Motion to Dismiss Filed in Out of State Challenge
As expected, the State has filed a Motion to Dismiss in the Out of State Challenge. You can read a copy below. Motions to Dismiss are almost standard practice in these cases, so the attorney was expecting it and is prepared to respond.
How much of the tax payers dollars could the state save if some of the “No brainers” were allowed to stand? Maybe it costs nothing since the employees are paid regardless if they win or lose.
Having said that, perhaps that is why it can take years for a case to be heard, due to the useless appeals by the state because they can “NEVER” be wrong and cannot stand losing or simply giving in and admitting they lost?
Often I think justice is not justice at all.
Good question on the cost paid by taxpayers. It seems to.me that no govt, whether state or federal, really cares about the tax dollars wasted.
Bob
I was once told by my Dad who was in the military, that if you “Save” the government money, when the next budget comes around they will tell you “Well you didn’t even use all the funds we gave you last time”.
So basically you spend money you don’t have to try and increase your budget every year. We wouldn’t want to deprive government employees a new leather chair ever six months, now would we?
What is odd is all the Government Surplus sales they have. And the items are often sold at pennies on a dollar.
Let’s see if this dismissal is issued. Geez can FDLE admit they may be wrong, they may be crazy, and stop with the power grab over people? I don’t live in Florida anymore and I’m as much as a threat to Florida communities.
Hate to break it to you, FAC and registrants, but no successful lawsuit against section 943.0435 is possible at the moment. The U. S. Supreme Court is not going to overrule Smith v. Doe as long as the liberal/establishment wing of the court needs John Roberts’ vote. Until that no longer is the case, the Eleventh Circuit will continue to cite Doe and Moore as grounds to uphold dismissal of registration suits, and the lower federal courts will stay on the dismissal train.
The only way to avoid that fate going forward is to present a new theory or theories based on a different constitutional hook, so that one can reach the summary judgment/trial stage intact. Until then, you can scoff at Terri Estes-Hightower’s case all you want, but the fancy lawyering of Val and her gang made no difference. As I tried to tell you all many months ago. Let that fancy Texas lawyer who bad mouthed Terri try his luck. if he wins, I will bow down to his great wisdom. If he loses, tell him to STFU.
You do comprehend that this is a MOTION to dismiss and not a high court ruling, right?
Truth
Tell it like it is why dontcha LOL
As Homer Simpson often declares “Doh!”
The Supreme Court would not need reverse doe v Smith in the first place. Keep in mind that the court pretty much stated as applied. The registry in Alaska at that time is night and day from what is going on
If you truly think it’s not possible than doe v. Snyder out of the 6th circuit Court of appeals was just an illusion, right. Not to mention all the rulings from various state Supreme courts inclusive of Alaska the year after doe v. Smith was decided.
I believe there wad two other federal courts of appeals that sided with doe v.snyder.
This would almost force the high court to consider because of the circuit Court splits.
The pendulum is slowly correcting itself…thats all wr can ask for
I predict the dismissal will be granted. Once again this is a case which is asking judges to end a specific punitive effect (name placed on a website) of a registry scheme that the Court has already declared non-punitive. So whether it be living under a bridge, denied housing or losing a job due to ones presence on a public registry displayed via a website, it’s all considered the natural consequences of a crime for which they were convicted and considered public information handled under laws considered to be civil in nature.
We tend to fail to see the forest for the trees. We need the Courts to acknowledge this is punishment (the forest) and then all of these horrible effects will end (the trees.)
The sex offender registry is a form of punishment, THAT’S why you can’t keep someone’s name on the registry after they move out of the State. If we simply ask the Court to say that then the myriad of life restricting issues suddenly fall into their proper category: PUNISHMENT. After that the Law takes over.
Court has never declared FL’s registry non-punitive to out-of-staters.
You do know why this suit’s been brought, right?
What is this about? Why did the plaintiff dismiss?
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flndce/4:2021cv00288/378772
Did he win? He does not seem to be on the registry any longer.
Correction: not in FDLE search feature but still broadcast on google.
What’s the story FAC Legal? Do we need to get Ron a different plaintiff?
rbs
Just my opinion and thoughts but. I bet they reached a deal. Drop your case (Because if he won it, it would open a can of worms) and we will grant YOU, and only you relief. They would rather lose one person on the registry than a loss in court affecting 1000s of registrants.
I’m still wondering why our out-of-stater voluntarily dismissed his own challenge.
Anyone?
Do we have an update from FAC on this challenge, or should members draw their own conclusions from the docket?
Legal committee is working on an update. One thing about our legal committee — they never give up.
Our Legal Committee is known for their good judgment and for standing their ground. Their updates are always valuable.