When a law is weaponized

We expect equal treatment

In a recent statement, Ron DeSantis, the Governor of Florida and presidential candidate, expressed his commitment to addressing the issue of weaponized laws. DeSantis emphasized that as President, he would prioritize pardoning individuals who have been unjustly targeted by the weaponization of laws.

Governor DeSantis acknowledged that there have been concerns raised regarding the selective enforcement of laws, resulting in charges against individuals who may not deserve such legal repercussions. He emphasized that, if elected as President, he would use his executive power to pardon all individuals charged under this statute due to its alleged selective enforcement.

Furthermore, if Governor DeSantis is willing to extend pardons to prominent figures like Trump, who have faced allegations and charges in this realm, he should also extend the same consideration to citizens of his own state who have been impacted by the weaponization of laws.

Uneven application of justice

Operation Stolen Innocence

The case of "Operation Stolen Innocence" highlights a troubling instance of selective enforcement, where the treatment of real-life occurrences differed significantly from imaginary situations. In this distressing incident, a mother posted explicit content of her 13-year-old daughter online for immoral purposes, resulting in 178 men engaging in illegal acts by communicating with the child online.

Despite the numerous individuals involved, only one person was charged under the specific law, 847.0135, which addresses offenses related to child exploitation and pornography. This selective targeting raises concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation and the unequal application of the law to different individuals involved in similar activities.

Moreover, the bonds set for the accused were surprisingly low, considering the severity of their crimes and the potential harm inflicted upon the victim and society as a whole. This discrepancy in bond amounts further underscores the perception of a double standard in how real-life offenses are treated compared to imaginary situations.

Additionally, the pretrial conditions imposed on the accused were notably limited, despite the serious nature of the crimes committed. This leniency in conditions further perpetuates the notion that the legal system was less stringent when dealing with real-life occurrences, undermining the message that such actions will not be tolerated.

The selective enforcement between real and imaginary situations is deeply concerning. It sends a message that the legal system may not be adequately addressing the harm caused by real-life offenses, potentially leading to a lack of justice for victims and an insufficient deterrent for potential offenders.

To address this issue, it is crucial for authorities to ensure consistent enforcement of the law, regardless of whether the offenses are real or imaginary. Stricter charges, higher bonds, lengthy sentences, and comprehensive pretrial conditions should be applied uniformly to convey a strong message that any form of exploitation or harm, whether real or imaginary, will be met with the full weight of the law. Only through fair and consistent enforcement can we strive for justice and protect the innocence of those who are most vulnerable.

Unequal Sentencing

Real child predators given more leniency

According to the legislature, statute 847.0135 specifies that certain offenses related to child solicitation are considered strict liability offenses, carrying a minimum sentence of 21 months in state prison. However, there seems to be a discrepancy in the sentencing outcomes in different cases involving similar offenses.

In the case of Keith Johnson, the only one charged under 847.0145(3)(a), who solicited an actual child and was charged with six counts of solicitation and one count of possession of child pornography, it is stated that he received only 5 years of standard probation. On the other hand, Philip Kessler, who was located 90 miles away and faced four counts of solicitation received a 15-year split prison sentence along with sex offender probation. Additionally, in this case,I received an 8-year split sentence with sex offender probation like most men received in these fictitious proactive stings. See Shared Stories.

The situation raises concerns about the apparent disparity in sentencing for similar offenses. It is suggested that imaginary victims seem to receive more justice than actual child victims of sexual abuse, which is a disturbing notion. Furthermore, this operation highlights a specific case where a trial judge overturned a guilty verdict in the operation, while I am a still awaiting a determination from the First District Court regarding the status of my innocence of an uncharged and nonexistent crime.

The presented scenario calls into question the consistency and fairness of the legal system in relation to cases involving child solicitation and abuse.

My conviction

A Constitutional Challenge

As an individual who has been personally affected by discriminatory practices such as selective enforcement and the use of proactive stings that solely target adult males, I am committed to fighting against this injustice and taking this issue to a higher court. Through this GoFundMe campaign, I aim to establish a precedent that prohibits the use of such discriminatory practices and ensures that justice is served for countless others who have been wrongly accused.

Because all involved were deputized as US Marshals, I can bypass state courts and take this issue directly to federal courts. With Justices Coney and Gorsuch following strict construction, chances of success are positive. If the US Supreme Court rules that a statute is a violation of the Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause, it becomes binding precedent that must be followed by lower courts across the country. As a result, convictions made under that statute or similar state laws, would be overturned, and the defendants would be entitled to a new trial or have their sentences vacated. The Supreme Court's ruling would apply retroactively to all cases that are still pending or have not yet been fully resolved.

However, it's important to note that the Supreme Court's rulings are not always clear-cut, and there may be instances where lower courts struggle to interpret and apply the Court's decisions to individual cases. In such cases, it's best to consult with a legal expert who can provide guidance on how to interpret and apply the Court's rulings.

Together, we can work towards a brighter future where all individuals are treated fairly and equally under the law. I am determined to fight against this injustice and to help others who have been wrongly accused to establish a country-wide precedent that upholds our constitutional rights and principles of equality, justice, and due process.