Earlier this year we warned of a law firm based in Texas that was actively soliciting people on the Florida registry for a “class action lawsuit”. The lawsuit Estes-Hightower filed in their home state of Texas was dismissed yesterday. We are concerned about the fate of the very similar suit they brought in Florida.
We warned our members who received unsolicited letters in the mail to “be VERY cautious about these opportunists who market service to registrants.”
While the firm did file lawsuits, in the opinion of attorneys familiar with the issues and the pleadings, the cases were very rough from the get go. With respect to the TX case we were told, “existing precedent in the Fifth Circuit was already in place that rendered each and every one of Estes-Hightower’s claims frivolous.”
Naturally we are very disappointed to see any registration challenge fail, but this one makes us angry. It is our opinion that this firm is going state-by-state, using the sex offender registries as a marketing list in order to solicit vulnerable individuals and families to pay thousands of dollars and doing them a huge disservice.
Not only does it hurt the plaintiffs, but creating bad precedent harms every registrant in the state!
You gutless pieces of garbage. Go ahead and “moderate” away relevant comment on your actionable slander. Teri should have sued your worthless asses. Ever heard of Doe v. Moore morons? You will. Go screw yourselves instead of children.
Nice offensive comment, You do realize we can track your IP address from your submission, right?
How do you think your clients would feel if they knew how you feel about the people you represent?
Did the poor little baby get his feelings hurt? Resorting to insults is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Dear FAC,
I think you should have specifically identified who the writer (“Really?”) truly is in your post. And as for the “Voice of Reason” contributor, he or she apparently doesn’t know that Gundy concerns the non-delegation of authority doctrine, and that, in addition to the fact that Boyd HAS NOT yet been granted review in the US Supreme Court (as Estes-Hightower states in the latest email to her “Marks”), the Texas registration statute is not a “next-generation” statute. Rather, it is for all meaningful purposes the same statute that was presented in Smith v. Doe (the Alaska statute)(no residency restriction).
As for the Swearingen lawsuit, I consider Val’s complaint to be far more meritorious for a variety of reasons that I’ll not expend the time to go into now. I also find it amusing that Estes-Hightower, or her local co-conspirator in Florida, wants to assign a “competitive” motivation to a non-profit organization such as FAC, which operates solely on voluntary contributions, and not on mercenary tactics unsupported by any good faith intention, to advance the rights of registrants and their family members. Finally, I think the post you refer to is not only “inappropriate,” but that it also provides additional evidence that their whole scheme was undertaken in bad faith.
We need to respect the anonymity of our posters. Their post was despicable, but we chose not to delete it because it gives readers more insight into the character of the person making the posts. That “go screw yourselves instead of children.” comment was very telling.
That’s fine. I respect your integrity. And in any event, to more obviously disclose who the writer going by “Really?” and by “Voice of Reason” is would be unnecessary I think. Any discerning reader has likely already figured out who the person going by those cowardly pseudonyms is.
I enjoy seeing the negative posts too. Good reminders of the kind of hate we are up against, usually from people who have their own sins to keep covered.
Florida Action Committee and other naysayers (I’m looking at you, Gladden)-you do realize that your Does v. Swearingen lawsuit is going to suffer the same fate, and for the same reason? The idea is simply to get the Ex Post Facto issue into the appellate pipeline so that if Gundy and/or Boyd v. Washington declare “next generation” SOR statutes unconstitutional, we can all reap the benefits. Obviously as of now all SOR case-law from all circuits except the Sixth are against us, due to Smith v. Doe. If the USSC affirms the notion that anything goes in Gundy and Boyd, then all is lost. But we all think the time is now for that to change. So forget the attempt to bad-mouth your “competitor,” and realize for once in your sad lives that we are all in this together. Now sit back and enjoy the ride.
Voice – The issue in Gundy is whether the decision on retroactive application of SORNA could be designated to the Attorney general. It didn’t touch on the constitutionality of SOR statutes. Boyd hasn’t been granted cert. and it’s not clear whether it will.
We’re not bad-mouthing anyone – just presenting truthful information to our members.
Yea I got their letter a while back. It looked very convincing too. I showed it to an old friend of mine who is a retired cop and told her this is what fraud looks like. She nodded in disappointment. Anyhow, I threw it in the shredder.
You shredded evidence.
There is always someone or some people trying to make fraudulent money $ at the expense of others.
I think it may be too quick to jump to judgment on this firm. Let’s give them a chance and see how things go here in FL. I have heard they will appeal the dismissal and hopefully learn from their mistakes in Texas. If they really are a sham, I am sure complaints will be lodged by those paying for the suit, and they may be sanctioned or lose their license to practice if they are that incompetent…
They contacted me and I called them because their email was enticing. They wanted money I don’t have so it went no where. If I had the money I probably would have paid and gotten in. We are desperate for something to make our lives better and so as a class we are particularly vulnerable to such predators. Sad that people use our plight to line their pockets with more money and still sleep well at night.
Sloppy, incompetent legal work can even result in more bad precedent, harming the chances of future lawsuits. I remember here in Michigan that a case filed by an inmate named Drohan was used by Michigan’s courts to rule that Apprendi v New Jersey (banning extra judicial factfinding to increase a sentence) didn’t apply to Michigan’s sentencing scheme. When I found the actual legal arguments used in Drohan, I could see why the Michigan Supreme Court chose to hear that case. It was terrible, and the Court knew that it would be easy to rule against it. It established a precedent that allowed courts to routinely dismiss other’s claims, without really considering their arguments.