Misinterpretation of Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3),(4), and 39.201

---

Due process of law requires the State to allege every essential element when charging a violation of law to provide the accused with sufficient notice of the allegations against him. In order to sufficiently inform an accused of the allegations against him, due process requires the State to allege every essential element when charging a violation of law.

The trial judge deprived me of due process by relying on an insufficient charging document, which not only undermined any fairness but also eroded any confidence I had in the legal system and cemented the risk of me being wrongfully convictioned. The State did not file a traverse. The Motion should have been granted.

The judge's favorable ruling towards to the State and disregard for legal precedent during my motion hearing is a setback for justice and suggests his decision were made based on his personal biases rather than a commitment to upholding the law. It is critical for judges in these stings  to approach each case with impartiality, fairness, and a comprehensive understanding of the law to ensure justice is served for all.

Engaging in an affair with the wife of a suspect being prosecuted is a clear violation of ethical boundaries and undermines fairness and justice. It erodes trust, raises concerns about bias, and causes emotional turmoil for all involved. Strict policies must be enforced to prevent such actions and preserve the integrity of the legal system.

Incorrect interpretation of the law lead to an unfair result in my case, it was the  judge's duty is to carefully consider the language and intent of the law, as well as relevant precedent, protect the my rights and serve justice. He failed to do so.

Florida's Internet Crimes Against Children task force seems to prioritize posing as minors online rather than actively monitoring minors online. During the trial, I was not allowed to present evidence that I had found and reported K.P., a 15-year-old, on an escort site 90 days prior to being labeled a Child Predator.

The prosecutor exhaustively utilized all available procedural methods to prevent the jury from being informed of my previous reporting, which had occurred roughly 90 days prior to the accusation.

In my case, the judge made a legal error that was prejudicial to my defense, I believe that it is essential that my jury received a curative instruction. The prosecutor requested it not be given. No curative instruction was given.

As a defendant, I assert my right to have the jury instructed on any valid theory of defense. It is a fundamental error to deny a modification to standard instructions when the standard instructions did not adequately cover the theories of my case. Counsel objected to these instructions. 

According to FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES  the parentheses are used exclusively to signify the need to insert a proper name, a specific crime, or some other variable that must be supplied by the trial judge. In my case most were left BLANK

Barring individuals from filing pro se motions is unconstitutional because it denies them the right to represent themselves in court. This fundamental principle of our legal system ensures access to justice and should be upheld, with necessary support provided to those who choose self-representation

Despite opinions on communication with minors, I obtained a crucial confession. The federal agent intentionally avoided communication with minors, who are not allowed on adult sites, and selectively chose to communicate only with those 18 and older. This behavior shows a disregard for the Equal Protection Clause, a lack of intention to safeguard minors, and arbitrary enforcement of Florida Statute 847.0135(3)(a) and (4)(a).

Denied after receiving a Judicial Notice on Section 39.201 which authorizes “participating in Good Faith.” The Judge failed to understand by authorizing conduct in one statute, but declaring that same conduct criminal under another statute, the State trapped me, I had no fair warning that the State would consider my conduct criminal.

My judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the prosecution failed to present any credible evidence during the trial, violating the principle of due process. Without evidence, a conviction lacks a foundation and undermines the fairness and integrity of the legal system.

The State intentionally excluded certain allegations or information in my case, potentially to paint a specific narrative or to secure a conviction. This could be viewed as unethical if it involves manipulating the legal process or denying me a fair trial. It could also be seen as exploiting the legal system to advance personal or political agendas, rather than pursuing justice and the truth.

Where my counsel’s argued that the State took the legislature’s language which set forth definitions and elements of a serious felony offense, modified those elements and proceeded to trial which resulted in a general verdict  sentence of incarceration.

It is unfortunate that the government is now using the same argument I presented to the Florida Supreme Court three years ago. As stated in their response, the term "otherwise" in the statute suggests a similarity between the listed and unlisted offenses, and therefore the enumerated offenses covered in chapters 794, 800, and 827 must involve sexual conduct.

The second Rule 3.850 motion is not impermissibly successive as the first motion was filed promptly after the mandate, without understanding its potential implications on subsequent claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Considering this lack of awareness and good faith, fairness demands the evaluation of the second motion's validity.

I have consistently argued that pretrial courts have misinterpreted the law. I raised my concerns at every opportunity, including pretrial, trial, direct appeal, habeas corpus, and post-conviction motions. Despite my efforts, all of my arguments and appeals have been deemed frivolous and rejected without any written explanation.

After years of unsuccessful attempts to file legitimate motions, All were denied based on procedural rules over addressing their merits. Until, I followed the approach of another case in the same county and courthouse before a different judge, resulting in the first acknowledgment of the defect by my Judge. 

The judge's opinion regarding my fair trial is meaningless as he had no involvement in presiding over my trial and failed to present any evidence from the record to back up his stance. Furthermore, it is evident that courts acts as an extension of the state for these ICAC stings.

I hired a former judge and five highly experienced attorneys with 187 years of combined experience for a total of $92,000. but they lost my case and appeals. I found success with Appeals Paralegal LLC for $2500 who listened to me and helped with this initial brief.

My case is a good example of why having one party with supermajority control in the courts undermines judicial independence and impartiality, by making decisions that favors, in this case, the Republican party's interests over the rule of law and individual rights. Welcome to the “Free State” of Florida.

Prosecutors ensured severe prison sentences for me, akin to ICAC proactive stings, devoid of actual victims and relying solely on text messages. However, genuine victims with substantial evidence are dismissed. This calls for Florida prosecutors to abandon insufficient evidence as an excuse for real Floridians and prioritize delivering true justice to victims of sex crimes.

This proposal suggests implementing age verification measures on internet-enabled devices to protect children from accessing harmful online content. By requiring secure age verification during device activation, we can create a safer digital environment for children, provide peace of mind to parents, promote industry accountability, and gain public support. 

Florida Statute 847.0135, aimed at protecting children from online predators, should be scrutinized due to its selective and arbitrary enforcement. The law, in its current form, is outdated and needs to be either repealed or rewritten to accommodate technology post-2007, mainly because of smartphones.

Attention Parents: Beware of Florida's computer solicitation laws! Although these laws aim to protect minors from sexual abuse, they can also be weaponized to terminate an unapproved dating relationship between minors.

The Court decided  Applying the legal definition of “any”, “ Fla. Stat. § 847.0135(3) & (4)'s use of the phrase “any illegal act described in . . . chapter 827” sweeps in all illegal acts in chapter 827, and Chapter 827 describes both sexual and nonsexual illegal acts.

Selective enforcement of laws in Florida undermines the Constitution by violating principles of equal protection, due process, and the rule of law. It creates an unjust and arbitrary system that erodes trust in the legal system and denies individuals their fundamental rights. Upholding the Constitution requires consistent and unbiased enforcement of laws for the benefit of society as a whole.

It is crucial to carefully review both the operation plan and investigative standards. It is important to note that neither of these resources instructs chatters to employ a bait and switch tactics or techniques. Moreover, both the operation and standards unequivocally mandate adherence to state laws.

The Florida Legislature has not defined the terms "child" or "minor" to include "a person posing as a minor" in the law. When creating Florida Statute 847.0135(4)(a), the Legislature intentionally removed the language "a person believed by the person to be a child" in essence requiring the involvement of an actual child.

The Florida Supreme Court has recognized the importance of drafting laws that are easily understandable by all members of society for a fair and effective legal system. However, despite these efforts, certain laws, such as Florida Statute 847.0134(4)(a), may have still lacked clarity at the time of its creation.

 I was unable to support them in person due to incarceration. 

Income, business, and real property all disappeared while incarcerated.

Building sold as fire sale due to loss of business revenue due to conviction.

Panama City Beach condominium with all furniture purchased 2007

Second home for mother in Tampa purchased after father passed 2003

Purchased this condominium in 2007 lost because on imprisonment 

Purchased this condominium in 2007 lost because on imprisonment 

187 years of criminal defense experience, yet still a loss in court

Offline visual animations for screen protection and energy conservation, independent of internet connection.

I was in excruciating pain when the Leon County Sheriff's Department broke my neck and severed my artery by slamming on their brakes during transport. I remained in general population for 25 hours without medical attention before driving myself for help. It was a horrific experience, and I believe they should be held accountable for their actions.

Supreme Court of Georgia 

779 S.E.2d 263 (2015)

 (Ga 2015)

Decided Nov 2, 2015

U.S. Eastern District of NY

141 F. Supp. 3d 188 

(E.D.N.Y. 2015)

Decided Oct 28, 2015

Florida First District Court

263 So. 2d 282 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Decided Jun 20, 1972