We are a despised class with legislative carve outs designed to extract never-ending punishments and to deny rights granted to all other citizens and criminal classes. In order to challenge a law or ordinance, registrants must spend thousands of dollars for litigation, if they can even find a lawyer to take their case.

For the most part, organizations that tout constitutional adherence have turned a blind eye and lent a deaf ear to our cause.

https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution#A1

SECTION 2. Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have INALIEANBLE rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

How can a county ordinance which prevents anyone from acquiring, possessing and protecting property be lawfully enforced? It is a clear violation of the basic rights within the Florida constitution. Any state residency law IMO also violate these basic rights.

The basic rights of acquiring, possessing and protecting property are “inalienable”;
https://share.america.gov/what-does-it-mean-for-right-to-be-inalienable
“The idea of an inalienable right is at the heart of U.S. democracy — a right that people are born with and that can never be taken away.”

A right to protect property requires that the person who acquired the property be with or on the acquired property.

The subject of this article was convicted in Oct. 1997. That is the exact same month of the sanction cutoff for being put in the “new” registry. Therefore his qualifying crime had to have been committed before the registry existed.
The registry is a “collateral consequence” and supposedly not punishment (we all know it is in effect).

I would really like to see this defense tried (but don’t want to be the guinea pig); I think someone in this defendant’s shoes may have little to lose trying it:

Being placed on the registry requires a a qualifying felony sex offense (regardless of adjudication). A felony conviction for an FTR (Failure to register) and being sent to prison can only be called “punishment”.

The punishment for the FTR is not an island upon itself, it is a product of two things,
1 ) the registry violation
AND
2) the collateral consequence of the original conviction.

So the punishment imposed may be ok for the current registry violation but it is also a collateral consequence of the original conviction.

Without that original conviction the defendant would not be standing before the court.

Therefore, a collateral consequence of the new FTR punishment would make the original conviction portion a violation of the expost facto clause of the constitution.

(In my logical opinion), it may be ok to apply an expost facto registry law making a pre-registry law offender register, because that is (supposedly) not punishment. However, The expost facto punishment for violating a collateral consequence of the original offense should not be allowed to be applied.

The registry may be allowed to be applied ex-post facto, but there should be no lawful teeth to enforce it punitively.

You are so right Kevin..Amen to you

My wife is from Ecuador and her daughters are currently visiting and are staying with us until June 10th. One is an adult and two are under 18. Do I need to report to the OCSO of their staying with us?

This coming May is when those clowns are stopping by to check my residence….and I absolutely want no problem with them…so advice would be appreciated.

WORLDWIDE PLANETARY BULLETIN: STAY AWAY FROM FLORIDUH AT ALL COSTS

If you are already in Floriduh, stay where you are if you can handle the restrictions. Once you move, you are on blast. All of Marion County will be made aware of your arrival and prepare a “welcoming party”.

1,500 foot rule in effect in Marion:

https://library.municode.com/fl/marion_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH9.5HURIRE_ARTIIISEPRSEOF

City of Ocala has same restrictions:

https://library.municode.com/fl/ocala/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH15PUHESA_ARTISEPROF

Other municipalities in Marion may have same or different restrictions. Use same website as links provided to find additional municipalities.

Until the courts finally make the rulings we all know to be just, this draconian laws are the law of land and if you dont follow it, you will be prosecuted. Period. They do not give us any breaks. If he wants to be a martyr for the cause, bless his heart. Personally, I’d rather continue to live my life, such as it is, on this side of the barbed wire.

He is not to be condemned for failing to follow unconstitutional rules. These are moments to rally against an oppressive State, not to encourage undissenting conformity.

Not for registration violations. Those are strict liability