Northern District Case Dismissed
While we never want a challenge to sex offender laws to be unsuccessful, we are relieved to see a case brought by Estes-Hightower in the Northern District of Florida was dismissed last week.
We had previously written about this firm and their lawsuit, suggesting they did a huge disservice to registrants in the State of Florida (and Texas) by filing a weak and clumsy complaint. The Judge agreed, noting it was “long on background and short on focus”.
Our fear was that their lawsuit would be allowed to proceed in it’s current form and had the potential to create very bad precedent as Does 1-5 v. Swearingen proceeds through the Southern District of Florida. That is always a fear of ours as inexperienced lawyers or pro-se litigants bring forth cases that might be well meaning, but are actually harmful to our cause.
While the Court gave Ms. Estes-Hightower leave to Amend, it is our sincere hope that she will seriously consider the options and entertain our invitation to reach out for some guidance and help from those who have offered it to her.
I read this Order and it appears the judge is equally frustrated with Hightowers efforts. I have seen better pleadings written by inmates, so it’s no wonder why the judge dismissed this.
Could somebody please explain? I have a hard time understanding all this legal stuff thank you
There was a challenge to FL’s RSO law that was separate from our own Does v Swearingen (ex play facto plus challenge).
It was not well-argued, and had it proceeded further, it likely would have resulted in bad precedent, bad case law.
Others will of course explain it better than I can. I am so relieved attorney Estes has been slowed down by this court and hope she will reconsider her approach and see this as a blessing in disguise.
A lawyer I tried to hire before finding out about F.A.C wanted me to be the face of Florida for a challenge of the offender list. I said no for two reasons. #1 He wanted $20,000 just to start and zero guarantees the case would be successful. #2 I thought I could not remain anonymous ( Although now see some were able to be ).
On a side note, am glad I did not have the money or the will to do so as it could have messed up your case. What was also funny was, I contacted him with help about “NEW” evidence that could get me back before a judge after 30 years but he wouldn’t touch that but threw out the idea of the registry challenge.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have a number of rules regarding dismissal, etc. Technically having a moron for a lawyer is not one of them, so that’s why this one was given an opportunity to amend. 😉
Why not seek an injuction against this other attorney for filing bull shit!
I will absolutely agree with your opinions on lesser experienced attorneys filing and following through with ill-conceived motions but I absolutely have to disagree with pro se litigants. If we as an organization are to discourage pro se motions then we need to supply some sort of mechanism for the litigants to “vet” their motions.
I have filed my own pro se motions for minor issues but am blessed to have the money for an attorney to handle the heavy weight issues that may arise.
To discourage people from filing pro se motions when they do not and will not have the financial means to secure an attorney is basically telling them to suck it up and suffer in silence.
The reality is, as unfortunate as the case may be, there is a lot of bad case law created by Pro Se litigants who brought cases without any training in law or procedure. When a well researched, artfully drafted and properly plead pleading is filed after, they cite to that bad case as precedent and it creates a big obstacle.
I understand the reasoning behind that. Maybe there’s a way to develop a “clearing house” for pro se litigants to seek some knowledge and understanding of the process so the poorly constructed motions can be corrected or even avoided.
I worked as a “certified” law clerk for several years while I was incarcerated with FDOC. We all (the clerks in the law library) were required to work with any inmate that requested our assistance. We would supply as much help as possible, which was limited to helping them do their research and guiding them through the correct processes, but obviously legal opinions we forbidden.
That being said, all of us at one time or another would “keep it 100” and tell them that they could possibly cause themselves more damage than good and that if they did get denied and chose to take their motion through appeals that they could be setting dangerous precedent for others. We didn’t refuse to help we simply felt obligated to help them see the full extent of the impact their motions could have.
I know that there’s no way to offer actual legal advice through the FAC but one of our stated goals is to inform and educate the public. Maybe we would be just as well served by offering to inform and educate our members on issues like these.
This is a very delicate situation.
First, we are an advocacy group, not a law firm. We are not qualified to offer advice, guidance or any drafting or editing of legal documents. That would constitute the unlicensed practice of law and be very harmful if someone took a canned template petition, applied it to their individual facts and circumstances and it didn’t fit. It could mess up someone’s case and could jeopardize our organization. The “education” prong of FAC is to educate the media, legislators and public on the facts vs. myths about registration laws and registrants, not to educate people how to file legal challenges.
Second, our legal committee helps organize and facilitate litigation through licensed attorneys. We offer support in the form of identifying challenges according to the greatest concerns of our members, compilation of research from a lot of time spent gathering it, collecting declarations from impacted individuals, and raising money from members and entities so that we can bring lawsuits most people couldn’t afford to bring individually. We ensure we have the best (licensed) attorneys and best (qualified) experts and proceed accordingly. When someone files (for lack of a better term) toilet paper it undermines all the effort invested in bringing the suit and all the money we received in donations.
Third, even if the complaint is brilliantly drafted, if the pro se plaintiff can’t afford to hire the right experts or doesn’t have the litigation experience to navigate all the procedural formalities in a courtroom, even a valid legal challenge can lose because the arguments are not supported by proper testimony or on a technicality.
If there was a canned template that would get people off the registry, we would post it in a second. Heck, we’d use it ourselves. The reality is there’s not. Everyone’s case is different. Everyone’s prosecutor is different and everyone’s judge is different. There are so many variables that come into play during litigation that go so far beyond citing case laws and artful legal writing. If we’re going to do this thing, let’s do it right and not mess it up for everyone else.
I understand and agree that this is a legal minefield. In the end, if a person does choose to proceed pro se they do need to be aware of the the damage they can cause themselves and others.
That having been said, is the only answer “you shouldn’t do this”? There are many pro se litigants that are simply filing a gripe. How do you (general “you”, not FAC) help the guy who is truly being wronged or railroaded other than saying “you shouldn’t do this”?
To me that’s the equivalent of sailing by the guy floating in the ocean and telling them “be careful not to drown”.
Again, I understand that FAC is not a licensed legal organization but this issue is something that the entire RSO community should be working towards.
shoot when I worked in the law library I got myself out a Couple years early. The way it happened with me I filed the motion the state could not show cause so I was given a PD who tore the state up at court. We got so many people relief in different things. I miss the use of the library in those says kicked back feet propped on the table reading Florida law weekly when HEGGs bs state, Tripp, DUER. I was in a work camp with only like 300 inmates the library was like a 14×18 warehouse maybe twice a day a guard would stop in to shoot the shits and play my NASCAR pool.
BTW…THE Estes-Hightower Law Firm is Permanently Closed
Their Website Name is For Re-sell on GoDaddy.com
‘They’ had a Satelite Office in Orlando…aka another Law Firm on Referral in order to ‘Get Standing’ in a Florida Court of Law!
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Stay Healthy and Safe!
Where do you see that it is permanently closed???
There is nothing on the website: http://www.esteshightower.com/
Seems she’s transitioned to a document preparation company: https://pleadwrite.com/ just like Clear My Case!
“Document prep” is a good way to characterize her motions challenging the registry.
Hope she is now applying her skills in a more useful way.
Good Lord, not wonder it was dismissed. Sounds like they might be a bit shady ?
I mean, she’s licensed to practice law.
https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=231107
It was in a ‘Google’ Search that came up with that information….
…and ‘she’ has transitioned to a document company?!?!….maybe that is where her intellectual talents and pursuits are better suited!