Articles Tagged with Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer

This month, in a legal dispute that began after the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida high school, state lawyers, and the National Rifle Association (NRA), outlined dueling claims about the constitutionality of a Florida law that prohibits weapons from being purchased by people below the age of 21.

The legal fight arose following the deaths of seventeen people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. Then-Governor Rick Scott gave the okay on a measure banning the sale of firearms to people under the age of 21, prompting a challenge from the NRA stating that the ban is a violation of equal protection and Second Amendment rights.

According to the NRA, the prohibition breaches the right of people between the ages of 18 to 20 to possess weapons to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment, even self-defense when at home. Not only does the ban restrict the right, but it is also eliminated. It is not probable that the ban could be the least restrictive option. There is also allegedly no evidence that the Legislature evaluated whether less restrictive options were accessible.

In the ongoing case involving felon voting rights, a federal court has reversed the lower court judge’s decision. The federal appeals court decided to uphold the 2019 Florida law mandating that felons must pay fines and/or restitution to have their voting rights restored.

The case focused on a GOP spearheaded bill signed by the governor of Florida after Florida voters returned voting rights to the majority of the felons who ended their sentences in 2018.

The legislation introduced a new requirement to the criminal franchise: not only did felons have to complete their jail terms and any probation period to have their voting rights restored, but they also had to pay off financial commitments of their sentences, including victim restitution and other penalties and fees.

A business owner in Florida is finding himself facing potential prosecution after he allegedly used over $2 million in funds aimed at providing businesses relief from the coronavirus to purchase a 40-foot boat. The man was recently arrested on federal charges of having made false statements to a lender. Should he be convicted, he faces as much as thirty years in federal prison.

Per a criminal complaint, the man applied for the Paycheck Protection Program loan on behalf of his company. The funds, he claimed, were to be used solely for purposes related to the business, including taking care of bills and ensuring the retention of workers. However, shortly after he received the money, the man allegedly spent well over $650,000 to purchase the 2020 boat, which was registered with his name.

To read more, visit https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/florida-man-spent-689k-in-virus-relief-funds-on-boat-prosecutors/2287532/.

A man in Florida who dubbed himself an “Antifa hunter” recently received a federal prison sentence of more than forty months after he entered a guilty plea for having allegedly threatened a politician of a different race as well as a girl with autism. The man was also charged with cyberstalking.

Antifa is a political movement in the United States that comprises a vast variety of independent groups that aim to accomplish their goals by using non-violent and aggressive direct action rather than legislative change.

According to the source article, the man breached the law after making violent threats against an African-American person with plans to announce his city council candidacy and an autistic child simply because the mother of the child disagreed with his racially motivated opinions.

The remaining member of a group allegedly involved in a dog fighting conspiracy was recently sentenced in federal court. The defendant was sentenced to a year and one day in jail after entering a guilty plea after he and his fellow defendants violated the federal Animal Welfare Act.

Evidence presented in court, along with statements made by the pleading defendants in accordance with their plea deals, revealed that one of the defendants organized dog fights and trafficked with others in combat dogs. Another defendant admitted he and another decided to fight their dogs against each other and train a dog to participate in a dog fight, and discussed hiding evidence that one of the owned dogs had taken the life of another dog.

Another group member admitted to providing and administering veterinary and surgical procedures on dogs belonging to the dog fighting conspiracy members, treating dogs that sustained fight injuries, and performing medical procedures to remove the ears of dogs, including for dog fighting purposes. She tended two dogs who died from their injuries after being involved in fights.

The governor of Florida implored a federal appeals court to allow legislation mandating former criminals with the eligibility to vote to pay victim compensation and court fine before they allowed to cast a ballot. The law could exclude thousands of voters from the swing state polls.

Multiple judges questioned the state’s lawyer regarding how the law cannot be deemed unconstitutional discrimination against poor individuals, and Florida’s inability to inform former felons—plaintiffs included—regarding amounts owed, essentially forbidding them from taking care of the fees and damages allowing them to vote.

Although Florida voters revoked a restriction on voting for millions of former felons back in 2018, Florida’s governor, a Republican, signed a law enforcing limits on the measure, including those at the center of the legal proceedings. The case may affect this year’s presidential election as President Donald Trump won Florida by a margin of just over one percent.

Following a lengthy legal battle that extended three years, the court ruled in favor of a Florida transgender in a federal lawsuit involving restroom equal access. The school board in St. Johns County, Florida must now permit transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with a student’s gender identity.

Back in 2015, the student involved in the lawsuit was prohibited from using the boys’ bathroom and was required to either use a single-stall bathroom or use the bathroom for girls. After filing a lawsuit back in 2017, the student won his federal court case in 2018. However, the following year, the school district filed an appeal. Subsequently, the student gained support from multiple corporations, sending an amicus brief reinforcing the student’s Title IX claim, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in any educational activity or program that receives federal financial help.

Despite the ruling, the student’s legal fight may not be over. The school district may decide to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the case as well as the full 11th Circuit. However, both courts have the option of refusing such a request.

A teenager in Florida is under arrest after allegedly hacking the popular social network and microblogging service Twitter, targeting businesses related to cryptocurrency as well as celebrities. The seventeen-year-old was arrested by federal law enforcement following a Department of Justice and FBI investigation. More than 25 felony charges have been filed against the teenager, alleging he stole over $100,000.

The teenager and the hackers he collaborated with made use of LinkedIn scraped data to seek out Twitter staff most likely to have access to the backend software that could be used to submit Tweets from different well-known celebrity accounts. The attackers utilized LinkedIn tools to obtain cell phone numbers access.

Due to Florida law, the teenager’s financial crimes allow him to be tried as an adult in Florida.

Mere hours after an independent fact-finder was appointed to look into potential allegations of poor conditions and cruel treatment at a trio of South Florida immigration detention centers, a federal judge in Miami reversed the order without giving a reason.

After filing an eight-page order, the U.S. District Court Judge named an investigator to evaluate whether officials of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have breached prior court orders intended to prevent cases of coronavirus. Among what was mentioned in the order, the judge noted that a continuing inability to provide prisoners with the minimum provisions and resources to survive the pandemic is proof of intentional indifference to medical needs, and is tantamount to administering cruel and unusual punishment as it raises the likelihood of exposure to a deadly and highly infectious disease.

The initial order is part of a current litigation suit demanding the release of more than 1,000 U.S. Immigration and Detained Customs Enforcement.