You are here

AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

By Larry Neely . . . What follows was composed utilizing portions of an analysis written by Aaron Marcus of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. We will endeavor to answer some of the most common questions that arise after a favorable decision has been handed down.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the current (2012) version of Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, hereinafter referenced as “SORNA,” is punishment and cannot be applied retroactively. See Commonwealth v. Muniz

The challenge was brought by Jose M. Muniz who was convicted in 2007 of indecent assault of a minor in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7). Sentencing was scheduled for May 8, 2007; however, Mr. Muniz failed to appear. Had he appeared, he would have been ordered to register as a sex offender with the Pennsylvania State Police for a period of ten (10) years pursuant to Megan’s Law III (SORNA’s Predecessor), which was the statutory scheme in effect at that time. During his absence from the state, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed SORNA, which greatly expanded the duration of registration and obligations imposed on those subject to sex offender registration. When Mr. Muniz was finally sentenced, the current version was in effect, and he was classified as a lifetime registrant. He challenged SORNA, asserting that the law was punitive and cannot apply retroactively. After years of litigation, five justices on the state’s high court agreed.The Court declared that SORNA’s registration provisions constitute punishment under Article 1, Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution — Pennsylvania’s Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court held:

  • SORNA’s registration provisions constitute punishment notwithstanding the General Assembly’s identification of the provisions as nonpunitive;
  • retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions violates the federal ex post facto clause; and
  • retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions also violates the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

This decision is a significant departure from prior Pennsylvania decisions as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). The reasoning of the justices to get to this result is a little convoluted because several in the majority did not believe that the court needed to address the federal constitutional claim. Complicating the opinion slightly is how the five justices reached this single conclusion. Three justices concluded that SORNA is punitive under the federal Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. They applied the United Supreme Court’s 7-prong test established in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963), which was the framework relied upon in Smith v. Doe. The three justices held that despite the Legislature’s expressed intent that SORNA be civil and non-punitive, the law imposes too many restrictions on individual liberty by requiring that registrants report in-person, potentially hundreds of times, and is too akin to historical punishments such as shaming and probation. Additionally, the court found that because SORNA imposes severe consequences on those “who in fact do not pose the type of risk to the community that the General Assembly sought to guard against” and includes “those convicted of offenses that do not specifically relate to a sexual act,” the law is excessive and over-inclusive. Thus, SORNA is “punishment” and cannot constitutionally be applied retroactively.

Those same three justices also concluded that although the same test is applied under Pennsylvania law, Pennsylvania’s ex post facto provision is broader and provides greater protection than the federal clause, thus ensuring that SORNA’s retroactive application independently violates state law as well.

Two justices concurred in the result and in much of the lead opinion’s reasoning but got there in slightly different ways. Two justices concluded that there was no reason to render a decision under the federal Constitution and believed that the same result could be obtained under the state Constitution exclusively. The likely effect of the decision is that the registration terms of thousands of registrants across Pennsylvania (whose periods of registration increased dramatically on the date SORNA took effect) may be returned to their original terms. This means that hundreds could suddenly find that they have completed their original registration terms and will now be removed from Pennsylvania’s registry altogether.

This is a big win for registrants, and when combined with the Sixth Circuit’s analysis in Does v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), there is an unambiguous message to legislators that they cannot continue: (1) adding more and more restrictions within their registration schemes; and (2) increasing periods of registration at will. We caution everyone not to become too giddy because the court did not find that registration, in and of itself, is unconstitutional; rather, they found the 2012 version unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Muniz. And the Court’s ruling does not address whether SORNA is punitive as applied prospectively because Mr. Muniz did not have legal standing to assert that claim. It is noteworthy that since the highest court in PA has now found that SORNA is punishment, that may open the door to new challenges whether the current scheme can continue to be enforced prospectively.

 

This topic contains 520 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Snoopy 2 days, 11 hours ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #14976 Reply

    Robin

    Good analysis, Larry. It’s pleasing to see more and more courts willing to use the “P” word.

  • #15127 Reply

    Paul

    Could some please explain what PSP will most likely have to do with pre SORNA registers. Will they have to do something soon? If you have two or more 10yr registration convictions, that were combined in one plea, pre SORNA. Combining two 10yr registrations to equal a life time registration was struck down. IF one was turned into tier three from a 10yr registration. So I believe both ways life time registration increased are now struck down. Anyone have input or current appeals?

    • #16431 Reply

      Michael

      Eventually they could start removing people, but it will be a lengthy process. If you want legal relief as soon as possible, you should hire a lawyer to file a motion seeking relief based upon the ruling in this case. I’d think it would require nothing more than a Writ of Mandamus [Action in Mandamus].

      • #16510 Reply

        Paul

        Mike would it go to the lower court first the sentencing court? Do you think PSP will have to do something soon?

    • #16483 Reply

      Carol S

      My son went from 10 years to lifetime following the passage/adoption of the Adam Walsh Act in PA. Now he will go back to 10 years and be done soon. We may spend the money for an attorney regarding his case (for other reasons as well) but I recall how QUICKLY the letters and change in status went out in PA. Let them use the same resources they used then to reverse the damage they did then.

      However, I don’t recall his plea agreement saying 10 years FROM WHEN? Does anyone know? From conviction date, offense date or from after release prison? That does not seem fair as sentences for his crime varied from probation to 5 to 10 years.

  • #15326 Reply

    Mark

    I personally am affected by this ruling. I saw my requirements go from 10 yrs, I was sentenced in 2004, to lifetime, upon the enactment of SORNA. In February, I have received from PSP a letter stating that since my charge is a tier II I now would be required to register only until 2032. If I read this correctly, then I would be removed from the registry completely. Under pre-SORNA I would have been removed in March of 2017. So what next? How long will the wait be for us folks who were unjustly affected by some bureaucrat?

    This is wonderful news!!

    • #16664 Reply

      Dee

      Mark,

      You’re right, this is wonderful news. If your original sentencing in 2004 was for ten years on the registry, shouldn’t you have been removed in 2014 and not 2017? My husband is in the same boat except his increased from ten to 15 years, so we have been biding our time and *trying* to move on, though much of our young adult lives (both his *and* mine as I’m collateral damage in this whole system) has been basically wasted in a paralytic anxiety and fear. We should have been able to start building our lives again in 2014, as I suspect was the same for you. Here is to the hope that things will revert to how they should have been and you’re removed from the list along with my husband and thousands of other people who have served their original punishment!

  • #15335 Reply

    Jim

    What of those that signed plea agreements prior to December 2012 which were not “sexually violent Sorna crimes at the time”? (Those that happened to be on probation for a Sorna sexual offense when Sorna was passed in 2012).

    • #16430 Reply

      Michael

      Simply put, if your conviction was prior to December 20, 2012, SORNA’s provisions shall not apply to you.

  • #15616 Reply

    Chris

    My prediction is that both Pennsylvania and the federal government will appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court asking for cert. I think SCOTUS will grant cert to both Snyder and the state case, and combine them since they are so similar. The petition by the federal government may very well stand alone as its own case.

    The beauty of this is that PA and US governments must petition for cert within a relatively short period of time. I suspect that the petition will have to be made either before SCOTUS reconvenes or very shortly after. So more than likely, the case would be heard next term. IF SCOTUS grants cert at all. I still think they will in Snyder, and IMO this ruling increases the chance. It would be fantastic if they did not, but I think they will.

    • #15741 Reply

      Mario

      Hello!
      I just found out about this wonderful site via YOUTUBE video by watching “Mike Woodall: How the Sex Offender Registry has Broken My Family Apart” Which I have almost the same story…I was reading and found out about this news and blew me away! (in a good sense) I was already on the Megan’s law for 10’s and 5yrs probation for “child porn”, since 2009 and ended in 2014! Within my 2nd-3rd year being on probation my ex-wife took my 2 younger children to a therapist for a prior incident prior to the 2009 offence..(long story) either way, it happened to be when my ex and I made an agreement with custody of our 2 younger children aged 10 and 13. Realizing I would like to have more time with them then agreed upon, I called her, she didn’t like that, then within 2 days children and youth told me I couldn’t be with my children and then all hell broke lose! For a lesser offence of (1ct photographing, videotaping my Daughter and her friend nude)!No sexual contact, or sexual assault on either! 1ct Corruption of minors!
      With that said, In 2010-2011, I was ordered another 5 yrs probation and retroactive to a life time registration on Megan’s law!

      MY life has been hell, and I am in contact with my so called victim, whom My Daughter and I have been closer then ever since this whole thing has came to be revealed was not my daughters doing!

      I hope this will resolve my case up!

    • #16072 Reply

      Mark

      I’m a bit confused now. Did not 6 Justices affirm that SORNA violates the ex-post facto clause of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If so how can the Commonwealth go to Federal court to overturn it? Does not the State Constitution
      affect this, as it was a State law in the first place. I believe that the Federal ex-post fatco issue is a separate but equally important issue, but should not invalidate the Pa Supreme Court ruling.

      Also, how long does the Commonwealth have to appeal anyway?

      • #16539 Reply

        Chris

        I could be wrong. It’s happened once or twice that I remember.

    • #16429 Reply

      Michael

      It won’t matter. The court held that it violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. The ruling will still apply.

  • #15800 Reply

    Stacey

    Excellent Article! And a positive outcome indeed!

  • #15897 Reply

    Dave

    The double Jeopardy clause in the US constitution states you can only be punished once for any crime if SORNA is punishment then SORNA violates the double jeopardy clause making it unconstitutional regardless of weather or not it was applied to the offender after their sentence or not. Anyone who was already punished for a sex crime is therefore disqualified from the SORNA punishment.

    • #16428 Reply

      Michael

      The constitutional prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.

    • #16536 Reply

      Chris

      That could be true for most people convicted before Megan’s Law. Since there was no registry then (excepting California’s), people could not be sentenced to register.

      HOWEVER, since the introduction of the registries, typically a person is told at the time of their conviction that they are required to register, so the justice system (namely SCOTUS) would treat the registration requirement as part of the sentence. Even the dissenting justices in Smith v. Doe said they would not deem a registration requirement to be unconstitutional if the requirement was ordered at sentencing. The same would be true for the restrictions that have been deemed “punishment” and therefore unenforceable ex post facto.

    • #23253 Reply

      Brian

      SORNA was signed into law in 12/20/2012 (Retroactively) so they could do something illegaly and make it sound good. But to people that were convicted after 12/20/2012 it is not illegal. So yes in my opinion it would be double jeopardy. The courts know what is going on. I think SCOTUS will reject the apeal because they rejected the SUDER vs DOE case.

  • #16018 Reply

    Jennie Henzel

    What does AWA stand for?

    • #16024 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      AWA is the acronym for Adam Walsh Act, the most recent federal attempt to standardize sex offender registry requirements among the states.

    • #16763 Reply

      Darrin Swait

      Not only that, Robin, but it also prevents some registrants from sponsoring their spouses or fiances into the country. I am currently dealing with that issue right now and it’s breaking her heart. This is good news, though. It’s progress

  • #16164 Reply

    Eric

    I was on another site almost like this, one person talked to a lawyer and they said it would cost them (the lawyer’s price) to file a motion to be removed from the list. I would like to know if there was something else I would/could do, I went from 10 years to 25 to 15. I was supposed to be removed from the list in 2013 but it got extended to Tier II then dropped down to Tier I. Is it the PSP’s responsibility to remove those needed to be removed or are we the ones responsible to get ourselves removed. Also does the state actually have the ability to and would they appeal to the Federal court? That one has me worried.

    • #16246 Reply

      Eric

      *It would cost them (the lawyer’s price) $5,000.00…

      • #16427 Reply

        Michael

        PSP would be the one’s who could remove people from the list, but they don’t have to. They can simply say what they have been saying to people, “get a court order.” I would expect that at some point, they will start the process of removing people from the registry, and no doubt that process will be lengthy.

        ….

        • #16579 Reply

          Eric

          If the courts ruled it unconstitutional, how can they not have to remove those effected?

    • #16610 Reply

      Dee

      Eric,

      My husband was slated to be removed in 2014 after ten years but was updated to 2019 after SORNA took effect. We contacted a lawyer about filing a motion due to a ruling in PA last year that says that my husband might be able to get off the list because he met some criteria (I can’t think of it right now). They said it would cost 5k (told to us this February). Eric,

      My husband was slated to be removed in 2014 after ten years but was updated to 2019 after SORNA took effect. We contacted a lawyer about filing a motion due to a ruling in PA last year that says that my husband might be able to get off the list because he met some criteria (I can’t think of it right now). They said it would cost 5k (told to us this February). However, my understanding is that now the state itself will have to remove registrants whom they have now unlawfully kept on the registry past their “expiration date.” We are expecting them to announce that they will be removing registrants, but who knows when. Probably months. We will not be paying a lawyer to maybe possibly have slight chance maybe of removing him from the list., my understanding is that now the state itself will have to remove registrants whom they have now unlawfully kept on the registry past their “expiration date.” We are expecting them to announce that they will be removing registrants, but who knows when. Probably months. We will not be paying a lawyer to maybe possibly have slight chance maybe of removing him from the list.

  • #16597 Reply

    DW

    If the PSP delays removal of registrants whose conviction dates preclude their being on the registry, shouldn’t the have recourse to sue the state for each day they remained after the court’s ruling? Seems like that might get the PSP motivated to expedite matters a bit.

    • #16602 Reply

      Dee

      My thoughts exactly, DW.

      If registrants are required to report changes within 3 days, I would proffer that the state likewise has 3 days within which to act upon the ruling. But you know that they will drag their feet and try to throw up barriers to prevent the mass removal of registrants who have *already completed their original punishment* (since we can call it punishment now) under Megan’s Law.

      I also have a fear that even more websites will pop up endeavoring to quickly record all of the names on the registry as-is, thus truly handing down a lifetime punishment for thousands of low-risk offenders. People who serve their time need to be given the ability to move on and rebuild — not be tied permanently to Draconian standards of punishment. “But how can victims rebuild? They’re scarred for a lifetime,” you might say. I understand that viewpoint, but we’re talking about what the law spells out for us. We can’t decide willy-nilly what we want as punishment. Hell, I think there should be an equivalent list for animal abusers, elder abusers, and murderers (if anything to show that not everyone is an angel and is, in fact, a likely hypocrite), but just because I think it should happen doesn’t mean that it will. That’s for the system to decide based on the letter and spirit of the law. And, in this case, they did just that.

      • #16615 Reply

        DW

        All you points are well taken Miss Dee. My guess is that we don’t see the kind of scrutiny applied to say, DUI offenders (much more likely to kill entire families, let alone harm children) than anyone on the SOL. No doubt it’s a bill of attainder as I understand the Constitution to describe the same. I’m not a lawyer. Don’t even play one on TV, but I can read. The semantics used to justify applying this thing retroactively, or at all for that matter, was done so by folks who would be most effected by posting all criminal/immoral/civil crimes on the internet. Pandering politicians.

        Pray America gets back to her roots as a free republic bound by a Constitution, even when it is most unpopular to do so.

    • #16879 Reply

      Bruce

      Another way of looking at it: since registration is an unfunded mandate to the PSP, it’s in their best interest to shed the thousands of registrants this applies to, which would reduce the administrative burden and free up resources for actual law enforcement, rather than being bookkeepers and nannies. Hopefully that will motivate then to move quickly, since it’s essentially a monetary benefit to them.

  • #17054 Reply

    Paul
  • #17082 Reply

    Jim

    https://www.google.com/amp/cumberlink.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/cumberland-county-da-freed-to-request-u-s-supreme-court/article_306cb141-901f-5f8e-a48c-19e13c2ad80f.amp.html

    This- from the prosecuting DA in the Muniz case.

    Can someone enlighten me as to how this DA can appeal both the federal and state aspect of the Muniz case to SCOTUS?

    I was under the impression that because the Pa Supreme Court opinion held that
    Sorna violated BOTH the US and Pa constitutions, there would be no way for this DA to attempt to change the outcome…

    • #17086 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      Every decision of a state’s highest appellate court (in PA’s case, the “supreme court”) can be appealed to the nation’s highest court on the basis of a federal constitutional claim. Whether or not the PA Supreme Court correctly applied its own state’s constitution is only reviewable insofar as it may conflict with the federal. How DA Freed “connects that up” remains to be seen. Seeking the federal Supreme Court’s review of the case will follow the typical custom of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this instance.

      • #17367 Reply

        Paul B

        I would assume that if this goes to SCOTUS NARSOL and NCROSL would file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the plaintiff side.

        • #17393 Reply

          Chris

          I would hope not. The plaintiff would be the state of Pennsylvania.

  • #17089 Reply

    Jim

    https://www.google.com/amp/cumberlink.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/cumberland-county-da-freed-to-request-u-s-supreme-court/article_306cb141-901f-5f8e-a48c-19e13c2ad80f.amp.html

    Can someone enlighten me as to how this DA can appeal to SCOTUS a decision that rests on Pa.state constitutional grounds, as well as federal? I was under the impression that regardless of the federal Ex post fact consideration, this ruling in state constitutional grounds is final and not appealable…

    Is this small DA just trying to save face, or does he have a case?

  • #17240 Reply

    John W

    I’ve already heard all this before. We went through the same thing in Missouri.
    –1996, I had to register, even though I was released from probation in 1991.
    –2006, Mo. SC ruled that the registration was a “new duty”, so I no longer had to register. My name and information was still published though, because the State said that I voluntarily submitted all my information to them. (Really?)
    — 2007, Mo. SC ruled that the independent registration requirement under SORNA operates irrespective of any allegedly retrospective state law that has been enacted. (Allegedly?)
    –2011, Mo. SC upheld that a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) requires registration under SORNA. (The United States Government, does not, and will not, recognize any plea agreement or settlement from a state court!)
    –2012, Mo. SC upheld the duration of registration in Missouri is “lifetime”, whether registering because of a Missouri, Federal, Out of State, Tribal, Military or Foreign registration requirement.
    And just in case sometime in the future, an intelligent person would find a persuasive argument in favor of a sex offender concerning the Missouri Constitutional Ex Po Facto law:
    –2013 Mo. SC ruled the restriction under 566.150 RSMo. can be applied retroactively and does not violate Article I, section 13 of the Missouri constitution.
    The ruling goes on to state the prohibition against laws retrospective in their operation does not apply to criminal laws.
    What all of this really means is every single person, whether he/she be a US citizen or not, within or outside the borders of the US, no matter the age, religion, race, creed, color, gender (known or not), have been granted inalienable rights, except, for the “sex offender”. All 3 branches of our government have declared that it is my “civil duty”, under the threat of imprisonment, to voluntarily submit myself, (as well as the few people who may love or care for me), to a life of ridicule, intimidation, disdain, hate, and worst of all, hopelessness. I guess I should be glad that those things aren’t considered punishment.

  • #17631 Reply

    Smith

    Single, isolated offense (no sex involved, bried inappropriate contact) occured January ’97. Sentenced in April ’98 to 15 years probation, released from supervision after 11 years. Prior to being sentenced, attorney said I did not quality for SO registration and public & community notification requirements, would not have to register, and entered guilty plea based on his advice. State waited until after 30 day appeal period passed, then told me I was designated as an RSO, had to have my photograph taken for RSO website and prospectively register as an SO, and the public and community notifications started. Attorney later admitted that he misrepresented me in court, and that I would have to register for an additional 25 years once I was released from supervison…so 11 years of probation + an additional 25 years, even though he told my wife and me prior to sentencing that I didn’t qualify for SO registration at all. There was no such thing as SO probation at the time I was sentenced. Additionally, under statutes in ’98, 25 year registration AFTER being released from supervision…not lifetime as it is now. Initially, after being sentenced, never had to report to Sheriff’s office, and an officer came by maybe once per year to verify address. Then state started adding more and more restrictions, probation kept trying to apply them to me, attorney kept going to court, restrictions kept getting thrown out by circuit judge on ex post facto grounds.

    THEN ALONG CAME SORNA…and all its Nazi, Colonial-era measures and restrictions were retroactively applied.

    Was automatically assigned Tier II based on conviction alone…no hearing…no due process…no equal protection…after several years of not having a Tier level at all or having to report to the Sheriff’s office. All the restrictions kicked in. Was told I had to start reporting once every 6 months to Sheriff’s office in person or face arrest and prison. Cops started coming by once every 3 months even though they’re only required to come by only once per year. (Ironically, registered sexual predators have to report in once every 3 months, so it’s as if they are, in effect, treating me like an RSP except, in the reverse, they are coming to me instead of me going to them). And, even though have not been on probation since January 2009, the cops act just like probation officers when they come by every quarter, with their line of questioning, etc. And Florida has continued to add more and more restrictions retroactively and has been labeled as one of the harshest states in the union for RSO’s. I know I am not alone but to even begin to describe the harassment my family and I have been continuously subjected to, not even so much by the general public but mainly by cops, is a horror story and nightmare in and of itself! They sometimes come in groups after midnight, always without a search warrant, repeatedly ringing our doorbell and banging on the door, waking up my family from sleep, yelling and demanding us to open the door. They often come after dark, 3 – 6 squad cars at a time, with their all their lights on, making a spectacle in front of our neighbors, shining their ultra bright led lights in my face, practically blinding me. Sometimes they will stand out by the street and yell across the yard to me so all the neighbors can hear: “WE’RE HERE TO DO A SEX OFFENDER CHECK!” “YOU’RE A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER AND WE’RE HERE TO VERIFY THAT YOU STILL LIVE AT THIS ADDRESS!” And they will keep repeating it over and over, screaming it across the yard for all of our neighbors to hear. They constantly threaten to arrest me if I do not answer their questions when they come by or show them my ID. They have threatened to shoot our dog without justification. They will drive by and turn their sirens and/or lights on just as they’re passing my home then turn them off right after they pass…they do this all the time. I’ve seen them throwing trash in our yard, and I’ve caught them parked in my driveway at 1am or 2am in the morning after my dog would alert us, then they will take off real fast when I step outside to see what the dog is barking at. They leave these large, bright yellow placards hanging on our fence, front door or garage door with big, bold black letters “SEX OFFENDER UNIT”, with a note demanding that I call them if I wasn’t home when they came by, and any visitors to our home can see those signs. They’ve even taped those yellow signs on our fence facing the street so that passing cars and neighbors can see them. They have followed my family and me around, stalking us at the county fair, at the park, in a restaurant, at public events, etc. My son has been jogging with his friends and they will stop him, asking him for ID, and make comments in front of his friends about his dad being an RSO. Or, if he gets stopped for a basis traffic intraction, they will surround him with 4 – 5 sqaud cars and make a poing of referring to him as “the son of that sex offender”. The list of harassment goes on and on…years of this hell on earth! The very public servants that are supposed to be examples of “lawfully abiding” are the very ones violating the spirit of the law by harassing and stalking my family and me. They are extremely aggressive with me, always trying to cause a provocation, seemingly as if trying to come up with an excuse to shoot me..I’m not even joking!

    How can SORNA or the myriad of new state statutes NOT be punishment and ex post facto violations? It truly is as if probation never ended…just changed hands from probation office to sheriff’s office, is all. If you fail to adhere to the constant, new and increasing retroactve restrictions, then you are faced with arrest and imprisonment, thus increasing the penalities from the original sentence. This is insanity!

  • #19360 Reply

    Anonymous

    My question is…
    Has no one with the power of the people or voice of people contacted Colonel Tyree C. Blocker, Commissioner of the PA State Police or the PA Governor Tom Wolf to make them enforce what the Supreme Court already deemed as fact and law? They had no problem making AWA effective immediately back in Dec. 2012 under PA Governor Corbett so, why the delay now???

    This matter of fact has been decided and all appeals have been exhausted which is why it made it to the PA Supreme Court. Why has my eligible family member not been removed of the demon awful registry already? Enough of being harass, threaten, assaulted, bashed, diminished, insulted, prevent from obtaining work and plain & simple being able to live a productive life!!!

    The social stigma has been unbearable for almost 15 years for everyone involved and there has never been any more crimes of such committed (or any kind as humanly possible under our Faulted Human Laws)!!! This family has been destroyed because of politicians bent on votes and not on caring for anyone, but themselves and their “buddies & secret memberships”. How about upholding the sacred U.S. and States Constitutions!!!

    Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

    “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

  • #19371 Reply

    Anonymous

    Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

  • #19564 Reply

    Cary

    Based on the New findings of the Pennsylvania Constitution — Pennsylvania’s Ex Post Facto Clause would be taken a bit of time to get people off the registry like myself tier II under the 2012 SORNA. origanally to the 10 year of regestering year of 1999 of tier I of my original sentencing. It is to my understanding of the new findings that the date of the new findings of the punitive will arise in actions of a huge lawsuits from the date of the findings to the date of the actual removing of the registry. Because it violates the constitutional rights and laws. So my best guess is to contact the local attorneys and get the free advices. If the findings are true then the state has to give a short time to removal of the registry in a reasonable time allowed but no further than a set date. If there is a such date. After the due date than yes, sue the hell out of PA! Why not!!!

  • #21189 Reply

    Mark

    In February I received a letter from the Megan’s law section of PSP stating I was reclassified from lifetime registration to Tier II, When SONRA went into effect Dec 2012, I went from a 10 Yr registration to Lifetime due to the 2 pleading guilty to 2 charges. Then in Aug of 2016 this occurred, Supreme Court ruling will reduce number of sex offenders required to register for life. https://narsol.org/2016/08/4053/ It took from August 2016 until February 2017 to issue the revision in tiers. Given that should we not look for a minimum of 5 months for the AG and PSP to get off their butts and follow the courts ruling. Does the action to SCOTUS delay this and if so for how long?

    • #21331 Reply

      Brian

      Not sure how long it will take but someone needs to hurry this along, I know if it was a new law to punish SO’s it would have went to the front of the line under the radar and passed within week. As soon as they cancel SORNA in PA god willing people need to get lawyers and start suing within days. I was a teir I sense 2002 I didn’t have to register till pa passed a law that out of state SO’s had to register. I was unaware I was even required to register. CO probation made it part of my probation requirements which I had no idea for some reason. Anyway sense 2012 I was classified as teir II. I pray someone in the Supreme Court says no appeals allowed and they cancel this ridiculousness.

  • #21357 Reply

    Rajendra

    So what does this mean for a labeled citizen now?

  • #21790 Reply

    Brian

    I was wandering if anyone knows anything going on in Pennsylvania as far as the Supreme Court goes and Munis case. I see a lot happening in other states and a lot of it is so horrible the laws the pass illegally. I remember in 2012 when they passed SORNA illegally in PA everyone had gone to the ACLU and filled petitions and whatnot and all of a sudden there was no more talk of it and no one seamed to be fighting this illegal law like everyone had given up, Can someone out there tell me what’s going on at this moment in time or point me to websites that have updated material?

  • #21827 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian
    Sorry buddy, but there is no much better place for updated information in one place that I have found other than NARSOL. You will find info at a local level, but you will need to visit or search every locality in every Town/City in a State to get updates on what is going on in those places. This issue is a sickness (the mental kind) of misinformation that is deeply rooted into every cranny of just about every community in the U.S. (even the Amish after what happened in Lancaster, PA years ago, but the difference being they actually/genuinely forgave) and abroad.

    What I would like to know, in all honesty of course, is where are the ethical people, Constitution believing/quoting folks, the individuals of faith, understanding, compassion & forgiveness and last but not least the legal scholars at?

    I am still waiting to be contacted by any groups or attorneys to offer their “help” to seek relieve from this violation of Human Rights (mine and others) and to get the ball rolling to sue the living ghost out of this States & Federal Government. (not going to happen, of course, except by those with the right people & money in the right places, which it is how the justice system often works, sadly and yes, I do not have confidence in how our U.S. justice system operates)

    I have yet to see any post from any entity, (i.e. ACLU, NARSOL, Human Rights Watch, Politicians [yeah…like that would ever happen!] or Lawyers) actually providing direct useful details or recommendations as to whom to seek for legal recourse affordable to all (read my thinking…No money needed to do what is right & lawful!) and without fear of ridicule or retaliation by authorities. As far as I have observed/experienced with attorneys, we are profit and business is good.

    • #22003 Reply

      Brian

      Thank you Anonymous, I will do some digging. I had contacted a law firm who has responded to me, not sure what there going rate is I’m sure it’s not under $5000.00 to hire them seeing that registered citizens have to pay triple for legal services and a bank robber or drug dealer only have to pay $1000.00 or $2.000. I am going to wait to see if the DA’s appeal is taken or rejected in October, if they reject it I won’t need a lawyer if they accept it I will have to find some cash. I was reading something the other night that the DA wants to keep the old law in effect so they can arrest the supposed 10,000 registered citizens who have not complied with the old Megan’s law, he wants to charge them all, these people who want to keep chasing register citizens are the ones with the sickness, the ones with the compulsions to tear people’s lives apart and their families, there the ones that need counseling. Maybe they need to be stuck on a registry for people with incurable obsession compulsory disorders. There the sick ones, not the people who have been on the registry for 10 15 20 years and haven’t comitted any other crimes. This is just frustrating and rediculous in my opinion.

      • #22130 Reply

        bill

        so now we are waiting to see if the appeal is accepted, when will that happen?

  • #22139 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian @ bill
    …and to anyone else interested, please read the comments section on this NARSOL article “PA’s high court rules retroactive SORNA violates constitution” right on this website. Someone by the name: terry brunson shared some things that may be encouraging and helpful. It was for me!

    I will not copy & paste the web link because, even though it is an article from NARSOL, it might not be posted by the moderators for being in a link format.

    I was going to copy & paste here a bit of what the person said there, but decided against doing so because, that person went out of their way and beyond (…sorry Buzz Lightyear! Lol) to write what they did to share their invaluable knowledge. The article from NARSOL & the comments all deserve to be read. (…and yes, there is a lot to read, but it is in non-legal format as much as reasonably possible in my opinion)

    Thank you for understanding! Stay the course & supportive of each other!
    Blessing to everyone!

    • #22151 Reply

      Cary
      • #22180 Reply

        Anonymous

        @Cary
        Thank you for that information!
        So we now officially know that Dave Freed, the Cumberland County District Attorney and Communications Chair for the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association that he is *quote* “pleased to report that just last week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stayed the Muniz decision pending my filing of a Writ of Certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court.” *end quote*

        After reading the official article on the link your provided, it is very clear to me that this law enforcement public servant is on a personal vendetta against folks on a registry and will not rest until he can make himself more powerful and a household name by quoting manipulated (picked & chosen) & unrealistic statistics of recidivism and sharing his personal views and not the professional views of the State Constitution & laws he swore (supposedly) to uphold (& protect). I have copy & paste some excerpts from Dave Freed’s report Before the House Judiciary Committee on 9/12/2017

        “One such study followed 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 states in 1994 and found that nearly 4 out of every 10 returned to prison within 3 years.(1) Another study that spanned a twenty-five year period after release found that rapists and child molesters remained at risk to reoffend at least 15-20 years after discharge, and that the sexual recidivism arrest rate for rapists was 39% and the sexual recidivism arrest rate for child molesters was an even higher 52%.(2)”

        “Equally significant is that any statistical attempts to measure the risk of new offenses greatly understate the true nature of the problem because the vast majority of sex crimes are never reported.”

        “With regard to the Muniz case, I disagree with the ruling. In my view, SORNA’s requirements are neither punitive nor onerous. While SORNA places significant burdens on those required to register, the scope of these requirements do not, in my view, rise to the level of punishment. It is for that reason that I have filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.”

        “The Muniz case has the potential to affect every single sex offender convicted before December 20, 2012. It will then be up to the Pennsylvania State Police to determine whether they should remain on the registry and to litigate any attempts to remove those sex offenders from the registry.”

        “With all that said, there is room for a legislative fix. The PDAA has already been working with Committee staff, and we recommend reenacting a version of Megan’s Law that was in place before SORNA took effect in 2012. This version should apply to those offenders to whom SORNA applied retroactively, meaning that their registration crimes were committed before December 20, 2012. Under this proposal, some offenders would ultimately come off the registry. But the numbers would pale in comparison to the possible 10,000 who could ultimately be removed from the registry should no legislative action be taken.” -end of excerpts-

        Now we wait, again, on the SCOTUS and what other “adjustments” to SORNA legislators come up with in PA. *exhales heavily*

    • #22278 Reply

      Brian

      @Anonymous, That was just mind blowing from Terry Brunson, I understand why you didn’t repost it, from what I read SCOTUS won’t accept anything to do with EX POST FACTO. That’s my understanding anyway, I am a bit slow have been my whole life. God I hope she’s right though she seams to know the law very well.

      • #22284 Reply

        Anonymous

        @Brian
        You have demonstrated gratitude, understanding and kindness. Nothing about your behavior or reading comprehension skills qualifies you as slow to me! 🙂

        @Robin Keymaster
        Thank you! I will keep that reference in knowledge. 🙂

        • #22555 Reply

          Brian

          @ Anonymous, Thank you for your kind words and all the help you have provided, God willing I pray every night that this ends in a positive way for SO’s. As far as Terry explains this, it will be a good outcome for us.

        • #22571 Reply

          Anonymous

          I thank you for staying active & supportive on NARSOL for it helps us all. May your positive prayers (…and everyone else’s) be heard! 🙂

    • #22281 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      Just for future reference, we will always re-post a link to one of NARSOL’s own blog postings. Not a problem. Feel free.

  • #22268 Reply

    Mark

    Well, the first Monday in October is only a week away. We have to pray that SCOTUS does not take up the case and let the Pa ruling stand. This does explain why PSP has not taken any action on Muniz. What is the consensus of the legal learned folks here on this development?
    It should be suggested that people on the registry remain compliant just to avoid any hassles the LE.
    Since the issue was stayed by the court until SCOTUS decides, but could it be used as a defense for failing to comply, if the one was sentenced prior to Dec. 2012 provided Muniz stands?

    • #22300 Reply

      Txso4life

      Here’s a break down from the folks at SCOTUS regarding the Justices conference today (9/25). A little crack of information to the upcoming important news every one hoping and waiting for…

      Cert grants from the long conference: The September effect

      • #22316 Reply

        Mark

        So, if I understand correctly, we should know if SCOUTUS will hear the case on the 28th.

        • #22583 Reply

          Paul

          Is Freed waiting to see what happens today to file or not?

        • #22605 Reply

          Anonymous

          @Paul
          …as the above of your post link provided by @Txso4life explained, yes AG Dave Freed filed already. (to answer your question)

    • #22723 Reply

      Brian

      @Mark
      We can hope SCOTUS doesn’t take the case. I did see SNYDER VS DOE OF MICHIGAN was taken by SCOTUS so I am thinking they will take I guess it would be JOSE MUNIS VS FEED? Or FREED VS DOE I don’t know how it will be worded. when I look on the SCOTUS BLOG the only one I can find is SNYDER VS DOE. So let’s hope that’s a good sign GOD willing anyway. I read the supplemental brief and looks like SCOTUS may be in favor of DOE but it’s confusing language to me, I can post the whole brief in you want to read it.

      • #22725 Reply

        Fred
        Keymaster

        Where did you read that Snyder v. Does was taken? We are still waiting for that order, which should be Monday.

      • #26418 Reply

        terry brunson

        @ Brian –

        Snyder v Doe was not accepted- the SCOTUS denied a hearing on Oct 4, 2017 for remand and mandate back to Michigan SC. . . . . Same will happen to Pennsylvania – it is a matter of time and the wait . . . . . Terry Brunson

  • #22413 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Txso4life
    Thank you for the article link!

    @Mark
    The 9/28/2017 date may be when we should know if SCOTUS will hear the case. May it be so, if it is for the best outcome!

    Now, I will get ahead of myself a bit… When the decision is made to remove human folks from this unconstitutional-oppressive… (OK, let me stay professional. If we are here, we know!) SORNA, then what happens with our lives? (and I am not referring to monetary compensation though, if any one wants to share further as some have, it would surely be appreciated!) Are we really going to be free or just freer *look it up* for others in the future (which I am OK with)? Just more free than current?

    I am referring to further obligations imposed by States, U.S. Federal Government and/or other Countries when it comes to where we live, where we work, where we travel and/or where we raise a family. Will we have to live forever in the same State given relief (i.e. PA, etc.)[I am an American citizen PA resident since early 90’s, convicted in a Military Court (just because of that my situation turned more complex than most others…I get it) in Camp Lejeune, N.C. (11 month sentence-misdemeanor- out in 9 good behavior) back to PA with no restrictions other than being placed on PA registry (for 10 years now tier 1) which I do not recall ever being discussed by my free legal Military Counsel until days before release when they were demanding to have my blood drawn as part of my release (or I would not have taken the plea deal offered even as I was threatened with further *made up* charges), never any other convictions. Born in Puerto Rico where a registry is mandated in exchange to receive Federal funds for Law Enforcement] Will I have to register if I go there? I have been considering moving to some Central American Countries (since I do speak Spanish) when $ permit and my children are on a solid path to success where they will need me very little to nothing at all (though to me our children will always needs us and we will need them, if there is genuine love), but I want to start another life without being a social stigma to myself or loved ones or have fingers pointed at me by people that have done…that are no Saints, but have never gotten caught by “the law” on things.

    I have been reading that many European Countries will not welcome people in our situation or past plus, I am not financially well (anyone is pretty much welcome anywhere if you have money *ahem…Dennis Rodman & North Korea…ahem* nor am I Caucasian, no offense intended to anyone, but just a sincere observation) so, much of Europe and Australia is pretty much out of my future plans. Maybe Japan (but not with the tension that is going on right now in that region of the World).

    Essentially, can we live in other States of the U.S. with more peace and income opportunities? Can we move to another Country where we may find peace & civility even if it means renouncing citizenship? Will we legally be able to change our names if we want to do so? (I have read in articles on the subject over the years that we are a major exception to a resounding, NO) Will we be completely removed from the Federal Government Database NSOPW which right now states: *quote* “Due to Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico’s offender information is unavailable through NSOPW. At this time, we are unable to provide an estimate for when their information will be available again.” *end quote* and thru the SMART website *quote* “Welcome to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) site. The SMART Office was authorized in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which was signed into law on July 27, 2006.” *end quote* Are our drivers’ licenses and/or travel Visas going to be tagged or marked with some sort of designation to further punish/shame us? Will paying lawyers/legal counsels be the only way to truly have the legal back-up and motions placed/taken to be removed from everything to include records sealing/clearing/pardoning/expungement?

    I am asking these questions for me and those that choose not to ask them, but want to also know!
    I’ve been afraid for many long years, and still am. But may my questions help us all trying to do right!
    *respectful rant finished, thank you for reading and/or answering!* 🙂

    • #22431 Reply

      Anonymous

      After further research, checking, reading and…re-checking, I came across these SORNA related articles that I hope helps all interested. Some articles will answer questions and some will raise more. There will be links so, it will be up to the moderators to permit their posting. Thanks to the mods in advance!

      https://www.smart.gov/international_tracking.htm
      International Tracking of Sex Offenders

      The SMART Office provides guidance on the implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) and has been continually involved in the efforts to improve tracking of registered sex offenders traveling internationally since its inception. Through collaborative actions with other federal agencies, the development of policy and guidelines and the publication of relevant resources, the SMART Office plays a vital role in the U.S. government’s overarching efforts to notify foreign countries when registered sex offenders are traveling abroad.
      International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group

      SORNA and the SORNA Final Guidelines tasked the U.S. Department of Justice with creating a tracking system for sex offenders who enter and depart the United States. To that end, the SMART Office organized the International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group in 2008. This working group, comprising more than 20 component agencies and offices within the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, State and Defense, proposed a system using existing resources, outlined in the International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group White Paper. The working group, chaired by SMART, has met regularly over the past 10 years, most recently in May 2017.
      SORNA & Advance Notice of International Travel

      In 2011, the Department of Justice released the SORNA Supplemental Guidelines that require registered sex offenders to inform their residence jurisdiction of any intended travel outside of the United States at least 21 days prior to their departure, and the registration jurisdiction to collect information about the offender’s intended international travel. The jurisdiction is required to send that information to the U.S. Marshals Service’s National Sex Offender Targeting Center, who, in turn, reviews and forwards it to INTERPOL-Washington for foreign country notification.
      International Megan’s Law

      In 2016, Congress passed International Megan’s Law, which codified the 21-day advance travel notification requirement, and built on the work of the U.S. Marshals Service’s National Sex Offender Targeting Center. It also specifically authorized the work of the Department of Homeland Security’s Angel Watch Center, which uses passenger manifest data and criminal history record information to detect persons convicted of sex offenses against minors who are traveling to countries where the sexual exploitation of children is most likely to occur.

      The SMART Office published a two-page summary of International Megan’s Law shortly after its passage.
      Additional Resources

      In 2013, the Government Accountability Office issued a comprehensive report detailing the efforts to track registered sex offenders traveling internationally, including the work of the SMART Office and the International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group.

      The SMART Office published a Global Overview of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Systems, most recently updated in 2016.

      You will need to have a PDF file reader installed on your computing device for this one below:
      https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/SORNA-progress-check.pdf
      Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) State and Territory Implementation
      Progress Check

      These following are NARSOL articles and please read the comments as possible:

      Anthony Weiner sentenced to 21 months in sexting case

      Does anyone really understand recidivism?

      Sex offenders blame secluded island’s water for deaths

      International Meagan’s Law damages a person’s reputation

      • #22517 Reply

        Mark

        @Anonymous

        I followed the link to SMART.gov page and looked at the compliance list. So when Muniz is upheld, will Pa go to yellow and not be full compliance? It seems that their own paperwork could be it undoing also as it says “Retroactively applies requirements.” The word retroactively show up there, a naughty word to the courts.
        If this is used to know if someone is a RSO, and one is removed from Pa’s list how would any other state or entity know the person in question was at one time on the list?? My therapist asked me the visit my wife and I had after Muniz came down, How it applied to me? Then he asked me that if I am removed from the Pa list, how would anyone know I was ever on it? I am curious about that myself. I have family out of state and do not go there for the Holidays
        since this all started. Also weren’t the juvenile crimes declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS?

        • #22527 Reply

          Anonymous

          @Mark
          Thank you for checking it! I honestly do not know what the exact plan of attack or support is going to be for PA’s legislators on SORNA in the future and the Federal Government mandates. There is a person on a NARSOL article link I Re-posted here that in the comments section explains many things in understandable details (non-legal mostly).
          The name is terry brunson (as spelled)
          I encourage you to go there, read the comments, and respectfully ask terry brunson who, seems to be active on replies as possible. I would also like to know about the question you have as others might.
          Take care, blessings and let us keep informed! 🙂
          Here below is the article again:

          PA’s high court rules retroactive SORNA violates constitution

  • #22621 Reply

    Mark

    OK it is 6:30 Sept 28th 2017. I googled the Supreme Court and looked to see if there was anything about the WRIT of CERTIORARI and found this. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/092817zr.html. As far as I can tell the Muniz case is not listed. Good or Bad, or did I miss something?

    • #22648 Reply

      Anonymous

      @Brian
      …while I do agree with quite a bit of what you wrote from your own research, I will reserve myself from participating in the “Destroying” portion of your last sentence. I am angry still at a lot that has been done unlawful/unfairly/unethical to me & my loved ones & my fellow RSOs, but there has been enough “destroying” already. I would prefer to defeat the ignorance and/or hate thru education as NARSOL is doing and as we are trying to do by conversating about our knowledge and experiences, & to defeat our anger thru channeling on positive acts (whatever those may be). 🙂

      • #22881 Reply

        Brian

        @Anonymous
        Michigan won as you may know now just waiting for PA, thinking positive god willing PA makes the threw with a big win with SCOTUS.

    • #22645 Reply

      Anonymous

      @Mark
      I believe still good for us in PA. Bad for our Brothers & Sisters RSOs that have no pending cases in their respective State Supreme Courts. If the SCOTUS does not strike down SORNA or at least its Ex Post Facto provisions by/after granting to hear the case then, it is up to each State/Commonwealth/Territory to take up the issue at their Supreme Courts (please, be aware that I do not claim to be right on this assessment so, someone please correct me if I am mistaken).

  • #22625 Reply

    Brian

    Found this random artical from 3 days ago, I think unregistered citizens are seeing clear as day now what exactly is going on. Can you say light at the end of the tunnel is not a train. Maybe some day SORNA will be snuffed out, who knows.

    Today, we know that the S*x Offender Registries (SORs) are not really for public safety, protecting children, or any of the other lies that were used to start the witch hunt and used to this day to maintain it. After all, we did not create a national, public Gun Offender Registry well over a decade ago.

    Today, there are no informed, intelligent, unbiased, moral Americans who support the SORs. There are no people who are serious about public safety who support it. Those are not the people who support the SORs. Take a look at the people who do. Immoral un-Americans.

    We also know that people who live in the U.S. cannot responsibly have and use SORs. That goes a hundred fold for politicians, who truly are nothing more than a bunch of criminals who are a danger to free people. It is time to end Nanny Big Government (NBG). It is time to end lying, pandering politicians who cannot grow NBG too big or too expensive or have too many laws. Governments that have SORs are criminal regimes. Do not support them or their law enforcement criminals. Keep as much resources away from them as possible. Remember “If you see something, say something”? Forget that. NBG is the last bunch of criminals that you should involve in anything.

    The good new is that the SORs are completely unnecessary and negligibly beneficial. In order to actually protect yourself and your family, in actual reality and not Registry Fantasyland, you MUST protect from ALL people. If you actually protect your family in actual reality, you have no need at all for any very, very incomplete list from NBG. The SORs are also extremely counterproductive and gravely harming America. Destroying them will make all of us safer.

  • #22684 Reply

    Brian

    Posted March 10 2017 from a criminal defense attorney.

    There is a misconception out there that people who are registered sex offenders are extremely likely to commit a crime again. This recidivism rate has been touted to be as high as 80 percent. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States cited this statistic in a 2002 case that involved the many restrictions placed on sex offenders.

    And yet, this statistic is staggeringly incorrect. The United States Department of Justice followed every released sex offender in 15 states for three years following a 1994 release. They found that the recidivism rate was only 3.5 percent. The most restricted and watched individuals with a criminal past in our system have an extremely low recidivism rate. And yet, this misconception haunts the sex offender jurisprudence, continuing to oppress these people who are just trying to get their lives back on track.

    Sex offenders aren’t allowed to live in certain areas. They aren’t allowed to go to certain places. They have to register themselves and follow every protocol and rule “to a T” in order to protect themselves from further criminal punishment. They may have to wear GPS trackers. These people are highly restricted and monitored.

    Here’s an example of the issues we are talking about here: a 21-year-old in 2002 was charged with having consensual sex with an underage girl he was dating. He served two years of probation, and then had to register as a sex offender. He then was charged with criminal conduct a decade later — for using social media to discuss a parking ticket. This happened in North Carolina, where the law states that it is a felony for a registered sex offender to use “commercial social networking website that the person ‘knows’ does not restrict usage to legal adults.”

    This is too extreme and limiting, and though he may have violated the literal word of the law, the 21-year-old certainly didn’t violate the spirit of the law.

  • #22706 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian
    Thank you for that post! I agree with you that recidivism statistics for SOs (registered or not) are some of the most (if not the most) manipulated numbers in all “Crimes” categories. I will share with you an article link I read about & printed in 2007 which sadly, did not even moved politicians as a whole (let alone Law Enforcement Officials) emotionally or on a practical-commonsense or Constitutional basis at the time. I hope the NARSOL moderators permit its posting since it is related to the subject. You and anyone can read all that is there for it is all interesting news & studies.
    The article I specifically speak of is:
    “September 11, 2007 |Report
    No Easy Answers
    Sex Offender Laws in the US”

    https://www.hrw.org/sitesearch/sex%20offender%20us%20recidivism%20report?f%5B0%5D=sm_field_shared_region_country%3Ataxonomy_term%3A9456&f%5B4%5D=ds_created%3A%5B2004-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z%20TO%202012-12-31T00%3A00%3A00Z%5D

    “MISSION STATEMENT
    Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all.

    CORE VALUES – WE ARE:
    COMMITTED TO OUR MISSION OF DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS WORLDWIDE. Our work is guided by international human rights and humanitarian law and respect for the dignity of each human being.

    INDEPENDENT. To ensure our independence, we do not accept government funds, directly or indirectly, or support from any private funder that could compromise our objectivity and independence. We do not embrace political causes, are non-partisan, and maintain neutrality in armed conflict.

    FACTUAL, ACCURATE, AND ETHICAL IN OUR FACT-FINDING. We are committed to maintaining high standards of accuracy and fairness, including by seeking out multiple perspectives to develop an in- depth, analytic understanding of events. We recognize a particular responsibility for the victims and witnesses who have shared their experiences with us.”

    -Credit to source: Human Rights Watch-
    Thank you to NARSOL for allowing its posting for informational, educational purposes as permitted by laws.

    • #22726 Reply

      Brian

      I was reading through the SNYDER VS DOE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Because I can’t seem to find The Munis Brief. From what I read SCOTUS knows what’s happening. This is a small portion.
      The court of appeals posited that “recent empirical studies” have cast “significant doubt” on this Court’s acknowledgement in Smith that “[t]he risk of recidi- vism posed by sex offenders is frightening and high.” Pet. App. 24a (quoting Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 103 (2003)). The court noted studies purporting to show that sex offenders are “actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals,” and evidence that “of- fense-based public registration has, at best, no impact on recidivism” and may “actually increase the risk of recidivism[.]” Pet. App. 24a. In other words, the court thought that offense-based registration may harm public safety more than it helps. Indeed, the court as- serted that no record evidence suggested that SORA’s burdens are “counterbalanced by any positive effects,” id. 25a (emphasis added)—not even one. Under this reasoning, all offense-based SORA laws—including the federal SORNA—are in the cross-hairs, not just Michigan’s.

      • #22728 Reply

        Fred
        Keymaster

        By “taken” I assume you mean granted certiorari. That has not happened yet with Snyder v. Does. They have only had conference on it so far. That is where they decide if they will take it or not “granting or denying certiorari”. We hope to have an answer on that Monday when they issue the rest of their orders from the Sept 25th conference. We already won that case, so it will be good if they deny cert.

        If I am thinking of the right case, PA was only just granted a stay last week, right? I would think they are still drafting their petition and haven’t submitted it yet.

  • #22847 Reply

    TXSO4life

    SCOTUS had denied Snyder cert. So now what does this denial mean? There are now many legal variables in question. For once, federal laws adam wash act (sorna) is now applying differently in different circuits and / or states. What is unconstitutional in ones is considered constitutional in others. It is a great day for post sorna registrants within the 6th circuit area, at least for now. Perhaps a new case in other federal circuits should file and cited the DOJ brief in support of the 6th? What distinguished the 6th denial of cert from other bad ruling from other circuits (as mentioned in my other post), is the called of the DOJ opinion from Scotus in the matter. Maybe this denial of cert was more significant than the rest of SO cases because of the DOJ supporting the 6th?

  • #22919 Reply

    Adam

    I contacted the Megan’s Law offices in Harrisburg this afternoon to see if they had any information regarding when people will start being removed from the list, and was told “our lawyers are still looking it further, but we have been told that we will receive information on how to proceed within the next three weeks.”

    • #22973 Reply

      Brian

      I wander if starting another lawsuit in PA would help maters or do you think the PA SUPREME COURT would just throw it out due to an ongoing case. And why the hell would it take them 3 weeks to figure out that they need to start letting people off the list I mean as soon as it was signed into law everyone got the letter within days, just nonsense. Do you think they are going to let people go sense the mater is with SCOTUS NOW? So many questions

      • #22976 Reply

        Fred
        Keymaster

        Starting another lawsuit in PA on these grounds when there is already a case pending, will only slow things down.
        Pennsylvania was granted a stay on this law about 2 weeks ago. That means they can continue to enforce the law while the Supreme Court considers it. In other words, everything is the same for now.

        • #22977 Reply

          Adam

          Has SCOTUS accepted the case? Is there even a general timeline regarding how long their consideration may take?

        • #22989 Reply

          Brian

          @ Adam
          Don’t quote me on this but I think DA FREED is appealing PA’s decision October 19 I believe , he has 90 days to file and PA made our ruling July 19 GOD willing the say nope don’t want to talk.

        • #23081 Reply

          Brian

          @fred Keymaster
          So sense the Snyder vs Doe was denied does that mean only the sixth circuit are the only ones who have to change or alter their laws for SO’s not every state. I understand if I needed to I would be able to use the Snyder vs Doe case as leverage yes? If Freed’s appeal is rejected and sent back to PA then people could use the Muniz case as leverage? No I am not going to start another lawsuit because like you said it will slow things down and cause lots of delays.

        • #23089 Reply

          Fred
          Keymaster

          That is correct, only the states within the 6th circuit must change their laws now. Other states can now use this as leverage in any lawsuits they start on these grounds. If Freed is denied, that will be a win for PA registrants and PA will have exhausted all appealing options on this case and will need to begin making the changes. And yes other states will be able to point to that win as well as the 6th’s ruling.

      • #26419 Reply

        terry brunson

        @ Brian

        We cannot sue there is immunity attached – Hard to fight that, but you can claim damages if you get Mandamus relief from the court – and the PSP don’t follow the order and due to their failure – to follow a court demand or mandate it caused you damage. . . . . . They you can sue. . . . . . . .

    • #23155 Reply

      Brian

      Well Freed should be in front of SCOTUS within the next three weeks seeing as his 90 days will be up in that timeline as far as I can tell anyhow. July 19th was the date the PA SUPREME COURT made its ruling, not sure if its 90 business days or just 90 Monday through Sunday I really don’t know, I’m not very legal knowledgeable so if I quote something wrong I apologize for that,

      • #23182 Reply

        Chuck

        It is 90 calendar days they have to file. Their last day to file is October 17. However, it could take the SCOTUS 6 week’s to make a decision. Since they just turned down Doe v Snyder it should be an easy decision for them.

      • #23236 Reply

        Chuck

        The commonwealth C’s Neiman case was decided in 2013. What it said was the previous version of Megans Law (Megans Law III) was unconstitutional because the General Assembly combined 3 separate subjects into a single bill. This violates Pa Constutuon article 3 section 3. It wasn’t considered s big deal because the PSP felt they could still enforce the registry with Adam Walsh Act. Due to Commonwealth vs Muniz they cannot retroactively pubish. So now there is no Megans Law to require restoration for those convicted before 12/20/2012.

    • #23181 Reply

      Chuck

      The Pa Supreme Court issues a stay that expires on the 17th. This is also the last day Pa has to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court. Due to Commonwealth vs Neiman, Pa will not be able to continue the registry for those who are convicted before 12/20/2012. It is VITAL that EVERYONE stay in compliance until you receive official word from PSP. STAY in complaince guys!! We will be free soon enough!!!

      • #23200 Reply

        Brian

        The Pa Supreme Court issues a stay that expires on the 17th. This is also the last day Pa has to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court. Due to Commonwealth vs Neiman, Pa will not be able to continue the registry for those who are convicted before 12/20/2012. It is VITAL that EVERYONE stay in compliance until you receive official word from PSP. STAY in complaince guys!! We will be free. All I know is that there has been a mix of all sorts of miss information and some correct information on here about PA so really not sure. I didn’t even see the Neiman case either, the only case I was aware of still going on was Muniz I will have to do some research. Any idea where to see find info on the Neiman case in PA?

        • #23237 Reply

          Chuck

          Commonwealth vs Neiman can be found on the Pa Supreme Court website. It was decided in 2013.

  • #23260 Reply

    Brian

    @ Anonymous
    Thank you for the case info on Neiman, I don’t know how I missed this case, and also wander why the psp kept on going and didn’t take people off the list. Just bs.

    • #23274 Reply

      Chuck

      They kept going because until Commonwealth vs Muniz is was legal to retroactively make someone regeister. What they claimed was everyone was still required to register under AWA. Now that Commeealth vs Muniz debunks that, everyone who was convicted before 12/20/2012 will have to be removed from the registry.

      I have a feeling that the PSP will apply Commonwealth vs Muniz automatically but will refuse to automatically apply Commonwealth vs Neiman. So someone is going to have to sue on behalf of every SO who was convicted before 12/20/2012. They will lose but it will drag it out for several more months.

      • #23281 Reply

        Chuck

        After some further reading, I found out if PSP refuses to apply Commonwealth vs Neiman automatically once Pa is out of appeals for Commonwealth vs Muniz than one could sue for a violation of their civil rights. Not retroactively just from the time Pa is officially out of appeals for Commonwealth vs Muniz on until they got in front of a Judge.
        Hopefully, this will motivate the PSP to just apply both rulings automatically so everyone can move on with their lives. Once we are off, we will come save our brothers forced to register under AWA. For those of you convicted AFTER 12/20/2012, we will not forget you!!!

    • #23318 Reply

      Mark

      So if I understand this correctly, there will not be a Megan’s law for psp to put people who were convicted prior to Dec 2012 after Muniz is upheld due to the Neiman decision. So does that mean that anyone who was convicted prior to AWA enactment should be removed regardless of type of registration ie. 10 yr, lifetime or SVP? I know several people who had their registration changed to lifetime due to AWA from 10 yrs, mine included. Mine was rolled back in February to a tier ll but I would have come off in March anyway due to my original period being 10 yrs before AWA was enacted.

      • #23347 Reply

        Chuck

        Just so that everyone’s knows, if you are required to register for 10 years that means 11 times you have to regeister. Year 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. A lot of people have thought that the 10th year they didn’t have to ,and they were arrested.

        @Mark my regeistration went from 10 years to 15. My annual regeistration isn’t untill July, but I have a weird feeling they are going to drag into out so I am going to have to do one more annual regeistration. I hope I am wrong.

      • #23346 Reply

        Chuck

        @ Mark
        It is VERY important EVERYONE regardless of conviction date stay compliant UNTILL PSP sends you a letter. UNTILL they give you official word, they WILL arrest you for failure to comply. EVERYONE STAY COMPLIANT!!!

        We have to wait untill Pa has official exhausted all appeals AND has directed the PSP to do a search for affected offenders. Until you get that letter, continue as these court cases do not exist. DO NOT STOP complying until you get a letter from PSP.

      • #23363 Reply

        Daniel

        @Mark
        A common misconception is that if you are required to register for 10 years the 10th year you don’t have to register. That is incorrect. If you were required to register in 2008 for 10years that means you would have to appear at PSP from 2008-2019. That 10th year you still have to show up and update your information.

        • #23401 Reply

          Mark

          @Chuck
          Oh, don’t worry about me not staying compliant. My wife does that for me!! My next scheduled visit it in March of 2018, which is the 11th year as my release from prison was in March of 2007. My sentence date is February of 2004.
          So that begs another question, Which date is it from? Either way, I will not do anything that would jeopardize my freedom at this point. Things for me are going well. I will await the official letter.

        • #23432 Reply

          Chuck

          @ Mark
          your registration starts the first day you show up at PSP. Not the day you see a judge or got out of prison. I knew guys who didn’t know you had to register from your 10th-11th year and they got violated. I love this case that much more because my assistant DA offered me a plea deal with no Megan’s Law and Freed said “Hell NO!!. We were literally 5 minutes away from having a sealed deal when Freed called his Assistant and said I can’t authorize that. Never been arrested a day in my life before the current case.

      • #23345 Reply

        Chuck

        @Mark

        The way it is being read you are correct. Those convicted PRIOR to 12/30/2012 do not have a “Megan’s Law registry” to regeister to. It is very important to understand the SO would have to have ZERO convictions for sex related offenses AFTER 12/20/2012 including failing to register.

  • #23306 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    I didn’t mean to repost what you said I copied and pasted so I could read and respond I meant to delete and send the bottom portion at any rate.
    So the next question is is PA filing an appeal on October 17 then? Thanks

    • #23342 Reply

      Chuck

      @Brian

      The last I heard DA David Freed was planning to appeal. However, this was before the US Supreme Court refused to hear the Michigan Snyder vs. Doe case. Considering that case came to the same conclusion and the US Supreme Court declined to correct it, It would be foolhardy to make the same argument.
      What I think is going to happen, and I have no proof, I think they are going to wait till the very last second and then cry Uncle. Then, drag their feet in “searching for offenders that are affected” The Michigan case specifically cited the 2003 US Supreme Court decision in Smith vs Doe no longer appilied and they refused to correct the lower court.
      This is the EXACT case and argument Pa would of pointed to. Now they have nothing.

    • #23343 Reply

      Chuck

      In Packinghouse vs North Carolina Justice Kennendy said the Internet isn’t the same as it once was. Meaning a decision concerning the Internet say in 2003 could not stand today in 2017. This VERY Important because Justice Kennnendy wrote the majority opinion in 2003 Smith vs Doe that said Megan’s Law was non punitive.
      In Michigan Snynder vs Doe the US Supreme Court had their chance to affirm their 2003 ruling and they refused to. Of importance, 3 of the justices that were on the court in 2003 are still on the court. 2 out of this 3 , voted against SO’s in the 2003 decision.
      I think the Court is trying to tell us that their 2003 Smithvvs Doe decision no longer appilies.
      They had every opportunity to correct the 6th Circuit and they chose not to.
      It would be a waste of the taxpayers money for Pa to make the same argument.
      The only reason I see them appealing now is to just delay the inevitable that much longer. It will probably take the Supreme Court up to 6 week’s to reject Pa’s petition. That is 6 more weeks they do not have to let anyone off.

  • #23398 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    So you think Freed isn’t going to appeal at all now because of the SNYDER case just to hold everything up like a pouting child, and that would take 6 weeks,

    • #23408 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Brian,
      David Freed has been nominated to be our next U.S. Attorney General (For the Middle District of PA). He wants to be Governor someday. He has to put on a show for the electorate. No way is he or any other elected official in Pa going to take the blame for these decisions. However, after Michigan’s Snyder vs Doe it is pretty cut and dry. The only reasons to file an appeal now is to be able to say “What could we do? We appealed all the way to the Supreme Court!!! Don’t blame us”. Also, every day that they are waiting to hear from the US Supreme Court, that is one more day they can continue the registry for those convicted PRIOR to 12/202012.
      If they do decide not to appeal, they are going to drag their feet. After all, why not? If you don’t like it, you can sue us and we will see you in 2 years!!! Once it all shakes out either due to being denied by the US Supreme Court, or they deciding not to appeal, I expect them to take AT LEAST 6 months to search for offenders!!! If you don’t like it, sue us!!! We got all day, every day .

    • #23434 Reply

      Chuck

      You guys want o to hear something funny? When Commonwealth vs Muniz came down from the Pa Supreme Court, guess where I was? I was at PSP doing my annual registration!!!!

  • #23448 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    So if he becomes governor some day he still won’t be able to change what the PA SUPREME COURT decides or SCOTUS if they get that far correct? Also at this point in the process wouldn’t everything be at a halt?Freed noted to the SUPREME court that 10000 registrants are under investigation for being non compliant and not registering and doesn’t want those people to get away, I have looked at several zip codes on the psp wedsite and I see one or two people with the word obsconed next to there profile, if there are 10000 people wouldn’t you think there would be a lot more like that? Do you think this is another scare tactic to get the courts to have accepted his apeals?

    • #23466 Reply

      Daniel

      No, he won’t be able to change it when he becomes Governor. David Freed is trying to show the Court that you cannot just let these people go. That is what they are upset about. Not so much about the retroactive thing, it’s that the General Assembly messed up and now there is no Megans Law to put people on who can’t be assigned to AWA.
      What they are going to argue is that the Court can’t possibly mean it is ok to let all these offenders go!!! However, Given the Michigan case, I don’t see what they could argue. Look for them to DRAG their feet in “searching for affected offenders”.
      Oh well, anything to keep their registry going.

    • #23467 Reply

      Chuck

      I agree with Daniel.

  • #23479 Reply

    Brian

    Thanks Daniel, you would think I would know all of this information about how these laws are applied, I guess that’s why they have gotten away with this for so long. It’s people like you Chuck and a few others on here that know their stuff. It’s really messed up that they are just going to most likely drag their feet with this, peoples lives are affected by this garbage and yea you can sue but then you will be waiting another two plus years. Do you think that people could send the psp their information telling the you were a ten year or your time was up at got brought back because of the AWA?

    • #23533 Reply

      Chuck

      They will ONLY honor their records. If they didn’t find it in their system it might as well be written on toilet paper. They don’t care PERIOD!!! Nothing we can do but bide our time.
      They want people to think “oh I don’t have to register anymore and stop regeistrating. Then, BAM, they got you for failure to register because untill they say it in a letter mailed to you, the court cases never happened.
      It’s one of those things Thales forever to start but once they get the hall rolling then they will get the letters mailed out quickly. However, you can bet your bottom dollar, they are going to delay delay delay, until they HAVE TO START!!!

      • #23583 Reply

        Mark

        @Chuck
        I agree that PSP will drag their feet in applying the court ruling for as long as they can. Too bad the court won’t take it upon itself to see if their ruling is enforced after all appeals are exhausted. It took PSP 5 month to apply the ruling referenced here, https://narsol.org/2016/08/4053/. This ruling got my registration lowered from lifetime to tier ll. It was for 10 yrs.
        Another thing, if you go to Megan’s law website it has the date of your first registration there. In my case Mar. 26, 2007. So what your saying is that my removal will not be until Mar. 26, 2018?
        If someone who is affected by this ruling did just fail to comply, would not the ruling in itself be the defense? After all, could not the records of PSP be subpoenaed as the paper trail to prove the original registration period as well as the transcript of the sentencing? I realize it would be a mess for the person involved, but would it not provoke action on PSP’s part, as it would make them state in court why they are not following a ruling of the court. Or am I just thinking incorrectly?
        Well enough of my musings.

        • #23662 Reply

          Chuck

          @Mark

          The last time you will show up for an annual registration will be 2017, BUT you will be required to Update your info until March 2018.

        • #23663 Reply

          Chuck

          @Mark you are required to follow PSP interpretation of the registry. Until they give you that official letter you are required to follow the last letter they gave you…. The courts would probably null and void an arrest like you described BUT it would take time and all that time you will be in jail. Best just to follow and let them hand you the official letter

  • #23667 Reply

    Anonymous

    …I have not posted in a few days, but have chosen not to post as I/we wait for October 19 or 17 or whatever it keeps changing to for the SCOTUS to accept or deny AG Freed appeal/Writ of Certiorari. Now I keep hearing/reading that there is a “stay” issued (by the PA Supreme Court, if I understood correctly) so, now there is more time to wait (6 weeks from what I hear) while these supposed servants, but definitely violators of the Constitution and Oath of Office (therefore, criminals of the highest order) are afforded time for some “legislative fix” that may affect many if not all of the supposed 4,500 to 10,000 RSO’s that should have been given relief upon the conclusion of our own State Supreme Court and that of 5 other States when “they” had no problems making everything retroactive and immediate and there is no major march known or planned on Capitol Hill on this issue or legal proceeding (lawsuits) against the State of PA and every official violating the law and our rights? (Rhetorical question! I get it, it would “slow” down the process of this victory under Muñiz “further”) And we are supposed to wait!!!…more???

    …plus there have been people calling the PSP (the PA body of law enforcement competent for some things and not others) and have gotten nothing, but run around and empty answers to what they know is not only morally, ethically right, but also lawfully right. Add to that all this hearsay about PSP taking 12-18 months to look into removing any RSO’s (if any at all) and that we not even get letters on this issue until “sometime 2018” with specific months being spoken of by Officials and RSO’s all over the place!!! …As in nobody knows or seems to care!!! …and then some wonder why many lose sight of greener pastures or “hope” in this Country/World’s system of treating Humans (at least the peaceful ones) and have no desire to connect further with life. To those that feel that way, I do not condone and will not applaud harm to anyone, ever, period! But I understand you! For almost 15 years, I understand you!

    And this is only a fight at State level for our right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” as residents of PA. If we leave PA to do that elsewhere we are subject to another State’s SORNA laws because apparently (and clearly to me) nothing is uniform and/or consistent. How is that OK? …and add to that the “International Megan’s Law” not many seem to talk about or be even aware of brewing in “Countries near you” and being worked on as part of the Master Plan of control over our lives, what we do, where we do it, who we do it with and ultimately, over people’s lives with criminal record or not! Wake up!!! (to those that are not yet, awaken). RSO’s are subject to notifications & requirements to that as well! …somehow!!! How many of you know what the requirements are currently with overseas travel? Passports? Do you care?

    Again, as I keep asking for…where are the Pro Bono “free” lawyers, the Law Scholars, Professors of Constitution and Human Rights Advocates at en masse on these issues??? (NARSOL excluded)

    I am sorry to say, but it can not just be NARSOL!

    • #23676 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      Very few attorneys work for free. And even those who do must balance the time they spend on cases such as this one against legal work that actually pays their bills. Hundreds of hours go into the prosecution of constitutional claims. And, as we all know, time is money.

      Stays are legitimate tools of judicial discretion. Nobody is abandoning a constitutional duty by granting a requested stay. Stays are common whenever there is such a great amount of commotion likely to occur to one or more parties to an action in a setting where there is no finality. And here, because of the pending petition before the Supreme Court, there is no finality, just yet. The idea that the PA Supreme Court will continue the stay long enough for the PA Legislature to “fix” the law is dubious on its face. If this happens, it will be an awfully generous courtesy from one branch to another. If there is precedence for that having happened in the past concerning some other judicial opinion by the PA Supreme Court, I’d like to know about it.

      I have read a couple of times in these comments about the U.S. Supreme Court having until such and such time to do this or that. This is not the case. The Supreme Court imposes deadlines on the parties and controversies placed before it, but it doesn’t place inordinate deadlines upon itself except where there is an emergency petition to consider (a death penalty case or a constitutional crisis such as was the case in Bush v. Gore). Theoretically, the nation’s highest Court can take as long as it darn well pleases to decide whether the Muniz petition should or should not be granted. There are petitions that have been relisted for conference multiple times over more than one term (although that is exceptionally rare). So, please dispel from your collective heads any notion that the Supreme Court of the United States is on anyone else’s clock but its own.

      • #23680 Reply

        Fred
        Keymaster

        I have yet to see any sign that the Muniz case is even on the Supreme Court’s docket, much less scheduled for a conference. How anyone came to the conclusion that this would all be decided in 9 short days is beyond me.

        Anyone who wants to watch this case, you can search the Supreme Court’s docket here https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx . The Muniz case should be listed soon and eventually scheduled for a conference. Then you will have a date to look forward to.

        • #23709 Reply

          Chuck

          @fred….
          You are misreading the comments. NO ONE is saying it will be decided by the 17th. Da Freed has until the 17th to FILE. a request for the US Supreme Court to hear the case. IF DA Freed filed an request, it will take weeks for the US Supreme Court to decided whyhere to HEAR the case NOT decide it.

          The ONLY WAY this case gets decided on the 17th is if PA voluntary decided NOT to petition the US Supreme Court…. even then it would take SEVERAL MONTHS to process everyone

        • #23714 Reply

          Fred
          Keymaster

          “NO ONE” Are you sure about that?
          I have been following these comments for a couple weeks Chuck. More than a couple people are under the impression that the Supreme Court has until the 19th to deny or accept this case. If you scroll up a few comments, you will see a perfect example of that.

          I think you misread my comment. Try again. By decide, I merely meant decide if they will grant cert or not. Weeks? Try months, Maybe a year.

        • #23735 Reply

          Chuck

          Every since the 2003 smith vs Doe case, it has been the law of the land that Megan’s Law requirement are NOT punishment therefore CAN BE appilied retroactively…., Michigan’s Snyder vs Doe CHANGED that. For the very first time, a federal Court ruled “Hey, You can’t change things after the fact” The US Supreme Court had a PERFECT shot to defend their Smith vs Doe decision by agreeing to hear the Michigan vs Doe case. That was a CLEAR signal!!!!! I guarantee you David Freed was waiting to see if SCOTUS was going to hear the case. I bet if they would have, he would if asked to join the case.

          So now the ONLY thing David Freed could argue is that Pa’s case is DIFFERENT than the Michigan’s Snyder vs Doe case.

          So the only question there is for the SCOTUS to settle is, is the Pa case different than the Michigan case. Due to the State question raised in the Pa case, it may be…..

          I would like to address everyone here. Everybody is upset and wants off the registry RIGHT NOW… I am in the SAME BOAT as all of you. I am a RSO just like you guys. I have been on before AWA so this Court ruling and Commonwealth vs Neiman personally affects me as well….

          It will be ok guys. We won. Yes Pa is going to Drag their feet. Yes, it is going to take time to process all the changes. The Supreme Court may hear the case and say the Pa Supreme Court was wrong, but after the Michigan Snyder vs Doe case, I do not THINK they will hear the case. Now, I could be WRONG as I am NOT a lawyer and I am not on the US Supreme Court.
          You also have to remember, If this Court ruling stands, that means there is grounds to challenge Adam Walsh in its entirety. The next few years PSP is going to be VERY BUSY defending the registry.

        • #23737 Reply

          Chuck

          @ Fred
          No NOT to decided whether to hear the case. October 17 th is the deadline to FILE the request. The deadline is for Pa NOT the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could take 59 years to decide if it wanted to. However the average is about 6 weeks. Some cases take longer, some shorter. It depends on when the person was filed, how quickly opposing counsel got their reply brief in, and how busy the conference schedule is. It takes time

          After the Michigan Snyder vs. Doe case, we do not know what is going to happen. When this ruling first came out, I felt there was NO WAY it was going to stand. Now, after Michigan Snyder vs Doe, anything could happen.. what they are gonna to argue is Pa’s case raises questions the Michigan case did not. Which is true. The Pa case dealt with the Federal Wuestion AND the State Question.( involved the Federal and State Constitutions respectively)

        • #23740 Reply

          Fred
          Keymaster

          You are still misreading, if you think I am suggesting otherwise.

    • #23698 Reply

      Chuck

      There is a Stay from the Pa Supreme Court But it expires on October 17th. The 6 week’s everyone is talking about is the time it would take the uS Supreme Court to decide whether or not to hear a case. However, even if Pa decides not to appeal it is going to take time for PSP to search and contact everyone affected. Plus you have to realize their priority are the ones in prison that might need released now.
      Be patient guys, even if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, we would have a decision BEFORE they took their Summer Break. So the end of June at the LATEST for a final ruling. It may be sooner

    • #23693 Reply

      Chuck

      @Anom

      SCOTUS is NOT going to make a decision this month. Pa has until October 17th to FILE a request for review, but it will take several weeks to get a decision. Unless Pa decides NOT to file, this won’t be over for a while

    • #23697 Reply

      Brian

      @ Anonymous
      I’m not even sure what’s going on with the stay or appeals and whatnot, I feel slightly in the dark because I can’t seam to find updated information, I google search and it only shows previously posted from June, July , but not even September or October.
      Hey just keep you head up and try to stay positive, we’re all in this together and we’re all frustrated about this entire ordeal.

      • #23715 Reply

        Robin
        Keymaster

        You’re not going to find anything until something is filed. Right now, there is nothing to find.

      • #23720 Reply

        Chuck

        Guys,
        You are all freaking out for no reason. David Freed has NOT made a final decision yet. Until he files his petition there is NOTHING to find. Take s deep breath guys. I want off just like you guys do. We will.Remember NOTHING will be final for a while…..
        It is VERY TYPICAL for lawyers to wait till the very last second to file…. Then once he files the Public Defender who argues the case has to file his response. Then David Freed has to file his response to the response. Then, SCOtUS has to have a conference. It takes time guys. Look st it this way, what a GREAT Christmas gift it would be to have Pa’s petition DENIED!!

      • #23742 Reply

        Chuck

        @Brian
        Here is the link to the Pa Supreme Court’s decision. If you go through the case, you could also probably find the Stay order as well. I was going to look for it for you but I got busy.

        http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-121B-2016oajc%20-%2010317692521317667.pdf

    • #23741 Reply

      Chuck

      I would like to address something. A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision has 90 days to ask the court to do so.

      So if we use basic math skills we can figure this out. The Muniz decision was handed down on July 19th 2017.

      July 20th-32st was 12 days

      August 1-31 was another 31 days

      September was another 30 days

      So we add those number up we get 73 days

      90 days minus 73 days equals 17

      So this means we use up the first 17 days of October NOT 19. It is NOT the 17 th or the 19th or whatever….

      There is an EXACT DATE…, This DOES NOT mean we will have a decision on the 17 th… it merely means that IF Pa does NOT file by the 17th, they lose their right to do so. THATs IT. That is all it means.

      It is VERY TYPICALLY for lawyers to wait till the very last day to file…….. in fact I would be SHOCKED if Pa did file before the 17th.

  • #23679 Reply

    Dave C

    Could someone please explain to me where we stand at this point?

    It doesn’t sound like we will ever get off this registry. The state and PSP can keep throwing up roadblocks forever.
    It sounds like no state official will even follow their own laws. It doesn’t make much sense to me that a PA Supreme Court makes a ruling then says don’t worry about following it. Can the legislature keep changing the laws forever?

    • #23684 Reply

      Fred
      Keymaster

      My opinion is the end is in sight for this case. I would say give it another 6 months to a year to see it denied or decided by SCOTUS.

      • #23696 Reply

        Brian

        Can someone please tell me where to find information on what’s going on with SCOTUS and into on what freed is up to. I looked on SCOTUS BLOG bot I don’t know where to look or what to enter to find out information, thanks to anyone that can help.

        • #23713 Reply

          Robin
          Keymaster

          Our best resource for finding out about cases pending before the Supreme Court is SCOTUSBlog. They’re pretty good about getting stuff up as quickly as they can. If there is nothing there regarding the Muniz case, that very likely means that the petition has not been filed yet. You can’t find it until it’s searchable. You’ll go crazy trying to. I learned this during the Packingham case.

          But didn’t Freed just recently get appointed to a state judgeship? If so, then he’s no longer the person driving the petition. Who replaced him as acting DA?

        • #23721 Reply

          Chuck

          Robin,
          Please do s google search before you spread misinformation. David Freed was appointed to become our US Attorney for the Midddle District of Pa.

        • #23726 Reply

          Robin
          Keymaster

          Pardon me, Chuck. I was not spreading information. I was asking a question. I appreciate your answer, though you could have been a great deal more diplomatic in its presentation. It is not polite to instruct people to do things….at least not where I’m from.

        • #23780 Reply

          Chuck

          Everyone is so stressed becuase they have been waiting for this decision since day one. I understand that. I personally have a lot at stake here. The difference between being on the registry another 8 years or getting off now. Big difference.
          I think we have to remember how important this decision is as a whole. This decision is the beginning of the end of Megans Law. Since day one, it has been the State’s argument that Megans Law requirements are NOT criminal but civil in nature. This is the ENTIRE reason Megan’s Law could not be attacked on constituonal grounds.
          It is one thing for a Court to say something, but they something that is in direct conflict with what the Supreme Court said in Smith vs Doe, AND then the Supreme Court refuses to correct them, as they did in the Michigan Snyder vs Doe case. That is a BIG FREAKING DEAL.
          For over 2 decades Megans Law was under NO threat of being thrown out, and now it looks like it’s days are numbered…
          All I have to say is the State did it to themselves. First they wanted the registry for law enforcement only. Then oh no we have to make it public. Then we have to make it retroactive. Then, we have to put non sex crimes on there as well. They did it to themselves

        • #23807 Reply

          Chuck

          I am sorry if I upset you. Please forgive me. I was just trying to convey that accurately portraying the facts is very important when we are talking about legal issues. Once again, I am sorry. I am glad we are all on the same team here.

          I have many friends that can clearly understand why the registry is wrong. Then I have other friends with the view point, “ once you have been convicted, I don’t care what happens to you, you don’t have any rights”

          Well unfortunately for their argument that is not what the constitution says. It also doesn’t Everyone has equal protection EXCEPT RSO’s.

          I read the Packinghsm opinion and listened to the oral argument. It was refreshing to hear the Supreme Court recognize that you can’t just say “we can do whatever we want, becuase RSO’s don’t matter”

        • #23725 Reply

          Chuck

          David Freed was nominated. Congress has not approved him yet. He is still here in Cumberland County. I live in Cumberland County.

        • #23718 Reply

          Chuck

          Nothing has been filed with the Court yet. DA David Freed has to decide whether or not it’s worth his time and his department’s (Cumberland County District Attorney) money to file a request for the US Supreme Court to hear their case. He has to either file by October 17th, and yes that includes the 17th, or forfeit the right to request a review by the Supreme Court.
          It’s just a waiting game now. Ether He will file and we will have a petition to read, or he will decline to seek an appeal, and they will start moving forward with removing people.
          We are in the home stretch guys…..I would bet within 12 months all this will be over….

    • #23695 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Dave

      By US Supreme Court rules a party has 90 days from a lower court’s decision to file a request for review. The Pa Supreme Court made their decision on July 19th. Ninety days from that date is October 17th. That is the last day Pa can ask the Supreme Court for review.
      On September 5th Pa asked the Pa Supreme Court for a stay (put the ruling on hold) while they decide whether or not to file a request to the Supreme Court. The stay expires on October 17th.

      On Oct 2 the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Michigan about the very same issue. The case was Michigan Snyder vs Doe.
      We are just waiting to see if David Freed will file an appeal. Right after the decision, David Freed said he was going to appeal, however this was before the US Supreme Court decides to deny review in Snyder vs Doe.
      So no one knows if he will appeal.

  • #23752 Reply

    Anonymous

    @fred Keymaster @Robin Keymaster @Chuck
    Thank you all for the kind responses and knowledge! I am grateful!
    Also, I take responsibility for my interpretation of the dates Oct.17 or 19, 2017 involving previous posts by terry brunson here on this NARSOL article https://narsol.org/2017/07/pas-high-court-rules-retroactive-sorna-violates-constitution/#post-23668. It was never stated directly (by brunson or anyone) that was the end of this fight, but I concluded, in my ignorance and of my own accord, that date range I kept reading about would be the end of oppression for many of us in the Muñiz ruling. I apologize for any and all confusion to anyone on my part and for my part alone!

    @Dave C
    I understand your frustration!

    @Brian
    I appreciate your encouragement, I really do!
    I read you went to the SCOTUS Blog. As soon as anyone gets to the site there is information posted on the main page which, I am sure you read or noticed already. So, I went browsing and selected Petitions on the top area of the website and got a bunch of cases, but no Muñiz. As stated by @Robin Keymaster, “You can’t find it until it’s searchable” so, I interpret it as there will not be anything until there is a filing or something to post (I apologize in advance in I am understanding incorrectly).
    Here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

    Also, I checked @fred Keymaster link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx
    I browsed for you and everyone the Order List by Circuit for Tuesday, October 10, 2017 (our Circuit 3)
    “The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (in case citations, 3d Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts for the following districts:

    District of Delaware
    District of New Jersey
    Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    Middle District of Pennsylvania
    Western District of Pennsylvania”

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersbycircuit/ordercasebycircuit/101017OrderCasesByCircuit
    Circuit 3
    17-235 (16-1393) 17-272 (16-3398)
    17-317 (16-4152) 17-5407 (16-3152)
    17-5415 (17-1490) 17-5430 (16-3119)
    17-5499 (16-3085) 17-5513 (16-2629)
    17-5520 (16-3860) 17-5640 (16-4127)
    17-5847 (16-2684)

    @Brian, you can type or copy and paste the first 5 or 6 digits for each order not in parenthesis and place it on the search (no spaces needed), hit enter or click search and you should get a case selection with basic info and options or files to view the case. I checked all above and saw no Dave Freed, AG or PSP or PA Supreme Court Muñiz. I hope this helps! I am mentally exhausted from my day and this researching stuff. I am going to try to get some sleep (not an easy task for the past nearly 15 years). Good night to everyone! 🙂

    • #26528 Reply

      terry brunson

      @Anonymous

      Hello I just saw your post on appeals to a Federal Circuit Court – You are correct in your thinking BUT : FREED did not have too appeal through that court to get to the SCOTUS . Freed appeal to The SCOTUS is a Cert. Petition for a review of the PA SC decision on MUNIZ.

      Muniz decision was based on retroactive application of SORNA and that it is classified as punishment NOW.

      Freed wants to divide the argument into a Federal question on these points from the State question.

      The federal question is under U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 Ex Post Facto
      The state question is under PA. Constitution Article 1: Section 17

      The PASC has spoken clearly on the state question in MUNIZ – It is law now in PA . . . . and for it to apply now. . . . takea a Application Writ of Clarification from the Commonwealth Court of appeals in Harrisburg, PA. on the State question which is in effect now as Law under MUNIZ – Meaning if you Mandamus the Court under state rights only you will prevail and get relief on State question only. . . . . . NOW. The only thing that held this up was a Stay which expired 17 October 2017 as a way to file for Mandamus relief under MUNIZ.

      The Federal question – which Freed wants to review on is not in at the PASC He wants a clarification on does PA. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 17 give MUNIZ greater rights than the U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 10 on Ex Post Facto claims. THIS IS FREED’S FIGHT ON MUNIZ –

      Now under USCA Rule 60 (b) a person could challenge Ex post Facto Claim on appeal. . . . But the problem would be- – – – The decision on the federal question is not final. . . . . under MUNIZ. . . . But The State question is. A claim under state rights can go form after the Stay deadline of 17 Oct 2017. When filed in a Commonwealth Appeal Court in PA under Mandamus against the PSP for not following MUNIZ on the state Claim.

      In the State claim if you make no mention of the U.S. Constitution – and just claim state’s rights- – – – The Federal question will never meet you to be delayed waiting on the Freed Cert. decision on the Federal question. . . I pray you understand this. . . I am in the Commonwealth Court now doing a good fight. . . . I am under cause 463 MD 2017 waiting for a response from PSP lawyer Joanna Reynolds I think the Judge will ask me to write a brief. I will request an en bunk court for the whole court to address the issue does state rights give greater protection than Federal. . . . The PSP will argue the U.S. Constitution Supremacy Clause of Article 6 Clause 2 which says This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Which I will has to be upheld at the state level) PA. Const. Art. 1 Sec 17 and U.S. Const. Art 1 Sec 10 are not Contrary at all. . .

  • #23813 Reply

    Anonymous

    Good morning to everyone!
    I read this article and thought others would find it informative. This Professor is “Rational” about the reality confronting RSO’s and the laws that bind everyone involved. Please, look to the right side (currently) of the Website/Blog. Notice the amount of bills introduced that are fear mongering! Great way to score political points with voters huh! Do all these public servants really care for public safety and the lives of all…yes, all? I wonder…(but do know that many would say and always think that all convicted of any crime should not be integrated or permitted with “regular/law abiding” society. Yeap, because they do not make mistakes! (or get caught, or tricked, or set-up, or blackmailed; They are just perfect).
    Thank you NARSOL for the article!

    Professor Catherine Carpenter: The unconstitutionality of sex offense laws

  • #23844 Reply

    Brian

    @ Everyone
    I just wanted to take a minute to stop and say thank you to everyone for all of the information, it is very much appreciated, for taking the time out of your day, night , morning to lead me to the correct places to find the information I need.
    God bless everyone and your families, may we all have peace soon!!!!! 🌞

  • #23846 Reply

    Mark

    Everyone
    Well someone finally came up with another registry. http://www.ydr.com/story/news/2017/10/10/gun-offender-registry-moving-forward-delaware/751960001/ Looks like our neighbor to the southeast is thinking about this. Sound familiar??

    Oh btw, Chuck July has 31 days, not 32 so the last day for Freed to file is the 18th. other than that, thank you for your analysis.

    • #23850 Reply

      Brian

      @Mark
      Well even if they do make registries like that it will be nothing like the SO registries, they won’t face the same bs that we do, if they made a drug dealer registery their friends would be like oh your so cool but if you were an SO then you probably wouldn’t have a whole lot of friends. I don’t know maybe it will be like the SO registr.
      I am fortunate to have a big family who are all supportive to me, not to get off topic though, would a gun registry really keep people safe, my answer would be probably no safer then the SO registry keeps people, registries don’t work and a gun registry? They would not even care one would think but I could’ve be very wrong.

      • #23854 Reply

        Mark

        @Brian
        That’s my point exactly! Have the existing laws made anyone safer? No! Just like the SO registries made people safer.
        The original idea was a kneejerk reaction to a poor little girl getting murdered. AWA was championed by the father of one of those poor kids who ran into a SO. I almost hate to ask it but, exactly how much money has he made on his family tragedy? I digress, as it has been stated here many times, The registry solves nothing!
        Impatiently waiting for this horror to end.

    • #23853 Reply

      Chuck

      I saw the typo but it is still the 17th. I added it up right just made a typo writing it out.

  • #23888 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Mark
    Thank you for your sharing of gun crime registry news!
    Here take a look:
    “Adam John Walsh (November 14, 1974 – July 27, 1981) was an American boy who was abducted from a Sears department store at the Hollywood Mall in Hollywood, Florida, on July 27, 1981. His severed head was found two weeks later in a drainage canal alongside Florida’s Turnpike in rural St. Lucie County, Florida. His death earned national publicity. His story was made into the 1983 television film Adam, seen by 38 million people in its original airing.[2] His father, John Walsh, became an advocate for victims of violent crimes and was the host of the television program America’s Most Wanted.[3]

    Convicted serial killer Ottis Toole confessed to Adam’s murder, but was never convicted for this specific crime due to loss of evidence and a recanted confession. Toole died in prison of liver failure on September 15, 1996.[4] Although no new evidence has come forth, on December 16, 2008, police announced that the Walsh case was closed as they were satisfied that Toole was the murderer.”

    For years I have known that the supposed killer was not even a “convicted sex offender”, but that did not stop John Walsh from going on a vendetta against RSO’s, starting TV Shows racking up fortunes while becoming a household name synonymous with “tough on predators”. Sadly but also Ironically…
    “On the afternoon of July 27, 1981, Revé, Adam’s mother, took him shopping with her to the Hollywood (“Sears”) Mall in Hollywood, Florida (26°00′46″N 80°10′30″W). They went together to the Sears store and entered via the north entrance.[5] Revé intended to inquire about a lamp which was on sale, and left Adam at a kiosk with Atari 2600 video games on display where several other boys were taking turns playing games. Revé completed her business in the lamp department at approximately 12:15 pm.[5][6] She said that she returned to find that Adam and the other boys had disappeared. A store manager informed her that a scuffle had broken out over whose turn it was at the kiosk and a security guard demanded that they leave the store. The security guard asked the older ones if their parents were there, and they said that they were not.[7] It was later conjectured by Adam’s parents that he was too shy to speak to the security guard, who presumed that he was in the company of the other boys, and as such the security guard made him leave by the same door that they did (which was the Sears west entrance). His parents believe that after the other boys dispersed, Adam was left alone outside the store, at an exit unfamiliar to him.[7][8] Meanwhile, unable to find Adam in the toy department, Revé had Adam paged over the Sears public address system and continued to look for him throughout the store. She by coincidence ran into Adam’s grandmother Jean inside the store, who helped her search for her son. After more than 90 minutes of fruitless searching and public address pages which failed to turn up Adam, she called the Hollywood Police at 1:55 pm.[5]”
    …were the parents ever charge with negligence on their part? Child endangerment? Were they criticized by the masses as unfit to be parents?

    Also, did you know that John Walsh (Adam’s celebrity dad) was dating Adam’s mother (John’s wife) while she was under age?…
    “In his book Tears of Rage, Walsh openly admits being in a relationship with 16-year-old Revé when Walsh was in his early 20s and aware of the age of consent being 17 in New York.[20] Critics of Adam Walsh Act have pointed out that, had he been convicted, Walsh himself would be subject to sex offender registration under the law which he aggressively promoted.”
    …huh, was he ever arrested for it? No. I even know of and seen a video that was circulating years ago where someone had confronted/interviewed him about him (John Walsh) dating an underage girl (which later became his wife, I am aware of this!) and he responded very cocky about it!
    …here I found said video!

    How about his open views…(never mind what is in his head; I do not even want to know!) about RSO’s…
    “John Walsh generated a great deal of controversy during a summer press tour in 2006 when he stated to the media he jokingly told senators to implant “exploding” chips in the anuses of sex offenders. He stated, “I said implant it in their anus and if they go outside the radius, explode it, that would send a big message.” Walsh stated this was a “joke,” but that “nobody thought it was funny.”[17] Walsh later suggested implanting GPS chips in such criminals.[18]

    John Walsh also faced criticism when he advised women to never hire a male babysitter, which was seen as a blatantly sexist remark. “It’s not a witch hunt,” he said. “It’s all about minimizing risks. What dog is more likely to bite and hurt you? A Doberman, not a poodle. Who’s more likely to molest a child? A male.”[19]”
    …but that is “somehow, thru connection I guess” not considered a threat nor, is it considered intent to harm, conspiracy to harm, intent to conspire to commit harm or mentally unstable! (after all, he did loose a loved one, and much closer to his mind Adam, his son)

    And last, but not least read this:
    Some critics accuse Walsh of creating predator panic by using his publicity.[21] Walsh was heard by Congress on February 2, 1983, where he gave an unsourced claim of 50,000 abducted and 1.5 million missing children annually. He testified that the U.S. is “littered with mutilated, decapitated, raped, strangled children”,[22] when in fact, later Department of Justice study from 1999 found only 115 incidences of stereotypical kidnappings perpetrated by strangers, of which about 50 resulted in death or child not being found.[23] Critics claim that Adam Walsh Child Resource Center, which started without funding in 1981, generated 1.5 million dollars annually following his testimony before the Congress.[22] In fiscal year ending 2015, Walsh’s private charity, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, received income from the following sources:

    Contributions, Gifts & Grants $7,810,614
    Federated Campaigns $157,239
    Fundraising Events $2,257,837
    Government Grants $31,886,730

    for a total of $42,112,420. Compensation of the CEO, John Ryan, was $442,924 or over 1% of expenses. [24]

    …but no charges of deceit, perjury or intent to commit such, charges for creating a public panic or contributing to Inducing panic (when a person causes the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm) nor was his private charity investigated (to the best of public knowledge).

    @Chuck
    “I saw the typo but it is still the 17th. I added it up right just made a typo writing it out.”
    …we all make mistakes! (Lol in sympathy)

    @Brian
    …you are correct in your assessment! Any other crime, even murder (non-sexually related) is more easily overlooked and/or forgiven than sexually related crimes or “sex offenders” as we are labeled. People have been conditioned to associate sex offenses as automatic child molesters, rapist and sickos without remorse and always waiting and ready to strike. That perception could not be further from the truth, but nobody cares to give a RSO a chance. I do not fret for their ignorance as much as for their choice to stay ignorant.

    Also; You are welcome! I am glad to know that “my time” is appreciated. 🙂

    (I should have gone to school and/or gotten a job to be a researcher! …If only I would have known the internet would exist…I also would have bought Google IPO shares)

    Good night to everyone! I refuse to be on very late tonight.

    • #23928 Reply

      Brian

      @ Anonymous
      Wow I had no idea those comments were ever made like putting explosive devices up people you know what and they explode if the go out of there restricted area, that is not even human if you ask me, of corse the guy who killer his kid was inhuman, as well the the one who killed Megan, Those types of (individuals ) as in singular persons, have some real problems, those people need to be locked away, not me not you just them, their the people that need the counseling and the gps and shit like that excuse my language but that’s not me and never will be me, people that think that way and do things like that are demonic.
      We’re not that, that’s what they want people to think we are and that makes me so angry!!!!!!!!

  • #23899 Reply

    Anonymous

    In case anyone is wondering what the individual that caused harm to Megan Kanka is up to. This person was the main reason used to green-light/create the registry!
    http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/02/nj_appeals_court_rejects_latest_attempt_by_jesse_t.html

  • #23924 Reply

    Anonymous

    Yeap! All this attention is surely not going to help our case/cause/arguments… Please, be prepared (if you aren’t already) to accept the reality that this registry(ies) ploy to keep people in shackles (physical & mental, maybe even spiritual) by utilizing fear mongering as an excuse or reason will never go away! It is clearly (to me at least) that it is part of the ultimate plan for total control of the populace.
    ***Save it! I know, I already have my tin foil hat on in place***

    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kate-beckinsale-alleges-harvey-weinstein-141038401.html

    https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/james-van-der-beek-reveals-063703723.html

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/anthony-bourdain-rips-hillary-clinton-034719679.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/bill_cosby/index.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/us/jerry-sandusky-son-pleads-guilty/index.html

    …and a lot more news stuff/garbage at a Local, State, Federal level and International too if you care to research it! It is…just…overwhelming! 🙁 Oh well, right!!?

    (please forgive me, just not a positive day for me with all these “sexual scandals’ ” news and more possible War with World tensions so high…we humans just can not seem to get along anywhere)

    Anyhow regardless of my tough day, I wish you all an Outstanding day! 🙂
    …and thank you NARSOL for what you do for me and many by presenting the truth and fighting for the rights (Constitutional and otherwise) of all! 🙂

    • #23957 Reply

      Brian

      @ Anonymous
      I know what you mean with the news with Sandusky and that new case with the rich guy,
      I remember the first Sandusky case arose that was a very stressful time, everyone was talking about it and the place I was employed with at the time knew of my background and just constantly cracked Sandusky jokes. It just makes the situation at hand like getting lemon juice in you eye, very uncomfortable and only in hopes that the media relaxes a lot of bit, I know once they real something in like this it’s like a boa constrictors, it just won’t let go till it’s dead. But just know they it will calm down my man. I guess the best thing is to stay away from the news for a while, it’s always negative 98% of the time the other 2% is the weather😑

    • #24040 Reply

      Chuck

      My Personal fight with “Megan’s Law” started June of 2010. It has been a long LONG 7 years. I have met people who don’t care I am on the registry and think the registry is illegal . I have also met people who would come into my work, and demand my boss fire me simply because I am on the registry. My boss refused. He said “Everyonr who isn’t locked up deserves a chance to move on .”
      Since being on the registry I have started college and will be graduating with my BS in Accounting in just about 18 months. Getting off the registry is the first step in applying for a pardon to get my felony removed, so I can sit for the CPA Exam.
      My point being this,: Everyone deserves the right to move on with the lives and to rebuild or even improve their life regardless of what happened or didn’t happen.
      Do you know what is the hardest part about being on the registry. Every time you meet someone new you have to explain what happened. Otherwise, they think you were hiding it from them. No I wasn’t hiding anything, I just to do point/ counterpoint about my past while I am at work. I lost a 15 years career because of the stigma that comes with “you are a sex offender”

      I so can’t wait to put all this behind me and start a different life. I just want to be a productive citizen just like everyone else

    • #24042 Reply

      Chuck

      @Anom
      Why would this news hurt??? The registry is all about “child molesters” in the public’s mind…..

  • #24060 Reply

    Brian

    Well it sure would be nice for the court to get a move on or I should sayFreed, God willing things will go in out faver, it seams like it should be anyway, all I know is when we’re all eventually off this list I really just want to go off the grid so if they try and make some kind of other schem to bring everyone back to the registry which will still be illegal they won’t be able to find me because I will be out in the middle of nowhere where no one knows where I am. But then again I may just move far away from my current town where no one knows me and get a fresh start with a somewhat clean slate just not a clean background. Just day dreaming I guess.
    Ya know it’s funny sometimes when people find out about my profile but not really in a funny way they walk around thinking that I don’t know that they know, and they start making stupid comments about sex offenders and pediphilia, they are so uneducated and ignorant on the whole topic, sometimes if you ignore them and act like you have no idea what or who they are referring to they sometimes will stop, and then there are the ones who want to push the issue kind of like when the guy at the place I used to work at wanted to start trouble with me, I know how to defend myself because I grew up in a town riddled with gangs and what not, you couldn’t walk down the street wearing certain colors or wearing you hat a certain way or you could possibly be shot and killed, My friends / gang affiliates would have a split second decision to run or stand our ground and get beaten or sometimes wine depending if we were out numbered. But nowadays I am a different pereson, I’m not that person anymore, so if I were to defend myself Im afraid would be considered violent and put in a different class I’m afraid, I have self control nowadays and the great virtue of patience yet I am impatiently waiting to get off this list of shaming.

  • #24092 Reply

    Mark

    @Chuck, Terry Brunson, Anonymous:

    Ok since the 17th is fast approaching, what time of day does the Writ need to be filed by, End of Business or Midnight of the 18th? My wife and I are both curious? Thanks

  • #24118 Reply

    Brian

    Soooo stupid question, what happens iffreed doesn’t file the appeal?
    Is everything automatically denied then?

    • #24120 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      First, he’s not filing an appeal. He’s filing a request, a petition for review. The Supreme Court isn’t compelled to hear the case. In answer to your question, if he fails to file the petition by the deadline, then there are no further options to seek a higher review of the PA Supreme Court’s decision. However, there is still the stay to consider.

      • #24127 Reply

        Brian

        @Roben Keymaster
        Thank you for clarifying my question, So this would be ( Right of certiorari) ?
        Exactly how long does a stay last for or are there different lengths in with they last.
        Also if SCOTUS decides not accept the cert why would they allow a stay?
        I apologize for my lack of legal knowledge

        • #24152 Reply

          Chuck

          If SCOTUS denies Cert, IT IS OVER!!!!! Just have to wait for PSP to do its search and process the letters.

    • #24153 Reply

      Chuck

      If Freed decides not to file, it is over. I can’t see him just allowing thousands of RSO’S just walk. However, maybe He will realize he is beat and just go with the flow. We will see. If they do ask for review, I can’t wait to read their petition. It will be interesting how they deal with Snyder v. doe.

    • #24155 Reply

      Chuck

      What we have to remember is that they are upset about the people they have to release but this decision is ALOT bigger than that. The whole point why the registry has passed constitutional scrutiny in the past is because the registry was not punishment, therefore, our constitutional rights against ex-post facto laws and cruel and unusual punishment didn’t apply. With this ruling that changes EVERYTHING. If this ruling stands within 3-5 years the registry in Pa will be found to be unconstitutional. The General Assembly could try to “fix” the registry but that fix would only apply going forward but backward. That is what the public is so up in arms about. They believe because sex crimes against kids are so bad, you do not have rights. Unfortunately, for them, this is not how the law works.
      We will look back at 2017 in a few years and say this was the year that broke the registry. If you let someone out of prison, they have a right to pick up the pieces and move on with their lives. You can’t punish someone forever if you let them out and they are finished with parole.

  • #24226 Reply

    Anonymous

    Hi to everyone & blessings!

    @Chuck on your reply/question on October 13, 2017 at 8:54 pm
    …because as you pointed out about “the public’s mind” such articles are sexually related crime in nature and automatically, more often than not, thought of by “the public’s mind” as there being more under these people’s veil or deep in their lives revolving and/or leading to children being harm or involved. Then leading often to “the public’s mind” that there is more…there has to be more…there is always more! Come on, with all do respect, you should know this! It is obvious for anyone that has endured this life sentence of punishment! Do not misunderstand, I am glad to answer your question (if genuine) as I would anyone, but I honestly do not know if you were asking just to get a reaction out of me.

    @Mark on your reply/question on October 14, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    …listen, I at this stage of my life do not trust anything coming out of/created by lawmakers/legislators. I have seen/experienced myself how laws are made and adjusted to serve the purpose of the rich, powerful and whoever fits the “Agenda”. No law of man is absolute. They all have the potential to be changed and/or applied as the “whoever is born in/voted/selected/given charge” deems fit. To try to answer (again, to try!) your question I would “think” that the closing time for Freed’s filing would be at close of government business hours. Problem is; Is there an uniform closing hour accepted by all States and D.C.? Wouldn’t different time zones conflict? Thus such thing exists to begin with? So, to play it safe, you should consider closing time to be 11:59pm October 17! But again, with these crooks (I apologize, well meaning Officials), that can be altered somehow and be OK and lawful and Constitutional and yada yada yada.

    @Brian
    I read that you have been answered your questions by others. (for the most part as possible)
    Thank you. I did take a few days away from the internet news articles or Newspapers. I went away to connect with nature a bit. I feel a little better (a lot more than I was weeks ago for sure).
    I do not personally know you, but I feel with you (and/or anyone else that has) on your experience at work, with “co-workers” or Bosses, communities, “friends” (if there is such) or even family. The negative experiences should have never happened and much less the way they may have. We took responsibility for our actions, wherever they may have been, we paid according to law and what was given as punishment (slaps on the wrists included for some), we should have been able to move on with our lives and be productive (not as if many of us weren’t already!) and have peace from persecution. Our “Government Officials” failed us (but favored others, albeit for political aspirations & personal gain/status in “some” cases and our “laws” of the land/man did not protect us. As it should have, sadly. But, such is life! (human life at least) Maybe is different in Mars! …Lol 🙂

    • #24303 Reply

      Brian

      @ Anonymous
      Thank you for such kind words, you seam very genuine. Yea that was the hardest thing to do was change due to the drug use and whatnot. I haven’t used any drug or alcohol for 18 years that’s the whole reason I ever got into any kind of trouble to begin with, it altered my perception and abuility to make proper decision and altered my abuility to see through peoples lies and deceit. Nature is an awesome thing, my wife and I used to walk alongside this creak a couple times a week when we first meat, we don’t walk much anymore but part of life is change and with change comes many things as you know, good and bad we really can’t control a lot of it but what we can do should be done for the better.
      Well good luck to us all tomorrow!!!!

  • #24227 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian
    …I am also made happy to read that you gave up that awful previous life (even if profitable & prestigious) that leads to utmost certain loss of freedom or worst outcomes. Glad you “adjusted” your tune. Good for you and all that love You! Take care.

  • #24453 Reply

    Anonymous

    Here, another one out of the many happening somewhere (reported or not) everyday in every State & territories.

    NYPD Cop Exposed Himself To Pre-Teen Girls, Police Say

    https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/cop-exposed-himself-pre-teen-girls-nypd-says

    …but…but…but… They (law enforcement officers, politicians, judges) wouldn’t do that!
    *looks the other way*

    • #24476 Reply

      Brian

      @ Anonymous
      Wow police don’t do that kind of thing, I don’t even know what to say about that, their supposed to protect and serve not do that stuff!!!!!!!

  • #24469 Reply

    Brian

    Anyone heard anything on scotus decision yet?

    • #24487 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Brian

      It is very important to remember we are NOT waiting on SCOTUS. We are waiting on David Freed. We are waiting to see if he filled a petition for review. If he did, it will be weeks before we get a decision from SCOTUS on whether they will hear the case.

      If he didn’t file, then it’s all over and we have to wait for the PSP to start and finish their search.

      • #24535 Reply

        Brian

        @Chuck
        Do you think it will be viewable on the SCOTUSBLOG?
        Thank you for taking the time in replying much appreciated.

        • #24537 Reply

          Robin
          Keymaster

          If the Snyder petition serves as a guide, it may be a few days before SCOTUSBlog has any record of a petition being filed. The volume of petitions coming into the Court is quite high. For faster acknowledgment that a petition was filed, one might be better served by contacting Mr. Freed’s office directly. Who knows, perhaps they will confirm or deny. Worth a shot.

        • #24541 Reply

          Chuck

          F@ Brian,
          First, we don’t know IF he filed a petition for review. Assuming he did, it MIGHT take a day or so for the clerk to process it. I expect to know something no later than Friday as far as did Mr Freed file a petition or not. If he did, going to take weeks for them to decide whether or not they are going to hear the case or not.

      • #24539 Reply

        Mark

        @Chuck. How will we know if we be freed or we have to wait months. PSP should not have to take that long. Everyone sentenced before Dec12 2012 is no longer required to register. I can not believe that they don’t already know who has to be removed. If their database cannot pull that up by date then it is too antiquated to be used in law enforcement. So as I write this there is only two hours left in Tuesday the 17th of October. I should awake not having to deal with PSP any longer about this. I got the sense during my last registration visit that they know things will be changing soon. The trooper was kinda rough in his questioning. The end is near. Oh how would we know if Freed did file late tonight?

        • #24553 Reply

          Chuck

          @Mark

          Assuming Mr. Freed did file, It MIGhT take a day or two to see the petition on the SCOTUS website. I plan on calling the Megans Law section in Harrisburg tomorrow. I will def post what they say. I don’t expect them to know everything simply because it takes time for the higher ups to push the paperwork . Once everything shakes out, and if the ruling stands, I expect PSP to take 5-6 months to push everything through

        • #24568 Reply

          Chuck

          @Mark

          You have to realize they have to find everyone who is affected. Then they have to get permission to alter your file. They can’t just alter your file becuase they have to receive permission from the higher ups. Then once they know everyone who is affected, they have to mail you a letter. IMPORTANT: until you get a letter CONTINUE your registration. DO NOT LISTEN to ANYONE… I don’t care what their title is. Until you get a letter, nothing matters.

  • #24485 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian
    …and that is my point (as you probably figured out), they (many not all) do those things!

    Here is another one:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/17/married-teacher-and-mom-32-busted-after-lewd-videos-show-threesome-sex-and-partying-in-panties-with-teen-boy-students.html

    …now how does she gets $150,000 to make bail is beyond my knowledge or understanding when a male would have been placed behind bars with no bail or with bail so high as to not be payable (or per the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution -excessive-)! And, do you think she will get the same treatment/sentence outcome if any, as men/males? Of course not! (but the law is equal & does not discriminate/see colors, genders yada yada…) But no sexism against males, oh no Sir; How dare I even imply such!

    Also, No I have not heard (me at least) anything about SCOTUS, AG Freed, PA SC or NARSOL Staff with any updated news developments. I personally do not expect an official statement from any PA Official at this stage of their game with our lives until next month earliest if at all. The wait/suspense/uncertainty has me so stressed the heck out that my body muscles/nerves has been internally in pain for some time and I have no insurance to see a doctor because, are you ready for it!?, I can not keep a job long enough to ever have it due to this registry! And will rather drop unconscious than go to an ER. The post treatment ER bill will do me away for good for sure! …Lol 🙂

    …plus no one except you or me seems to be writing much on the forums/comments lately. Oh well!

    • #24538 Reply

      Brian

      @ Anonymous
      You right about that one if it was a man/male there would be no bail or end in site, he would be tormented for years, the school teacher women who had sex with there students people are like awesome, and then it’s never talked about again.
      Yea people have moved on I guess with their lives instead of hanging out on NARSOL, I am just waiting for good news and glad I can talk to other people that are in the same or similar situation as I am.

    • #24575 Reply

      Chuck

      TO ALL:
      Mr. David Freed DID FILE a petition for review. The docket number is 17-575. Mr. Muniz legal team has until November 16, 2017 to respond. Most likely extensions will be asked for and granted from both sides.
      We are in it now folks!!! Just a matter of letting the process unfold. It will be AT LEAST several weeks before we hear anything. I would almost bet Pa is going to drag their feet by asking for extension after extension.

  • #24577 Reply

    Adam

    I sent Mr. Freed an email this evening asking if he could shed light on if he has indeed petitioned SCOTUS. I will be sure to post if I receive any reply.

    • #24594 Reply

      Chuck

      To All

      I just got off the phone with the Megans Law Section of the PSP in Harrisburg. They confirmed while the petition of review is pending they will NOT be proceeding with the removal of RSOS. Everything is on hold untill we hear whether or not SCOTUS is going to hear the case. If they decide to hear the case, PSP will continue to NOT remove RSOS.
      I asked if the PSP had a sense of timing of when we could expect a decision on the petition of review. They said they definitely feel it will be next year before we hear anything concernig the decision on the Petition and if they decide to hear the case, it won’t be untill next term (2018-2019 Term) more likely than not.

      Over all this is good news, because we will be able to see every deadline and every extension to a deadline.We be in the dark as far as what is going on.
      So as I have stressed,they told me to make sure everyone continues to REGISTER…
      This morning at 4am I tried to download the petition but it wasn’t ready to be viewed yet. Also, the SCOTUS official website will most likely be updated first. Just scroll to the bottom, click on dicey search and enter in the docket number.
      Ok Guys, we are in good shape to stay informed now.

    • #24597 Reply

      Chuck

      I also asked them assuming the ruling stands(either by an denial of review or decision) how long would it take to remove people. They said they expect further challenges to the registry IF the decision stand as is therefore they do NOt expect searching for people to be removed will be a priority. They estimate 6-12 months at least. So assuming they decide to hear the case and make a favorable ruling for us, the decision would likely come down June of 2019 with another 6 months to search after that. So Christmas of 2019 IF they decide to HEAR the case.
      I asked why not search for people while waiting for a decision so you would be ready to go. They said until the ruling is final, there is no reason to do a search in the PSP’s mind. Interesting!!

  • #24611 Reply

    Brian

    Oh sorry I guess I should add my conviction date was I 97 and moved to Pa and was orders to begin registratering in 02,

  • #24609 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck and Adam
    Thanks for the update that’s lowers the stress level a little bit, so I supose we will be waiting another year to two years before we are release or sue again I supose.
    It really sucks because nowhere in my court documents does it say I had to register however it does say that the courts are not recommending that Mr me register as an RSO, they left it up to probation to do that and it was a deferred sentence, also it stated if I failed to fallow probation requirements I would have spent 10 years in he joint. So I never violated I paid all my fines and restitution, did my community service and was ultimately released from my probation, my question is and you probably may or may not know the answer to this but can someone explain why I was required to register for 10 years and then AWA kicked in and I had to tack on another 10 or so years? Thanks for any answers?

    • #24622 Reply

      Anonymous

      @Brian
      …because they are a_ _holes! It is plain, simple and clear as day Brian!
      …and because the RSO’s community permits this disgrace!
      … We have been scared into submission to accept it. That is why they keep playing games, by passing/violating the Constitution and adding punishments and/or making laws retroactive and immediate while taking their time when they are found wrong. In the meanwhile, attorneys are making record profits $$$ on this new finding while none are in easy sight (if at all) offering their services Pro Bono to help the ones that deserve the help. It will n-e-v-e-r end! They will always need a b-o-g-e-y-m-a-n or the “Elites” will be out of work and/or political points to rule with an Iron Fist! Wake up!!!
      *heck, even the LGBT Community stood up and won in States & Federal* -my respect to them that deserve it-

  • #24608 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Adam @Chuck
    …Thank you for the updated info!

    What I find disappointing (and yes, I will say it again…) is the lack of RSO’s supportive community organizations from Attorney/Law Scholars/LEO Professionals. (I get it, they seldom work for free even if a matter is of ethical/moral/Constitutional importance)

    My opinion: By now, a date should have been set/arranged with supporting entities like NARSOL at the forefront, some great “free” Constitution/ethics/morals believing lawyers (yes, they are out there!), ACLU and supporting politicians (but very doubtful they would for it would still currently be political suicide to them) to gather peacefully outside PA PSP @ 1800 Elmerton Ave. Harrisburg, Pa 17110 or the appropriate Harrisburg Court House with all PA RSO’s possible present to file whatever needs to be filed under whatever name these legal cartel people want to use and demand that they enforce the PA SC Muñiz decision en masse. Together as many of us as possible!!! Overwhelm the hell out of them! Get the news involved so people can see the lies they have been spoon fed thru bogus statistics and how “they” (our so called public servants) do not want to follow the law and that only the heavens knows what else do they not follow, will they not follow, and do or will manipulate in the future!!! I would applaud and support such peaceful/rightful gathering.
    *But such gathering it is not going to happen*

    What is it now Chuck, 2019 sometime?…
    By then my fire to want to do something to make a difference and be involved and learn laws and organize will have extinguish. I will no longer care. I will no longer want to know more on the subject nor, will I want memories of it.

    I have tried and done the best I could with all the limitation imposed on me, financial, legal, health and otherwise. Best of luck to everyone! …and again, thank you to all genuinely involved & caring enough! -Peace to all and Freedom where such applies-

    • #24640 Reply

      Chuck

      @Anom

      You have to understand until the appeals process is complete there is no decision to follow. Just like if we had lost, we would be able to legion for review as well. Once Pa has exhausted all of their appeals and if the decision still stands, then we will be able to demand we be removed. Untill then, Commonwealth vs Muniz never happened as far as they are concerned.
      I DO NOT THINK SCOTUS will hear their case. I could be WRONG!!! However, it is just my personal opinion that SCOTUS will not hear their case. It is just a matter of given everyone a chance to speak before they make a decision. Which is only fair. This is the beginning of the end for the registry and they know it. They are going to squeeze every day they can out of it.

      • #24645 Reply

        Anonymous

        @Chuck
        …I understand Chuck. I understand all too well.

        • #24682 Reply

          Chuck

          @Anom

          If you understand the Appeals process, then why are you in such a hurry. Considering the Snyder vs Doe decision, I do not see how Pa can convince SCOTUS that their case is different than Michigan’s. Until we get a chance to read the petition, we do not know what they said to the court. The fact that the registry is considered punishment now opens them up to an 8th amendment challenge.
          I can’t wsit until we can’t ead the petition to see what they said. Did they make a valid argument, or was it just fluff intended to just keep delaying the inevitable.
          I am in the registry just like you guys, and I cannot understand where the fire is.

          Relax guys by the time we enjoy the holidays and watch the Super Bowl, we should know whether or not SCOTUS is going to hear the case.

        • #24687 Reply

          Fred
          Keymaster

          The other party has 30 days to respond.

          With Snyder as a guideline, give it until March or April for SCOTUS to conference on it. With luck, we will know before they recess for the summer.

        • #24714 Reply

          Chuck

          @ Fred
          You have to remember Snyder was delayed due to SCOTUS asking the US Gov to weigh in. I don’t think they will ask the US Gov to weigh in this time due to Snyder and this case being so similar, but we will see.

        • #24722 Reply

          Fred
          Keymaster

          That is why they didn’t deny it until October 2nd. The first conference for it was in March.
          I don’t think they will ask for the Solicitor General’s views either.

        • #24723 Reply

          Anonymous

          @Chuck
          …I hope that I answered your question with the main post above this one Sir!

  • #24644 Reply

    Brian

    @ Anonymous
    Unfortunately you are correct about doing what ever they want to do to us and everyone else to, God willing they get threw this in record time lol maybe sense the cert has been filled this soon in the game they will get through it sooner than later, there has been a lot of inconsistent information here on NARSOL for the most part, no offense to anyone. But we’re not lawyers and not sure if anyone here is a lawyer or even studied law or what, I don’t know this has been a long and frustrating process for the past 14 years, not sure what the nest step would be at this point, I know my court documents say Im not recommended by the courts that I register but here I am this many years later registering, do you ever wander what’s on the other side, heaven or hell, purgatory or are we gone forever like when we sleep without dreaming we don’t even know we exist. I have been thinking of this for the last couple of years, just comes and then I forget about it , sometimes it feels like the walls are closing in and I can’t push them back, I feel like the world is out to get me, I’m not being paranoid because the would really is out to get me because I am an SO and no one gives a flyin F about us!
    I know I probably ask the same exact question several times probably expecting a different answer but always get the same answer sometimes worded deferentially
    It sure would be nice for someone to represent pro bono I’m sure many lawyers make a killing on SO’s
    So I was thinking of hiring a lawyer to see what can be done with my case, couldn’t hurt, only my life savings anyway.

    • #24650 Reply

      Anonymous

      @Brian
      …I read your last post of October 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm and I want to answer you back, but not today. I am mentally drained (not retarded that I know or perhaps I am and do not know it). I need to rest. I want to keep my conversations civilized and were I to answer you now I could present the wrong picture of me as a human being and/or be misunderstood by others. I like to properly & accurately express my thoughts, but I need to rest at the moment. Good night to you…and everyone.

  • #24690 Reply

    Mark

    @fred
    Here is the link to the petition filed by Freed. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-575.html. It states that the response is due by the 16th of November. Why only 30 days?
    Who does that date apply too? What if the response does not happen? Too many questions.
    Just waiting?

    • #24696 Reply

      Fred
      Keymaster

      That date applies to Muniz’s team. They will want to file a Brief of Opposition to Freed’s petition.

      The court has a lot of cases to address, there is no reason to expect them to move this case to the front of the line. Even though they can take as long as they like to schedule a case for conference, traditionally they try to address every petition on the docket prior to taking summer recess.

      My opinion is this case will be in conference in late spring or early summer. If they don’t ask for more information and schedule a new conference, we should know if Cert. is granted or denied before they recess for the summer.

      **Disclaimer**
      This information is based on my own research and experience following past cases. I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be taken as legal advice or opinions. I could very well be wrong in my speculations.

      • #24718 Reply

        Anonymous

        @fred Keymaster
        …Thank you Sir for the update! **Disclaimer understood**

    • #24695 Reply

      Anonymous

      @Mark
      …Thank you for that link to the SCOTUS!

    • #24715 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Mark
      It is not uncommon for the reply brief to ask for an extension. Then, Pa has to reply to the reply brief.

      Given the fact SCOTUS refused to hear Michigan’s Snyder vs Doe, it is going to be tough to get around that for PA. However, you never know.

    • #24853 Reply

      Mark

      I read this on a sister site to NARSOL, ACSOL. In one of the comments here about this issue stated that the Muniz Team does not have to reply at all. If they did, they could add additional items for SCOTUS to hear. I would hope for them to do nothing as stated on the other forum. Doing so would place it right into the Justices law clerks hands and end any more filings that would cause delays. I hope this analysis is correct. I know someone will correct me if I am wrong.
      Cheers!!

  • #24694 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian
    …OK! To answer you Brian; I will say that I share your “we gone forever like when we sleep without dreaming we don’t even know we exist” assessment. No, I do not believe in a super natural being of any kind that watches everything we do, is everywhere, is all powerful and yet we have this World with so much greed, suffering, hate, wars, deaths (specially to good people) etc. Odd and sad to many, considering I was brought (as many in my time and before me) in a religious family setting (you know…with the Christmas & Easter Bunny lies!). But understood and not surprising to some with an open mind, educated outside of the “indoctrination of society(ies)” and with realist views & knowledge of “true history”. As such, I will never accept the existence of such a selfish & limited entity, even if it were ever to exist under whatever name (extra terrestrials perhaps…Lol). I apologize if anyone feels or is made “offended” in this delicate and so easy to be an “offender” type World. But I will not apologize for my views that I have reached a conclusion through extensive research & life experiences (theology is an amazing study by the way! One can learn of how religions have been used since ancient times to control people).

    “sometimes it feels like the walls are closing in and I can’t push them back, I feel like the world is out to get me, I’m not being paranoid because the would really is out to get me because I am an SO and no one gives a flyin F about us!” …I feel the exact same way regularly. I am grateful that NARSOL/Moderators here have allowed me to post my frustrations & emotions thru writing. I also agree that not many care. Example: I provided (and was allowed to post) an entire area of research compiled over years of articles and many many hours of my time to put together over time regarding Adam Walsh Act/Law & John Walsh clear vendetta/hate/crime of underage dating never charged on him. The only one who replied to the article was you Brian. No one else! Not even NARSOL Moderators or Reps on a valid series of articles that are fact!

    …the answers will not change and like you said, will only be worded differently. Yes, lawyers are harvesting the fruits of “their labor” with RSO’s. And best wishes on your pursuit of justice though, some of us can afford justice or “live off grid” (as you pointed on a different reply) and somewhere away from people. I have tried to truly be able to get lawyers and a place away while keeping myself legal/in compliance, but have not been able to get there. I get knock down every time I move a step in the direction of success. I also do not have a supporting partner. Mine left me to “rot” in military confinement nearly 15 years ago. I have refused to ever marry again! (until death do you apart is not all that is cracked up to be)…and I was set up. Never actually committed the crime I was charged with. …….what am I saying!!!? …Of course I did, that is why I took the pre-trial agreement! (sarcasm) **Obligated-shoveled down my throat in order to get out of prison’s Sex Offender Therapist says to me staring with a deep piercing gaze**

    • #24752 Reply

      Brian

      @ Anonymous
      I share your frustration, I am a patient person though but mostly not so patient if that makes and sense, I ramble a lot trying to make sense but to me most of the time I make no sense.
      Touching on the video that Mr Walsh admitted he dated a teenager when he was over 18 and was never charged. Should he still be held accountable? Absolutely I feel very bad that his child was murdered but I’m not the person who did it. He came up with this AWA and he dated an underage person, I guess the work doesn’t know about that or they can ignore it or money talks. Nothing we can control or even do anything about.
      I see some people aren’t to worried about this process moving along faster but to each his own is what I say some times, to each his own.
      To my own yes I want this done like like yesterday but they don’t move on what I want.
      Yes I do believe that false charges may be made up just to keep people on the registry and keeping the prisons full,
      The process to SCOTUS has already started and things will move slowly but they will move and it will get done one way or another, I think I will save my money for later on down the road if they want to start charging people falsely, one of us may be the next Muniz

      • #24897 Reply

        Chuck

        @Brian
        I suggest you reread the decision form Snyder vs Doe. It was NOT about getting off the registry. It was about applying enhancements to people who were convicted before the enhancements were passed.
        Commonwealth vs Muniz is NOT about getting off the registry. It is about the retroactive application of the Adams Walsh Act.
        The reason pre Adam Walsh Act people may get removed is due to Commonwealth vs neiman. Muniz is needed to not apply Adam Walsh Act retroactively and Neiman is needed to make the previously Megans law unconstitutional.

  • #24717 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Chuck
    “If you understand the Appeals process, then why are you in such a hurry.” …again, with all due respect Chuck… Have you read any of my posts referencing to the “double standard” of law enforcement, judges and/or the “system” as a whole? Are you OK with the way things are?; The way “they” make laws and exempt “themselves” from the laws they write and reserve the way the apply them and to whom & when? Hey Chuck, why are you targeting what I say of the unfairness/screwed up system lately?..huh! (as arranged & taken on your own words) How about more of a supportive stance since “we are in this together”? May we have some support? Hey Chuck, let me get a bit more personal, so respectfully I am going to ask how much time do you have in this draconian registry made up by our Country’s version of Gestapo practices? Can you be honest!!? How long d-o- y-o-u have? You are, in my opinion, too calm about this process to have 2 years or less. I have “supposedly” so far under “current laws” less than 1½ years.

    Everyday is one day of risk with these LEO’s on the streets or knocking RSO’s doors down with or without warrants or reasons and without having committed a crime (do you not read news affecting RSO’s?). Nevermind me speaking of the the vigilantes of justice against RSO’s out there hurting & killing RSO’s and family of RSO’s, but law enforcement “official” made up statistics will not show that because, it does not fit their agenda. There is plenty of risks everyday we wake up in life. I want this one in particular (as it should have been 4½ years ago and/or never in the first place) ended now Sir. Period!
    -Yes Chuck, I am respectfully calling you out on a public comment forum thru the internet-

    • #24747 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Anom

      I was arrested in 2008 and spent the next 15 months fighting my case. I had s medical issue and spent the next 4 months waiting to be sentenced. I stated the registry in June 2010. Originally, I was sentenced to 10 years of registration but due to Adam Walsh Act it was increased to 15 years. So the Muniz decision and the Neiman decision both affect me personally. One lowers by registration period to the originally 10 years, and the other will take me off. Once, assuming it is, Muniz is upheld by either a denial of certiorari or by judgement, I will be free to have my felony removed.
      This is very important to me as I am currently an Accounting Student and cannot sit for the CPA Exam with a felony. I cannot attempt to have my felony removed untill I have completed my registry time.
      I completely understand wanting to have these recent court rulings appilied ASAP. What I am confused about is why you would allow them to control your behavior as they are making you seem angry and discontent.
      So I personally have alot riding on the outcome of this writ of certiorari. However I refuse to allow them to control my thought process and / or feelings towards the justice system. Yes I have to register but I refuse to allow it to be my entire life or affect my outlook on life. All I was trying to say is, “Don’t worry, be Happy”. It has been almost a 7 1/2 year fight for me. I can’t wait till it’s over. Considering the ENTIRE reason I am on the registry is Mr. Freed it makes it all that sweeter his office is going to lose personally.

      • #24757 Reply

        Anonymous

        @Chuck
        …Thank you for your honest response. I do wish that you can accomplish taking/passing/receiving your CPA certification upon the upholding of the Muñiz case. Yes I am angry! Yes I am in discontent! …the difference being that I am in control of myself (meaning I do not condone harm nor do I act in harm to anyone). But that self-control does not change my emotions. I am glad that you are better and do not feel any “emotions” or are not moved by this enough to see how I see or feel what I feel. Then again, our circumstances may be different and clearly my time spent on this BS is much different for sure. My experiences, my pain, my losses all different. I truly can expect you or anyone to truly feel the way I feel or understand fully why. It is not fair to anyone, I get it! But to be challenged regularly even with factual knowledge provided it is beyond frustrating.

        I have noticed that you have done the same to -terry brunson- in the other NARSOL article’s comments section (read your replies to terry again if need be). It is very discouraging when people like him, me & others try to help (in whatever civil/legal manner possible) and people just do not heed one’s knowledge or keep the fire of courage and encouragement going. Makes people not want to help anymore or be involved for anyone. And that is where selfishness sets in. Again, I am glad you are better and that you “refuse to allow it to be my entire life or affect my outlook on life.” I tried doing that for many years including the school thing to finish my Bachelors degree and be “someone” to this society since I do not live in “society” by myself. Does not seem to have worked for me. Not in the right places, right times, right ethnicity perhaps! I do not know nor, do I have a crystal ball to know! But I do know what is written in man’s own laws thanks to this experience and it infuriates me that “We the People” allow this and many other despicable acts against our families, our Countrymen and our Human Unalienable Rights to freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

        Also, it bothers me (as it should anyone that experiences the same exact thing) to spend money I do not have (so I had to borrow it) to talk to a lawyer to find out that I can submit for relief of this registry and in 7 or less days I could get relief after getting a hearing a few days after filing. Guarantee! (words of the attorney) Now you know that an attorney does not guarantee anything unless they know something! But it would cost me money I do not have! Why do I/we need to pay for something we never should in the first place to have it done just as quick? I tried over a month ago to pass that information of who and where to contact this individual to try to help folks that could afford the guy, but the Moderators did not allow the post to go thru (I am sure they had their reasons).

        • #24783 Reply

          Chuck

          I guess my point is there is a lot of people who are desperate to get off the registry ASAP. I can understand that. It might be posssible my calm demeanor is affected by the fact I do not graduate until April of 2029 so even if Muniz came into effect tomorrow, it would not help me with my future plans right away. It would remove me from the registry, however that is only half the battle.
          When I first got out of jail, I was under the impression (not litterly) that there would be people waiting with fire and pitchforks at my house for me. Yes, I have face discrimination due to being a “sex offender” but not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I guess my point is you have to make the best of it. First, in Pa, it is a hate crime to target someone just becuase they are ion the registry. I have an neighbor that was 100% upset I was on the registry and he was running his mouth. My girlfriend at the time called the police. They told him unless he wanted to go to prison for a long time to cool it. I have received nothing but respect from law enforcement, and a lot of them know me personally. I mean they were at my house when it was raided by PSP. Imagine waking up the day before Thanksgiving to “State Police. Search Warrant!!” I didn’t even know what had happened. But it was my laptop, so I went doen for it. My lawyer got me abdeal with NO registry. My lawyer, myself and my Assistant DA agreed to it. At the last second, Mr Freed (yes the same one) personally said NO. So every time I personally get stacked for being in the registry, in my mind I personally thank Mr. Freed.
          Yes, it sucks being on the registry, and it has GREATLY altered my life. Yet, I have learned a lot about life. For every 1 person that has tried to embarrass or harass me simply for being on the registry, I have had 10 people say “So what. You did your time.” You cannot let the few people who freak out control your life.
          The one positive thing I have to say about the registry, law enforcement understands that if we are afraid to register we won’t. Every Law enforcement officer I have run into have been 100% willing to protect my right to be left alone. When I got out, I thought there is no way I can’t date while on the registry. Not only did I date, but I got married while on the registry. We have since divorced but that had nothing to do with the registry.
          My point is this: Yes the registry is going to affect your life, but it doesn’t have to end your life.

        • #24792 Reply

          Anonymous

          @Chuck
          …well said Chuck, well said. (even if my experience has not been the same, I respect you & the good words you just wrote) 🙂

        • #25310 Reply

          terry brunson

          I filed My Mandamus 13 October 2017 in the Harrisburg Commonwealth Court under file mark 463MD2017 –
          The clerk filed my mandamus –
          I also files a Nunc Pro Tunc motion in support of Mandamus injunction
          I filed also a Petition for Summary Judgement –

          My main theme is not Muniz because that case is in a stay.

          My main position is All old Megan’s Law’s were expired on 20 December 2012 at SORNA enactment

          Commonwealth v. Beattie 93 Pa. Super. 404 (1928) is good law on expired statues in the commonwealth.

          I got this case at the Temple University Law Library.

          An expired statue is considered as if it had never existed . . . All Old Megan’s Laws 1 , 2, 3, were expired 20 December 2012 by SORNA Megan’s Law 4. . . . .

          Throne v. Commnonwealth Ex. Rel. PSP stated when Law makers make a Magan’s Law 5 it will expired Megan’s Law 4 SORNA and that would cause a bigger problem. . . . . .

          The Pa. Law Makers are in just as much a nail biting position as RSO’s They are hoping against hope that DA Freed puts forth a good Cert to the SCOTUS that will move the Solictor General to write a request for the SCOTUS to hear MUNIZ to vote it up or down.

          I am telling all on this sight that Freed will loose his battle. Muniz will prevail – and be denied a hearing at the SCOTUS and be shot down like Michigan – Ohio – Maryland – Alaska – Indiana – and the 6th Cir.

          When the mandate and remand comes in – – – – – with MUNIZ still at a win – – – – The Pa. Law makers will be in defeat – They made no legislative fix because that would have made a greater problem for pre- and post SORNA by expiring Megan’s Law 4 with 5.

          The AG of Pa. and the PSP will be very stun by the return of Muniz to be the law of the Law in PA. . . . . . Freed filed a cert to buy more time – the only time he has is the run of the SCOTUS docked. The death sign is the Solicitor General’s response. If He ignores Freed so will the 9 juctices of the SCOTUS and Muniz will return to PA SC for a mandate to the Pa. AG and PSP to remove 10,000 RSO’s off the list to go on with their life. . . . . . . . . thank you for reading this – This situation cannot be fixed – it is too broken. . . There is no Old Megan’s Laws to revert people back to they all were EXPIRED.

        • #25576 Reply

          terry brunson

          – – – – For all to read – – –
          When the Muniz case returns a mandate from the SCOTUS on its remand to the PASC on retroactive prohibitions against all PA RSO’s in PA – The denial of Freed’s Petition of Writ of Cert. will be a great disappointment to the PA. AG office to issue a mandate to remove all names from the registry that are pre- SORNA . . . .

          Update – The PA. Legislatures decided to pause on a legislative fix for this reason:

          * Any New Megan’s Law 5 would effect the SORNA Law that was put in place in PA. on 20 December 2012.

          * Any New Megan’s Law 5 would cause a retroactive application on Megan’s Law 4 which is SORNA and that would be too over whelming for the PSP to deal with.

          * PA. is at the cross roads of having to drop over 10,000 people off its SO’s registry –
          It is very likely that the SCOTUS will deny Freed’s Cert. The key sign to look for is when the Solicitor General of the Federal Government refuses to write a recommendation to the SCOTUS about the Muniz case of PA. . . .

          He wrote one for Michigan under Snyder and it is no need to say anything more about retroactive application of SORNA on Ex Post Facto points. . . . . . PA. legislators are at a wait and let’s see the end attitude. . . Banking on the odds for Muniz to be accepted by the SCOTUS -WHICH IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. . . . . .

        • #25826 Reply

          Alfie D

          TO TERRY BRUNSON… Actually, the State Mandamus should work. … I am a former NY Attorney with my alleged crime occurring in April, 1999 in Florida. I still live in Florida (hating every minute of it) and I want to move back to NY, but the laws there are too strict. I was just in PA two weeks ago looking for property (I am actually getting transferred there by my law firm). I know Florida law (as I am a Lead “glorified” paralegal with 2 law firms here in criminal defense and civil law), so, Florida is the best out of two bad worlds. I am a Senior Pastor in my Church here (everyone knows about my case), and I work work with those convicted of sex crimes, the homeless, and others. I work with the Sheriff’s Office and the Court’s working with them to place RSO’s in suitable employment, living, therapy, and alternative sentencing environments. But, here, the residential restrictions are beyond horrible and Florida Courts are not yet ready to come to our side, even if the data and laws are on our side. Now… back to the Mandamus on the State level…

          Before the stay was filed on Muniz, I drafted a Writ of Prohibition and a Writ of Mandamus to enforce Muniz as to where it applied to me. So, Terry, you are on the right track with the correct legal reasoning. And, you are further correct on the point that the PA SORNA (each past law enacted), basically “expired. So, under Muniz, any new law under a “revised legal scheme” where we have to register or jump through other burden hoops, should not be allowed to be retroactive. There is enough empirical data, history, testimony from Court cases, and now application of recent decisions (though, at best for now are only what are called “persuasive” decisions/legal reasoning in application to PA, the best shot is the Muniz law and a challenge that the Megan’s (or (“SORNA”) laws prior to December 2012, have expired, and any new legal scheme based on what the PA Supreme Court declared unconstitutional under current SORNA, cannot now be revised to comply with the law. Hence, as it stands now, anyone whose “ciminal act”, not sentence, which occurred prior to December, 2012, should not be subject to any SORNA under any guise. The worse case scenario would be that a “felony” registration law”, of which, if PA has one, it is directed to those convicted of felonies, has to register as a “felon”, regardless of the crime. However, that is only providing name, address and other info only for law enforcement purposes (not made public by a web site), and only a yearly update or if a person changes info. I have not checked if PA has such a law, but NY does. In Polk County, Florida, (by Orlando), the County makes the RSO place a decal on their car to identify them as an RSO. Other states make a person put a sign on their front lawn.

          In closing…Terry, you are on the right track. If you are successful, you need to publish your writ and subsequent Order on this site somewhere where people can use it as a guide. The more pressure everyone places on the politicians and courts… and makes them spend money and get decisions not in their favor, will be good for us!

        • #25847 Reply

          Alfie D

          UPDATE: TO TERRY BRUNSON: I just wrote in reply to your idea on filing a mandamus. Then I reviewed the decision in Commonwealth v. Beattie 93 Pa. Super. 404 (1928). I stand to be corrected here. Beattie does not strike a repealed law an final. It address the issue of what happens when a law is repealed and replaced with a similar but enhanced law. The commonwealth has what it called a “saving clause” regarding repealed laws. It works like this: In essence a saving clause allows a “repealed law” to “continue” after repeal, if the provisions of the repealed law, or just some of them, are enacted into the new law, and as such, technically, the law might have been repealed, but that “repeal” was basically more in words than effectual action. At first blush, I felt that Terry Brunson has a good direction. After re-reading everything, Terry’s mandamus might get denied on the repeal issue. However, when reviewing how these Megan Laws’s evolved, the Muniz Court to a “State” approach based on the State’s Constitution as most of you know. And, even though PA RSO’s may not get federal relief under the U.S. Constitution and those whose criminal act occurred after December, 2012, still have a major hurdle to overcome in their minds, Muniz still decided that (1) these laws are punishment and go beyond what they were designed to do; (2) are ex post facto as applied to those whose criminal acts occurred before December, 2012; and (3) there is no legal reasoning to support these laws and there is now historical, empirical, testimony and statistical data supporting our side. So, even if Terry Brunson loses on the mandamus side, and even if at this writing SCOTUS has not denied PA Appeal yet, The PA Supreme Court sees the reality and legality of these “SORNA” laws and that they are unconstitutional in many ways, and in other ways do not protect anyone and are a waste of taxpayers money…. Soooooooo…. in PA you folks are in a great position to erode these laws and get out of them completely if it gets too expensive for the State to maintain them.

          ANOTHER APPROACH TO CONSIDER: In Florida, a group may challenge that the enactment of the law was was unconstitutional since all of the data now from several Courts but mainly from Does v. Snyder and PA v Muniz, show that the preamble (written reason at the introduction to a statute to premise its enactment on) was false and the sponsor of the bill lied to his/her constituents and their fellow Members of the Legislature through fear and shame tactics to get the SORNA law in Florida enacted. There is a presumption of correctness when any government legislature enacts a state law or local ordinance. However, this presumption can be constitutionally challenged. All of the preambles to enact these laws across the country have been proven wrong. We just have to keep making the states, counties, cities, towns and villages to spend money on litigation.

          IN CLOSING: Ok, so you men and ladies are just plain, old, worn out. These laws kicked your butt. Whether legal or not, that is what they designed these laws to do besides having you register… wear you out by imtimidation and harassment so you would not fight back, giving them the impetus to keep enhancing these laws. So, remember this… We do not lay down…. because that is what they are expecting us to do! We make enforcing these laws very inconvenient and extremely expensive, and bring litigations every time something new is discovered in our favor. And, we adhere to the law. The best way to repeal a bad law is to strictly enforce it!

  • #24768 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian
    Hi! First of all please make sure you read terry’s reply at the other NARSOL article from today if you have not already!

    …You make total sense to me. I get like that too sometimes where I feel I make no sense to anyone. And yes, John Walsh should still be charged! (but he won’t be) Everyone else is subject to being charged for a crime committed right? Statutes of limitation do not seem to matter much now a days with “sex crimes” So, what makes him better (besides lots and lots of money, connections, power)?

    Yes, you might want to save your money in case this LEO’s want to start a compliance check and start finding RSO’s magically/suddenly “non-compliant.”

    Here since you are one of the few that actually “reads” (not glance) my posts you might like these if the Moderators allow (do not see why not!).

    These ones come from NARSOL posts originally:
    If the person reading it has not shed any bit of tears by the end, he/she in my opinion, is heartless.

    WHY do we register children as sexual criminals?

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-accused-of-sex-crimes

    This one I came across after a Patch Outlet search from reading another NARSOL article:

    http://www.oncefallen.com/

    YOU can help save Halloween!

    This Blog is more of a researching tool:
    Sex Offender Research & State News
    http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2017/08/rock-sheriffs-office-to-share-in-money.html

    I have one more thing to share, but will wait a bit to give Moderators a chance to read/sort thru my post. (I do not want to make the post too long without real necessity)

    • #24787 Reply

      Anonymous

      @Brian
      …I said that I had one more thing to share, but after reading more into it I will not. I read the Privacy Notice on the article’s web page and I think I should not share it for legal reasons because, is intended for a specific group (members) and/or use. I do not want to cause trouble for the Moderators or NARSOL or me. It is unfortunate, because it deals with Pro Bono contacts. But just like we can be searched on Google, we can search Pro Bono for the State we need too. Any one can on their own and find info (hopefully helpful). I do not even know if what I came across would have helped in anyway, but still wanted to share it. I apologize, but I think is best I do not post the link. I wanted to ask Moderators on my post with that link to check an ensure it could be posted, but I read further and definitely would be risky because, it could be considered “commercial mass distribution” of legal copyrighted material or something. In this case even for educational purposes it seems. Why do things in life have to be so complicated (rhetorical question; I don’t need an answer…Lol) for some more than for others? Oh, well I guess!
      Again I apologize.

      OK, good night to everyone! Blessings!

  • #24843 Reply

    Brian

    @ Anonymous
    Terry is very well versed in deed , filing a right of mandimos could be a waste of time. Terry responded to my posts. There is a different way to file to PA, I have to do some research on it before I do anything like that considering I don’t know a lot about law.

  • #24864 Reply

    Dave C

    I guess we now have to wait for SCOTUS to take their year to review this PA Supreme Court Ruling. I am not an attorney. But, there doesn’t seem to be any penalty for the state and/or state police to just keep appealing this case or the state police then taking a year to generate a list and send out letters to finally remove registrants from the registry. Or, even better, having the legislature create some new law and we have to start all over again. Anyone ever hear of some type of civil case such as an inmate that was wrongly incarcerated? Some type of mass tort case payout for all RSO for every day over this punitive action takes?

    Do they even realize how many families this law hurts?

    I am as frustrated as everyone….they don’t even follow their own laws.

    • #24882 Reply

      Brian

      Like I have read we’re waiting onfreed not SCOTUS, the cert has been filed now I believe Muniz has I think someone said 30 days to respond and not sure but I think it goes to SCOTUS and then they will review it either agree to hear the case or deny the case that’s my understanding, then it goes back to the original court who ruled and from there the ATG tells the psp to start removing SO’s and then they drag there feed. I read we should know before SCOTUS takes there summer brake what is going on.
      And honestly I think they could care less about us, our family’s or anyone involved in our lives , gets hurt, looses their home, jobs, friends,family etc yes etc the list goes on and doesn’t stop. If someone wants to correct this mess I just posted have at it no pun intended.

  • #24888 Reply

    Brian

    I did a little research of the MANDAMUS like I said and founds several explanations of how Mandamus works, everything definition I see states the last line in this element that Courts will refuse to grant relief if another judicial alternative is available (ex., Petition for Review to US Circuit Court)
    ELEMENTS OF MANDAMUS
    Is there a Mandatory Duty?
    Plaintiff must show the specific defendant owes him/her a duty.
    This duty must normally be mandatory or ministerial, but in some cases, Mandamus has been used to force an agency to exercise its discretion where the government has failed to take any action.
    Even if the government has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate an application, Mandamus is appropriate only if the government fails to act within a reasonable amount of time.
    Courts will refuse to grant relief if another judicial alternative is available (ex., Petition for Review to US Circuit Court).

    • #24903 Reply

      Anonymous

      @Brian
      … Thank you for sharing your research of information! 🙂
      Good night to everyone!

  • #24923 Reply

    Brian

    Hey what do I know though I am no expert and definitely not a lawyer ,something good could come of your filing the rit of mandamus, I have seen many things happen that I don’t understand in life. Things that have happened to me and things that have happened to other people good and bad. I am not religious I am spiritual, I don’t preach the bible but I think God has a plan for all of us including the people passing these cruel unconstitutional laws and the people who want the world to be againsed us, there will be a day of reckoning for everyone if you believe it or not, everyone has a price to pay in the end , money and personal belongings do not fallow us to the other side.
    Excuse my babbling but we have paid the dept and then some, to keep on judging us and sticking us with more and more stipulations and standards is just ridiculous. Have a good weekend all.

    • #24963 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Brian

      I agree with you 100%. All I want to do is pick up the pieces and move on with my life. Since my arrest I have been jailed, divorced and almost kicked out of school for struggling with a medical condition that made school impossible. I just want to graduate, take the CPA Exam , and move on with my life. I am not interested in hanging out with the same people that got me hung up in this mess. I wish I didn’t get arrested and labeled as a “sex offender, but I did learn a thing or two about adversity and how to stay positive with things are really bad. I wish I didn’t have to go through it, but I am glad I did. It really taught me the value of having good people around you.

      • #24971 Reply

        Brian

        @Chuck
        Yes everything is in pieces and slowly going back together.
        I was reading Terry’s post about filing the Mandamus, what he is saying is making sense as far as it having separate grounds, federal and state. I was thinking of filing a Mandamus also to see what would happen but then I was reading you comment on the post but anyway I am due to go have my picture taken again in a couple months, I am going to ask them what’s going on with everything but not thinking I will get an answer or an honest answer or I will get the usual which is contact Harrisburg for any questions. So I am on the fens at the moment and hope if I do decide to file a mandamus i don’t have to be in Harrisburg that I can just fedex it to them.

  • #25168 Reply

    Mark

    I have a question. When we are all Freed from this mess called AWA, how will other states know that we were even on the registry? After all, how would a LEA know if one was to be on the registry, or was on at one time? Is there a secret list only available to LE? I got this question from my therapist when the decision first came down. I just also got the same question from my brother who lives in Virgina near my mother. I won’t be able to visit this year due to only having 3 days there before notifying Va I am there. Sadly, her health is starting to decline.

  • #25196 Reply

    Brian

    @ Chuck
    I understand the Muniz deal which means someday when and God willing SCOTUS denies F
    I will be off the Godawful registry, but no I don’t fully understand others, I really need to do some steadying on this stuff.

  • #25535 Reply

    Brian

    THIS IS BS , PA shot down resistances restrictions a few years ago these people just don’t FING stop man WTF. I didn’t post the news channel that posted this online just this bs article.

    by WEB STAFFTuesday, October 24th 2017

    Gavel and Scales

    AA
    HARRISBURG, Pa — State Reps. Tina Davis and Pam Snyder introduced a bill that would restrict sex offenders from living near schools.
    The proposed bill would make it so that those registered under Megan’s Law would not be permitted to live within 2,500 feet of any school or child-care facility.

    According to PA State Police reports, there is approximately 21,600 registered sex offenders residing in the commonwealth, ranging in offenses from rape to child pornography possession.
    “Right now, there are no laws preventing offenders from moving in right next door to the school attended by your child, grandchild, niece or nephew,” said Davis, D-Bucks. “Our legislation aims to address this problem and keep kids safe at school and on their way to and from school.”
    “We must do all we can to protect our most vulnerable citizens from those with a proven record of predatory – and in some cases violent – behavior,” said Snyder, D-Greene/Fayette/Washington. “Our legislation simply mandates a buffer zone between an offender and a school or child-care facility to keep children safe. It’s past time Pennsylvania had a law like this on its books.”

    • #25599 Reply

      Mark

      @Brian
      The last time some person had this bright idea who shot it down? But No!! Could it have been the Department of Corrections, saying that they and only they could tell people on Parole and/or Probation where they could live!
      I found it ironic then and still do but the DOC will not want to let that control go for any feelgood legislation.

      It will remain to be seen how this crap will shake out after all this is why Pa does not have any municipalities with residency restrictions now.

      • #25610 Reply

        Brian

        @Mark
        The last time was in Allegheny county in 2009 that residencey restrictions were shot down and again in 2011, Why are they wasting money hand over fist just to keep loosing it with this bs, Maybe they should make a law that anyone who attempts to pass a new SO law is a felony that comes with a 5 year sentence with $5000.00 fine and then they have to report 3 times a week where they have been , who they called, how late they were up every night, what time they got to and left work and then put their face on line saying how much tax payers money their steeling from people.

        • #25669 Reply

          Mark

          @Brian

          I like it!! Also, do the same to anyone trying to use the existing registry to harass anyone on the registry.

    • #25930 Reply

      Chuck

      It got awfully quiet all of a sudden here guys!!! I gues we have said everything there is to say untill there is more movement on the case. Muniz’s team should be filing their reply after the SCOTUS’ electronic filing system goes live. Which means we won’t have to wait for the SCOTUSBlog to post it in order to read the filing. My question is are they going to go back and make an electronic filing of the petition or do we have to wait untill the SCOTUSBlog to post it ?

      • #25958 Reply

        Brian

        @Chuck
        I didn’t know SCOTUS was going to electric filing, they will probably not let that go electronically just to mess with people. Quiet indeed like people just got up and left or something else heppned who knows.

        • #25965 Reply

          Chuck

          @ Brian

          Glad to hear from you, Brother!! SCOTUS electronic filing system goes live on Monday November 13th. Three days before the Muniz reply brief is due.

          I just found out with all the tax credits I can claim in the Spring for 2017, I will have the $$$$ I need to start preparing for my post Megans Law Life…

          By the end of 2018, I should be in much better shape. That is all I can ask for.

  • #26053 Reply

    Brian

    So Halloween passed and no one was attacked, ubducted and whatnot, I saw nothing on the news about anything happening like that anyway, I think someone should mention that to someone of importants that they need to reconsider that people on the registry really aren’t a threat to society, I’m sure these politicians and whatnot would absolutely love us to be because it sure seams like they want us to be a threat and they call us the sick ones!!!!!

  • #26208 Reply

    Brian

    Why is everything upside down on the posts?

    • #26217 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      Brian,

      We decided to reverse the order from oldest to newest in chronological order in order to test creating forums. We realize that for comments sections as long as this one it may take some getting use to. So we’re monitoring the reactions.

  • #26368 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Brian
    Please be aware that someone else is using “anonymous” (lower case a) at another article. Got to love the internet! 🙁
    But even if spelled exactly like I do, the potential is always there to cause intended damage by posing as a fake. It is unfortunate, but the other option would be to register names possibly requiring email addresses and you can imagine where would that put a lot of people…in a spot where they would rather not comment or offer/share knowledge.

    Marathon efforts bolster NARSOL’s profile, strengthens movement


    November 2, 2017 at 4:16 pm
    #26025
    Reply

    anonymous

    here’s one involving drugs.
    http://www.wvalways.com/story/36732042/police-heroin-found-in-childs-trick-or-treat-bag-in-oak-hill

    November 2, 2017 at 9:54 pm
    #26052
    Reply

    Brian

    @ Anonymous
    I saw some kid got a needle in a bag or piece of candy. Hey wander if it was an SO that’s passing out drugs and needles for Halloween.
    DON’T THINKK SO!!!!!
    I so hope SCOTOUS took notice to SO’s not doing anything wrong on Halloween.
    I’m sure some of them have children and or grand children out there trick or treating and I hope that these false statistics have been proven very incorrect and invalid.

  • #26369 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Chuck @Brian
    …Thank you for your posts! Yes, it has gotten awfully quiet. I will not speak for any one else, but as for me, I do read as often as I can. But I have had nothing constructive or positive to say as of late. Please be mindful of counter productive details on comments section given that law enforcement very likely checks NARSOL too. I say this not directed at any past or specific comment(s). I was just “thinking out loud.”

    @Brian
    …Thank you for asking about the comments’ chronological order. I too was wondering if it was a network glitch. I am glad it is not!

    @Robin Keymaster
    …Thank you for your response to Brian and all of us wondering about the comments’ chronological order changes.

    Blessings to all! 🙂

  • #26504 Reply

    Brian

    Something positive

    Ruling halts proceedings related to defendants facing sexually violent predator designations
    Monday November 6, 2017 12:01 AM
    Written by Stephanie Weaver
    READING, PA
    The state Superior Court has handed down a ruling that put an immediate halt to all court proceedings related to defendants facing sexually violent predator designations.

    As the second ruling within several months to call the state’s current sexual offender statute into question, District Attorney John T. Adams said that it’s time to start fresh.
    “What we need now is a rewrite of our statutory scheme dealing with the sexual offenders registry,” he said.
    TODAY’S SPONSOR:

    In an appeal ruling in July, the state Supreme Court found that sexual offender registration requirements are a form of punishment for defendants.
    Prior to that decision, registration was thought of as a civil consequence of committing a sex offense.
    But due to that new definition, the state Superior Court said in its ruling Tuesday that the entire framework for then designating sexual offenders as sexually violent predators is unconstitutional.
    As such, the court placed a moratorium on all sexually violent predator proceedings until state legislators enact a new, constitutional system for sex offender registration.
    The recent ruling granted an appeal to a Butler County man who was questioning his status for a statutory sexual assault conviction.
    The designation increased his registration term from 15 years to life, which he claimed violated his constitutional right to protect his reputation.
    The ruling in July is currently under appeal and Adams, who is also the president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, said that the new ruling will be appealed in the near future.
    However, he said that prosecutors throughout the state are now working to create new legislation that will hopefully resolve the issues raised in the rulings.
    “I do believe that everyone knows that this is an immediate problem,” Adams said, adding that he expects movement on legislation before year’s end.
    But for now, many of the cases are stuck in limbo with no clear path on how to proceed.
    “We are reviewing the rulings and there are more questions than answers,” Adams said.
    For example, he said that his office isn’t sure if the ruling applies to all sexual offender cases or only ones in which a sexually violent predator designation increases the registration term.
    It also was unclear if it would be applied retroactively or if the moratorium would stand once the ruling is under appeal.
    “I’m not sure where it will go,” he said.
    Constitutionally flawed
    The Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act was enacted in 2012, replacing the prior Megan’s Law system. The act has three levels of registration – 15 years, 25 years or life – that are assigned to specific sexual crimes.

    Regardless of the degree of the crime, all individuals convicted of a sexual offense must also be evaluated by the state Sexual Offenders Assessment Board.
    That board, made up of psychiatrists, psychologists and criminal justice professionals, conducts a 15-factor analysis to determine if the individual meets the criteria to be designated a sexually violent predator.
    The board then submits that recommendation to a judge.
    Judges review the recommendation and, when contested, the expert testimony before making the final ruling.
    In last week’s ruling, the higher court said the final step of the sexually violent predator process is the main issue.
    In light of the state Supreme Court ruling that registration requirements are a form of punishment, the court said registering as a sexually violent predator is an additional penalty.
    A title indicates a convict has a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him or her likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.
    It carries lifetime registration, lifetime counseling and active community notification requirements, which are similar to someone who is already required to register for life, but widely considered to be harsher.
    The ruling then reasoned that since it is an increased punishment, the facts supporting it must be found, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the defendant’s choice of either a judge or a jury, like a trial.
    Previously, such designations required only “clear and convincing evidence,” a lower burden of proof.
    The higher court said that since the entire framework is now constitutionally flawed, judges may no longer hold designation hearings, declaring that “there is no longer a legitimate path forward” to resolve these cases.
    Problematic from start
    The murkiness of the higher court’s ruling played out in at least two cases that came before Berks judges last week, as prosecutors asked for lengthy continuances to determine how to properly move forward.

    Defense attorney James M. Polyak said he has four clients awaiting predator evaluations, but due to the ruling, he plans to file motions asking the court to rescind the orders permitting the assessment board to conduct those reviews.
    “The propriety of the entire evaluation framework is now questionable,” he said.
    Defense attorney Kevin Feeney said the recent rulings are simply the court acknowledging that the statute has always been a punishment, not merely registration.
    “The conditions and requirements are so detailed and complicated, I do not know how a person could comply,” he said.
    Adams agreed that the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act and its federally mandated provisions was overreaching and problematic from the start.
    But he is hopeful that any new legislation will be able to withstand legal and constitutional challenges.
    “Clearly, I think we are losing sight of the reason for the registry,” he said, “and that is for the protection of the public.”

    • #26536 Reply

      terry brunson

      @Anonymous

      Hello I just saw your post on appeals to a Federal Circuit Court – You are correct in your thinking BUT : FREED did not have too appeal through that court to get to the SCOTUS . Freed appeal to The SCOTUS is a Cert. Petition for a review of the PA SC decision on MUNIZ.

      Muniz decision was based on retroactive application of SORNA and that it is classified as punishment NOW.

      Freed wants to divide the argument into a Federal question on these points from the State question.

      The federal question is under U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 Ex Post Facto
      The state question is under PA. Constitution Article 1: Section 17

      The PASC has spoken clearly on the state question in MUNIZ – It is law now in PA . . . . and for it to apply now. . . . takea a Application Writ of Clarification from the Commonwealth Court of appeals in Harrisburg, PA. on the State question which is in effect now as Law under MUNIZ – Meaning if you Mandamus the Court under state rights only you will prevail and get relief on State question only. . . . . . NOW. The only thing that held this up was a Stay which expired 17 October 2017 as a way to file for Mandamus relief under MUNIZ.

      The Federal question – which Freed wants to review on is not in at the PASC He wants a clarification on does PA. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 17 give MUNIZ greater rights than the U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 10 on Ex Post Facto claims. THIS IS FREED’S FIGHT ON MUNIZ –

      Now under USCA Rule 60 (b) a person could challenge Ex post Facto Claim on appeal. . . . But the problem would be- – – – The decision on the federal question is not final. . . . . under MUNIZ. . . . But The State question is. A claim under state rights can go form after the Stay deadline of 17 Oct 2017. When filed in a Commonwealth Appeal Court in PA under Mandamus against the PSP for not following MUNIZ on the state Claim.

      In the State claim if you make no mention of the U.S. Constitution – and just claim state’s rights- – – – The Federal question will never meet you to be delayed waiting on the Freed Cert. decision on the Federal question. . . I pray you understand this. . . I am in the Commonwealth Court now doing a good fight. . . . I am under cause 463 MD 2017 waiting for a response from PSP lawyer Joanna Reynolds I think the Judge will ask me to write a brief. I will request an en bunk court for the whole court to address the issue does state rights give greater protection than Federal. . . .

      The PSP will argue the U.S. Constitution Supremacy Clause of Article 6 Clause 2 which says This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Which I will then s to be upheld at the state level) PA. Const. Art. 1 Sec 17 and U.S. Const. Art 1 Sec 10 are not Contrary at all. . .

      Only contrary issues in State Laws and constitutions are notwithstanding. . . . . . SORNA is a Contrary State Law copied from AWA federal. The PA Constitution and the U.S. Constitution stand equal on ex post facto claims not contrary. . . . The contrary law is SORNA that the State of PA formed from AWA Washington D.C. on 20 Dec 2012

      • #26595 Reply

        Chuck

        Terry,
        You need to chill with the writ talk. All you are doing is stressing out desperate people. Just chill and wait for SCOTUS to finish their work. I do not like being in the registry either, but it is what I have to do until SCOTUS denies Freed.
        If you are a tier 1 like me, that means worse case you have one more update to do. I have done 8 already. Not to mention every time I moved or changed my info.
        I expect to have a deniel by Spring, unless SCOTUS asks the US Solictor General to weigh in. Mr Freed and company is just trying to make sure we cannot destroy the registry based on the State constution alone. It is well settled Law that a state Constition can give their citizens greater rights than is given in the US Constution.
        12 more months on the registry isn’t going to make or break someone unless you are just getting started. If you have been on for years, chances are everyone around you already knows and therefore you cannot damage your reputation further.
        Relax and enjoy the ride. This is the beginning of the end for the registry.

        • #26624 Reply

          terry brunson

          @ Chuck

          Hey Chuch – true words spoken – The wait to see it an option most would look at as the status quo. I look beyond that I am remiss at your attitude comment to chill out on the writ talk.

          Muniz is the law of the law now – The wait to see what the SCOTUS will decide is viable to those that do that . . . . I don’t comment against that – BUT you are voicing a opposition as if I cannot or should not go beyond the status quo. You seem not of a hater tan an appreciater . . .

          I am in the Commonwelth Court of Harrisburg making a fight on State Rights – You can go to the Commonwealth Court site and type 463 MD 2017 and see that I filed to fight under state constitutional rights – in wait of the Federal decision to roll in on Freed’s Cert to the SCOTUS which has a track record that can be tested.

          Less than 1% of the Petitions of Writ of Certioari get to the floor in the SCOTUS to be heard. . . . They are denied a hearing and the State Supreme Court’s ruling stands. . . . .

          There have been 5 other state too include a Circuit Court ruling in Synder v Doe that have failed to move the SCOTUS to hear not arguments on SORNA’s constitutional standings as unfit.

          I have a right to excessive due process, equal protections, and a right to seek reliefs by measures the Courts have set up (Meaning Mandamus) to tell the PSP by Nunc Pro Tunc It is my right to not play the waiting game. I want mine now. . . . . . If I seem impatient – I am not. I just choose to take the extended option of not waiting for a thing you can have now.

          I am not choosing ether or – – – – – I am taking both. It is ok to wait this out – but for me it does no harm to fight while you wait. . . . .

          I filed an Application of Clarification on the Stay on Freed’s Cert awaiting decision on the MUNIZ question on federal right – – – – The Commonwealth Court as asked the PSP to give a response to my request before making a decision . . . . They added a statement in the request that Justice Mundy said who sustained her vote in the MUNIZ case on July 19, 2017

          CONCURRING STATEMENT of PASC JUSTICE MUNDY during close of MUNIZ case before the high Court:

          “Although I disagree with Muniz’s conclusions, they are now the law of this Commonwealth.
          As such, they must be applied in a meaningful way.
          No sensible reading of Muniz would permit the Commonwealth Court’s contrary judgment to stand.
          I therefore join the Court’s order in this case, because it correctly applies Muniz and reverses the Commonwealth Court’s order in this regard.”

          Those are words that the Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg are taking seriously under Case 463 MD 2017 \

          They wanted me to wait it out – they would have dismissed my Mandamus and told me as you tell me- – – – “Wait it out – it is at the SCOTUS – they will deny or accept MUNIZ- ”

          That is on the Federal question that Freed has in his mind – He is a blind man with a die hard mentality that would let him accept defeat. I wonder what he knows different from that of Alaska – Ohio – Indiana – Maryland – and Michigan which are States that made the very claims in support of SORNA and AWA and failed. . . .

          I filed Mandamus as a fight against Freed to let him know that the Commonwealth has a strong stand on PA Constitution grounds alone to say that the PA. Constitution does give greater rights under Article 1 Section 1, 11, and 17 to its people to claim NOW. . . We don’t have to choose a wait see for that state right it is before us NOW!

          The Pa Constitution rights under MUNIZ are in effect right now. . . I will update you after the PSP responses to the Commonwealth’s Court request on why should Terry Brunson have to wait for a State right that is enforceable right now. The Federal question will not change the high Court’s ruling in MUNIZ on state rights. . . .

          I give props to all that wait it out – that is a good option, but it is not the only option- – – that is all I am saying Chuck. .. . . God bles you and this great Commonwealth that has gotten fed up with SORNA and AWA

        • #26662 Reply

          Chuck

          @ Terry,
          What I am saying is filing all these writs is only to make things more complex. Just let the process take its course. Another 9-12 months on the registry isn’t going to make a difference if you have been on for years. Why spend, or advocate someone else to, thousands of dollars when there is no need to. In fact, all it is going to do is tie up the court system with non essential filings. Our relief is coming. Have you ever heard, “Good things comes to those who wait for it?” It’s true!!!
          Look at it from a 3rd party point of view. Why jump up and down, and get all Worked up about another 9-12 months when you have been in the registry for years? Enjoy it, my friend!!! These are the last few months we have left.
          I would bet if you filed a writ today, it would be decided in about 6 months. All that work and expense for 3-6 months less??? Doesn’t seem worth it to me.

        • #26726 Reply

          Chuck

          @Terry
          I would respectfully submit once you have been on the registry for years, another 6-12 months will NOT make a difference. I see filing of writs as the toddler’s way of demanding “I want my candy NOW”How do you think the parents (court system) is going to look at that. PSP CANNOT do anything right now. It would be illegal for them to do so. .. The stay issued by th Pa Supreme Court has NOT be lifted yet. Anyone tells you different, they are lying. Courts are starting to make decisions based on Muniz because they know Freed will not win at SCOTUS. Snyder and this case is too similar for SCOTUS to rule differently. Mr. Muniz has to wait till SCOTUS is done. As brothers, we stand together. I am proud to wait with him. How about you show some respect to Muniz who went to the trouble to sue on our behalf and wait for SCOTUS to get done.
          You have to remember this fight is BIGGER than one person. The public can flip your writ as “the evil sex offender can’t even wait to start reoffending”.
          Have a good night, brother. We are in this fight together!!

        • #26983 Reply

          terry brunson

          @ chuck

          You say that the PSP cannot do anything right now – You may not have gone to the PSP web site and find Joses Muniz he is no longer there listed…. WHY? Because the . . PSP by court order of Law told the PSP by PASC mandate to order to remove his information NOW – He does not have to wait until Freed’s Cert is returned. . . .

          Here is Why- – – PA Constitution rights. . . Muniz did not file a Mandamus – but His appeal yielded Nunc Pro Tunc results as Now for then. . . . . .

          The Highest court in PA has ruled and gave a 90 stay to the PSP and AG and the Law makers of PA to make a fix. . . . They opted to do nothing but wait for Freed to Cert thinking that will be a win to the SCOTUS instead of a legislative fix. . . . That would have changed the stakes for any Megan’s Law fix dated 2017 would affect post SORNA retroactively. . . and they would be able to claim MUNIZ as well and be removed from the list. . .

          They think this is a game of time will tell and they hope that the SCOTUS will side with Freed – BUT WHAT DOES FREED KNOW DIFFERENT THAN THE FIVE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE GONE BEFORE THEM ON THE SAME GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF SORNA?

          Freed’s Cert will be denied and a mandate will come back to PA to remove 10,000 PA RSO’s off the registry …… When that happens. . . . . . . The AG of PA will drag feet to issue the order to remove names . . . . The PSP will drag feet about man hours and it will take 6 to 10 Months to do it. . . . .

          Look if you have to up date you information in 48 hours they do it – – – – – but for they to up date your removal 6- to 18 months. . . . . HOW DOES THAT SOUND TO A LOGICALLY THINKING PERSON? Just saying . . . . . . . . .

          Chuck I know that all do not know the Mandamus rights (Pro Se) and may need a lawyer- – – But the Commonwealth Court of Appeal in Harrisburg is so helpful to Pro Se filers that it is not funny….. The court fee is $65.75 and if your= cannot pay that your can file a informa Paluse Writ of indigence as a poor person to mandamus rights of relief.

          The PSP will not do the right thing. . . They will have to be pushed. . . . . . . Mandamus is the push. . . . and next is the suit for money and damages if any are claimed. . . . . . . 1983 civil Rights Suit in the 3rd District Court under Federal Rule 60 (b) inverted issues of State agency refusal to follow mandated Law of Court precedence of MUNIZ state rights – which are ineffect now on the state rights claim. . . . . regardless of a stay on the Federal question. . . . The state rights appeal is done. The PASC has spoken on MUNIZ. . .

          It is the Federal question that Freed seems to think needs a clarification by Review Petition of Certiarori on the Federal issue of Ex Post Facto application of SORNA. . . . . . . . The State rights are complete and the Commonwealth Appeal Courts are accepting Mandamus Relief Complains right now. . . . . . They are giving the PSP time to respond to mind. . . They have 30 days to stay why they this Terry Brunson has to wait for a right that is in effect Now under State Constitutional rights that have gone all the way to the top Court in the Commonwealth with a 5 yes 1 no and 1 no vote. There was no 50/50 split on the rights issue. it was a 5 to 1 to 1 vote on Muniz.. . . . and Reed on the same day of July 19, 2017

  • #26802 Reply

    Brian

    So I wander once the dust settles after SCOTUS hopefully decides to decline F that all the people who reported us to employers, apartment management or have tried getting us removed from out home can be sued for damages, I think every place I have worked at has been tipped off at some point, a few employers have brought it to my attention, I have lost a few jobs as a result. I know finding out who reported us would take a lot of money and whatnot but hey they spend millions to pass and enforce these laws that burden us with.

    • #26813 Reply

      Chuck

      I will never forget the neighborhood response when my ex wife announced our engagement. “Gasp!!! He’s on Megans Law!!!” My ex wife was like. Yes, I know and I don’t care. They couldn’t believe it.

      I love it when someone new in the neighborhood get me the good idea to “report me” for living with my niece and nephew. The police tell them there is no law against it. They are shocked when they hear that. One neighbor tried to sue my landlord to kick me out. Their lawyer laughed them out of their office.
      We will never be able to sue becuase they were just following the law. I love to go places and when they make a comment such as they would never allow a sex offender in, I let them know I am a sex offender.

      “Yes, but you don’t count”. LOL.

  • #26825 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Yes someone had attempted to get me removed from my home before.
    Management called me and questioned me about my status and I said you did a background check or I at least paid for a background check and I said what are going to do throw me out?Needless to say that’s the last time they confronted me. It’s funny because I know who called because they didn’t speak to my wife and I for the first 3 or 4 years and now their always talking to us and always giving us stuff which I am not comfortable with, I don’t trust them and quit frankly think their up to no good, I told my wife that I don’t trust them and she looked at me like I was crazy and doesn’t understand why, I think their giving us all of this stuff and eventually will us it against us at some point or I could be completely wrong.

    • #26843 Reply

      Chuck

      I absolutely love it when someone who is not on the registry or in law enforcement tries to tell me what the “law is” . Dude, I am the one that would go to prison for a very long time if I didn’t follow the rules, so trust me, NO ONEknows the rules better than me. I had an ex co worker walk up to my current boss and tell him you need to firm him cuz he is a sex offender. My boss said “so what?” I am a recovering drug addict” I have seen families forced out of their homes becuase they refused to kick their kid out who was a sex offender. It’s loke if there is now law against it, and the family is cool with it, why do you care? There is this one neighbor that absolutely HATES the fact that I live in the neighborhood. I told her it’s been almost 10 years, get over it. I am moving on with my Life trying to pick up the pieces. So many people are SHOCKED when I say “ I am a sex offender” They don’t expect a sex offender to be open and honest about their charges. My own wife’s grandmother tried to tell my wife’s parents they were going to jail becuase they let us spend the night st their house becuase my sister in laws were minors at the time. I love how everyone thinks just because you are a sex offender that means you raped a child. Nope it doesn’t. When I was in Jail, someone tried to embarrass me with my charges, I said dude everyone already knows why I am here. Deal with it.
      My wife’s family was SHOCKED my in laws didn’t care I was on Megans Law. Too Bad our marriage ended over other stuff. I even had people try to tell me I am not allowed to shop in a store alone. I shop alone each and every day without any problems.

  • #26844 Reply

    Chuck

    Well it over guys. The Pa General Assembly has found a way to void the Muniz Decision. Oh Well, it was a good run while it lasted. Rep. Ron Marsico Is introducing a bill that will void the Muniz decision. We will get them next time!!

    • #26861 Reply

      Brian

      Are you kidding how can they do that it makes no sense what so ever to be able to overrule something like that. Muniz hasn’t even gotten to respond yet and SCOTUS hasn’t even reviewed it.

      • #26873 Reply

        Chuck

        @Brian

        I was trying to be sarcastic. The key is they would have to make changes to Adam Walsh to make it non puntitive. If they did that, then they could make it retroactive. The thing is this: The only way I see them making it “non puntitive” is to make it non public. In other words, the public can not access it , but law enforcement could. However, I do not think people want to do that. Yet, I guess if it meant a non public or no registry at all, I guess they would come around real quick.
        If they pass a new law and attempt to tell me I have to register on it, I am going to fight it. I would love to see what the ACLU has to say about this.

      • #26874 Reply

        Chuck

        They know that SCOTUS will deny Mr. Freed’s petition. Plus next year is an “election” year. They also in April passed a useless bill that if you are not compliant with the registry you can’t accept Welfare. YOU ALREADY CANT ACCEPT welfare if you are on the run or their is a warrant out for your arrest. What stupid jerks.
        They are frustrated becuase they know that if the registry is considered “punishment” that opens them up to a “cruel and unusual” argument.
        My law enforcement buddy told me that they also thought about civil commitment for all pre 2012 sex offenders becuase “ex post facto” doesn’t apply to civil laws. However, they do not have the funds for that. Not yet anyway.
        Do you know what BURNS me the most? It is NOT becuase of Muniz I am getting off early. It is becuase of NEIMAN, and that was 100% THEIR FAULT. They tried to log roll a few subjects into one bill so they would pass,and you can’t do that. Each bill had to have one subject.
        It’s kind of funny if you think about it. “THERE, we just waived our Magic Wand so that means the Muniz Court Decision does not apply anymore. Waving Magic Wand.”
        What do you think the Pa Supreme Court is going to have to say about that??? Bring it, Guys!!
        Imagine the State going in front of a Judge and arguing “we can wipe away a court ruling with our magic wand!” It’s going to take the Courts 5 seconds to reject that argument.

  • #26882 Reply

    Brian

    Chuck if I ever meet you in person after this is all over I swear to God lol I was running arround for two hours all Td off. But anyway . Well then my quiestion is only because I don’t understand any of this even though it 100% effects my life, Does Nieman apply to me also due I am pre SORNA? I feel like I should know that answer already. I was suposed to be off in 2013.

    • #26884 Reply

      Fred
      Keymaster

      New legislation is introduced all the time. That doesn’t mean it will pass. They are just posturing for the voters. It just might die on the floor.

      • #26886 Reply

        Chuck

        There is where the dangerousness comes in. Sally of people don’t know that the high majority of bills don’t pass. They see a bill being introduced they automatically think “who would vote against such s thing” and assume it became law. Then in a few months they are calling the police claiming I am breaking the law becuase I live near a school. The other day my neighbor read in the paper about the bill they introduced that would ban sex offender from living near schools.Simce it was in the palace and according to my neighbors way of thinking, of course it did pass. The police told her even if it did it won’t apply to him. She got MAD. LOL

    • #26887 Reply

      Chuck

      @Brian

      Yes Neiman appilies to you but you DO NOT need it. However, Neiman is a moot point for you becuase you would of been done by now. For me, it is vital becuase otherwise last registration date is 2020 once Muniz is processed.

  • #26902 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    So you need them both so that you are done by 2020 or your done if they don’t deny F. Well if they don’t rule on Muniz I will be on longer then 2020 , God willing they don’t accept F.
    Yea you truly shocked me earlier today man I was like wtf, if they try to do this and let it go threw they will again be challenged and sued and waste yet again more of tax payers dollars.

    • #26916 Reply

      chuck

      With Muniz, my last registration is in 2020 due to my original sentence being only 10 years. When Sorna came into being, they increased it to 15 years. I have been registered since 2010. With Neiman, it invalidates my registration so I am done as soon as the process the Muniz decision.

  • #26904 Reply

    Cary

    Really now. A new bill intro. Lol, well, if it did ever pass it would not apply to pre-SORNA. All they are doing is re-write the SORNA for those who had been convected after 2012. Therefore there would not be any further questions about SORNA itself for those after 2012. That is my understanding when i had read articals.

    • #26931 Reply

      Chuck

      This is where chit get dangerous. The general public who has to idea how the General assembly works just assumes there is no way someone can vote against a sex offender bill, so once a few months have past, it must have been signed into law. So now the public thinks Muniz doesn’t apply. So all the people that watch your registration (I personally have 2 or 3 haters) will still harass you long after the PSP removed your name. I call them the Chuck Welcome Wagon. They believe it is their duty to let every one in the neighborhood know I am a sex offender
      All I want to do is finish school, get my CPA license, find a new wife and enjoy my life. Not necesssrily in that order…LOL. I am not looking to get into trouble or bother anyone else.
      I agree with what one of the Pa Supreme Court justices said:” it is in the best interest of the offender and the Commonwealth to have finality to their sentence.”
      I agree. How can we rebuild our lives if you just keep increasing the restrictions. Oh, you have to register for life now. Oh, you can’t live by a school now. Oh, you have to wear a sign that says you are a sex offender.
      It is funny that you haven’t heard about a sex offender who lives next to a school walking over and raping one of the kids but they feel as though they need to add that restriction becuase “public safety”

  • #26910 Reply

    dave C

    So now the “honorable” legislature will fix Muniz? How can a legislature fix a PA Supreme Court decision? I do not trust our legislative and legal system anymore. I have never seen a law that generates more fear and hatred as the registry. Hoe can the Pennsylvania State Police simply ignore a PA Supreme Court ruling and the “honorable” legislature now try and legislate around a Court decision they do not like.

    Dear “honorable” representatives; We are People just like you, We are Fathers, We are Mothers, We are Sons and Daughters, We are Families, We Laugh, We Cry, We Hurt and We Love. We too are trying to work, pay our bills, raise our children and positively contribute to society. We are seeking the simple human values of compassion, kindness and respect. Somewhere that has been lost; replaced by fear, anger and hatred.

    I think the founding fathers would be very sad today.

    • #26918 Reply

      chuck

      I think its funny in the press release they did not mention how the new bill “fixes” Muniz. Even if they did make the registry non-punitive, I would argue it was punitive as of the start date and as such cannot be applied retroactively. First, I didn’t know that Muniz needed “fixing”. If you meant reversing the effects of the Muniz decision, I didn’t know the Pa General Assembly can override the Pa Supreme Court. No way the Attorney General defends this bill if it becomes law. Can you imagine arguing before the Supreme Court that their decision can be overridden by the General Assembly?

      • #27008 Reply

        Anonymous

        You spelled “chuck” with lower case C! Is this the real Chuck!?…Lol

    • #26917 Reply

      chuck

      @ Cary and @ Dave
      If they design the “new” registry to be “non-punitive ” yes it will apply to pre SORNA. They are also looking into making the new registry be life only. However, I do not think they can design it in such a way that it is non-punitive. We will see. I think they are going to try to pass something before the SCOTUS decision comes down and be like “Oh don’t worry about the Pa Supreme decision. We took care of that. See?? We waived our magic wand which means whatever we don’t like, does not apply.”
      I promise you they will have a fight on their hands if they try to “fix” the registry in order to “void” the Muniz decision. I already have been talking to friends about financing a legal fight. Wouldn’t cost more than a few thousand to hire a lawyer. I figure if I get 50 sex offenders willing to donate $100.00 each, that would be enough to at least get started. I am sure as hell going to donate. What burns me the most is that it is THEIR fault there is no Megan’s Law before Adam Walsh. They tried to logroll it and they got caught.

  • #26929 Reply

    Brian

    I am thinking that PASC would push whatever law they pass right out of the way, I don’t think they want to deal will thousands of Muniz cases, it would drain PA’s economy and the dept would be astronomical one would think.They keep slinging as much S#@T out of the truck as possible trying to come up with a new scheme to ((((PUNISH)))) us with more ((((PUNITIVE)))) laws and yes it is all ((((PUNITVE)))) I don’t care what they say or how they word it it’s allllllll (((((PUNITIVE)))))!!!!!!!!!!!

    • #26938 Reply

      Chuck

      If I was the Pa Supreme Court I would fix their wagon. It would be very simple. ANY registry or list of sex offenders is NOW ILLEGAL!!!! FIX THAT!!!! You want to play with us, fine. However, we WILL have the last say.

  • #26946 Reply

    Brian

    They can’t apply it to the people post SORNA either because it would be retroactive the way that it makes sense to me anyway. They are going to try anything now because they have gotten away with so much for so long, I honestly think that the courts have and are catching onto these schemes, I mean look at everything that is happening now, Muniz, Neiman, Michigan, all of the states making changes and whatnot.

    • #26949 Reply

      Chuck

      There lies the rub. If they make the new registry “non punitive” they can put everyone on it. If it’s punitive they probably won’t be able to put anyone on it. But what does “non puntitive” mean? In Ny, the registry is “non punitive” and the public can not access it and you do not register in person. However, you can go down to the local police station and ask if a certain person is on the registry. Only through the mail. I know becuase I am on the Pa AND NY registry. Once you register in NY, you are there regardless if you move out of state, you still have to register in NY.

  • #26955 Reply

    Brian

    So no one would know unless they called and if they did a background check or something,
    So you never have to report at all they just have you in their system when you live in NY?
    That’s an odd way to keep a registry, I mean is you don’t ever have to do updates and your pictures not online then It wouldn’t be so bad but once someone says to the next guy this guy is an SO just ask the police. Is that only in certain parts of NY that your on the none public registry because I have read about People being banned in in parts of LongIsland and whatnot. What about requirements like job, home, school and whatnot, neneof that comes into play? Either way I don’t think I want to be in any kind of registry at all.

    • #26960 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Brian,
      The funny thing about my NY registration is the only reason I am on the NY registration is due to my conviction in Pa. I lived in Pa and then moved to NY for one year and just becuase I loved there for a year, I have to continue to register there. No one told em this so the first year I moved back I didn’t register. I just happened to notice the letter they mailed this year and called to “friendly” tell them they were wasting their paper becuase I now live in Pa. they said “So what”
      I said, Obviously living in Pa I am not required to register in NY and Pa. they said you are wrong. Yes you do. Ny is one of 3 states that once you live there you cannot get off by moving out of state even if your new state makes you register. Or if you go back to your old state like me. I was SHOCKED.

      And in Ny if you want to know if I am on the registry you have to show up in person, fill out a form, and tell them why you want to know. If they believe you are just going to harass me, they will deny you. Oh, and it’s cost $55.00 to find out. That really take the fun out of it for people when they find out they have to pay.

    • #26961 Reply

      Chuck

      As far as being banned due to being a sex offender, those are local laws. I lived upstate even though I am from Long Island. I was born in Long Island lived there for 10 years and then my family moved to WV. When I became an adult I moved out West. When I can back east, I ended up in Pa.

    • #26958 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Brian

      Every year they mail me a form. If everything is correct, I sign and return it by mail. If something has changed, I report it on the form. That simple. When I lived in Ny( for one year) no one outside my immediate family and friends knew I was a sex offender. It was great not getting dirty looks from your neighbors.
      Pa could do everything by mail if they wanted to. However, I truly believe they set up the registry in Pa to shame people. It was just legal to do so when they did. I think we needed time for the hysteria to calm down. Also, like Justice Kennedy said in Packingham vs North Carolina, the internet has changed since smith vs Doe came out in 2003. That is what make the denial in Snyder so amazing. 3 of the justices that decided Smith are still on the court.

      The ability to shame and embarrass us it’s over. Like it or not, the law says you can’t do that forever. How are we suppose to move on with our lives and productive citizens if we are always being branded “Don’t have anything to do with this person becuase they WILL rape your child” Which is not even why I am in the registry. People automatically assume you are there becuase you raped a kid. Not even close.

      • #26959 Reply

        Chuck

        @Brian
        I forgot to add every 3 years I have to update my photo but my Pa picture covers that requirement. Otherwise I would have to drive to NY every 3 years for a new pic.

    • #26969 Reply

      Chuck

      Tomorrow starts the SCOTUS electronic filing requirement. This means when Muniz’s legal team filed their reply brief, we should be able to read it. Waiting for SCOTUSBlog to get to it is a pain in the butt. It seems like they don’t recognize a docket untill it has been listed for conference. I have slot of legal changes going on in the next few months and I am just happy I am on track to obtaining all the stuff I want to do. Waiting for everyone to get on the same page seems to take the longest amount of time. Not only is Thursday the deadline for Muniz’s legal team to respond, but it is also the 4 month anniversary of the Muniz Decision. Feels like it was 5 years ago….LOL

  • #26975 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Interesting, yea good thing you have to do your photo in pa that would suck going all that way just for the photo, yea everyone automatically thinks all SO’s are going to rape them or there kids and whatnot, that’s not why I am on the list. My brother and his then girlfriend had a friend they set me up with and she lied to them about her age because she wanted to be cool and hangout with the older group so you get my drift with where that went. So one persons lie is the reason I’m here years later, I also could only afford a public pretender so they urged me to take a plea bargain because they were going to throw the book at me. I was never ordered to register as a SO it even says that in my court transcript which I recently requested and had to pay for. But the interesting thing is I had to pay a sex offender surcharge, it clearly states the judge does not recommend me to register. I moved to pa and 2 years later they show up on my door step telling me to register. I didn’t question it because I didn’t think to get my court papers until the whole Muniz thing.

  • #26981 Reply

    Anonymous

    Hello to everyone!

    @Chuck @Brian
    I am glad you two are still hanging around the forums/comments section & keeping up with news. I also read the articles about the attempts to legislate on SO’s living restrictions & “new fixes to Muñiz”. Amazes me (but not surprises me) every time the powers that may be continue to pursue justice without following/looking to their own laws/laws in the books of the constitutional kind.

    Anyhow, if any or both decide to start something legal in nature, post it/make me & other aware so that I may at that time and only at that such arranged time, give each other a way to contact each other (Most likely to meet together with a lawyer[ers] at a very public place since I am not sure NARSOL permits phone numbers, nor would I be 100% comfortable). I am unemployed currently and having a difficult time (thank you Registry/Government/Crusaders) finding employment, but I will sell what little possessions I still have or shovel manure…again…to come up with the $100 (aprox. I am pretty sure is what you mean) you speak off to get representation in court to legally demand/enforce our rights, be finalized with this witch hunt (though the International Megan Law is law and lurking around), and sue the living day & night of everyone involved in damaging our lives/our families in any way. I do not want to be rich as much as to make a point that hurts financially the institutions and individuals that have hurt me financially. And I am not even talking time loss, emotional damage, etc. because, no one will ever be able to repay those. Not ever!

    • #26997 Reply

      Chuck

      If they try to say that they have “fixed” Muniz and I still need to register after SCOTUS denies Muniz petition, then I will definitely be talking to people about mounting a legal challenge. I already have 12 people who are very interested in joining a legal challenge if this “Muniz fix” passes. I feel very confident financing a legal challenge won’t be difficult once word gets out. However, I think it’s all smoke and mirrors. They get to tell the Public “we introduced a bill”. Besides most people think every bill gets passed, so by just introducing a bill the public will feel safer.
      Don’t worry if the time comes, I will defiantly let you guys know. I have a lawyer I am dealing with currently on unrelated business and he feels as though it would defiantly be worth our time and money to mount a challenge if the fix passes and is signed by Wolf.

      • #27282 Reply

        Robin Shrawder

        Hello , Im a tier 1 S.O. in Pa. … I would like to get involved in any group fighting this Sorna BS … The state of PA. is as corrupt as it can get … the PASC has ruled and that should be it ,, but not with the persecutive justice system in PA…. Just need to know who to contact ,, I have been doing alota legal fighting on my own …. would love to be a part of some kinda class action law suit claiming PSP has violated my civil rights and defamed my reputation as according to the PA. State Constitution …. Just reply to my post and let me know who I have to contact ,, Thanks

  • #26998 Reply

    Brian

    @ Anonymous
    I tried to post earlier but my comment must have failed
    Like I was saying I get what you mean about not feeling comfortable about meeting and whatnot I have the same feeling about that because yes you never know who you are meeting, sorry about your employment problem, yes the registery makes it very difficult to get and even keep employment because the A- holes want to call at tell your employer about you or me or anyone plus the police don’t want to do anything about that when it does happens because that’s 100% harrasment. I was saying the attorney I contacted was busy handling other classes, I think they just wanted nothin mg to do with me honestly and I dont know how to do a mandamus pluse even if I did I wouldn’t be able to properly represent myself, and then yes money comes into play with that one mind as well.
    Don’t take it the wrong way but I respectfully decline your meeting offer, however once Muniz is decided hopefully in out favor we could probably talk on the phone but right now I am not felling not comfortable.

    • #27056 Reply

      Chuck

      That is why I 100% upfront in the interview. Yes I am on the dreaded Megans Law.This is why……

      When you are upfront with them, then all they can say when the public tells them is “I already know”

  • #27007 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Chuck
    Understood! 🙂

    @Brian
    Understood and I respect your position on the matter. 🙂

  • #27013 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Do you have a link of some type to get to the SCOTUS electronic filing? Now all I am seeing in the news is rape rape rape and sexual harassment and groping, two weeks ago it was mass shootings and the week before that was raping and groping, I hate the news an so hate election time.
    @ Anonymous I hope all is well you have been quit quiet lately other than this morning.

    • #27024 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Brian,
      I can understand you being nervous about meeting someone you meet online. That is why I always always always meet in a public place. Another safety tip o don’t keep my wallet on my person when meeting someone for the first time. The only thing of value I have is cash (if we are meeting to buy/sell and my phone. I always have my phone on me. Before I got into trouble I always had my glock on me but that was YEARS ago. Lost/ sold my guns a LONG time ago. Wow, just realized it’s been 15 years. I lost my guns long before I got into trouble due to Ex girlfriends. I always are sure my battery is fully charged before I leave the house.
      I also make sure I have a recording app on my phone. If I start to feel nervous I start recording….. and I always meet the first time during the day time….

  • #27023 Reply

    Chuck

    From what I understand this is how it is going to work. Now, for Muniz there is no electronic filings yet, so it won’t work as of yet.

    Go to http://www.supreme okey.gov
    Too right of screen click on search and then docket search. Type in the docket number. For Muniz it is 17-576. A link should pop up with Muniz’s name. Should say something about Pa vs Muniz. Click on it. Then from what I understand if there is a filing that has been filed electronically in that case there will be a link there for that filing. In other words. You will be able to click on the filing and it should bring it up for you.. Now it is important you understand there is NO electronic filings for Muniz untill Muniz’s legal team filles their brief. The Supreme Court is going to try to electronically file the filings that were filed before today but good luck with that. They get hundreds of filings everyday.

    Let me know if you have questions. Once there is a filing I will double check and make sure I have given you correct information
    Remember Muniz docckett number is 17-575….

  • #27027 Reply

    terry brunson

    @ chuck

    You say that the PSP cannot do anything right now – You may not have gone to the PSP web site and find Joses Muniz he is no longer there listed…. WHY? Because the . . PSP by court order of Law told the PSP by PASC mandate to order to remove his information NOW – He does not have to wait until Freed’s Cert is returned. . . .

    Here is Why- – – PA Constitution rights. . . Muniz did not file a Mandamus – but His appeal yielded Nunc Pro Tunc results as Now for then. . . . . .

    The Highest court in PA has ruled and gave a 90 stay to the PSP and AG and the Law makers of PA to make a fix. . . . They opted to do nothing but wait for Freed to Cert thinking that will be a win to the SCOTUS instead of a legislative fix. . . . BUT that would have changed the stakes for any Megan’s Law fix dated 2017 that would affect post SORNA RSO’s retroactively. . . and they would also be able to claim MUNIZ as well and be removed from the list. . .

    They think this is a game of time telling that the SCOTUS will side with Freed – BUT WHAT DOES FREED KNOW DIFFERENT THAN THE FIVE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE GONE BEFORE THEM ON THE SAME GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF SORNA?

    Freed’s Cert will be denied and a mandate will come back to PA mandating the removal of 10,000 PA RSO’s off the registry …… When that happens. . . . . . . The AG of PA will drag feet to issue the order to remove names . . . . and the PSP will drag feet about man hours and it will take 6 to 18 months to do all the name removals. . . . .

    Look, if we have to up date information within 48 hours under SORNA – they should have to remove names in a reasonable amount of time – – – – – but for them to up date removals in time span of 6- to 18 months. . . . . HOW DOES THAT SOUND TO LOGICALLY THINKING PEOPLE? Just saying . . . . . . . . .

    Chuck I know that all do not know their Mandamus rights (Pro Se) and may need a lawyer- – – But the Commonwealth Court of Appeal in Harrisburg is so helpful to Pro Se filers that it is not funny….. The court fee is $65.75 and if you = cannot pay that fee; you can file a informa Paluse Writ of indigence as a poor person to mandamus rights of relief.

    The PSP will not do the right thing in the end. . . They will have to be pushed there to move . . . . . . . The Writ of Mandamus is the push. . . . It can be file at any time.

    Regardless of a stay on the Federal question – – A Mandamus trumps the stay on the Federal question that Freed is filing under. . . . State rights are greater than Federal rights under MUNIZ – claim

    The state rights appeal under MUNIZ has gone the distance needed to claim Mandamus relief NOW.

    The PASC has spoken on MUNIZ. . . It Is The Law In The Commonwealth as of 17 OCTOBER 2017. . . . .

    It is the Federal question that Freed seems to think needs a clarification by Review Petition of Certiarori on U.S. Constitutional Federal issue of Ex Post Facto application of SORNA. . . . . . . .

    The State rights are complete and the Commonwealth Appeal Courts are accepting Mandamus Relief Complains right NOW . . . . . . In my Mandamus progress of 463 MD 2017 The PSP has 30 days to respond to my complaint.

    The PSP has 30 days to tell the Court why Terry Brunson has to wait for a SCOTUS decision on MUNIZ when under State Constitutional rights under MUNIZ are in effect NOW on the PA Constitution claim.

    There was no 50/50 split on the PSSC on MUNIZ decision of State rights greater tan Feral rights. . . . .
    The vote on MUNIZ was a 5 Yes votes to 1 No vote and a 1 vote to not vote on Muniz.. . . . and Commonwealth v. Reed was an all in vote 7 to 0 on getting pre- SORNA people off the registry all together [.] It was all done on July 19, 2017

    • #27054 Reply

      Chuck

      You are not required to register if you are in Prison. I believe he is still in prison

    • #27055 Reply

      Chuck

      The AG is a Democrat so I doubt he is as invested I. Keeping the registry as his “I need the tough on crime” vote republicans friends.
      My point being making waves just pisses people off. Make waves only when you have to.

  • #27029 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Yea I would say if I were allowed to carry a gun and own one I would but I as well lost my gun privileges,
    I think for the time being I’m not meeting up with anyone I have been untrusting for a very long time sense I have been on the reg. I will look into the SCOTUS electronic filling then and see what I see, thanks for you assistance.

  • #27030 Reply

    chuck

    I was thinking about something I was told when I first contacted PSP about Muniz. They told me within minutes of the ruling being released, they had dozens of RSO’S calling. This shows the power of Internet communication in the 21st century. My point is this: They want to say “over 10,000” RSO’S will be taken off of the registry due to Muniz and Neiman. I bet if they pass their “fix to Muniz” we could have the entire RSO community mobilized to mount a legal action within hours. Not to mention all the people interested in how our governments do work and believe such a bill would be an overreach of the authority of the General Assembly. I have spoken to at least 30 Non-RSO’s in the last few days who believe they are tripping if they think they can just say “we don’t like this so we are going to legislate around it.” In other words, “Bring it Pa: We will show the awesome power of the 1st amendment.
    Oh, and if you get the bright idea of banning RSO’S from social media to stop us from organizing, ask your brothers in North Carolina how that worked out for them!!! So I say bring your bill to restrict where I can live to the floor, bring your bill to “fix Muniz” to the floor. All you doing is making the registry more restrictive, which will bolster my argument that the registry is a violation of the 8th amendment which prevents cruel and unusual punishment.
    As in the infamous words of Edward Bulwer-Lytton, “The pen is mightier than the sword!!!’

    • #27101 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Chuck?????

      What new legislation fix can attach to correct the Retroactivness of SORNA to pre- SORNA people?

      The PASC has given 90 days to fix the problem. . . The Government did nothing but trust in the appeal of Freed with crossed fingers hoping that the SCOTUS will accept to hear his argument to keep everything right where it is at. . . . .

      I am supersized at the legal begal minds in the government. . . . When SORNA was accepted – all other Megan’s Law were expired. . . . . . That was their mistake. . . . They did not want old Law New Law They got one Law will fit all. . . . . SORNA. . . . . . . Now they cannot back tract the expired Law without giving it a new date which will be applied retroactively which is what Muniz is all about. . . . . .

      The saving Cluse of a statue will not save they because the law makers did not repeal the old Megan’s laws – – They expired them, and made them go away. . . It will take new Law to bring it back with a new date which can only be applied retroactively – MUNIZ corrects that. . . . . . . .

      • #27137 Reply

        Chuck

        The ONLY reason Muniz won was because they declared the registry punitive. If they made it non punitive, they they could keep everyone on. I don’t know how they would do this, but in theory, if they did, then Muniz would be voided.

        However, what I think they will try to do is they will put in writing “ registry is NOT puntitive” and call that making the registry non punitive. This won’t fly., however we will see you in court. Until then, we still have a registry. This is my OPINION. If they even take up the bill, which they might not.

  • #27141 Reply

    Brian

    I suppose we will see what’s what when the Sht hits the fan, not like the movie airplane if you know what I mean, Hopefully the 16th if that date is correct when team Muniz responds, hope we get an early Christmas present that’s ends pre SORNA registration. I wish that post registrants could get relief I really whisk they would do away with all this shaming and embarrassment as well as ruining our lives all together.

    • #27185 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      Our Post SORNA brothers are not left out- One of them has to step up and appeal their registration as an attack on their reputation under the PA Constitution Article 1 Sections 1 and 11 under reputation and shaming clause. . . . .

      It only takes courage to step up and file . . . . . The status quo in no mo’

      It is time to put the registry on the canvas for the knock out. It is only on the ropes now. . . with weak legs. Our post SORNA brother have to read Commonwealth v. Reed

      It was handed down right before MUNIZ on July 19, 2017 at the PASC

      Go to PASC docket search and type Commonwealth v. Reed and read all about it. . . . .

    • #27187 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brain

      SORNA is not dead in PA only the Retro-activeness of its application to pre- SORNA people.

      The PSP registry is about to disappear soon for all RSO’s in PA.
      But for post SORNA people they will still have to go update under SORNA

      Just that there will be no website with their picture and information on it

      SORNA is punitive and if a post SORNA RSO will step up and file to the PA SC they will test the kindness of the high court to give clarifications on SORNA as being what it is – AWA from Washington ass holes handed down to states and states putting a approval on it – thinking it is constitutionally Okay – BUT IT IS NOT

    • #27208 Reply

      chuck

      @ Brian,
      you are forgetting that the Commonwealth gets a chance to respond to the Muniz Brief. Then, SCOTUS needs to schedule the case for conference. There are only 2 conference dates in December leaving not enough time for the Commonwealth to respond and have time to schedule for a December conference. Besides, I believe the Commonwealth will ask for an extension. If for no other reason but to delay. Assuming Muniz and the Commonwealth both do not ask for an extension the best we can ask for is a January Conference. Then if SCOTUS asks the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in, it will be rescheduled for another conference. The Solicitor tends to take several weeks to respond to SCOTUS’ request for comment. That is why the Snyder case took so long. They asked the Solicitor for his opinion in March and didn’t get it until July.
      We will see. I think by the time we are celebrating Super Bowl win and buying candy for our loved one, we should at least know a conference date or whether the U.S. Solicitor General was asked to weigh in.

  • #27182 Reply

    Cary

    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2017)

    We shall see whats going on further here shortly on this.

  • #27181 Reply

    Anonymous

    @Chuck
    Hi Chuck!

    @terry brunson
    Good to hear/read from you again!

    @Moderators & Web Masters
    Thank you for the work you do to keep the site (…and people when needed) in some sort of order!

    @Brian
    No Brian, things are not well in our Country or for me currently (though they are worst somewhere else in the World is often the counter response often made). I am behind on my Child Support, DRS is trying to hold me in contempt of court order and issue a bench warrant for my arrest. I can not find steady employment and when I have, it has always been a problem once someone finds my RSO status. Domestic Relation and/or Courts do not care of those facts. They have other facts & purposes and to them I am a criminal because I can not produce $3000 out of thin air to pay all I owe as if I do not want to take care of my children financially.

    If I could like I was able to when I did have a good paying job it would have been done without the need of government telling me or threatening me with jail. I am so stressed! I can not sleep or eat well and I know the PSP would love for me to have any legal trouble to then point, judge & say “there,there, see! You are a monster getting into trouble” and then “you are not compliant with something”. I have no money for legal support (who the heck in our situation does typically???) and the Pro Bono’s in my area of residence or the County where the order is in force do not work on Family Law involving support cases. So I am pretty much screwed!!! I applied for SSI/SSD benefits yesterday since I do have medical conditions/disabilities caused during my military service and also after discharge that I have never pursued to request any benefits for before (I have always worked), but the lady Compliance Officer at DRS does not seem to care at all. …I get it, she is just doing her job. (…all too well!)

    Anyhow, my problem and not anybody else’s so, oh well! Everyone has problems to worry about somehow or in someway. I have spent a great deal of my past few days on constant phone calls trying to look for a solution to my problem. Have not gotten any solution unfortunately.

    Good night to everyone and I do wish all a better day! 🙂

    • #27212 Reply

      chuck

      @ Anom
      Why don’t you tell your employers from the get-go? A lot of employers will appreciate the honesty. Plus being honest and upfront gives the impression you are not afraid of what the public thinks about your charges. Unless you are working around children it should not matter you are on Megan’s Law.

  • #27264 Reply

    Anonymous

    @chuck
    …by your last post directed to me it seems you assume that I do not share my RSO status with employers. It also seems you assume that employers, regardless of how appreciative or understanding they may be or appear to be, they will support an RSO (if it has worked for you differently, great! I believe you are in the minority of such). Ultimately an employer will protect their interest (or that of their business) when push comes to shove. If people (customers, neighbors, etc.) press the issue (a little or a lot, does not matter) often the outcome is going to be my jobless situation and/or what I am struggling with. I was sharing my situation in the spirit of finding/hearing insight to possible solutions. I was not looking for criticism or assumptions to my character of any kind.

    Again, you have written about your negative past experiences, but you seem to miss the point of my concern/pain. …and NO I do not take jobs (knowingly) that involve working with or around children of any age under 18 for obvious reasons. I am an RSO and considered a monster by the public so, I have not on purpose done anything to set me up/expose me to fail…for almost 15 years (sometimes, I do not even know how I have made it this far)! Society and its laws have done plenty already for me & others on that regard of setting people up for failure.

    Seems you might have to go on without me (not like it matters!) if you do form some group to challenge PA SORNA or for a class action lawsuit for awards, but that is how quickly life’s events changes on people. I will have pressing matters to attend to in the near future so, I wish everyone well and thank you to NARSOL and all involved in a better & productive future for RSO’s.
    I am signing off officially!
    -Anonymous-

    • #27298 Reply

      chuck

      @Anom
      I am sorry if you feel as though I was attacking you. That was not my intent. I was just trying to point out that if the employer knew beforehand, and you don’t work directly with children, I can’t see why any employer would care if the customers know your status. I have had potential employers smile when I told them thinking I was joking. Then, they ask about criminal history and I say, “I just told you”. And they are SHOCKED. They are amazed I am willing to apply for a job with my background. I always tell them, “I have to work somewhere might as well go where I have experience.
      It also helps if you have friends or family that can vouch for you despite your status. Hey, he is willing to come to work on time, work hard, and stay late if need be. What else do they need to know?
      Sure, the public freaks out when they find out the person they are doing business with is a sex offender or hires sex offenders.However, the stigma wears off if the job does not involve children. Keep your chin up, it will work out. I had someone interview for a job, I told them from the get-go, and at the end of the interview they said: “too bad I can’t hire you”. I was like, “What are you talking about?” “Oh, we don’t hire sex offenders”. Then why didn’t you say that from the get-go?
      The thing they worry about is they could be sued for negligent hiring if you committed a crime on the clock. I knew a guy who was arrested at work for child porn and still got another office job after he got out. It’s all about where you apply and how you come off as.
      Good Luck Brother!!!!! I know you will find the perfect job!!!

  • #27265 Reply

    Mark

    I just looked at the docket for a response to the writ. There was none as of writing this. I asked this question once and did not get an answer. What happens if the Muniz team does not respond?

    • #27297 Reply

      chuck

      @Mark
      My understanding is that if Muniz’s legal decides not to respond, that is ok with the Court. They make their decisions based on what is in the record. I highly doubt they won’t respond, however, if they don’t, the commonwealth would have nothing to respond to. I believe whereas technically they do not have to respond to the commonwealth, it is highly doubtful they would refuse to file a brief.

  • #27287 Reply

    Brian

    @Mark I believe the date is tomorrow the 16th Muniz responds to Pa.

    @ Anonymous
    Very sorry to see you’re not doing so well. I have been in your shoes my friend, maybe if at all possible try to move an hour up town or down town.

    @ Chuck 1 or 2 not sure if there are two of you but thank you for clarifying Muniz has to respond to pa then pa has to respond to SCOTUS, shows how much I really don’t understand about how this stuff work. So this could take another 6 months or so then till there is a ruling.

    • #27301 Reply

      chuck

      @ Brian
      So far every post that has been written by “chuck” has been by me and only me. There if do get another chuck, we will figure something out…lol

  • #27289 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry Brunson
    @Chuck
    Yes that is one thing I am aware of that SORNA still lives on, my question is and I hope this doesn’t happen what if SCOTUS accepts f, is it possible Muniz can fail to win and we all remain unchanged still stuck on the registry or sense PA ruled in favor of Muniz what was it 6 to 1 would PA still not require pre SORNA SO’s to register anymore?

    • #27299 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      The SCOTUS has a track run to look back on dealing with SORNA retroactive application –
      a Certorai Petition is a 1% long shot to even get herd. . . . . Freed is only doing a cert has a delay tactic hoping some will think they don’t have to comply and charge them with a new crime …… It is important to stay in compliance until the end. . . . . . until a Court mandate returns.

      Freed will find that five states have gone at this ahead of him. . . . . . and the result was not favorable. . . All were denied a hearing. . . . . . . Freed has nothing new to tell the SCOTUS on SORNA that the other states tried to tell the SCOTUS. . . . . The SCOTUS is not trying to get into this fight because they know what the stakes are if they rule . . . . SORNA to the SCOTUS is a state issue that states want the SCOTUS to weigh in on – BUT THEY WON”T.

      It seems as if you are doubtful or fearful in this fight. I say to you. Look at the victories of the pass to see the victory of the future. Knowledge dispels fear and doubt.

      Freed has filed – and the SCOTUS will give him all the delay time due to the docket run for conference schedules and request for extensions – but when time come to accept a hearing date for oral arguments. . . the SCOTUS will show Freed the death sign as it did with Alaska – Maryland – Ohio – Indiana – Michigan – Synder v Doe and North Carolina in a face-book case of Packingham v. North Carolina; . . . . . . .

      Brian the deck is stacked against the government. . . . and is support of your rights and you are getting cold feet asking what if the SCOTUS will accept Freed’s Cert????? It will not happen.. You can sleep quiet on that…… The SCOTUS is very easy to show where they stand on this. . . .

      Look back at Alaska – Maryland – Ohio – Indiana – Michigan – Synder v Doe and North Carolina in its face-book case of Packingham v. North Carolina; . . . . . . . NEXT UP Pennsylvanian OR SHOULD i SAY . next TO BE PUT DOWN……… Brian be of good cheer…. others have overcome for you… YOU NEED TO RELAX AND ENJOY THE RIDE. . . . . on the bus of V I C T O R Y / / / / / / / / from your friend Terry Brunson

    • #27300 Reply

      chuck

      @ Brian
      SCOTUS is not like every other Appeals court. They only get involved if they need to. If they feel as though the lower court’s decision does not conflict with their past decisions and there is not a circuit split ( each circuit ruling the opposite way) they do not get involved. That is why it is so hard to get a hearing in front of SCOTUS. Their job is too mainly make sure the constitution is being followed (as they interpret it) and that the many circuit courts do not contradict each other. Actually, the only high percentage way to get a hearing is to show that at least 2 circuit courts have contradicted each other. They love resolving circuit splits. Anything is “possible” but no way would I put money on ANY petitioner getting a hearing. That goes even if it was reversed and we were asking for review. Odds are, the side asking for review is the side that has the odds against them. Not always, but usually.
      It’s like the rule in 21, you ALWAYS double down on 11 because you cannot bust. No way does that mean you will win, it just means its the one hand that assuming only one hit, ALL high cards help you. you have to draw a 5 or lower to get a “bad hand”.

  • #27309 Reply

    Brian

    @ Chuck that makes makes sense and sound logical, thank you for the brake down of everything, that brings my confidence up a lot.
    @ Terry Brunson
    Thank you for your explanation as well, yes there is always doubt in the back of my mind as I always see things both ways but what you and check say makes a lot of sense and makes things more understandable, fearful no not at all, I am just sick of being on the registery, yes it’s been many years but with all this coming down just makes me anxious to get to the finish line sooner then later. All this media coverage with these sexual harassment claims and whatnot do stress me a little bit even though it has nothing to do with me it just makes me feel like everyone is looking at me when in fact I know their not, it just something I can’t overcome, it’s been like that for a long time but hey that’s just me though.

  • #27320 Reply

    Chuck

    @ Brian

    All my friends and people I deal with on a consistent basis knows my status so I don’t think about it. Then, I meet someone new and they are SHOCKED I am on the registry bd side I am very outgoing once I get to know someone.
    It ducks like hell we have the registry but I am not gojng to let that stop living my life. Yes, my life would be different if I wasn’t on the registry but I can still have friends, romantic partners, and a all around fulfilling life. To those who hate just becuase I am on the registry, you guys need to grow up and learn some maturity.Every now and then I have someone who tried to embarrass me by “announcing” my status. Dude, move on if all you can do is hate. I have people who constantly check my registration to make sure it is up to date. The biggest predictor of life is not what happens “to you” but what you do about it.
    I have a friend who is on the registry and his whole attitude is “my life is over”. He won’t leave his house unless he absolutely had to.
    I tell them say hello to people. Smile. If they have an issue with you being alive, move on to the next person. Depression is a terrible thing. I went through it when I was first arrested and when I got a divorce. No matter what happens, no matter who enters or leaves your love. until it’s iver, life goes on. I can’t wait to get my CPA License and prove all the haters wrong. That is what keeps me going. Also it is important to lean on someone who at least will be stmpstheic to your issue. I tell my best friend every day, it’s sucks having a felony. It sucks being on the registry. He says I know keep the end goal in mind.
    You know what hurts the most when you are talking to a female and you are both enjoying each other’s company, and then you tell her and she has the look of fear in her eyes. My wife didn’t do that. Neither did my ex in laws. The first thing my mother in law said was “So what?” So you won’t be the babysitter anytime soon. No big deal.
    My point being is you are lucky your wife supports you. Lean on her when it gets hard to keep on moving!!!Also reach out on forums like these where other sex offenders can talk with you. I check this forum regularly, if you ever need to talk just leave me a message. Sometimes just talking to someone gojng through the same issues helps.

  • #27328 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Some days I am outgoing others not so much I really try not to dwell on things really, just when they start announcing all this stuff it just bugs me. I would say for the past several years before SORNA or so It’s been like not even being on the registery, then once I was close to getting off they passed the AWA in PA that’s when it really started messing with me, then the Sandusky case really bothered me, everyone is different in the way they feel I guess, tomorrow I won’t even think about it and for the next two or three months I won’t even think about it, it’s just when all this publicity starts up that’s when it starts bugging me so no I don’t stress day in day out about it if that makes any sense to you. I have a wife, job, friends, a very large family that accepts me and is very supportive, We do go out and celebrate all the holidays including Halloween, we eat out, go bowing all the normal things in life so I don’t hide if that’s what your thinking. there are some aholes in my neighborhood that try and put fear into me, I go out and do my yard work and they stare so I stare back. but I tell you what I’m not violent but I will defend myself if I need to and do anything to protect my wife and my family if it came down to it.

  • #27343 Reply

    chuck
  • #27332 Reply

    Cary

    Look I been on the registery since 1999. I was supposed to be off it 10 years later. By now I have grown so use to it and nothing has changed in my life. I had worked around kids in McDonald’s etc… I had lived near parks, schools, daycares etc… law does not apply to such where i live or go in my situation and did not break 1 law by it. Everyone i know knows that im on the registery and even all my neighbors. I have a healthy normal life without harrasments etc…. pretty much im well liked in my community. Infact i do babysitting here and there in my home. They know im a SO and not some monster. I have even gone to a school play here and there. None said anything to me and they all know me well. My community is not a witch hunt area. So im just letting all this SCOTUS, Muniz, etc…. ride out. I read all post here and skip some complaints on personal life on how bad they cant live life. Blah blah blah. I only read whats going on with this Muniz and SCOTUS etc… stuff. Not here to read how anyone life sucks due to being on the registery. We all dont want to here “my life sucks I cant be happy and wife and kids, no job, no nothing and please help me oh god I am screwed” that to me is pathitic and get off the couch and get a job somewhere anywhere walk it if you have too. Blah blah blah. I do love to read info on SCOTUS, Muniz etc… stuff. Yes, by July of 2018 would be a great day to see whats really going on. Days are shorter now since we are now in the fall. Winter will only be over. Then by spring we should all know more on the direct answer about what is going on in this whole Muniz etc… relax and enjoy yourselfs and get some coffee and smoke that cigarettes. Take care of your family and life. Getting off the registry will come soon enough.

    • #27347 Reply

      chuck

      @ Cary
      I agree 100%. Because I am a student and disabled, my daily life is basically NOT affected by being on the registry. Its all about what you make of it. I enjoy reading abou the SCOTUS, not just about Muniz, but other cases as well. Its like I tell my friends, yes I am a sex offender, but I am also a student, boyfriend, ex husband, friend etc etc etc.
      Their argument is weak and they know it. Like you said, enjoy the seasons and the registry will end soon enough. In 2 weeks is my birthday and I am going to enjoy it!!!!!

      • #27410 Reply

        Cary

        Happy birthday Chuck!!!!! I just had mine yesterday!!!!! Thank you for the reply back!!!!

  • #27349 Reply

    chuck

    Muniz’s legal team just asked for an extension. It was Granted. The new deadline for Muniz’s reply brief is December 18, 2017.

  • #27352 Reply

    Mark

    Mr. Freed was just confirmed as U.S. Attorney. Now we can’t bash him. Who’s next??

    • #27360 Reply

      Chuck

      So this is my prediction. Muniz will submit their reply brief by Dec 18 th and the Commonwealth will be given a deadline of Jan -5th but they will file and extension and be given untill Feb 8th. Sometime in late Feb early March we will have a conference. At which time cert. will be DENIED. It will take a month to push the paperwork from SCOTUS to Pa Supreme Court to the Attorney General to PSP. In April they will start taking people off the registry and will complete this in October
      We only have another 91/2 to 10 months left guys. Again, this is just my OPINION.
      When you consider you only interact with the registry from 1-4 times a year depending if you register once a year or every 3 months, another 10 months isn’t that much time left.
      I suspect most of you will disappear untill it’s time for the reply brief. To those, have a good month see you then. To others, like me, who will stay, see you guys later on tonight!’

  • #27361 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Thanks for being there to be able to talk to, yes I do lean on my wife and she also leans on me when we need each other, we are very supportive of one another as well.
    Yes this will will be over eventually right, can’t wait for that day anyway. We shall know something in a few months then.
    I don’t live in a which hunting area either Thank God I just have a couple ignorant neighbors who think they God or something, I used to be friends with them till they found out about me being on the registry, but hey the way I look at it is their the ones missing out because I know I am not a bad person and all the people I know know that as well, even the police know me and are very respectful. Chuck you are right why worry about this media crap it’s not like the whole neighborhood is going to find out about me because I’m sure everyone in a 50 square mile radius know about me and everyone else who’s on the registry. My employer did a background check after I was hired, of course they called me into the office and questioned me about it and I was honest with them and to this day I still have my job. Today was a good day all in all…
    @ Cary
    You have some good points also, I don’t live near a day care but have worked near them, I probably do now I just don’t know it, I don’t go out looking for them anyway, I have worked for McDonald’s as well, it was a fun place to work but didn’t pay well enough to make a living, I don’t do baby sitting though, my step daughter has a 2 year old and it’s hard dealing with terrible 2 so even if someone asked I would say no lol.

  • #27362 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    What exactly does the PSP plan to do with an Amicus brief? What exactly did they file the brief for?

    • #27401 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Brian
      Amicus means “friend of the Court”. Basically, an Amicus brief is filed by someone who is not a party to the case, but they feel as though they can shed light on how the SCOTUS should rule. Basically, the PSP is saying you cannot allow the Pa Supreme. Ourt’s Ruling to stand becuase 1. It is in conflict with SCOTUS past rulings. and 2. Even if the Pa Supreme Court is correct, it would have such a major negative impact on the PSP’s ability to protect the public, the SCOTUS cannot allow it. Basically it is black letter Law (means no debate about it) that the state can violate your rights if the state has a compelling interest to do so. However, they have to be able to do it in the less restrictive way possible. So the PSP is saying ,” Ok, we believe the registry is legal. However if you disagree with us, you can’t take people off of it becuase it would impact public safety. It is the same argument North Carolina made in Packingjsm vs North Carolina. Becuase sex offender’s are so dangerous you have to allow us to violate their rights. Look how well that worked out for North Carolina.
      As far as Smith vs Doe (2003). Justice Kennedy already said in Psckingjsm that the Internet has changed since then.
      The only thing I THINK Pa could do is not allow the public to access it, however they don’t want to do that.
      My friends in law enforcement told me that if Muniz stands they are going to start civil commitments in PA Basically they are going to argue we cannot allow sexual offenders to be in society if we are not allowed to track them. Good luck with that!!

  • #27406 Reply

    Mark

    I read the PSP brief and had to laugh. They sound like a kid who is going to lose something and is whining about it.
    I paraphrase “If you don’t overturn Muniz, we have to let over 17000 people off our illegal listing scheme. Also SO will flock to Pa to get off the registry.” Maybe they should have thought of that before passing something illegal in the first place. This coupled with Neiman and the latest finding of unconstitutionally of the SVP process and the Pa Megan’s law is in the deep sh*ts. I have to ask, as I know people who are SVP’s. How does that ruling affect people who were already listed as such? Can they fight their SVP status based on that ruling? One of them is from my county and we did most of my time together in the same location. He was an inmate program facilitator in the SO block of that facility, and I had the unenviable task of doing the inmate personal laundry. It was a cushy job. I also know of someone who didn’t even have his SVP hearing until he was at his “home jail”. Just a couple of examples I can think of.

    • #27422 Reply

      chuck

      @ Mark
      I felt the same way when I read the brief. ‘Mommy, daddy said we have to do this, but we don’t WANNA!!!!’ Also, I noticed that the Brief was very brief…lol. A few pages aren’t going to cut it.

    • #27424 Reply

      chuck

      @ Mark I am not an SVP so I don’t know. When I moved from Pa to NY, NY wanted to classify me as an SVP solely because I moved to NY. They didn’t win. When I moved back to Pa, Pa wanted to change my tier. However, once they realized I was going to fight, they backed down.

    • #27436 Reply

      terry brunson

      I read the PSP Amicus brief and if you look at the bottom ——– it is the same argument OHIO made? It is a OHIO based promise that had no emotional appeal. If a ten year RSO’s had to be let off the registry at the end of Ten years He would be off. . . . . PSP says they are going to lose 80% of the people on the list. . . . The is the freedom of justice.

      The P.S.P. is trying to use its law enforcement influence with a faulty recitative claim that means nothing. It made no sense to me. . . . . The brief had no law base only a argument on we don’t want to lose people off the registry. . . And how other people from other states will flood Pennsylvania. . . . . No one flood OHIO or Alaska or Maryland – or Indiana – or Michigan and no one will flood their way through PA either. . . . . . .

      The PSP is engaging in fearmongering and hyperbole to get the high Court to move on feeling that the state of Pennsylvania will be letting 17,000 off the list – I thought it was 10,000 Wow they have done the math – They know who is going to be let off in number. . . . . .

      They will see that the SCOTUS is not moved by such words of hyperbole. . . . . . . . The Law is the Constitution of rights not a right to inform the public. . . . . The PA legislatures have only to blame themselves for adding more and more hoops for RSO’s to jump through which made it PUNITIVE PUNISHMENT. Now they want to say something else. . . . . . . SORNA is not good Law. There are many states that have never came into compliance with SORNA 1. Texas, 2. North Carolina, 3. Nebraska, 4. California, 5. Oregon, 6. Arizona and I will not name them all but they know the troubles with SORNA.

      The PSP is giving a warm over of OHIO’s steps to denial. . . . . . . . . An Ohio notary was put on a Pennsylvania court document to the high Court – Thinking the Court won’t see that . I saw it. . . . . . . .

      • #27455 Reply

        Chuck

        When I first heard sbodit Muniz The Megan’s Law Secrion of PSP told me it would affect 5,000 sex offender. Then it was 10,000. Now, it’s 17,000. Before we are done it will be 100,000,000.
        Once Law enforcement is given a certain power, they do not like to give it up. Each justice knows how the game is played. Getting 4 judtice’s to agree to hear the case is going to be tough. As far as their Smith vs Doe argument, that one was killed when SCOTUS denied Snyder. That case was exactly on point wilts all 9 judtices sitting and they still refused to hear the case.
        they said that The Pa Supreme Court did not articulate an adequate state law. Umm, the Pa Constitution is not adequate???
        As far as scaring the Court with fear of sex offenders, that is exactly what North Carolina tried to do in Packkngjam vs North Carolina.

  • #27412 Reply

    Brian

    Ok so I read the brief, does the psp think they can overturn the PASC decision with this mess of inaccuracies, I mean their saying that SORNA/AWA in pa will be cancelled if I am reading it correctly and 17,000 offenders will come off the registry, and 200,000 nation wide, I didn’t know PA had 17,000 offenders, do they not think that offenders from PA can go to Michigan or other states that have concord their registry, did the SCOTUS not already hear this from Snyder vs Doe and all the others who have won?

    • #27433 Reply

      chuck

      It’s the old college try. If it works, Great!!! If not, hopefully, we got a few to think they didn’t have to register and now we can charge them with a new crime. Either way, they are not worse for the try. They did NOT want to comply with the Pa Supreme Court ruling, so at least this bought them what will be probably close to a year of delay by the time everything is said and done. That is “x” more offenders that reoffended. That is “x” offenders that were stupid and thought they could stop registering. Even if “x” is 1, that is 1 less person they have to remove.

  • #27501 Reply

    Chuck

    Wow no one posted today. Don’t give up on me yet guys!!! This fight is just beginning!!!

  • #27519 Reply

    Chuck

    Guess everyone left me here to be all by myself!!! Oh well, such is life…. LOL

  • #27523 Reply

    Mark

    No news. I check in daily just don’t post. You are not alone

    • #27525 Reply

      terry brunson

      Foot ball is good to pass the time
      Superbowl will be an all Pennsylvania one. Phiily and Pittsburgh PA – Steelers will be knocked off by Philly 45 to 35 10 points. . . . . Go Eagles fly to victory. . . . . . . My team is Denver sorry . . . . . . .

  • #27529 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Busy weekend, went to get spine things from the store and they left a bag out so have to go back to the store lol Have some home repairs I have been doing for the past few months, kind of paused once I say the pa Supreme Courts decision on Muniz but back to work now.

  • #27539 Reply

    terry brunson

    This is Terry Brunson

    I think DA Freed has a never say die in the face of defeat attitude on PA ML – 4 SORNA

    The PASC has dealt a death blow to SORNA and to get back at the PASC Freed has gone to the last resort to tell the SCOTUS to correct the PASC on MUNIZ decision.

    I am quite sure Freed wants to play a game of delay with the SCOTUS calendar to delay things as long as he can.

    That said, absent SCOTUS wanting to overturn longstanding procedure and precedent, the petition of Freed will be denied.

    As we all know, Muniz is a two-pronged suit, involving violation of the PA and US constitutions.

    Calder v. Bull settles the first one, preventing SCOTUS from having jurisdiction. But what about the US constitutional issue? Here too, SCOTUS has established a system, and it doesn’t bode well for PA.
    I’ve mentioned it before in other of my post, and had to dig around to find it again, but I refer you to the Last Resort Rule you can go to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule).

    Of specific interest in regards to Muniz are Brandeis’ Second Application of the Last Resort Rule at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule#Brandeis.27_Second_Application_of_the_.22Last_Resort_Rule.22) and the Adequate and Independent State Ground Doctrine at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule#The_Adequate_and_Independent_State_Ground_Doctrine).

    It’s a bit much to go into here, but essentially these two items result in SCOTUS denying a case that will only yield “advisory opinions and unnecessary constitutional rulings,” and which doesn’t, “accord[] sufficient respect to the authority of state courts.”

    Or, as said in Ashwander v TN: “Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 211 U. S. 53.” See (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/288/case.html)
    =====
    IMO, PA is either woefully uneducated on SCOTUS precedent and procedure, or is using the SCOTUS calendar as a delay tactic….or both. Or put simply, they are ignorant, malicious, or both.

    Hopefully SCOTUS’s clerks see the absolute futility of Freed’s petition and give it an early thumbs-down.

    I think all who see this post should use the delay time to look over the information I am giving here. . . . . . . . . . .

    I am in wait of the PSP reply to my Pro Se Mandamus – I expect an object to my Mandamus due to a Stay. . . But they have not read Commonwealth Court internal rule Rule 2591(a) and 1701 (a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

    You can file a Mandamus during a stay- you just have to take leave and ask permission to do so. . . .

    • #27549 Reply

      Chuck

      Terry,
      I still believe SCOTUS’S Denial in Snyder is very telling. Right there was their shot to uphold Smith vs Doe and they chose NOT to. That is a BIG DEAL. However, I think if the roles were reverse and we were counting on a SCOtUS ruling, we would be in trouble. They don’t like to get involved unless they have to.
      You guys should listen to the Packingham
      Oral argument. North CRolina tried to say “but their sex offenders” and SCOTUS didn’t buy it. 8-0 decision is HUGE. Gourch wasn’t seated yet when they decided it.

  • #27545 Reply

    Brian

    Maybe the PASC doesn’t want to fight it any fearther due to the other states that fought and lost?

  • #27546 Reply

    Chuck

    There are my BROTHERS!!!!
    Mark is right. No news until Muniz’s legal team files. Giving the holiday season is upon us, I don’t expect them to do that until the very last second.
    See you guys later!!!

  • #27561 Reply

    Snoopy

    Maybe this is a stupid question, but as soon as you log onto the NARSOL webpage today (11/19/17) it has breaking news, NARSOL files amicus brief in an Illinois case. Does anyone know if NARSOL is planning on filing one in the Muniz case? Do they have to wait until after Muniz’s lawyers file their brief? This is my first post, even though I have been reading everything for months, and I have high hopes about getting relief. I was convicted in 2010 and put on 10 years with 1 x a year in person reporting. In 2012 I was changed to 25 years and put on 2x a year in person reporting. From what it sounds like I should easily be able to get back to 10 years 1x a year reporting… but may even get off the registry completely because the previous registry laws expired. HOW any of that will happen early without the kindness (LMAO) of the PSP doing their job well I don’t know because I’m not a legal guy and our family is just making it with absolutely no extra money for a lawyer… but we are happy and well and enjoying life but would just prefer to have the registry thing no longer dangling over our heads.

    • #27563 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      Snoopy,

      If certiorari were to be granted in the Muniz case, NARSOL would be highly interested in filing an amicus brief. However, the time for preparing and filing such a brief is not yet ripe and is entirely dependent upon the Supreme Court’s decision to grant or deny the petition. We are inclined to believe that certiorari will not be granted for the same reasons that the Court rejected the Snyder petition.

      • #27567 Reply

        Snoopy

        @ Robin
        Thank-you for your response, that makes complete sense. Based on everything I am reading the US Supreme Court will deny the certiorari (just a matter of time, probably 3 to 6 more months), which basically will mean that the Federal stay goes away. With no STATE stay in place and Muniz being law and no FEDERAL stay, that should leave the PSP with no reasons to drag their feet giving relief to those impacted… although I am sure they will. Have I been following things correctly? When the court denies certiorari will we have to actually get a lawyer to get relief then? I read the PSP amicus brief and it seemed to state they have the info to change things rather quickly giving relief if the stay is denied.

        • #27599 Reply

          Chuck

          Snoopy,
          I have personally spoken to the Megans Law Sectiob of the PSP in Harrisburg. They told me, assuming the decision stands, once SCOTUS is finished, they will send paperwork to the Pa Supreme Court. Who will then finalize then decision and send paperwork to the Attorney General. Who will then advise the PSP they have to remove those affected. PSP will then put together s group to do just that. They estimate once all the paperwork is done. It will take 5-6 months to remove everyone. It is vital everyone stays current until you get a letter in the mail. Doesn’t matter what anyone says anywhere. Until you get that letter, you are required to register.
          I knows it seems like a lot of time but it will fly my brother. It will go quick. We have football. Once football is over, the days will start getting longer again. Then Spring. Then the madhouse of getting everyone’s name removed.
          Once everything is official, PSP will have no problem removing people. It’s just a matter of getting to that point.
          I know in this 24/7 connected world it’s hard to understand what the hold up is. However, until SCOTUS finishes and denies Freed, Muniz has no weight. Dallas Lost last night so NOTHING could make me happier. Well, maybe being removed from the registry now….Lol

    • #27598 Reply

      Chuck

      Snoopy,
      Just a friendly clarification. The previous registry known as Megans Law III did not expire. It was found to be unconstitutional in Commonwealth vs. Newman. Basically in Pa, when they introduce s new bill in the General Assembly it can have only one subject. They tried to log roll it. Basically they had 3 separate issues they wanted pass but didn’t have the votes for it. So they combine the 3 subjects into one, and pass it. Pretty smart but also very illegal in Pa. Thst is why they are fighting so hard. They didn’t care about the Neiman decision when it came down in 2013 becuase they thought we can also hit them with AWA retroactively. Thanks to Muniz, they cannot do that anymore.
      I still remember the day I got the letter in the mail. I tossed it to the side becuase I was like this doesn’t apply to be I have already been sentenced. Luckly for me, my neighbor is a cop and told me it did apply to me. I was SO MAD when I found that out. I said but that’s illegal!!
      My friend said, until a judge says so, not it is not.

  • #27569 Reply

    Brian

    @Snoopy
    From what I understand we will mostl likely be waiting a while.
    From a good friend Chuck I made on here I hope it’s ok that I copy and paste this.

    So this is my prediction. Muniz will submit their reply brief by Dec 18 th and the Commonwealth will be given a deadline of Jan -5th but they will file and extension and be given untill Feb 8th. Sometime in late Feb early March we will have a conference. At which time cert. will be DENIED. It will take a month to push the paperwork from SCOTUS to Pa Supreme Court to the Attorney General to PSP. In April they will start taking people off the registry and will complete this in October
    We only have another 91/2 to 10 months left guys. Again, this is just my OPINION.

  • #27633 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Only a short time is all we have left compared to the many years we have spent on the reg. I tried posting a couple time today but it wouldn’t net me with this new captcha thing, every time I tried to post I got invalid now let’s see if it works. And it just did it again…

    • #27641 Reply

      Fred
      Keymaster

      The Captcha was installed because we had been getting a ridiculous amount of spam.
      What is the issue you were having with it? It’s important to me that we get that worked out so it doesn’t interfere with your ability to post.
      You will need to check the box and sometimes it will ask you to solve a puzzle, usually click every box with a picture of car or a street sign in it, so make sure you click every box that shows even a small piece of a car or street sign. Some of the puzzles will keep adding a new picture after you clicked one of the boxes, so keep clicking the car or sign pictures until there are no more left.

      Is anyone else having a problem with the captcha?

      • #27695 Reply

        Chuck

        @fred
        Once in a while, I get an error but I wouldn’t say it’s broken. Just one of those things. If you send two messages quickly it seems to freak up.

  • #27645 Reply

    Brian

    Not sure what the issue is I tried to post this morning and it said invalid captcha, then every time I went back to post my comment was stuck in the type area and the invalid captcha message remained, I closed my browser and waited till this evening to comment, I picked all of the items in the puzzle, after the second attempt my comment posted.

  • #27649 Reply

    Brian

    So sense freed is the US Attorney is he still allowed to pursue PA and Muniz or will the new DA be taking over? And does he have power to persuade the SCOTUS in anyway to change anything that’s in the works now?

    • #27693 Reply

      terry brunson

      @Brian

      This is terry to give you a bit of info on how the SCOTUS will deal with Muniz case. Chuck posted this before but I don’t know if you saw it – During a Certiorari Petition the record of the Lower court is review to see if there are any unlawful things that brought the court to its judgment.

      Freed seems to think that the PASC used the federal U.S. Constitution to come to their Judgement in Muniz’s case as the adequate and independent cause of the out come on the federal grounds.

      Freed is making the argument that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no state supreme court can make a judgement based on the U.S. Constitution without federal in put from the United States Supreme court ruling a state can claim federal rights without a review of the matters.

      But in the Muniz case the PASC used it’s own state constitution Article 1 Section 17 on the Ex Post Facto claim and came to a conclusion that SORNA of 20 December 2012 is punishment to those who were under old ML’s to have to be under the rules of a new ML without due process of law. The PSP and the Law makers of PA just assumed it would be Okay to have one ML to fit every body. . . . .(BUT THE PROBLEM IS) wHEN A NEW LAW IS MADE the date of the new law is Ex Post in fact to the old law. Meaning people under the old law have a date that they got their punishment and to apply a new law would erase the agreements made under the old law. If the old law said 10 yers is the deal agreed on and the new law increases that with no care to due process to law and rights. THAT IS EX POST FACTO .

      The PASC used it’s own State Constitution as the Adequate and Independent Ground to the conclusion of the Ex Post Facto application of SORNA in MUNIZ’s case. The PASC made its judgment on an independent state ground, and by way of an “advisory opinion” mentioned the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 Ex Post Facto is the same as the PA Constitution Article 1 Section 17.

      Freed jumped on this to twist that the PASC judgment to seem that the U.S. Constitution was the only Adequate and Independent Grounds the PACS had. Not true it had its own PA Constitution.

      Freed is woefully uneducated on “advisory opinion” of a court showing that the U. S. Constitution and the PA Constitution say the same thing. Freed don’t think that is so. He is malicious and ignorant on the fact that his Writ to the SCOTUS is heading towards the trust heep.

      Freed know the SCOTUS is going to deny him a hearing. . . . . . He said it to the PA Judiciary Commitity. Freed is using the SCOTUS calendar as a delay tactic to prolong the inevitable to SORNA in PA.

      Hopefully SCOTUS’s clerks will see the absolute futility of Freed’s petition and give it an early thumbs-down.

    • #27696 Reply

      Chuck

      @Brian
      One of his many minions will be taking over if need be. We will see what happens

  • #27701 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Indeed we shall see, Love the minions thing FYI.
    Chuck hope all is well.

  • #27704 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry Brunson
    Thank you for the wealth of information always appreciated for sure. Soon this will be over.

  • #27706 Reply

    Brian

    @fred Key master
    Thank you for help with he captcha. Not sure if you did anything but it seams to be working better now.

    • #27738 Reply

      Chuck

      Hey Guys,
      @ Brian, Everything is Good. My court case ( nothing to do with the registry) is progressing slowly and I am getting one day closer to graduation. Just doing what I need to do to take the CPA Exam. I agree 100% that the registry is a negative thing. I, just like each and every one of us, experience the negative effects every day. However, I feel as though some people may use the registry as an excuse. I am not saying anyone I know has done this. All I am trying to say is that the best and quickest way to see a change in our lives is to be that change.
      I have recently made some changes in my personal life that has made me feel so much better. I absolutely hate the registry but in a way, it has taught me a valuable lesson. Don’t give up. Change comes slowly to those who truly want it. You have to WANT IT.

  • #27741 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    You are 100% correct hit the nail on the head, people can change and yes we have to want it and take action in order for it to work. The registry does suck and I am learning to not dwell so much on it, like I said until I heard about Muniz I rarely thought about it unless some high profile case came about like Sandusky or similar cases. This sexual harassment nonsense is just a lot of bs, some political stunt I bileive, I mean people coming up with 40 year old accusations, if I were the Judge in that case I would say you should have come forward years ago but that’s just my opinion. I just change the channel it just disgusts me to listen to it.

  • #27742 Reply

    Brian

    Oh one more thing Chuck, good luck on your CPA exam.

    • #27903 Reply

      Chuck

      Thank you Brian!! I still have a few obstacles to remove first, but I am making progress!! You would think they would WANTt you to better yourself through education to obtain high paying employment. On no, we can’t help a “sex offender”. LOL
      One day, we will lol back as a society and day “how did we ever allow fear and panic to take over and treat other people this way. Slowly, but surely, that day is coming.

  • #27838 Reply

    Dave C

    Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone..

    SCOTUS willing ……it will be the last Thanksgiving on the web for some of us….and one day for everyone…

    Thanks to NARSOL and everyone who posts who keep me and thousands informed on what is happening on the unconstitutional PA registry battle….

  • #27968 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    I was thinking of going to school but just going to wait till God willing SCOTUS denies f.
    It’s just one more thing I would have to report for the world to see. I have plenty of money making skills in a lot of areas, I’m sure schooling would get me better wages but right now I will wait.
    A funny thing happened to me today, I was looking at this phone add I found under other papers, there were some coupons folded inside of the add that were dated 11/30/2012 I was like wow is this some kind of sign or what?

    • #27974 Reply

      Chuck

      School is vital to my “Operation rebuild life” effort. I go to school online, so they can have the address of my school all they want. I can’t wait till I graduate and petition the State Board to take the CPA Exam. In Pa, if you have a record, you have to ask special permission to take the Exam and when you gain the experienced needed after passing the exam, you have to apply again to receive you license. You have like 5 years after you pass the exam to gain the needed experience.
      Any, back to writing Term Papers. One thing O WONT miss about school…..LOL.

  • #27991 Reply

    Brian

    That’s a great way to go to school never thought of doing online classes, that’s kinda mess up that you have to petition be able to take the exam and stuff, either way it’s well worth it in the end.
    Hoping Muniz team responds early if their allowed to do so so we can get through this.

    • #28040 Reply

      Chuck

      I believe we will know whether or not they will hear the case within 102 days. It might be sooner, it might be later. There are a lot of moving parts here. I think we are more than halfway done with SCOTUS. I could be wrong. This is just my guess. Arguing that SCOTUS can’t uphold Muniz becuase it will do severe damage is not going to hold water. They need something better than “ we will become a haven for unregistered sex offenders from other states” I think it is telling the best they could do was go to the “public safety” card.
      I am just concerned that if the General Assembly gets the bright idea to pass their “Muniz Fix” we have to go back to court once again and around and around we go.

      • #28042 Reply

        Brian

        I think you are right Chuck seeing as this has been going on for years now.
        I think SCOTUS is tired of hearing the public safety card bs already that’s why their upholding states supreme courts decisions or the lower courts decision, only my opinion but that’s the way I see it unfolding. I don’t see how the General Assembly would be allowed to apply a fix after all that has been said and done, being it will be retroactive even though they say it’s not, that would be a whole lot of time and the states money wasted. I mean do you really think the SUPREME COURT AND SCOTUS would allow another unconditional battle begin? I don’t know, I don’t know half as much as you and everyone else knows about the laws but I have a pretty good intuition about things if you know what I mean. Also SCOTUS wasn’t to concerned about people flocking to other states that have upheld their wins. Do you know if other states like Michigans General Assembly’s attempted to create some kind of bs scheme like this one.

        • #28079 Reply

          Chuck

          I expect the General Assembly to talk a lot of **** between now and when, hopefully, SCOTUS denies Freed & Co. They know what Ex Post Facto means. They know that they ****** up when they tried to pass Megan’s Law III with the 2 other subjects. Oh no, you can’t mean we have to let sex offenders go? You can’t, you just can’t. This isn’t the fight they are worried about. They know what Muniz really does: If Megan’s Law is punishment, then it is cruel and unusual. And that, my friends, is the ball game. That is what all this “we have to fix Muniz” is about.” Once Muniz is the law of the land, the very next person who is found guilty at trial and is sentenced to register on the registry can claim the registry is a violation of the 8th amendment to the constitution. I say within 10 years the registry will be dead.

        • #28081 Reply

          Chuck

          @ Brian, Not that I know of. However, when we do go to Federal Court to sue Pa for the registry being cruel and unusual the U.S. Attorney for this area (the middle district) will probably join the suit with Pa. Guess who that will be: Oh, well hello Mr. David Freed. Round 2 isn’t going to go well for you either, my friend. Every day it makes me smile he personally lost. Every single day.

  • #28083 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    In deed my friend, once all is said and don’t it will probably take a few months to remove everyone pre 12/20/2012, can’t believe it’s been almost 6 years now. One this is over I wander if it would be worth suing for damages like my entire reputation has been ruined because everyone within a 100 square mile knows me and was looking for a change in jobs a few months ago and now they are hard to come by due to this law firm advertising on tv about people being sexually assaulted on the job and companies being held accountable so everyone has the bright idea to look on ml website before doing background checks now and guess who they find there, this guy.

    • #28264 Reply

      Chuck

      @Brian we could not sue becuase it was legal to do what the state did. If they continue the registry after Muniz is finalized and they have had reasonable amount of time to comply, then we could sue for damages.
      It wouldn’t be fair to the state to make them pay for damages when what they did was considered lawful.

  • #28272 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    That makes sense then, I don’t see the psp dragging their feet then seeing they will already be loosing SORNA funding. I guess if they did though there would be a lot of lawsuits one would think anyway.
    Chuck, I’m not sure if I offended you in any way last week but if I did I apologize.
    I offend people unknowingly sometimes. I had a busy weekend and had to get out of my head and off the internet if you know what I mean.

    • #28579 Reply

      Chuck

      BRIAN,
      You can never offend me. I have been busy the last couple of days with school and legal stuff. Getting ready to finish the First semester of my junior year, so that has been taking slot of my time. I am done with it on Sunday, and then I get a week off. My school does the trimester scheduling which means every 4 months I get one week off, we are in class year round. I like this option becuase you take less classes st one time, which mean you can focus on each class more. The down side is you don’t get a “summer off”. Just a week off every 4 months. Tuesday is my birthday, so I am doing jack**** next week.
      Here’s to a week of nothing but sleeping!!

  • #28604 Reply

    Mark

    Another thought. I know that there are several private sites that post RSO info. Assuming the SCOTUS rejects Cert and SORNA for us folks pre 2012 are removed. What recourse would or do we have to make sure that the private sites remove us also? Can we sue? If so, we can shut them down? After all our info is no longer “Public”.

    • #28626 Reply

      Charles Loftus

      @ Mark,
      Saying your info would no longer be public is simply not true. Your record will always be public knowledage.There just won’t be any registration for you.

  • #28606 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Gotcha, no I figured you were busy with school and life I had thought I said something wrong, life goes on right. Looking forward to doing my update in a couple weeks wohoo not,
    I just hate sitting there waiting for the trooper to take me down , do the picture and whatnot, sometimes you get a nasty one, they have mostly been respectful to me and professional though, some make sarcastic comments sometimes, I guess they could add that to the list of punishments. And happy bday.

  • #28602 Reply

    Mark

    A thought for all. Assuming that cert is rejected and the ruling stands, what recourse do we who are to be removed have to the private sites that also display the same info that the PSP site does? How do I and all others respond if those sites do not remove us from their site? Granted we do not know how those sites will respond until the ruling comes down.
    Legally will they be required to remove us? If they refuse, can we sue for damages as they are not protected by the government immunity like the PSP is? If so can we just sue them out of existence? The time after the ruling could be a fun time for us exRSO’s. Watching everyone squirm, from the legislature, PSP, and others for violating peoples rights in the name of public safety. Just a few thoughts from a fed up RSO.

  • #28614 Reply

    Brian

    @Mark
    One would think they will be required to fallow sute and remove the post SORNA rso’s from their sites as well, I would think you should be able to sue for defamation, that’s my thought I’m no lawyer that’s for sure.

    • #28624 Reply

      Charles Loftus

      First,
      If they are operating a website the attack on your reputation is written making it libel. Second, you would have to serve them with a cease and desist letter once Muni is final.They would be afforded a reasonable amount of time to take the information down.
      However, I do not believe we could sue for libel because the one defense to a libel claim is the truth. In other words, if the words they wrote about you is true, there is no damage. If they wrote you are still on the registry AFTER you are removed then that would be different.
      In my opinion, As long as what they are saying is true, and the information is public information, there is no libel.

  • #28625 Reply

    Charles Loftus

    If it is written, it is considered libel. However, the one defense to libel is the truth. In other words, if it is true, there is no damage.

  • #28633 Reply

    Brian

    One would think if you were no longer a registered citizen then that would be false information seeing as though we would no longer be registered. Our record is one thing but something with you’re photo, address, work information etc I think would you can consider that defamation of character and public shaming. But hey what do I know I am not a lawyer.
    If you could find Terry Brunson, Terry is very knowledgeable on this RSO stuff as I can only give small explanations.

    • #28642 Reply

      Chuck

      @Brian
      If they stated you were still registered then yes that would be false. However, if they simply stated what you were convicted of the. That would be accurate information.
      I personally have a realtor in my area that HIGHLIGHTS my registration in my neighborhood simply becuase I live with my nieces. She thought that there was no way that was legal. To see face when the cops came out and told her it was perfectly legal was priceless. He is devaluing the neighborhood l. LOL. Whatever I am way too busy rebuilding my life to worry what you think. You are either with me or against me.
      I do not let them tintimate me. I go where I want to go and hang out if those who I want to associate with.
      It is truly sad to see someone try to impede the progress I am trying to make simply because they feel as though you should never be forgiven.
      Let the first clean one cast the first stone.

  • #28653 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    I still don’t like it, such is life I guess, I worked with a girl that was going to school for security and did background checks on everyone she knew including me and then spread my name around to everyone in town, I found who the mature people are and the ones who refuse to accept me and harass and talk behind my back, that was years ago though.

  • #28655 Reply

    terry brunson

    PSP will try to drag their feet and use a case by case review lie to justify the delays to remove the names- they have to review 18,500 people case by case with only a staff of 8 people in the ML section office. Some may have to sue the PSP to be taken off.

    The PSP is pushing to revert some back to ML-2 but the problem with that is – It will take a legislative fix – that will have a 2017 or 2018 date of effectiveness on that law and if your offense date is prior to that date then they are right back a retroactive application of a law, and starting the Muniz argument all over again. EX POST FACTO

    The PSP will not send letter out- they will wait until SO’s write them and ask to be removed off the registry with a letter of cease and stop hurting my reputation under muniz.

    The PSP will come up with clever tricks to find reason to delay the process. You all will see it and will be frustrated that you still have to go in a see them. . . . . . .

    Mandamus is the route to take by a court order. . . . . . . injunction relief . . . .. . as I have been telling all. . . . . In a Commonwealth Court…….. Smile

    • #28667 Reply

      Chuck

      Terry,
      It’s great to hear from you. I would like to say to you, take a breath brother. If the Muniz decision is upheld, PSP will remove people from the registry as required. The only thing that would prevent them from doing this is if the legesiture attempts to pass a “Muniz Fix” . However, I believe they know they cannot do that. They are just posturing for the electorate.
      The PSP already said they will comply with the court decision if they are ordered to remove names from the registry. Do they want to? No, of course not. However being a law enforcement registry they will follow the law
      Yes, it may take some time for them to process everyone. I am expected it to take 5-6 months once everything is official.
      It will happen my brother. It’s just a matter of waiting. I know waiting sucks but it’s what we have to do. Besides, I am so busy with school and preparing for graduate school and then the CPA exam time is flying by. Think about it. It has been a month and a half already since the Commonelwealth filed their petition.
      I just find a hobby to take your mind off of things. Like swimming. I love to swim. Once I can afford it, I will have an indoor pool.
      Terry, I hope this finds you well and in good spirits. Have a good holiday season!!

      • #28721 Reply

        terry brunson

        @ Chuck
        Happy happy holidays – I did file the mandamus and the commonwealth Court is not playing games with the lawyer of the Megan’s Law Section. . . . . her name is Joanna Reynolds, – of the PA State Police Ofc Of Chief Counsel
        1800 Elmerton Ave Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 783-5568

        You can find my case at 463 MD 2017 filed 13 October 2017 – The Courts asked me to file a brief on a summary Judgement request and clarification on proceeding in spite of Muniz stay on federal question of Ex Post Facto application.

        The Judge is asking which revert Megan’s Law does applies to me now? It is not Megan’s Law 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 which is SORNA. The Judge seems to know something that I don’t know. I asked for punitive damages of $1,000 a day for every day after 17 October 2017. . . The time that was given the Commonwealth for time to fix the Megan’s law. They choose to do nothing but truth Freed in the SCOTUS cert challenge.

        My next Court time is 27 December 2017 answer objection to my summary Judgement request.

        I choose to fight under Reed, Wooldf, and Muniz – Muniz is the law of the commonwealth now – on state claim rights.
        I did not know that the Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 26 says that SO’s are a special class that cannot be prejudiced against by the PSP. And the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 and 11 will kill the PSP website – it is public shaming. I did not no about Pa. never repealed thier old Megan’s Law’s and voted in revert saving clause. SORNA expired all old Megan’s Laws, and the PSP cannot prosecute violations of old Megan’s laws. There are none to go back to that are enforceable. I will give updates as I go along. You can look up what I filed at the commonwealth court docket site my case is 463 MD 2017 and you can follow my case filings and decisions.

        I have no decision so far – it is for the PSP to answer my summary judgement brief. I see the light now. I could have waited it out. . . .and I am doing that . . . . too.. . . I just thought I would give this mandamus thig a try to see how far I can get. I am not a lawyer but . as a Pro Se person I am getting so much people from layers. Reed Layer called me from Chester and encouraged me to fight for the cause for all SO’s. I hope I am not saying too much just wanted to say hi Chuch my friend to the end Brian too. . .

        • #28731 Reply

          Chuck

          Terry, My Friend. From what I understand, Pa is trying to claim now that they do not need Sorna as Megans Law 1 and 2 are still active. Megan’s Law 3 was found to be unconstitutional in Commonwealth vs. Neumann. Ok, so worse case I have to finish my 10 years out. No big deal, 2020 would be the last time I am required for an annual registration and as long as I don’t. Hangs my info from from 2020 to 2021 that would be the last time I have to show up.
          We are finally getting to the piont of getting past all this feet dragging. 2 more weeks for Muniz and then up to 60-70 days for the Commonwealth. So wore case, 83 more days and then SCOTUS will schedule the case for conference. The part I am concerned about is if the SCOTUS asks the U.S. Solictor General tovwrigh in. That could take 3 or 4 months to get a response out of him.
          I think it’s grest you are filing. Just take a deep breath. No need to give the public the idea we are trying to hide our info so we can reoffend.

  • #28725 Reply

    Brian

    So now the general assembly has created yet another bill, house bill 1952, I tried to read up on it but it makes no sense to me at all, I have no idea how to look at code or look up or understand code , kind of like the matrix, why the f are they pounding us with these bills left and with now it seams like, did they do all this in Michigan when they were at the end of their fight also?

    • #28730 Reply

      Chuck

      BriN,
      You have to understand that Smith v Doe (2003) has been the holy grail for them for almost as long as there has been a Megans Law. As you will remember, Smith v Doe is the Supreme Court case that said registering on Megans Law is a civil penalty therefore it is not punishment and therefore Ex post facto does not apply.
      Now that it is falling apart, they do not know what to do. Every idea they get, “Ah, that won’t work because of ex post facto”. They are freaking out that the voters are going to blame them.
      The best thing we can do is just go on with our day to day. They are going to talk **** and introduce many many bills. Let them. It only bolsters our argument that the registry is cruel and unusal.
      My only concern is that they are going to wait till SCOTUS denies Freed’s petition and then try to say “No, we can’t enforce the court’s ruling due to all these new laws”. I have enough legal bills trying to rebuild my life much less trying to stop them from having me start all over. However, if they want this fight, we will bring it to them.
      Until they actually pass something and Governor Wolf signs it, it is all talk,and talk is cheap.

  • #28734 Reply

    Chuck

    Here is the link to the case Terry files. This is a Court link so it should be allowed under Narsol Posting rules.

    https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=463+MD+2017

  • #28764 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Thank you for your insight, no I don’t really know the case, I have only recently started researching the registery constitutionality, I looked into it back in 2012 one SORNA started and only did that for a few months then everyone dropped off the edge of the earth on posting on rsol, once Muniz made headlines with the Supreme Court that when I started educating myself more on this stuff. So if I ask the same question 100 times I apologize lol.

  • #28765 Reply

    Jen
  • #28803 Reply

    Dave C

    Somehow I get the feeling that we will never get off this registry….they will just change the law to fit their need and we will have to start all over…. I should be off this registry already according to my ten year original requirement. …. It never seems to end… justice……..there is no such thing

  • #28807 Reply

    Chuck

    This is the part I don’t understand
    This is what the committee lawyer had to say
    “Ms. Dalton said the legislation puts back into effect the Megan’s Law statute provisions to apply to offenders convicted prior to SORNA’s implementation. It also addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns that SORNA is punitive by backing off from some of the more onerous registration provisions” (Ward, 2017).

    How can they “put back” the provisions that the Pa Supreme Court threw out as illegal???

  • #28813 Reply

    Brian

    Its kind of dumb to try and tell the Supreme Court, hey this is what we’re going to do people even though you called it illegal we don’t care. I swear I am dropping off the grid if we all get off this God awful registry so they can’t turn around and try some other bs schemes. Good luck Terry hope they see it your way my friend.!!!!!!

  • #28814 Reply

    Mark

    They forgot about Neiman since all the hubbub has been about Muniz. Ha, let them sweat that one out. I do have a question. Do we have to get an injunction or such to prevent any “fix” from becoming law? In it can we remind them about Neiman? How was Megan’s II gotten rid of? Did Megan’s III repeal it or such? Anyone know? Oops, more than one question in the reply.

    • #28825 Reply

      Chuck

      Mark,
      What is my understand as each new version was passed, it repealed the previous one. However. due to Neiman, Pa is now saying “Oh no no, Megans II is still active”.
      I am sure if SCOTUS denies Freed’s petition, and they pass their “Muniz Fix” they will be a challenge. My question is isn’t adjusting the registry Ex post facto?? In others words, even if they are able to make the registry non puntitive, don’t they still have to take all those people off that are pre 2012?
      I think they are giving it the college try. Let’s wave our magic wand, if it’s works, oh shit, we got luckly. If it doesn’t, oh well we were going to lose anyways.”

      I am dying to hear what the PA Supreme Court has to say about this. I think they are going to smack them down HARD. Basically, they are saying it doesn’t matter what you say we will just ignore it.

  • #28818 Reply

    Mark

    I was just looking at the bill to “fix” Muniz. It is a bunch of amendments. not one but 3. Does this not violate the single subject law? Also are they not referring to the current law that was just declared unconstitutional being applied retroactively? Did some of these people go to law school? Maybe that’s why things are all messed up, to begin with!

  • #28821 Reply

    Chuck

    It’s starting to look like even if Terry wins his case, they will put him right back on the registry when their “Fix Muniz “ bill passes. That has to suck, going through all that work, winning your case, and then they say Oh it doesn’t count because we “fixed it”. All it does is make it tougher for someone to rebuild and move on with their life.

    • #28828 Reply

      Snoopy

      So if this new fix goes into place if you were sentenced prior to Dec. 20, 2012 and they changed your registry requirements would you essentially be put back to your original requirements? I get it there are all sorts of reasons why they can’t do this, including the single subject thing, and retro-activity. It will be challenged, but during that time period while it is getting challenged I was just curious what I should be expecting. I was originally 10 years, reporting in person 1 x a year. I got changed to 25 years and reporting in person 2 x a year. I SHOULD be getting off October 2020, but am now 2035. Ideally I would love to be off the registry now, but would at least be happier getting back to 2020.

      • #28834 Reply

        Chuck

        @snoopy
        I imagine as soon as they say “the Muniz Fix is effective” I will be hawking everything I own and talking to a few people about donating to my legal challenge. I have worked way to hard to give up now.
        I have been on the registry since 2010. My original sentence was 10 years so my last year is suppose to be 2020 but they increased my 10 years to 15 years. I am in the process of completing my BS in Accounting (only 18 more months!!!) so I can rebuild and improve my life. Then after my BS, I have 12 months chasing my MS in Professional Accounting. Then, I get to apply for the privledge to sit for the CPA Exam. I have to seek permission becuase I have a felony.
        I say all this to pint out I am WAY to busy to be worried about hanging out with the wrong people and letting them borrow my laptop. So why do they want to harass me? Someone who is trying to improve their life?? Doesn’t make sense to me!!

  • #28838 Reply

    Cary

    As for me with even if with the new fix to be passed and put in place I would still be off the registery when all this Supreme court and muniz and freed stuff is done and the fix in place. Due to the time date I was convicted back in 1999 of December being only for 10 years on the registerry of the time I was sentanced.

    • #28878 Reply

      Chuck

      Cary I read that if here “Muniz Fix” works, the next thing they are going to do is make everyone who has been removed re-register. Basically, there will only be life registrations. “For public safety”

      Look at it this way guys, if they were 100% confident that Pa was going to win at the SCOTUS, they wouldn’t be doing this. They are scared shitless right now. If they try to deny Muniz, assuming it goes our way, I will be seeking monetary compensation. I agree with Terry, $1,000.00 per day has a nice ring to it.

  • #28876 Reply

    Snoopy

    Besides Chuck, I don’t know your stories, and I don’t even know Chuck’s whole story… It doesn’t matter in one sense, except that we are all trying to move forward with our lives against a system unjustly and illegally stacked against us. I have a BA in business admin, and I can’t get a job doing anything. I even tried starting my own company and had people against me and almost lost the house in our failed business. If it wasn’t for my wife who has stood by me completely I would be living with my parents, homeless, in jail, or dead. I can honestly say that I do not deserve her despite all of my efforts to do so. I just want to be off of this stupid registry so I can have the specter of being violated by accident just gone. Someone called in a supposed tip against me about an e-mail address and I got to have a chat with a state trooper back in Feb. of this year. I was honest with him and arguing with him that because I was convicted BEFORE Dec 2012 I was able to give my non-in-person updates via mail to Harrisburg which is what I had done. He was telling me that NOBODY could do that, sent me home and told me to send him paperwork proving my side of the story. I sent him paperwork from the state’s own Megan’s law site. I sent him a copy of the completed form I mailed. When I went back for my required in-person update later he told me he did not believe that I had mailed something and kept trying to get me to admit that I lied to him. I had not lied and that’s what I told him. He said he does not believe me and will be talking to the DA, although right now there is some uncertainty with sex offenders and the legal system so I might not be charged because of that – somehow I think I know a bit more about that situation than he does thanks to all y’all and this website. It’s been almost two months since then and I still live in fear and am terrified when the phone rings, or if there is a knock on the door (happening all the time right now because of package deliveries for Christmas). Ironically, pre Sorna if I am correct I would not have had to disclose my e-mails.

    Even off of the registry I have to wonder what next… I just watched Al Franken being pushed out as a US Senator, because of just allegations. Granted, there was a picture, and it was a bad picture, but very obvious a comedic picture. It just makes me terrified and worried about what the future holds for those of us in this Harvey Weinstein era where we don’t just have accusations, but are actually convicted.

    • #28887 Reply

      Chuck

      Snoooy I would suggest telework. Becuase you are a virtual employee, an employer doesn’t have to worry about you messing with a customer or another employee. Yes, it is difficult with a sex offense on you record to get work. I agree. I am stilll in school and I have had employers tell me why are you going to school, no one will hire you. With your BA, you could be s manger for a company that has employees all across the country. My friend works for a local company and their HR lady is in Germany. Her husband is in the Army so she has to follow him.
      The main thing employers are worried about is liability if you re offended “on the clock” If you are an virtual employee, most of that fear is wiped away.
      I recommend being upfront and honest with them. Look, I have a sex crime from years ago, I know you may be scared but this is why you shouldn’t be.
      Good Luck Brother!!

  • #28889 Reply

    Chuck

    I forgot to mention, I know a guy who was arrested for having child Porn on his work computer. They arrested him while he was at work. Do you know what he does now? He works for the SAME company he was working at. It took a few years, but they called him up and said we will give you another shot. My point is this: Is someone with a sex crime the number one candidate for an employer? No, they are not. However, your can do attitude in spite of that can turn the tables for you. Trust me, if someone needs a manager to watch over his employees, he is not going to care if there is no way it will blow back on him. Besides, willing to work for less for a chance to prove yourself has worked before.

  • #28967 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Dude you are God to PA SO’s, you have balls of carbide and titanium, steal rusts over time and depletes where is you are alway strong and confident and don’t seem to tarnish , You and Chuck have really helped me a lot along this journey and gave me hope and understanding in our situation, I have to say I was really stressed out a few months back but you guys have helped me regain confidence and hope in this mess we’re all in. You guys are truly great friends and I will never forget,

  • #28969 Reply

    Brian

    I have to agree with Chuck, employers recognize the harder and more loyal employees, I worked at a place and my old employer was upset that I left, he knew of my registration and reported me to that employer, the owner and manager brought me in in the office and interrogated me, asked if I was am SO I said yes and you did a background check on me before I was hired 3 months prior, I tried to explain what I was charged with and I was not a threat to other employees or society but the owner stoped me and said he didn’t want to know what I did or anything to do with my past, he said everyone makes mistakes and bad decisions at some point in life, he said Brian your a hard worker, you come in early and last one to leave, you put your head down and get the job done, the. He said get back to work.
    I also had a coworker who harassed me at the same job , this guy got close to violent with me, I spoke to the GM and we sat down with hr they told the guy leave me alone or you will be fired, I honestly think they would have used some type of legal action against him because he was like my best friend a week later. What you said chuck is 100% true.

    • #28998 Reply

      terry brunson

      PDAA Issues Statement on Fixes to PA Megan’s Law
      Dec 5, 2017
      Harrisburg, PA – Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association President and Berks County District Attorney John Adams today released the statement below after a bill to fix the state’s sex offender registry (Megan’s Law) was unanimously approved by the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee:
      “PDAA thanks members of the House Judiciary Committee for passing HB 1952, which will ensure that tens of thousands of sex offenders are not removed from the sex offender registry. HB 1952 responds to decisions by our appellate courts, which had held portions of our sex offender laws to be unconstitutional. The House Judiciary Committee, as it so often does, worked in a bipartisan manner. It is absolutely necessary that the full House quickly approves this legislation and that the Senate takes it up soon thereafter. Sex offenders pose a real danger to Pennsylvanians and HB 1952 will help ensure that the public knows who these offenders are.”

    • #28999 Reply

      Chuck

      When I first got out of Jail, I was scared of my shadow. I thought for sure people would be waiting with riches and pitch forks at my house. My Probabtion Officer really helped me cope with it all. She said, “don’t dress like a sex offender, don’t talk like a sex offender, and don’t act like a sex offender and you will be fine “

      What she meant was don’t have a chip on your shoulder. Don’t think just becuase there are people out there willing to kill you just because of your charges that you cannot live your life. Will it be harder being a sex offender? Yes, it will. However, that DOES NOT mean you can’t get by. If you dress like someone who spends his days on the couch, people are going to react to that. If you always say “Oh, what’s the use. Everyone hates me cuz I am a sex offender. Guess what?? You are NOT going to find the friends you need to rebuild your life.
      I have over 5 people who I didn’t event meet until after I was convicted and they are willing to write letters to the Board of Pardons when the times comes on my behalf. Why? Becuase they know who I am. They know I am a hard worker, who deserves a chance st rebuilding.
      I didn’t even meet my wife untill afterwards. I remember I was in tears in I had to tell her becuase I was afraid she was going to leave me. Because I was honest and spoke from the heart, she fell in love with me. Unfortunately, there were other reason why we got a divorce.
      My point is this: Are there people who will completely judge you because you are a sex offender? Yes there is. However, you will be surprised how many people will help you regardless of what your record says if they believe you deserve it.
      Some time you have to wear that Scarlet S with PRIDE. Yes, I am a sex offender and I am rebuilding my life. You don’t have to be my friend you don’t even have to associate with me. However, you will never get to know what an interesting person I am or how good of a firemd I am.
      Yes I am a sex offender. I am also a friend, brother, nephew, student, and sometimes a lover. I am so much more than what my record says. Do I regret allowing my friend to borrow my computer? Yes, of course. St the same time, carrying this S around has taught me so many things. That said, I can’t wsit untill I don’t have to anymore.

    • #29001 Reply

      terry brunson

      Has any one read up on December 5, 2017 HB 1952? It is a shot at a legislature fix of Muniz

  • #28997 Reply

    terry brunson

    I received a half answer from the Layer of the PSP in Mandamus injunction – It quoted a Pa. legislature fix to Pa.’s Megann’s Law in light of Muniz- the it is in part about some HB 152 voted December 5, 2017 in a secret meeting with PSP, Freed of Cumberland county –
    PDAA Issues Statement on Fixes to PA Megan’s Law
    Dec 5, 2017
    Harrisburg, PA – Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association President and Berks County District Attorney John Adams today released the statement below after a bill to fix the state’s sex offender registry (Megan’s Law) was unanimously approved by the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee:
    “PDAA thanks members of the House Judiciary Committee for passing HB 1952, which will ensure that tens of thousands of sex offenders are not removed from the sex offender registry. HB 1952 responds to decisions by our appellate courts, which had held portions of our sex offender laws to be unconstitutional. The House Judiciary Committee, as it so often does, worked in a bipartisan manner. It is absolutely necessary that the full House quickly approves this legislation and that the Senate takes it up soon thereafter. Sex offenders pose a real danger to Pennsylvanians and HB 1952 will help ensure that the public knows who these offenders are.”

    This bill is why Freed appealed to the SCOTUS to make delay to get to this – However – Muniz knocks SORNA down, And Muniz will know this down too because it will be applied Ex Post Facto in date time. Any 2017 new laws on Sorna will open the door for people under SORNA to file Ex Post Facto now.

    This HB 152 is a House bill the is on its way to the PA Senate – to be reviewed. It is not Law yet until Govern Woolf signs it.
    The bill is a make over of Megan’s Law 2 without the unconstitutional issues that stopped it in 2004. The big problem that this HB 152 bill will face in the PA. Senate is that it too will be applied in Ex Post Fasto – and we are right back at MUNIZ PASC decision. It will kill the bill and they will have to find another way to stop the MUNIZ decision.

    The SCOTUS will offer no help. Freed’s Cert to them will be denied – He knows this now. Freed is working with the House Judiciary Committee to try to under mind PASC decision on Muniz.

    The Pa. Senate will not vote this law up because Freed has caused a Stay on Muniz on a federal question. The stay will stop a vote. If the stay is stopping the PSP to follow Muniz now – It will also stop a Senate vote on a Appeal court decision that is not yet final on the Federal question.

    The PASC has long held that, when called upon to interpret provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, they are not bound by the interpretations of similar provisions of the United States Constitution made by the United States Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887, 894 (Pa. 1991) which says, “Although we
    may accord weight to federal decisions” when we address underlying specific constitutional guarantees, “it is both important and necessary that we undertake an independent analysis of the Pennsylvania Constitution, each time a provision of that fundamental document is implicated.” When there is compelling reason to do so, we may interpret our constitution as affording greater protections than the federal constitution. See Commonwealth v. Gaffney, 733 A.2d at 621. In the light of Muniz the PASC has spoken in that binding case for the Commonwealth addressing SORNA being punitive for purposes of Ex Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution [.] No federal issue can change that . . . . . MUNIZ IS THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH RIGHT NOW; and needs no Federal question to review what the highest Pa. court has decided. . . . The PSP and Freed don’t like the decision of Muniz at all, But it is the Law. . . . . They just don’t want to follow the law they don’t like
    .

  • #29000 Reply

    Chuck

    @ Snoopy,
    We all have to band together. I am sorry you are having a tough time finding work. I know that sucks not being able to provide for your wife. Don’t give up though. We are hear together to talk to one another and to help each other through. If it wasn’t for my friends being there for me when I got out, I don’t know if I could of handled it. It helps talking to people going through the same thing as you that is why I am here everyday. To get help and to give help.
    The only way we will overcome is to show the public we matter. Remember, in order to get respect, you have to give respect AND expect it in return.
    It hurts like hell, I lost a career in a blink of an eye. It hurts like hell, my ex wife and I couldn’t stop fighting untill it was too late. However, together we are s band of one with a loud voice.
    Like the song says, Lean on me……..

    • #29026 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Chuck

      Thank You for being supportive of a hard decision – filing the mandamus – I told you that the Commonwealth had something up their sleeve . . . and it is HB 1952 – it is the birth child of DA Freed. . . .
      HB 1952 will have a mountain to climb = It has to pass the PA. Senate’s Review – and it has to denovo PASC decisions and pass the constitutional muster. And then it has to go the full Assembly floor to be debated and then the Governor’s desk. . . . . Muniz will be back to us in remand order by then . . . . . .

      I know the PSP is not going to want to remove names to lessen their registry numbers. . . . . .
      They filed a Amicus Curiae brief to the SCOTUS and gave their plan away in the brief……. to do a case by case removal. . . . Not making it automatic. You are so trusting to the PSP. . . . . I think . . They are not your friend

      It will take a Mandamus to move the PSP – an early court order from a commonwealth court is just as good as a Remand order from the SCOTUS on Muniz to the PSP through the Pa. AG office. The Commonwealth Court mandamus is only a fee of 65.00 or so. . . . . .

      The Muniz case is in effect right now on the state claims…. If you put in your mandamus anything about the U.S. Constitution – your mandamus will be bared by a Federal stay on Muniz because the federal question has not been settled in finality yet.
      And about a “Saving Clause” rule on expired Pa. statues of – Megan’s Law 1 , 2, and 3 they were expired on 12 December 2012 at the SORNA date. . . . . . . Unconstitutional statues cannot be reverted back to. . . . There must be a legislature fix . . . . . The problem is that fix will have a date that is if applied to pre-SORNA people is Ex Post Facto – and we are right back at Muniz- – – – – – – Muniz cannot be fixed by new law to bring back old law –

      Our PASC explained – “a repealing clause expressly repeals a prior statue from effective application of law – where the substitute for the prior statue is itself ineffective where the substitute for the prior statute provided in the repealing statute is unconstitutional and where it does not appear that the legislature would have enacted the repealing clause without providing a substitute for the act repealed [.]”

      Simply put, an UNCONTITUTIONAL STATUE cannot repeal a former law and the prior statue remains unenforceable if expired. Accordingly, ML’s 1 -2 & 3 loss all their effectiveness as enforceable law on December 20, 2012 at the implementation of SORNA.

      Expired Megan’s Laws had no counterpart “savings clause” provision of a legislature fix – SORNA expired all reverts back to old Megan’s Law’s – it is possible that when Muniz comes back to us in a remand order, you will be removed off the registry completely without any delays of waiting until 2020 or 2021 to get off. You will not revert back to the standards of an old Megan’s law. The law of your registration past is inoperative to revert back to. As a Per-SORNA person – there is no revert Megan’s law to revert back to, that is why the HB 1952 is being pressed now. The Commonwealth understands the cruch that they are in to remove 18,500 people off the registry.

      YOU MAY BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN YOU THINK – I am arguing this in my brief to the Commonwealth Court and they are taking it and asking the PSP to tell them which Megan’s Law of the past to Terry Brunson being held to revert back to. . . . . The PSP has to give the Court an answer to this question. The Court brought this up not me. They did it on their own motion. I hope that you understand my fight is better than MUNIZ – He gets you back to 10 year – but my argument IF I WIN -will get you off the registry Now. . .Smile your friend terry brunson

      • #29036 Reply

        Chuck

        I trust that there are people who want to do the right thing but they have to follow what their boss says becuase they have a family to feed. I do see the General Assembly passing their “Muniz Fix” for one reason. They are the reason why they need it. They are the ones to blame why Megans Law III was found to be illegal. The whole idea of we can’t apply the rule of law to sex offenders becuase that will allow them to get off the registry will die away. WhenI first got I. The registry I knew people that all they did every couple of days was check out the registry of people who lived close by. They kept a note book of what the registry said to make sure that was updated info. Now, no one does that. The public has realized that life goes on. If they try to hit me with Sorna that means instead of being finished I have 8 more years so yes I am invested in fighting this

    • #29027 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Chuck

      Thank You for being supportive of a hard decision – filing the mandamus – I told you that the Commonwealth had something up their sleeve . . . and it is HB 1952 – it is the birth child of DA Freed. . . .
      HB 1952 will have a mountain to climb = It has to pass the PA. Senate’s Review – and it has to denovo PASC decisions and pass the constitutional muster. And then it has to go the full Assembly floor to be debated and then the Governor’s desk. . . . . Muniz will be back to us in remand order by then . . . . . .

      I know the PSP is not going to want to remove names to lessen their registry numbers. . . . . .
      They filed a Amicus Curiae brief to the SCOTUS and gave their plan away in the brief……. to do a case by case removal. . . . Not making it automatic. You are so trusting to the PSP. . . . . I think . . They are not your friend

      It will take a Mandamus to move the PSP – an early court order from a commonwealth court is just as good as a Remand order from the SCOTUS on Muniz to the PSP through the Pa. AG office. The Commonwealth Court mandamus is only a fee of 65.00 or so. . . . . .

      The Muniz case is in effect right now on the state claims…. If you put in your mandamus anything about the U.S. Constitution – your mandamus will be bared by a Federal stay on Muniz because the federal question has not been settled in finality yet.
      And about a “Saving Clause” rule on expired Pa. statues of – Megan’s Law 1 , 2, and 3 they were expired on 12 December 2012 at the SORNA date. . . . . . . Unconstitutional statues cannot be reverted back to. . . . There must be a legislature fix . . . . . The problem is that fix will have a date that is if applied to pre-SORNA people is Ex Post Facto – and we are right back at Muniz- – – – – – – Muniz cannot be fixed by new law to bring back old law –

      Our PASC explained – “a repealing clause expressly repeals a prior statue from effective application of law – where the substitute for the prior statue is itself ineffective where the substitute for the prior statute provided in the repealing statute is unconstitutional and where it does not appear that the legislature would have enacted the repealing clause without providing a substitute for the act repealed [.]”

      Simply put, an UNCONTITUTIONAL STATUE cannot repeal a former law and the prior statue remains unenforceable if expired. Accordingly, ML’s 1 -2 & 3 loss all their effectiveness as enforceable law on December 20, 2012 at the implementation of SORNA.

      Expired Megan’s Laws had no counterpart “savings clause” provision of a legislature fix – SORNA expired all reverts back to old Megan’s Law’s – it is possible that when Muniz comes back to us in a remand order, you will be removed off the registry completely without any delays of waiting until 2020 or 2021 to get off. You will not revert back to the standards of an old Megan’s law. The law of your registration past is inoperative to revert back to. As a Per-SORNA person – there is no revert Megan’s law to revert back to, that is why the HB 1952 is being pressed now. The Commonwealth understands the cruch that they are in to remove 18,500 people off the registry.

      YOU MAY BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN YOU THINK – I am arguing this in my brief to the Commonwealth Court and they are taking it and asking the PSP to tell them which Megan’s Law of the past to Terry Brunson being held to revert back to. . . . . The PSP has to give the Court an answer to this question. The Court brought this up not me. They did it on their own motion. I hope that you understand my fight is better than MUNIZ – He gets you back to 10 year – but my argument IF I WIN -will get you off the registry Now. . .Smile your friend terry brunson

  • #29014 Reply

    Brian

    So by them passing 1952 their saying no one is coming off who is pre SORNA who’s completed their time on the pre SORNA registery?

    • #29028 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      Thank You for being supportive of a hard decision – filing the mandamus – I told you that the Commonwealth had something up their sleeve . . . and it is HB 1952 – it is the birth child of DA Freed. . . .
      HB 1952 will have a mountain to climb to become law. It has to pass the PA. Senate’s Review – and it has to denovo pass the PASC decisions on SORNA application on Pre-SORNA RSO’s and pass constitutional muster on Ex Post Facto, Reputation Shaming, equal protection of law by clear due process and appeal rights, and recrimination against SO’s of just being on Megan’s law without having facts of showing SO’s are a danger to the public. And onthen HB 1952 has to go the full Assembly floor to be debated and voted on and then to the Governor’s desk to be signed. . . . . Muniz will be back to them in their face in full force as law in the Commonwealth.

      I knew the PSP never wanted to remove names off the megan’s law list; that would have lessen their registry numbers. . . . . .
      The PSP filed a Amicus Curiae brief to the SCOTUS and gave their plan away in the brief……. They want to do a case by case review before removal of names. . . . Not making it automatic. PSP want to make Pre-SORNA people phone in their updates – !8,500 phone ins? What government phone system can take that – then they are going to require a regitration fee like a probation fee – if not paid (JAIL TIME THREATS) Many are so trusting to the PSP – I think, but they are not a freiend to RSO’s . . They are not.

      It will take a Writ of Mandamus to move the PSP – an early court order from a commonwealth court is just as good as waiting for a remand order from the SCOTUS on Muniz to force the PSP to follow the PASC order as the law demands. A Commonwealth Court mandamus fee is $65, but if you cannot affort that -file a informa papus motion of indigence. Remember the old Law Library visit days? Every University has one and they are good too. . . . . .

      The Muniz case is in effect right now on PA state claims…. If you put in your mandamus anything about the U.S. Constitution – your mandamus will be bared or held up by a Federal stay on Muniz because the federal question has not been settled in finality yet.
      And about a “Saving Clause” rule on expired Pa. statues of – Megan’s Law 1 , 2, and 3 they were all expired on 12 December 2012 at the SORNA date If they were not they would not need HB 1952. . . . . . . Unconstitutional statues cannot be reverted back to any way. . . . There must be a legislature fix . . . . . The problem is that PA’s fix will have a date of 2017 -2018 and if new law is applied to pre-SORNA people it is Ex Post Facto – and we are right back at Muniz- – – – – – – Muniz cannot be fixed by making a new law to bring back an old law –

      Our PASC explained – “a repealing clause expressly repeals a prior statue from effective application of law – where the substitute for the prior statue is itself ineffective where the substitute for the prior statute provided in the repealing statute is unconstitutional and where it does not appear that the legislature would have enacted the repealing clause without providing a substitute for the act repealed [.]”

      Simply put, an UNCONTITUTIONAL STATUE cannot repeal a former law and the prior statue remains unenforceable if expired. Accordingly, ML’s 1 -2 & 3 loss all their effectiveness as enforceable law on December 20, 2012 at the implementation of SORNA.

      Expired Megan’s Laws had no counterpart “savings clause” provision of a legislature fix – SORNA expired all reverts back to old Megan’s Law’s – it is possible that when Muniz comes back to us in a remand order, you will be removed off the registry completely without any delays of waiting until 2020 or 2021 to get off. You will not revert back to the standards of an old Megan’s law. The law of your registration past is inoperative to revert back to. As a Per-SORNA person – there is no revert Megan’s law to revert back to, that is why the HB 1952 is being pressed now. The Commonwealth understands the cruch that they are in to remove 18,500 people off the registry.

      YOU MAY BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN YOU THINK – I am arguing this in my brief to the Commonwealth Court and they are taking it and asking the PSP to tell them which Megan’s Law of the past to Terry Brunson being held to revert back to. . . . . The PSP has to give the Court an answer to this question. The Court brought this up not me. They did it on their own motion. I hope that you understand my fight is better than MUNIZ – He gets you back to 10 year – but my argument IF I WIN -will get you off the registry Now. . .Smile your friend terry brunson

    • #29029 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      HB 1952 is only a House Bill – that has no power to be law as of yet – it is a knee jerk reaction to MUNIZ – and Freed is in it because he knows that the SCOTUS is not going to help him on Muniz – He will try to change the law here in PA- BUT that is not going to work – He will find out that out when this House bill hits the Senate floor to be denovo through to see if it passes constitutional musters – and muster # 1 is Ex Post Facto Muter 2 is Reputation and shaming by being put up on a web site- Muster 3 is due process and appealing PSP decisions showing by facts ho RSO’s are danger to the public other than being put up on a web-site with no rights to say this don’t apply to me. . . .

      HB 1952 is a witch hunt as a last ditch effort to keep all RSO in Pa. on the site of Megan’s Law. If they wanted this they show have never expired the old Megan’s Laws – but they thought SORNA would be a one law fits all.

      Other state are finding this out the hard way too –
      Texas
      Alaska
      Indiania
      Maryland
      Mechgan
      Ohio
      North Carilinia
      Now Pennsylvania

      Muniz is the law of this commonwealth right now by state rights and protections – because the PASC mentioned the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 is equal to Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 17 by dicta and advisory opinion Freed thought the PASC was making a decision based solely on the U.S. Constitution but they were not. They used the PA Constitution and stated that it says the same thing as the Pa Constitution and Freed jumped on this and made it an issue of Federal question on state courts making law over the power of SCOTUS. So Freed appealed on the Federal question – to delay the clock to get to this H B 1952 – Brian I love you as a brother and please keep hope alive in the fight. . .

      Freed needed time to pull something together to stop Muniz decision from being law. . . He was the one that fought MUNIZ at the beginning Freed is a sore looser or just a looser in my book.

      • #29037 Reply

        Chuck

        You guys would be amazed how many people think it’s sbsolutely wrong for me to go about my day not even caring about being a sex offender. They believe I shouldn’t even be allowed to be out in public alone. I just ignore them.
        I do think they will pass their Muniz Fix because they have to show the public they are doing “something”. I think they know with every fiber in there being that once challenged it won’t pass constitutional muster. However, that problem is Tomorow’s problem. Today, we have to make sure the sex offender don’t go free.
        I hope they do stick their nose out at the Pa Supreme Court. If there is one thing Judhes do not like, it’s gocernment officals who think they can just ignore a law or legal principle they do not like.
        Come on guys, I have plenty of school debt. Make my day, violate my rights so I can get you to cover my school debt.

    • #29045 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      Thank You for being supportive of a hard decision – filing the mandamus – I told you that the Commonwealth had something up their sleeve . . . and it is HB 1952 – it is the birth child of DA Freed. . . .
      HB 1952 will have a mountain to climb = It has to pass the PA. Senate’s Review – and it has to denovo PASC decisions and pass the constitutional muster. And then it has to go the full Assembly floor to be debated and then the Governor’s desk. . . . . Muniz will be back to us in remand order by then . . . . . .

      I know the PSP is not going to want to remove names to lessen their registry numbers. . . . . .
      They filed a Amicus Curiae brief to the SCOTUS and gave their plan away in the brief……. to do a case by case removal. . . . Not making it automatic. You are so trusting to the PSP. . . . . I think . . They are not your friend

      It will take a Mandamus to move the PSP – an early court order from a commonwealth court is just as good as a Remand order from the SCOTUS on Muniz to the PSP through the Pa. AG office. The Commonwealth Court mandamus is only a fee of 65.50 or so. . . . . .

      The Muniz case is in effect right now on the state claims…. If you put in your mandamus anything about the U.S. Constitution – your mandamus will be bared by a Federal stay on Muniz because the federal question has not been settled in finality yet.
      And about a “Saving Clause” rule on expired Pa. statues of – Megan’s Law 1 , 2, and 3 they were expired on 12 December 2012 at the SORNA date. . . . . . . Unconstitutional statues cannot be reverted back to. . . . There must be a legislature fix . . . . . The problem is that fix will have a date that is if applied to pre-SORNA people is Ex Post Facto – and we are right back at Muniz- – – – – – – Muniz cannot be fixed by new law to bring back old law –

      Our PASC explained – “a repealing clause expressly repeals a prior statue from effective application of law – where the substitute for the prior statue is itself ineffective where the substitute for the prior statute provided in the repealing statute is unconstitutional and where it does not appear that the legislature would have enacted the repealing clause without providing a substitute for the act repealed [.]”

      Simply put, an UNCONTITUTIONAL STATUE cannot repeal a former law and the prior statue remains unenforceable if expired. Accordingly, ML’s 1 -2 & 3 loss all their effectiveness as enforceable law on December 20, 2012 at the implementation of SORNA.

      Expired Megan’s Laws had no counterpart “savings clause” provision of a legislature fix – SORNA expired all reverts back to old Megan’s Law’s – it is possible that when Muniz comes back to us in a remand order, you will be removed off the registry completely without any delays of waiting until 2020 or 2021 to get off. You will not revert back to the standards of an old Megan’s law. The law of your registration past is inoperative to revert back to. As a Per-SORNA person – there is no re-vert Megan’s laws to revert back unto, that is why the HB 1952 is being pressed now. The Commonwealth understands the crunch that they are in to remove 18,500 people off the registry that they have to answer to people about where are these people going to be at in this state.

      YOU MAY BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN YOU THINK – I am arguing this in my brief to the Commonwealth Court and they are taking it and asking the PSP to tell them which Megan’s Law of the past to Terry Brunson being held to revert back to. . . . . The PSP has to give the Court an answer to this question. The Court brought this up not me. They did it on their own motion. I hope that you understand my fight is better than MUNIZ – He gets you back to 10 year – but my argument IF I WIN -will get alot of people off the registry. . .Smile your friend terry brunson

      • #29164 Reply

        Mark

        I have a few questions and concerns. I pled and was sentenced in 2004, at that time both my CP possession and CP dissemination charges carried a 10yr reg period. I was released from prison in 2007. SORNA rolls into town and I become lifetime. Then in Feb. 2017 PSP sends me a letter telling me I am now a tier 2. Now Muniz happens. What do I do? My next “visit” is in Mar 2018. What info do I give them? only things pre-SORNA? Tell them listing any internet identifiers no longer applies to me when they ask if there are any new ones? Just how far can or should I push back if they get nasty? I’m actually hoping the last Sept. was the last time I have to set foot in there for that again. I should be off it anyway. Part of me wants to file a mandamus the other part wants to wait. I have a wife and a good life so far but just have the worry of the knock on the door. I’m actually thinking if I am removed, is to get a PO Box for all my mail and move to a different address. Then if they try to snag me they would have more work just to find me. Since MLS letters are not to be forwarded…
        Someone also said that one still has to update info from, in my case March 2017 to March 2018. If bankruptcies are removed in 10 yrs to the day (I had one due to this mess) why is MLS any different?

        • #29173 Reply

          Fred
          Keymaster

          The law has not changed yet and can be enforced. Continue reporting and verifying as you had been until you receive a letter telling you that you no longer need to. If you are charged with non compliance or failure to register, when the law finally does change, you may not be granted relief due to your new charges.
          The U.S. Supreme Court will likely decide to deny or grant review before summer. If they deny, it will then just be a matter of waiting for PA State Legislators to rewrite the law to bring it in compliance with the PA Supreme Court ruling.

        • #29487 Reply

          Mark

          @fred
          I must respectfully disagree unless I am misinterpreting Comm. vs Smith and Comm. vs Williams. Both cases are failure to register cases that were dismissed due to Muniz, Both Smith and Williams are pre-SNORA convictions.
          So this tells me that I can ignore any post-SORNA requirements. It doesn’t mean sadly, that PSP could file charges but due to Smith and Williams either the DA will not prosecute or will dismiss prior to going before a Judge. I will continue to do what I am REQUIRED to do and nothing more.

        • #29505 Reply

          Fred
          Keymaster

          @Mark
          You asked and I answered. You are welcome to disagree, but don’t do so just because it’s not what you wanted to hear.
          Sure some people may have gotten their failure to register charges dismissed after spending thousands of dollars on attorney fees. If that is a risk you want to take, you can do that, but I strongly advice you to speak to an attorney before you make that decision, because the law is still in the books as it had been.
          Even in Michigan, the people who worked on the Does v. Snyder case are constantly reminding people to stay compliant until the law has been changed, because if someone is charged for non-compliance they may lose the opportunity to get relief when the law is changed. So please talk to an attorney first. My only intention here is to keep you and others out of trouble.

  • #29057 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Your fight will help post SORNA’s? Or prevent PA. Lawmakers from putting us back on another registry? I couldn’t fight this the way you do Terry, I would get in front of the judge and they would ask me something I have no idea how to answer, I didn’t even know what a mandamus was until you brought that up on NARSOL , I think if anything I will hire a lawyer, I know it’s not cheep but a lawyer knows a lot more then I do about this and they would gladly drain anyone’s assets for sure.
    So once they pass 1952 if they do the PSP won’t automatically remove everyone so once that occurs I will get a lawyer to do all the footwork, this is uncharted territory for me and I am not confident I can do it properly on my own. Maybe Muniz will take another 30 days to see what this 1952 is is all about,

    • #29068 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian
      It is not hard to feel your desire to want to help yourself, but not know the first steps – I and not a lawyer never been to law school – and I am not qualified to practice law – even at times people thinking I am practicing law by giving advice –
      It is not my aim to direct on how to do a thing – I am only talking about how I am doing a thing. There is a difference. But I can encourage you to:

      Google up the Pa. Constitution – Article 1 and read Section 1 and look for the word (REPUTATION) you have a state constitution right to be free from shaming of your (REPUTATION) SORNA mars your (REPUTATION) by posting your information on a website[.] And force you to update that information by a threat of JAIL if you don’t comply with update actions. Case law Commonwealth v. Reed 168 A.3d 132 (2017) decision of August 22, 2017 PASC order under Muniz during Muniz stay on Freed’s appeal on federal question on SORNA applications.

      Tom Reed is from Chester Pa. and his case alone without Muniz will win a mandamus and the court will apply Muniz by its own motion- you don’t have to show up and talk to no Judge or nothing – You sit in your house and type your case on how you understand it on this one issue where SORNA hurts your (REPUTATION) by a PSP website posting your information to publicly shame you i.e tar and feather you. I will stop here don’t want to give you too much to eat on your level. Please google Commonwealth v. Reed 168 A.3d 132 (2017) decision of August 22, 2017 and read the PASC order.

      That is precedence of law today without Muniz help yet I will give you more if you desire to want to know more to help yourself. like I said I am not a lawyer and all I can offer is what I am doing and sharing it with you. How you take it and apply it is up to you. . . . . . . . But the outcome will be good. to fight H B 1952 because the PSP is not going to just let RSO’s walk away from them without a court fight. I been trying to tell Chuck this – a court fight to be let off is going to be a must. The PSP is not going to follow Muniz automatically. I told all that on this site many many many times. I feel when I give advice people want to look at me as a know it all. . .So not true. I don’t know at much as I am given prejudge credit for knowing. Please Brian – Your are my brother in this fight and I have a love for you and your cause and only share what I have with you as you want to receive it. . . Your friend Terry brunson
      google Commonwealth v. Reed 168 A.3d 132 (2017) decision of August 22, 2017 and read the PASC order. Hit next for the next step that I took or reply

  • #29061 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Some days I forget I’m an SO, I just get into a rhythm at work and forget for a moment who I am and that’s a good feeling. MY neighbor thinks SO’s aren’t allowed to live in close knit neighborhoods, apartments, trailer parks etc they like to hang out at my house and I think their the ones that reported me to management trying to get me removed from my home but that didn’t work, we never go to their home, it’s also stupid how they think that I don’t know that they know about me being an SO and they think I don’t know that they know, I’m still trying to figure out why they speak to me and my family. They know the police in my area along with some people from the sheriffs office because they talk a lot about who they know on the force, they show us their guns wich I never lay a hand on, I think their fishing for info to get me on some kind of violation but I have nothing that will get me violated, i told my wife I don’t trust them and she thinks I’m crazy, she is not to street smart, I don’t know all this stuff about the constitution but I am learning about it, I never had a long attention span in school due to ADD, history and things like that were boaring to me and I could never focus anyhow , I wish I would have paid more attention or could have , science was more for me, I am more street smart then anything unfortunately growing up around gangs and being part of them.

    • #29072 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ chuck

      Have you read the proposed changes to SO”s H B 1952 Dec. 5, 2017

      It tries to net in Pre-SORNA people by these words:

      “Any person in this Commonwealth of any sexual offenses, committed on or after April 22, 1996, but before
      December 20, 2012 will have to register with the State Police.”

      This is not a law as of yet – that is why I been pleading to file a mandamus so hard. I knew this was on the way when I heard DA Freed talking to the Pa. Judaical Committee. He said we need a fix. I cannot hold Muniz off forever – He is admitting that his Cert Appeal is a delay tactic to give the Pa law making a little more time to work on a fix to Muniz and have it in place when Muniz is returned to the PASC for remand hand down to PSP to remove all 18,500 RSO’s from Pa Megan’s Law list pre-SORNA.

      Now instead of getting a letter from the PSP telling you that Muniz decision has to remove your name. . . YOU WILL NOW GET A LETTER SAYING,” Due to new law enacted HB 1952 when it is signed by Governor Wolf has superseded Muniz – and you must report to the PSP withing 90 days to register under the new Pa. SO law.

      I will say this slow and clear – Muniz now is the law of PA. there is about to be a showdown between the PASC and the law makers of PA.

      The courts of the commonwealth will side with the PASC and issue mandamus rights. BUT THE psp WILL IGNORE THE COURT ORDERS.” And then you can sue on punitive grounds that violate Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 11—— courts are the place to fight the commonwealth on these maters and it will get to the PASC and they will at that time strike down these new provisions of H B 1952 as retroactive and in violation in giving no due process to a hearing in applying this new law without a hearing right, and the government is right back a having to answer arguments to the PASC on: Commonwealth v. Reed; and Commonwealth v. Woodruff ; and Commonwealth v. Muniz. On issues of reputation shaming (the PSP website) no hearing rights facial or actual in acts to show SO’s are a danger to the public – and EX POST FACTO Retroactive application New SO laws. I will not bother you any more on this point I know that I am ringing a bell that no one can hear yet. . . . . . .

  • #29065 Reply

    Chuck

    It’s all good Brian,
    We will make it together. Just have to wait it out. I was talking to someone today who thought that Muniz becoming effective was the end of the world. I said why would you leave you kid alone anyways? Some of my neighbors talk about “you can’t let your kids out anymore” when I was growing up, my mamma NEVER allowed us out of her sight unless we were with an adult she knew. PERIOD. She showed up at a sleep over for my sister and wanted to spend the night becuase she didn’t know the mother hosting. All the other parents thought she was crazy.
    My mother was thinking about buying us a computer untill she heard someone entered the term “donkey and got back photos of women screwing donkeys. That was the end of that. The first 6 months I left home I saw more porn than I knew existed as a result.

    • #29070 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Chuck

      I sense your support on my actions to step forward as your brother to fight for us all. I am not a lawyer and not trying to practice law. just detailing the steps that I am taking hoping others will follow to help themselves.

      Can you google Commonwealth v. Reed 168 A.3d 132 (2017) decision of August 22, 2017 and read the PASC order.

      When you do ask yourself – what if Reed would have a wait and see – let wait for Muniz decision like PSP is telling all when they call ML section. Muinz became law 30 days after its decision on 17 Aug 2017. Reed did not use the Muniz case, but the court on its own motion appied it to Reed. . . . WHY DID THEY DO THAT?

      I will tell you – Muniz is a strong case that has bought down the house of ghost monsterisms of SO’s. The court is fed up with the government pushing to keep adding more and more restrictions to sex offender laws. . . by Ex post Facto applications of law. It is time to stop it.

      HB 1952 – that is why freed filed a cert to SCOTUS to buy time to get the Pa. houes the time to get together and make up some new law to cover old law to apply to pre-SORNA people that we suppose to let go under Muniz but we don’t want to let go any one. . . . . . .

      Reed in his case did not say a thing about MUNIZ helping his cause. He fought on Reputation shaming of a PSP website posting his information as a tar and feathering him without due process of a hearing. You cannot tar and feather in PA. today without a hearing form somewhere. See Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 and Section 9, and section 11. . . . . . . . Reed won his case on just this point alone not ex post Facto Muniz fight at all. Do you notice that Reed did not wait for Muniz – He filed Mandamus – and Muniz just was added help to him by the PA court during a stay on Muniz. . . . . . I hope you are understanding me. You can wait – but waiting and filing at the same time is better– – it will not hurt. The fear is money for a lawyer. Brain is is that boat, but there are avenues to step your way through the courts if you would just act.

      Many say that faith is believing – I say that is only the open door. Faith is action based on belief supported by confidence in what you believe. If you see a man walk a tight rope pushing a wheel barrel across the rope. When he gets to the other side he ask,”WHO BELIEVES THAT I CAN PUSH THE WHEEL BARREL BACK ACROSS THE TIGHT ROPE?”

      Does that take faith? Then he ask,”WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A RIDE IN THE BARREL AS I PUSH IT BACK ACROSS THE TIGHT ROPE.”

      Not many takers then. . . . . Why……It shows that faith is the action step belief is not the faith. Belief is a wait and see – but faith moves out before it finds out how things will turn out . . . . Faith is action based on belief supported by confidence in what you believe

  • #29075 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    I hear the same thing to, you can’t let the kids play outside anymore or walk down the street.
    People around me are oblivious to Muniz or anything going on with this fight, I think they are preoccupied with other things. We were raised on a farm till I was 6, we had acres to play without a care in the world, then my granddad passed and we were drug to Colorado where I lived for 13 years, it was a Spanish community and that’s how was introduced to gangs, drugs and whatnot, My dad stayed with my other granddad till he passed, so for a year or two it was me my brother, mother and grandmother, my brother got caught shoplifting several times and ended up in juvenile haul, all my friends were in and out of Juvie also, I avoided being locked up like my friends, my best frind ended up doing 21 years in the pen because he shot some people, I picked up my charge in Colorado with a girl who my older brother and his now X set me up with, she wanted to hang out with the older crowd so she lied to them and me about her age, so I was charged with sexual assault of a child, i never raped or forced anyone to do anything, she was also sleeping with two other guys who were never charged, I was never ordered to register, just do probation and counseling, pay fines restitution and a sex offender fee which makes no sense seeing I was not ordered to register, we would have been a lot better off staying where we were born, I blame my mother partially for being selfish and putting us in a bad situation, in a bad neighborhood riddled with crime and drugs, if she hadn’t drug us to Colorado I wouldn’t be in this situation,
    Firstly people should educate their kids on when strangers approach them, secondly they should travel in groups or more then 2 or 3, these people like the washes who left their kid alone in an arcade by himself then the kid was forced outside due to some stupid security guard and unfortunately he was murdered. I don’t want to say it’s peoples fault but it is partially their fault for being naive and not educating there children or watching their children like they should,

  • #29074 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Thank you I will read up on that note.
    Terry you know a lot and no not even the professionals know it all, and I do understand that your not a lawyer also, you probably wouldn’t be in this predicament because you would have gotten yourself out before if started. My last update they asked me different questions then the norm, I answered accordingly and was honest, I think their trying to get me to say the wrong thing and get me to violate, the one asked if I ever did time on my charges and when I was convicted then when I answered he acted surprised, I think they are trying to scare me into saying something that’s not the truth because of Muniz and all of these other lawsuits that are being won, I think someone called in a false report is why they have changed their questions I could be completely wrong though, all my bs reporting requirements are 100% accurate, I am going to hold on the mandamus for the moment. Once 1952 is accepted tossed off the floor and once f’s cert is denied I will file my mandamus, I have money for the lawyers that my family has offered to help with if need be.

  • #29084 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Your breath and words typed aren’t a waste that’s for sure, with HB 1952 I would still be required to be removed? And you are saying the PSP won’t remove me because they don’t want to let SO’s go? Well once they are required to remove people due to be removed there will be more challenges, I will contact them and let them know I am supposed to be done now let me off or I will sue like everyone else. Question is though once they pas this bill if they do if they grant cert which I am confident they won’t if they pass HB 1952 they are screwing themselfs because all 10 years that have completed their 10 years will be done regardless of SORNA one would think.

    • #29148 Reply

      Chuck

      Brian,
      Their goal is to get away from term limits. They want everyone who has ever been convicted of a sex crime to stay on the registry forever. However that would be a long stretch for them to pass right now. With this Muniz Fix, since you have served your time, you would be done. Untill they pass the “you are on forever Law”. If this Fix passes, that will force me to stay in untill 2020 as opposed to being off as soon as Muniz is upheld by SCOTUS.
      They are just trying to see what they can get away with. It is going to bring a very interesting late winter/ early spring for us all.

  • #29130 Reply

    Adam

    Can anyone tell me how this fix might effect my situation? I was convicted in 2011 but not required to register as it was a non registerable offense at the time. Once SORNA came into effect I was placed on the registry as a tier 3 offender because I had two offenses, even though they were on the same docket. I have since been reduced to tier 2. Am I right in understanding that if the “fix” becomes law that things would be reset to what they were pre-SORNA, and therefore I would be removed? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

  • #29128 Reply

    Adam

    Can anyone tell me how HB 1952 might affect me? I was convicted in 2011 but was not required to register because it was not a registerable offense pre-SORNA. I went from not having to register to being a tier 3 offender on 12/20/2012, though I have since been reduced to tier 2. If the fix becomes law, would that reset things back to pre-SORNA and make it so I no longer had to register? Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

    • #29136 Reply

      Adam

      Sorry for the double post. Thought the first one didn’t work.

    • #29147 Reply

      Chuck

      Adam,
      You have it backwards. The “Muniz Fix” is NOT a good thing for us. Commonwealth v. muniz says that those who were convicted and sentenced before SORNA cannot be held to SORNA rules. The Muniz Fix they are trying to pass says “we do NOT care what the Pa Supreme Court said. We are going to continue with the Sorna rules on EVERYBODY.”
      So if the pass this Fix, you will be required to continue to register whereas Muniz would of gotten you off the registry .
      However, I expect their fix will be challenged. Just can’t challenge it untill it becomes Law.

  • #29139 Reply

    Fred
    Keymaster

    That’s okay. No harm done. All comments are held for moderation until one of our Moderators approve them.

  • #29149 Reply

    Chuck

    One thing I would like to clear up is that the PSP CANNOT ignore a Court ruling. Now if the general assembly says we passed a law that supersede that, that is different. However, the PSP CANNOT ignore a court Order.

  • #29162 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Yea it’s looking that way, they want everyone stuck on forever, that is bs and I think it’s unconstitutional in my opinion, I mean we were never ordered to be lifetime from when we were charged and did the plea agreement screwup we were tricked or scared into.
    Superseding is just another word for update kind of like when the introduced SORNA and passed it, fancy words the crooked government officials like to use like exposfacto. I’m sure there is some sort of constitutional violation involved in that.
    I don’t see how they won’t deny cert with all the states that have won thus far, all I know is once they pass this fix and cert is denied I will be going off the grid, I’m not going back on any registry after I’m done with this sht

    • #29174 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ bRIAN

      I am glad this forum ex sis for you to blow off steam. I say you are allowed to. I am proud to be your friend in this fight. The battle is real and knowledge of the enemy dispels fear.
      The enemy is Freed and now he has been appointed a federal post to manipulate AWA like he is doing SORNA at the state level to get a AWA case before the SCOTUS to fix in his mind AWA and state SORNA laws to have all RSO’s on the registry for life. . . .

      That is his aim and goal. . . . . He has talk the PA Judiciary Committee of Pa. to follow his words on a fix that will back fire and open the way for pre- and post SORNA people to challenge the NEW Law that will come from H B 1952 .

      H B 1952 will not has any constitutional musters that measure it at a court bar challenge.
      You can read the text of the bill and see that it is a make over of Megan’s Law 2 which Commonwealth v. Neiman knocked down as unconstitutional as a whole. No parts of it can be brought back…. That is what HB 1952 is doing. The was a fix under Neiman two days before the 90 day bar expired call Pa. ACT 19. It hand 3 paragraphs that controdicted each of at 2 and 3.1 the case commonwealth v. Farabaugh of Dec. 2015 can tell the details – But HB 1952 is not going to get far. . . as relation to a challenge in a PA Court. The PASC ruling on Muniz was 5 to 1 not voting. you can say 6 to 0 because Mundy’s non vote is a call to support and she wrote the concurring opinion on Muniz – do you want to see her words?

  • #29165 Reply

    Adam

    @Chuck

    I may indeed have it backwards, but let me explain my reasoning and let you (and hopefully others) tell me where I am wrong.

    My understanding is that while this sloppy, illegal fix is indeed bad for most of us, it will not mean that nobody gets relief. I have been under the belief that pre-SORNA registrants will still be reverting to their original sentences. So if you had a 10 year registration requirement and that got boosted to 25 or life, that you would go back to 10, even with the fix. I have believed that their urgency to get this fix through is not to prevent that, but rather to curb the 10,000+ who they would have to give relief to because the previous version of Megan’s Law expired when AWA came into effect.

    What that would mean for those whose original sentences would have expired, or for the relatively few like myself who weren’t required to register at all pre-SORNA, is that they would be removed from the registry. Which I’m sure they don’t love, but they are happy to trade the couple thousand who would be removed under those circumstances to make sure that anyone sentenced at any point pre-2012 can’t walk on what they would perceive as a technicality.

    • #29186 Reply

      Chuck

      Adam,
      No, if this Muniz Fix passes it will be like Muniz never happened. They are trying to claim even after Muniz they can still hold people in the registry retroactively. They did not want to get rid of that. They don’t like the idea that if they increase the punishment down the road, it will only apply to new people . Their goal is if their Fix passes and is upheld to eventually put everyone in the registry for life, even if you finished your time l. They will reopen your case and make you register again.
      Luckly for us, they have to pass the Pa Supreme Court first.

  • #29166 Reply

    terry brunson

    It is not time to get nervous in the service due to a HB 1952. This is only a Bill and it is the birth child of DA Freed . . . . . . . . To under mind a case that he loss called MUNIZ. . . He is taking this fight personal, and will find out that Fighting MUNIZ is over. When Freed filed against the PASC in Cert review on MUNIZ The PASC now becomes Freed’s target.

    The HB1952 bill is an attack on the PASC decision on MUNIZ. But what Free is to dumb to realize is – challenges to any new SO’s law has to come back to the PASC. Muniz was a PASC vote of 5 to 1. That is an indication that the PASC is united on a fair fix of Megan’s law. When and if HB 1952 makes law status. And is challenged and it will be fast. The PASC will add in their decision on that law- WE – NOT ONLY GAVE MUNIZ BUT BEFORE MUNIZ WAS NEIMAN, A.3d 603, 605 (Pa. 2013) WHICH STILL STANDS TO PREVENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS TO REPEAL EXPIRED LAWS IN PA.

    In Commonwealth v. Farabaugh PASC (Pa. 2015) the PASC spoke on ACT 152 which shot down ML-3. Megan’s Law 3 could not be fixed but lucky for PSP – SORNA came and expired ML-3 and the PASC explained then in 2015: – “a repealing clause expressly repeals a prior statue from effective application of law – where the substitute for the prior statue is itself ineffective where the substitute for the prior statute provided in the repealing statute is unconstitutional and where it does not appear that the legislature would have enacted the repealing clause without providing a substitute for the act repealed [.]”

    Simply put, an UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUE cannot repeal a former law and the prior statue remains enforceable. Accordingly, ML – 3 loss all its effectiveness as enforceable law on December 20, 2012 at the implementation of SORNA.

    Same for ML-2 shot down as unconstitutional by Commonwealth v. Williams II. Unconstitutional Megan’s Law cannot be reverted back to and be operative law. So ML- 3 is out ML -2 is out, That leaves making a new law (HB 1952) PROBLEM it has a 2017 -2018 date to be applied to people with conviction dates before 2017- 2018 making its application EX POST FACTO

    Do you all out there understand this? I am not a lawyer but every lawyer knows this. . . HB 1952 will not pass a PA. Constitutional muster – You all can relax and keep looking to MUNIZ as your freedom. HB 1952 has dates in it on who they are targeting (after April 22, 1996, but before December 20, 2012, whose period of registration with the Pennsylvania State Police, as described in section 9799.55 (relating to registration), has not expired).

  • #29179 Reply

    Brian

    Would be nice for them to pass HB 1952 for time being then deny cert for f so then mostly everyone is off, then mass challenges and lawsuits for all others so they can have relief also.
    Like a big Mary go round, we’re all on the out side going 100 miles an hour, once they loose their grips on us we fly off while their stick in the middle dizzy and throwing up all over each other.
    Just a thought

  • #29180 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Thank Yuit Terry, I am glad we have friends like you who are so knowledgeable about this.
    We shall see what the future holds for us but the message appears clear, seams the writing is already on the wall the invisible ink needs to become readable now, all the other states that have won I feel confident PA will win as well.

  • #29236 Reply

    Dave C

    What’s up everyone? Merry Christmas to all…

    What happens if this bill passes and SCOTUS denies the Writ for Muniz?

    Does the bill ever get stopped because of Muniz?
    Do we have to start all over?
    Doesn’t more challenges to the new bill mean more years of waiting?

    I do not understand the PA SC makes a decision and the PA Legislature just says forget it, we will just reword it and back to norm, isn’t punitive, mean punitive?

    • #29243 Reply

      terry brunson

      It is being called a MUNIZ fix – DA Freed knows that Muniz will return a remand back to the PASC prothonotary denying Freed’s Cert on Muniz. . . .

      Freed only appealed to use the SCOTUS docket run to get HB 1952 rolling so when Muniz comes back there can be damage control to avoid the mass removal of names of the Megan’s Law Registry.

      The HB 1952 bill reads at the end of it that only a judicial determination would free one from the registry.

      What a judicial determination is – a court order by mandamus or appeal win from a court. . . . . Muniz will only help if you get a lawyer and file in court. . . . But the good news it – If they make HB 1952 law one challenge on this law would have us the next MUNIZ.. Muniz is only good for SORNA – We need one to fight under this new what ever they going to name it. Now it is House Bill 1952 to be named Megan’s Law something. . . Whatever I will tell you this….. It Will Not Pass a Constitutional Muter – But it has to be in law and applied as law, and them we can challenge it to death…. and I mean to D E A T H.

  • #29239 Reply

    Brian

    @Dave C
    HB 1952 I presume that’s what you mean, it all depends when you were convicted and wether you are life 25 15 or 10 year registrant pre SORNA, if your post SORNA HB 1952 doesn’t apply to you, their trying to revert back to the old ml law pre 12-20-2012, if you were pre SORNA you will basically just finish your original non SORNA registration because SORNA will no longer apply to pre SORNA because or exposfacto punitive law, unless you were life then I’m not sure how that will work fir life, I was suposed to be done with my registration the end of 2013 so if they passed HB 1952 I would no longer have to register after that, it hasn’t passed yet and if it gets to PASC they will probably tell them to go pound sand Muniz is law, their trying to get it through under the radar just like they did with SORNA, guess they didn’t think it was going to come back and bite them in the ass but they were wrong, now they want to fix it but there is really no legal way to fix it other then put pre SORNA registrants back to their original punishment but it’s kind of hard to do that with a law that was expired once SORNA was signed into law. From all the information I have read that’s my view on this.

    • #29245 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      This is your friend terry brunson – I am crying tears of joy as I read how you explained to Dave C the low down break down on the shut down of Megan’s Law. Thank you for all your study efforts and I love chuck’s editorials too – chuck you are on the cutting edge of greatness in explaining things . . . . . .

      I myself get too detailed but you guys put it in down to earth talk like you at the bar talking over a beer. Yes Brian – You hit a home run at what you said to Dave C. and all will see that you know what you are talking about now. . . . Keep up the study. You are right HB 1952 is a make over of ML-2 without the unconstitutional bull shit.

      If HB 1952 becomes law you will be off Meagan’s Law list your time is done – you will not need Muniz any more. You should pray that HB 1952 do become law. It will help you – sounds crazy for me to say that don’t it. . . . . ?

      An individual who, before or after the
      effective date of this paragraph:
      (A) Commits an offense subject to 42 Pa.C.S.
      Subch. H; but
      (B) because of a judicial determination on or
      after the effective date of this section of the
      invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to
      registration as a sexual offender.

      But it is true. . . But so many other will be hurt by this Bill – it will be applied in a retroactive manner. And that is is Ex Post Facto.

      A Muniz fix seems good but it is only damage control to what would happen if they did not try to fix a broken system 10,000 would get away. Not they are going to have to file in court to get away smile Muniz application won’t be automatic. . . . . . . . . . They want a case by case court order judicial determination to get of the registry – it says that as the last words of the HB 1952 I will post the last words of the bill :

      An individual who, before or after the
      effective date of this paragraph:
      (A) Commits an offense subject to 42 Pa.C.S.
      Subch. H; but
      (B) because of a judicial determination on or
      after the effective date of this section of the
      invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to
      registration as a sexual offender.

  • #29240 Reply

    terry brunson

    I took all week end to go through the HB 1952 and found at the end of it these words –

    An individual who, before or after the
    effective date of this paragraph:
    (A) Commits an offense subject to 42 Pa.C.S.
    Subch. H; but
    (B) because of a judicial determination on or
    after the effective date of this section of the
    invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to
    registration as a sexual offender.

    Do anybody know what these words truely mean??????????
    (B) because of a judicial determination on or
    after the effective date of this section of the
    invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to
    registration as a sexual offender.

    That is a Mandamus order – or a appeal court win from this- – – – – – – – They want people to be let go case by case in court. The sad part is all RSO’s don’t have the money to get a lawyer to get JUDICIAL DETERMINATION (WHAT IS THAT?) a COURT ORDER, THAT i BEEN SAYING FROM THE GET GO.

    If you want to be off – MUNIZ will only help you if you file in court to claim Muniz to get you off. . . If HB 1952 become law. . . Muniz protection will not be automatic. Told you the PSP is dirty and all that calling to the ML section and lettting them tell you what is going on is not good at all. The PSP don’t like you. . . . . Your friend is learning the Mandamus process and ready yourself as best as you can. . . . . . . .

    I know the Bill will pass the general assembly vote, but it will not pass court constitutional muter. Some one has to file to be the next MUNIZ – The PASC will be waiting to to hear the next challenge on HB 1952 when it becomes new law in PA. Ohio tried this and it is not working well for them – their Supreme court is now gearing up to knock down their new claims that the law maker are fight RSO’s on. . . . . Pennsylvania is in a knee jerk mood………

  • #29246 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Wow so unless people have money your not getting off even though legally you should be getting off but their not going to just take us off we have to take action, take it to the court by our individual selves, that is just fd up if you ask me. I will file a mandamus once all is said and done, to me fighting it now is not worth it but once it’s law then it becomes worth it. They know SO’s don’t have money which is the messed up part and unless there is someone out there to help then people aren’t going to be removed, Do you think a class action lawsuit would cure the money issue on the individual bs?

    • #29252 Reply

      terry brunson

      No Brian you are missing what I am saying. .

      Not every SO is in as good of position as you are. This HB 1952 is a plus for people in your position. If you were to be off in 2013 this new HB 1952 will be a plus to you. . . . . . . It will put you back to the old place you were at – If you been on the registry too long you can ask about suing in federal court but immunity will stop your suit.

      On the surface HB 1952 looks bad but when you read through it – I have to give a hand to the writer of this bill. It is a Muniz fix bill that says that, but it is a trick bill that doesn’t give Muniz protections to all like the Muniz decision does. I would stick with Muniz and wait for the Muniz decision to remand.

      HB 1952 only helps a few get off the registry when Muniz opens the door for all to get off. It is a bill that is a good collage try to act like the law makers of Pa. are trying to look out for public safety. But HB 1952 will not pass a constitution muster if challenged in commonwealth courts. . . . . The court levels are Common pleas court, Commonwealth court, Superior court – then the PASC. Any low level court will use Muniz to defeat HB 1952 if it becomes law and someone challenges it. It will be found unconstitutional on Pa. Constitution Article 1 Sections 1, 9, 11, 17, and 26. and the cases in precedence that would knock the law out would be Muniz – Neiman, Reed, and Woodruff and the law is done. . . . I can see the concern that the politicians have if this law fails and Muniz takes the precedence position AND FROM THE LOOKS OF IT -Muniz will – It is a gamble law to fix muniz if RSO’s don’t challenge HB 1952 when it becomes law.

    • #29253 Reply

      terry brunson

      In your case this HB 1952 helps you. You would be off the list – But those not in as good of position as you it is a bad thing to have to fight to get Muniz help…….

      This law is geared to be a Muniz fix and they are trying to do that to put people back where they use to be – But Muniz would remove people because there is no old Megan’s Laws to revert people Pre -SORNA back into. Muniz case kick 18,500 free when Muniz is returned. . . . . . . without any fights it would be automatic, but if this HB 1952 becomes law _ Muniz would not be Automaticly applied . People would have to file for what HB 1952 says at the end of it -GET A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION- to get off the the registry. . . I hope you understand me. . . . . After reading the HB 1952 it seems to be a damage control of letting 18,500 names removed. . . . . .

      • #29296 Reply

        terry brunson

        to keep from letting 18,500 off the list is what I meant to say

      • #29295 Reply

        terry brunson

        @ Brian
        Sorry for the re-post but I want to be clear about HB 1952 and how effects your BRIAN:
        In your case this HB 1952 helps you. You would be off the list – But those not in as good of position as you it is a bad thing to have to fight to get Muniz help…….

        This law is geared to be a Muniz fix and they are trying to do that to put people back where they use to be – But Muniz would remove people because there is no old Megan’s Laws to revert people Pre -SORNA back into. Muniz case kick 18,500 free when Muniz is returned. . . . . . . without any fights it would be automatic, but if this HB 1952 becomes law _ Muniz would not be Automaticly applied . People would have to file for what HB 1952 says at the end of it -GET A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION- to get off the the registry. . . I hope you understand me. . . . . After reading the HB 1952 it seems to be a law that would do damage control on not letting 18,500 Pre-SORNA RSO’s go free. . . . . . the law would require a judicial determination to be applied to a person that want to get off. Meaning they trying to force people to get a lawyer to go to court and mandamus. I knew this was coming that is why I told Chuck that I was filing any way myself. I don’t know much about the law but I do have faith to fight in my own armor with self pride and God’s help. . . . . . I am not a church kind of person because I this organize religion is a money thing – But God is of ones understanding. . . .the God of your understanding ……….. But yes Brian if HB 1952 was passed into Law Monday. . . . You would be off the registry list in about 30 days from the PSP go a head to take you off. . That means you can now rejoice by choice and thank the writer of HB 1952 – It will help your case – – – – – – But those who before SORNA came into Law had 10 years and went to non -SVP tier 3 life quarterly verification in person reporting – – – – You guys are going to have to fight HB 1952 for it is Law that will try to keep you on the registry until you get the ….Muniz remand help that is coming. HB 1952 only helps pre-SORNA 15 and -25 people that were put into SORNA. HB 1952 is not like MUNIZ which helps every pre-SORNA offender. Like I said it upfront HB 1952 tries you only help non life offenders – – – – – – – – – – – – Keep trusting that MUNIZ will come and help all 18,500 and force PSP to remove names like Muniz decision is suppose to do……. HB 1952 is a limited solution to curb the great exodus off the registry. . . . . . . the PSP don’t want to happen…. it is a bone Law that help only some and not all but Muniz will help all…….WHEN RETURNED FROM THE scotus…….

  • #29293 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Yes I do get it now, I got lost at the point where at the end people will have to do a mandamus to get removed, now I understand completely. I should have stayed in school lol this is just one big big mess for everyone. I don’t see this bill sticking around for very long, I can see it being challenged from day one, if it even makes it off the floor, If it doesn’t make it off the floor everyone will get relief so well deserved with Muniz.

  • #29301 Reply

    Snoopy

    @Terry

    So what would this do to me? I have a conviction dats of 2010 and pre sorna I was a non svp with 10 years reporting with only 1 x in person reporting. Now I am a non svp tier 2 with 25 years and 2 x a year reporting. With post Sorna i had to add in email addresses and such with my reporting, and since my conviction date was before dec 2012 i could do mail updates for my non in person updates. I get it that Muniz would give me the best win, but would HB 1952 put me back to pre sorna, make it worse for me or would it not do anything for me at all…

    • #29310 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Snoopy
      Muniz remand gets you off the registry [.] If HB 1952 pass it will take a court judicial determination which is Muniz
      2010 to 2020 is what the PSP is going to offer under HB 1952. . . But that is bull shit compared to being off under Muniz. You would be able to challenge the HB 1952 by a judicial determination of (Mandamus) would need a lawyer to help you do that or if you can Pro-Se DIY (Do it yourself)

      HB1952 only helps lower tier RSO’s if their out date has passed. . . . . Like Brian He was to be off in 2013 it is now 2017 He would not have to do much either way – HB 1952 will get him off the registry and Muniz too. . . .

      In your case Snoopy you must suffer the hardship of being put back to 10 years which has not passed yet. . . . Your best deal is to challenge HB 1952 under Muniz decision. I know Chuck has hit the nail on the head. . . when He tell people that the PSP and Freed and the makers of HB 1952 want to erase MUNIZ as if it never happen. But the PASC has given Muniz and it is the law of the land down – HB 1952 make it seem like one has to file to get something that should come automatic. Results of Muniz should be applied to all Pre-SORNA RSO’s before date 20 December 2012

      HB 1952 says at the end of the bill that it is targeting people with the dates of offenses after April 1996 but before 19 Dec 2012 That is a pre- Sorna attack. Muniz fought hard to help all pre-SORNA people to get off as soon as Muniz is remand back to PASC from SCOTUS on Freed denial of Cert.

      HB 1952 seems to the PSP to be a saving law. It is the re-write of ML -2 which Commomwealth v. Nieman shut down in its entirety. . . PA though the AWA was so strong because courts were turning their eye to the Ex Post Facto elements of the Law. The PASC woke up to the game and changed the rules. . . . . . . when the PASC gives a vote of 5 to one no vote which MUNIZ was – they intend to see that all get the benifit of their decision in the Commonwealth by court order – and not no Muniz fix that helps only some.

      Muniz by itself will make the PSP remove 18,500 RSO’s off the registry. They don’t like that. So they done the HB 1952 as damage control to slow the exodus of the registry. They say it clearly in the bill – if anyone is willing to get a judicial determination or a court’s order – they will be off the registry with no questions that is people like you and I. not Pre-SORNA people that tens passed and now HB 1952 will give them guys only a freedom card off. that is about 4500, what about all the MUNIZ decisions the PSP MUST let OFF? They now got to file a judicial determination? What the What Da? Does that sound like a fire fix? Hell no. . . . . .

      Under Muniz there is no ML 1 2 3 od SORNA to hold you to – – – – This New law gets in the way by putting a new law it the way . . . to have to get judicial determination to get off what the PASC in Muniz says all should get with or only one court order from the PASC through the AG to the PSP to let all 18,500 RSO’s in this Commonwealth go free under Muniz the law of the commonwealth Now. . . . . without any judicial determination of a case by case filing and paying money to lawyers for Mandamus. . . . . THIS IS CRAZY… i HOPE WHO EVER READS THIS WOULD UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE TODAY

      • #29328 Reply

        Snoopy

        @ Terry

        Thank-you for that… It may sound silly, but this would be HUGE for me. I know what I did was wrong, and I hate the registry and have lost jobs and friends because of it, but it was part of my punishment so as much as I don’t like it I can live with the 10 years… I at least knew that was what I was getting when I was sentenced, well sort of. I may not have completed my 10 years yet, but being put back to 10 years instead of having to do 25 years is fair and just. It’s a punishment, I’m not supposed to like it, but at least going back to 10 years is FAIR… So even if I had a rich uncle (I don’t) that would pay the legal fees to try to get me off on Muniz right now on a technicality I’m not sure I would because I want to set a good example for my kids.

        I guess my only other question that I am unsure of from your reply is at the end of my 10 years do I have to get a judge to give me a court order to remove me, or do I just get a letter from the PSP saying that I am done? And yes, I get it I will always have to be vigilant and fight the good fight to lobby and vote and try to support as best I can to help stop other new laws that would try to rope me and everyone else back in.

        On another side note as I keep thinking about this I was curious if anyone can offer some thoughts on this… Since my first registration and picture was done in Oct 2010, I would consider that the start of year 1… does that mean my last picture would be in 2019, or do I have to go back in Oct 2020? Now that I can see some light part of me wants to have my last picture taken in a tux or something.

        For my last comment, I truly appreciate all of the kind words and thoughts from all y’all. I’m not going thru a great time right emotionally right now and while I have not ever “met” any of you, well it’s good to have a friend.

  • #29302 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Thank you for reiterating everything, Its what I need sometimes is to hear it over and over till the music sounds right or till I memorize it if that makes sense.
    Let me tell you, you say you don’t know a lot about law but in my opinion you know a lot about law, now I don’t know sht about law except how to stay out of trouble with law.
    Have a great night my man.

  • #29305 Reply

    Chuck

    Snoopy,
    If they pass their fix they are going to tell you that Muniz never happened. However, I don’t think the PA Supreme Court is going to be too happy with them. We will see. Untill it is passed, and a challenged is filed, it is all speculation.
    We will see!!

  • #29311 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Yea I’m not thinkin HB 1952 will be arround for long if it makes it off the floor, I know it’s going to mess things up for a lot of people and they will be challenging the bill so if it does pass it will only stay for a year or two I’m thinking, probably around the time Muniz will be going into full effect once they sort everything out and everyone will hopefully get relief.

    • #29326 Reply

      Chuck

      I think it’s funny how they think we’ll of course this is legal! Just like the guy who argued Packingham v North Carolina for North Carolina. He couldn’t believe that SCOTUS wasn’t buy his “ it’s ok becuase these are sex offenders” argument. My favorite part is when he tried to correct Justice Kagan’s interpretation of a case. It’s like dude, you think you are going to tell SCOTUS they are wrong and still win??!
      It’s funny that their attitude is “ oh no, we know you didn’t mean what you said. So we are going to paper over it to save you guys the embarrassment”.
      I would love to hear oral argument on this case. Who has the balls to stand up in front of the PA Supreme Court and say the legisture can ignore Court rulings?
      I know in house council for the Pa General Assembly is like “ I will be on vacation that week!!”.
      I think our only hope that it won’t become law is if the governor refuses to sign it but 2018 is an election year in Pa.
      I feel like telling them, you do know felons can vote in Pa, right?? The only requirement in Pa is that you are not on probation or parole, or in prison.

  • #29386 Reply

    Brian

    @Chuck
    Yea that would be funny if they stood up and said to PASC this is what we came up with and this is what we’re going to do, and PASC says get the f out of my court room and don’t come back without a real fix, oh wait there is no real fix because it can’t be fixed you dumdasses.

  • #29398 Reply

    Brian

    @Snoopy
    I am thinking you last visit with the PSP would be 2021 I could be wrong, I started in 02 and was coming off the end of 2013 if that helps you.
    We are all in this together and we will all fight this together and we will all win this together as well my friend. None of us are proud of what we did, some of us make excuses, some stand up and accept it, the important thing is to learn from our mistake or mistakes and not repeat history. It’s what they want us to do so that they cane point at us and say we were right we were right look they did it again, our statistics were true, I got news for them their the sick ones that want it to happen so that they can put us on display for the whole world to point and say they are so sick, away with those sick sexoffenders.

  • #29491 Reply

    Mark

    Hello
    As of 9:48 pm Dec 11, HB1952 has not been voted on today.

    • #29507 Reply

      Snoopy

      @Mark

      Ok, I’ll ask… if HB1952 has not been voted on today, what does that mean exactly? Is there a certain time that it needs to be voted on in the house before it gets trashed?

      • #29515 Reply

        Chuck

        @Snoopy it just means they haven’t passed it yet. I think it is easy for them to introduce a bill as a knee jerk response. As it goes through the process, people will realize this has nothing to do with public safety.
        I am struck with what the PA Supreme Court said: They said the offender and the state both have a right to finality. This is why we have a court system. This is EXACTLY why we have a law against ex post facto laws ( after the fact) People are afraid. You know why? Becuase there is NOTHING they can do to protect themselves against a second offender A robber you buy a security system.
        It will be ok. Guys.

  • #29526 Reply

    Snoopy

    HB 1952 has been removed from the table and is going to be voted on Tuesday for the first of the three votes in the House.

    See House Calendar

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/SessionCalendars/index.cfm?Chamber=H

    • #29545 Reply

      Chuck

      Here we go. This is going to be exciting…… b cause when we beat you this time…… there won’t be any registry left. Our voice shall be heard…. We have the right to ask for a rested of our grievances and that is exactly what I shall do. I will be starting a go fund me page to fund a challenge just as soon as the bill is passed.

  • #29543 Reply

    Brian

    How long does it take the voting process to go through?

    • #29546 Reply

      Chuck

      It’s up to the speaker. Whenever they decide to put it up for a vote. Next, it will be the Senate’s turn, and then our governor.

  • #29553 Reply

    Brian

    If he bill passes how long do you think to it’s trashed?

  • #29562 Reply

    Snoopy

    The Bill did not get voted on during the Morning Session. The House will reconvene @ 2:45pm today where it looks like it will be the 24th bill voted on.

    I spent the morning doing research on this and here is where things get confusing to me…..The Bill has moved from 1st Consideration to 2nd Consideration??? PA House rules require 3 “Yes” votes to move the bill to the Senate. Tomorrow is the last voting day of the year and now suddenly the Bill has had some sort of first round “yes” vote that was not done on the House Floor??

    From what I read this is exactly how SORNA went down in 2011. There were no victory laps on the House Floor or any mention of what everyone was voting. The Speaker said (I think it was HB70) and then, seconds later, Bill passes, next bill……Now there were a ton of victory laps in Press Releases and campaign nonsense.

    http://www.house.state.pa.us/Video/HouseVideo.cfm

  • #29602 Reply

    Brian

    @Snoopy
    They probably didn’t even vote they just shoved it though under the radar like they did with SORNA, if you saw years back they said the bill flew under the radar with no problem at all. It’s ridiculous how illegally they do things, I know this bill will help me but it’s still not right the way they ar doing it if you know what I mean.

  • #29619 Reply

    terry brunson

    In HB 1952 look for the words JUDICIAL DETERMINATION

  • #29620 Reply

    terry brunson

    That means you have to go to a court and get a court order to get off. . . Under MUNIZ the get off is automatic
    HB 1952 you have to file if you want off

    Don’t sound to good

    • #29627 Reply

      Snoopy

      @Terry

      So I would go back to 10 years instead of 25, but with HB 1952, does this mean I would need to go before a judge to get off once my 10 years has been completed, or at that point am I just done?

      • #29704 Reply

        terry brunson

        Under HB 1952 if you have 25 year SORNA tier 2 and you get put under HB 1952 you would go to the original 10 year date. It puts you back to 19 Dec 2012 what you had. If your were done like Brian you would be done and taken off. Life time non SVP and those still not finish the 10 years would have to continue on the registry. But if they file Mandamus as JUDICAL DETERMINATION WERE pRO sE OR BY A LAWYER THEY WOULD GET OFF THE REGISTRY

        bUT WHEN mUNIZ DECISION GETTING OFF THE REGISTRY WOULD BE AUTOMATIC NO FILING NOTHING
        Muniz forces the PSP to take you off – under HB1952 you have to file in court case by case mandamus under Muniz request to get off.

  • #29625 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry Brunson
    Who has to go to a court and get a court order to get off.
    I read through HB 1952 from start to finish again, In all of the different sections it only states who’s piroid of registration has not expired, I assume this means HB 1952 only applies to registration in which has not expired?
    Terry I hope it’s ok and I should have asked you first but I used some of what you explained to me in one if you posts to me to try and help someone else on another rso type web page. But there is noting I can do to change it, I apologize if you are offended in any way.

    • #29705 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Brian
      This is terry brunson your friend – I am proud of you for using what I told you. I understand your sense of wanting to help other people in this fight you have my permission to use any statement I say. as long as you want. .. . .I am your friend to the end in this. . . . . Smile a while longer Victory is close. . . . . . . Shout out to Chuck

  • #29629 Reply

    Cary

    It almost sounds like either pre-sorna people who has not finished their registration period will have to file some kind of motion to get off the registery. So if i was convected in 1993 and my 10 year period started in 2003 3 years of probation which judge told me after i complete my 3 years then my 10 year starts. So in 2013 i would have been off the regestery. So if the fix passes would i have to file to get off the registry? Due to Sorna i got stuck doing the 25 years and that would be up in july of 2024.

    • #29635 Reply

      Chuck

      Cary,
      No that is 100 incorrect. If you started in 2003 you last year to register would of been 2014.
      Year 1 2003-2004
      YEAR 2 2004-2005
      Year. 3 2005-2006
      Year 4 2006-2007
      Year 5 2007-2008
      Year 6 2008-2009
      Year 7 2009-2010
      Year 8 2010-2011
      Year 9 2011-2012
      Year 10 2013-2014.

      ALOT of offenses do not understand this and get violated becuase they didn’t update their info in their final year because they thought they were done. It’s actually 11 calendar years you are on for a 10 year sentence. I know this because my original sentence was a 10 year one. 2010 I started and have to update until 2021.
      And NO THERE IS NO asking a judge to get off. THERE IS NO GETTING OFF due to Muniz!! Pre Sorna people, like me, will be DENIED. We will be returned to our SORNA SENTENCES.

  • #29636 Reply

    Chuck

    Attention to all
    House bill 1952 DOES NOT I repeat DOES NOT allow pre Sorna people to request to be left off. We will be retired to our SORNA sentences even though Muniz will be upheld.
    I know terry has been spreading you will be able to ask a judge but it is FALSE. I have it on direct suthority from the PSP they they will be ignoring Muniz once the bill passes.

    • #29708 Reply

      terry brunson

      When Muniz is ignored when the HB 1952 is paased – In ignoring Muniz- What action do you think Pre-SORNA people that are still treated unfair are going to do?

      I beat you cannot say it – – – – So I’ll say it for – – – – – – – THEY WILL FILE IN COURT UNDER MUNIZ [.]

      THAT IS GOING TO YIELD A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION – The PSP can and possibly will ignore Muniz. . . . . . . I filed Mandamus – I saw what was coming and I resent Chuck’s comments that I am spreading something false I take that personal and to the heart. I feel I am informing just as you are. . . . . .

      That is why I at some points don’t like to help people.. . . They are stuck on stupid to revert to he’s right and he’s wrong tactics to solidify their hater status quo.

      Muniz decision is the law of this Commonwealth now – on State right under the Pa. Constitution – The Muniz – issue is about the dicta commons on the U.S. Constitution that Freed think was the independent factor that the PASC made in MUNIZ it was not that is why the Freed camp will never see the floor of the SCOTUS with regards to MUNIZ it will be denied at conference call just like all the other states that went down this path.

      If one cannot understand or appreciate what is being said – about the Muniz case or the half help in HB 1952 – it will take what that bill said clearly at its end. . . . .

      An individual who committed an offense set forth
      in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55 on or after April 22, 1996, but
      before December 20, 2012, and whose period of
      registration as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55 has not
      expired.
      (ii) An individual who, before or after the
      effective date of this paragraph:
      (A) Commits an offense subject to 42 Pa.C.S.
      Subch. H; but
      (B) because of a judicial determination on or
      after the effective date of this section of the
      invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to
      registration as a sexual offender. The exact words from the HB 1952

  • #29646 Reply

    Brian

    Well I know one thing we will all find out the exact truth once the sht hits the fan, if 1952 gets approval or denied and once f’s cert is denied , God willing it will be denied. I see so many different opinions and stories, everyone is saying something different and everyones interpretation of the bill HB 1952 are different. Have you ever felt like stretch armstrong? I think I will consult an attorney to get 100% facts on this mater, from what I understand though is I should be done if this bill passes but people now are making it sound like no one is coming off no mater what

    • #29655 Reply

      Chuck

      Brian,
      You are right that is why I called the Megans Law Secrion. That is your best answer becuase they are literally the ones that will be enforcing the bill if it becomes law.
      For example, I didn’t even know Muniz and Neiman were going to get me off now until they told me. I was like I only have 3 years left. They said no if Muniz is upheld you will be off NOW due to Neiman. I was like , “WHAT”!!!!!
      I was like holy crap.
      You have to remember this. People are scared and desperate so they are “reviewing” the bill trying to find ways to “beat it”.
      Now one thing they did tell me was that the General Assembly is rumored to change the bill so that per Sorna people will be left off. Remember they don’t care one bit about Pre Sorna vs Sorna. In the end, they just want the registry to still be around. If the cost of keeping the registry another 25 years is letting pre Sorna go, they don’t want to do it, but they will do it in a heart beat and not even blink an eye. Half a loaf is WAY better than no loaf when you are HUNGRY!!

  • #29654 Reply

    Snoopy

    HB 1952 Passed the House of Representatives 188-0. It was in the first round votes at 8:30 this morning.

    This is the last day of the year for voting in the Senate, currently the bill is not on the Senate calendar for to perfunctory passthrough vote, but it would, not at all, surprise me if it gets added before the session that starts at 11am.

    • #29669 Reply

      Chuck

      @Snoopy
      Thank You, Snoopy. I enjoy staying informed. We might get a brief from Muniz in a day or two. They might file a little early. It is sad 1952 will pass, yet I think it will help people see that there shouldn’t be s registry. The only purpose of the registry is to shame the offenders. How can you expect offenders to rebuild if you are too busy shaming them. How about instead, you create an insurance fund that sex offenders pay into that will cover any claims against their employer becuase they hired you and then you did something bad. You pay like $10.00 until you have a claim. Once you have a claim, your rate goes up. For every year, you dot have a claim, your rate decreases.

      Try being part of the solution instead of just wanting to shaming people for potentially the rest of their lives.

      P.S. To the Mods,
      We need a button you click that will bring you to the latest post. This way you don’t have to scroll for 45 seconds.

  • #29673 Reply

    Mark

    HB1952 is off the Senate. It passed third consideration this morning. Good news but it probably pass before cert is denied

    • #29702 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Mark
      I think that is a very real possibility. Actually, I will be shocked if it doesn’t pass before cert is denied. However, PSP announced today they will be removing Pre Sorna people if 1952 becomes law.

      I am saddened that our post Sorna brothers will have to deal with the updated registry. Hopefully not for long. I do believe one day the registry will be found cruel and unusal. Just like today a lot of places are ruling you can’t stop people from living in certsin places just becuase they are sex offenders.

  • #29676 Reply

    Snoopy

    Didn’t see the senate vote on the bill. Looks like Jan 2nd until anything else happens there… I would think it should happen pretty quick from there, and then be signed by the gov.

  • #29685 Reply

    chuck

    Correction….
    I was told today the previous information I received was incorrect. If SCOTUS denies Cert, Pre-Sorna people will no longer exist on the registry.
    I apologize for any stress.

  • #29687 Reply

    Brian

    Common Chuck get it together lol jk, when is the date the brief is suposed to be given?

  • #29689 Reply

    Snoopy

    Supreme court brief is due monday dec. 18th

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\17-575.html

    Here’s a stupid question… in looking at hb1952 i noticed it says an ammendment. Are they simply ammending (changing) the enhancememts and such for the parts that were ruled unconstitutional – and not creating a NEW law? If so that would explain why presorna would revert to their original sentences… i am learning a lot, but will admit there is still a lot i dont know – can they do that legally? Like if the law is ruled unconstitutional can they just go and fix it and take out the bad parts and have it be ok, or does the whole unconstitutional law get tossed?

    • #29698 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Snoopy this is what happened.

      When they passed Sorna, they did not want two groups of offenders. One that we’re controlled under Pre-Sorna and those under Sorna. So to fix this, they made Sorna retroactive. Since the current law at the time said Megans Law was not punishment, this was legal. So now the Muniz decision says, “Hey, you can’t subject people sentenced before Sorna to the same rules as those who were convicted after.
      Fast forward to 1952. So there were sections of the current Megans Law that the Pa Supre Court said “becuase of this section and this one, this one, etc etc etc it is punishment. So I’m an attempt to nullify this ruling 1952 deleted these sections and replaced them with new ones.

      PSP said today in a press statement, that 1952 WILL NOT apply to pre-Sorna offenders IF Muniz is upheld. There will be NO NEED to see a judge.the judicial determination that everyone sees i. The bill means the SCORUS decision. If SCOTUS denies cert, NO Pre-SORNA people will have to register. Now there is a big cave eat to this. You have to continue untill they process all the paperwork which will take time.

      So yes, they can replace the “bad parts” and essentially make Megans Law non punititive. However I think all those offenders from 12/21/12 to whenever 1952 goes into effect will argue the new rules are ex post facto to them.

      When 1952 passes, it will be a Felony to provide housing to a sex offenders if they are using that housing to avoid registering.
      Also if you decide not to register and you are married, your spouse is committing a felony by not turning you in. Same with any family or friend that doesn’t turn you in.
      Tonight, I had a friend’s daughter physically assuslted and stripped naked because her dad is a sex offender. Police said “oh, maybe you shouldn’t have molested that girl then?? Basically it was my friend’s fault for making a mistake when he was 17 and she was 16. The girl he “molested” is his wife now.

    • #29699 Reply

      Chuck

      Snoopy
      Your confusing your terms. The law was NOT found unconstitutional. Just the way they were applying it was aka applying to to pre Sorna people. They are just deleting the bad parts that say you can apply the law retroactively and adding new penslities.

      • #29707 Reply

        terry brunson

        @Chuck

        How does HB 1952 affect a pre-SORNA RSO – NON – SVP under its provisions of getting off the registry?

        Under Muniz there is no way to revert backward to were you use to be under ML 1 2 or 3 or SORNA

        The Judicial determination is not what you are interpreting. . . as if Muniz is the judicial determination. . .

        If they mean that the context of the bill would express that- – – – But it does not—- a Non – SVP life time would be automatically take off the registry because Muniz decision kills the path to go back were to you were on the original circumstance of MLs 1 2 or 3 which were expired at implementation of SORNA. . . . . application in an ex post facto way…….

        HB 1952 don’t talk about correcting that for non SVP life timers . . . . They would have to bring suit to get off under a judicial determination claiming Muniz. That means filing something in court. Hos can you mis this. . . . . The context of the HB 1952 is targeting people from date after April 1996 but before 19 Dec 2012 at Sorna vote in. . . . .

        If you are in this class – which 80% of the pre – SORNA people are- This bill don’t help these people- but Muniz decision does. It Muniz gets all pre – SORNA people off the registry [.]

        HB 1952 keeps them on until a judicial determination releases them. The HB 1952 is a goo collage try – but it don’t fix that you cannot bring back expired law without a savings clause at the repeal of a law.

        You have to make new law to revive the rules of ML that were in the past. . . . . .The new law would be applied in a retroactive way which under Muniz is a no no- We need Muniz to help all 18,500 RSO’s in Pa. Not a HB 1952 which only helps a handful of low risk offender in their eyes…. Over 80% of the registry is filled full of life time offenders stuck there because of SORNA.

        HB 1952 would put them back at where they use to be- and if their 10 years are not up they still on the registry with thier rights being violated as to
        1. Reputation and shaming by being on a PSP website with picture and all personal info for public to see……. Read Constitution Art. 1 Section 1 in Muniz it stops this for all before 12-20-12

        HB 1952 don’t mention the fix to this at all ……. Neither Ex post facto of Pa. Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 17

    • #29706 Reply

      terry brunson

      @ Snoopy
      HB 1952 is a Muniz fix before the SCOTUS deny Freed’s Cert. He needed to buy time as a delay tactic to get the Pa law maker to put together this HB 1952 stuff as a Muniz fix option. Muniz is the law of the law in Pa. but the law makers don’t like the automatic application of Muniz – So they wrote up a fix to Muniz hoping it will satisfy Pre-SORNA RSO’s who rights been violated by SORNA rules.

      The HB 1952 is only good at putting people back at where they were 12 Dec 2012. . . . . . . . and if they make you go beyond 10 years you get off now with a I sorry – They are open to a suit now. HB 1952 don’t do anything for those who are not done the ten years where MUNIZ gets them off automatic no need to file nothing- the law makers don’t like this at all. . . .

      Under MUNIZ there is not old megan’s Laws to revert back too the law makers know this too.
      Under MUNIZ 18,500 RSO’s are set free no judicial determination but MUNIZ DECESION OF 19 JULY 2017.

      Under HB 1952 one not done 10 yerars must file a judicial determination in a court and get a order to get off the registry when Muniz decion alone would get you off the registry. . . Can you see that HB 1952 is not really a MUNIZ fix? It is a slick way of disrespecting the PASC decision on Muniz- – – -The challenge to HB 1952 is also that it too will be applied EX POST FACTO in retroactive way. . Muniz says this is a no no. . . Muniz remand is the fear of the Pa law makers. . . They are trying and hoping angainst hope to fix an unfixable thing.

      The PASC fixed things by giving MUNIZ to th us the Pa. law makers don’t like it so they want to do damage controll and further violate rights and tell you in HB 1952 – YOU NEED A JUDICAL DETERMINATION TO GET OFF THE REGISTRY. . . When Muniz would make the PSP put you off. . . The PSP is being used to take sides on Pa. law makers? or to Obey the Law MUNIZ handed down from the PASC. . .

      The PSP is the one that will be sued big time and look stuppit. A law called MUNIZ is in Place and the Law Makers don’t like it so the want to make a law to erace a law the is in a appeal to the SCOTUS

  • #29709 Reply

    terry brunson

    The PSP is not the bottom line authority – They are the enforcers of law. . . They are taking sides with the most recent law on the seen HB 1952 – To ignore Muniz is to invite a fight on Pa. Constitutional corrections entitled because of Muniz and Nieman cases.

    The PSP ML section as a lawyer that I am in battle with in a mandamus summary judgement. I had to amend my brief 3 time to keep up with changes to Muniz cert appeal, and HB 1952 to add the arguments to the brief.

    The PSP has 30 days after my filing to oppose what I am claiming Muniz and Nieman rights to be removed and not having to be sent back to where I use to be under old ML standard. . . I must be off. . . by Muniz and Nieman. . .

    Not pushed under some new law called a fix to Muniz. The PSP can ignore the Muniz decision – But chuck did you say Muniz and Nieman will get you off? Why did you say that. . . I thought PSP is ignoring Muniz???????????

    You are well respected by me- I am in a battle up front with the PSP in Court and I hear what the judges are saying and that will effect the out come of my case. . . It will be published and all will be able to read it – They may put NoN Precedent case on it to keep it quit – I am not spreading false information as you have claimed. . . . . .

    You seem to have said it clear that HB 1952 provision on the “Judicial Determination” is Muniz. . . . . But you said the PSP ML Section told you that they are not going to Follow Muniz. . . . . Do you see how that double talk is confusing. I have loss any respect for what you say – I am done on trying to put anymore effort in help other to see or understand the outcome of Muniz Niaman and HB 1952 How can the judicial determination be Muniz and You are being told the PSS will not follow Muniz. . . Listen to your own words. They you said Muniz and Niaman gets you off you didi know that. . . . Come on are you really on the team or on the side line hating ?

    • #29720 Reply

      Chuck

      Good Morning Terry,
      Yes, I agree with you that PSP is not the Supreme Authority. However, it is THEIR job to adminster the registry. Plus, they have no interest in fighting 10,000 cases in court. They may would be s huge burden on their legal counsel Office. Especially, all of the cases would be the same: Protesting their registration due to starting their registration prior to SORNA.
      Think for a second, do you think the PSP has the time and money to fight 10,000 cases??? I mean I would live in a tent so I could hire an attorney to challenge 1952 if I had to.

  • #29710 Reply

    Snoopy

    @ Chuck

    Can you post a copy of, or a link of the press release from the PSP that you were talking about? That would be amazing if it’s true and they are going to actually do that…

  • #29718 Reply

    Brian

    @Terry
    Thank you for the clarification, I would much appreciate that you keep helping and keep people up to date on what’s going on here. This stuff is very confusing to me and a lot of others, there are many opinions and people seeing things differently then each other.

  • #29719 Reply

    Chuck

    @ Snoopy,
    I didn’t read it online. My neighbor who is in law enforcement was telling me about it. If I read it online, I would of cited it

  • #29724 Reply

    terry brunson

    Muniz and Niaman are land mark cases that are saviour cases of equal protection of right s to RSO’s today.

    Niaman was like Muniz years back fighting Megan’s Law 3 until SORNA came.

    Now Muniz help is here are it has every punitive base covered to give victory to all that it applies to before December 20, 2012.

    Now HB 1952 when voted into law will under mind the results of Muniz as if the PASC never gave a decision on Muniz………

    To make HB 1952 equal with Muniz would be to cover every base Muniz covers . . . . .

    1. Shaming on public website –
    2. Retroactive application prohibitions
    3. Punitive aspects erased to Pre-SORNA people
    4. Give due process equal protections of PSP showing how factually a RSO is a danger to the public by evidence and not just by being classified as a sex offender by a law.
    5. Making closes family & friends commit a felony to aid RSO’s
    6. HB 1952 is a knee jerk reaction to the water fall results that Muniz would bring if Pa. law maker don’t put in place controls to slow a mandatory removal of names off the registry.

    • #29739 Reply

      Chuck

      Hi Terry,
      If you look at my email you will see that your claim that 1952 will undermine Muniz is simply not supported by the text of the bill. It specifically states when SCOTUS denies cert Pre-Sorna people will no have to register. That is the “Judicial Determination” the bill is talking about. PSP will automatically remove Pre-Sorna People. Says so right in the text. Your understanding of the term “Judicial Determination is flawed, my brother. ” i still love you though 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • #29727 Reply

    terry brunson

    The PSP Megan’s Law Section has honest respectable people doing a great job – Like miss Joanna – Reynolds a lawyer for the PSP – She is confused on what to tell the Court in response to what I am saying in my brief. I will soon file an Enbac to the Commonwealth court to have 7 Judge review befor I appeal to Superior court on the way to the PASC.

    PSP lawyer don’t know all the details yet. They are waiting just like we are. Prosecutes are not set on which direction to take either. I am not a lawyer – but in the Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg I am making a mark as knowing what is going on with Muniz and HB -1952 which they had no idea was going on in the city that they are in. . .. Harrisburg, Pa.

    Dec 13, the Senate retires at 9:48 P.M. with HB 1952 still on the table with 3 consecrations to be put on the floor for a Senate vote. The Pa. House move HB-1952 through the Pa. House with a 188 to 0 vote. . . That is a good indication that if any law marker goes against HB-1952 it will be hell to pay.

    HB 1952 will fast track through the Senate as well – It will be on the Governor’s desk in Jan 2018 when the Senate comes by into session for voting. HB 1952 will make law status. But it will be challenged are meet Muniz head on in the PASC floor to face Ex post Facto muster. The PSP will be told that the New law has no punistive factors in it. . . . . . Liar liar pants on fire. . . . .. . . .

    Punitive point 1 – Reputation and shaming is a punishment of tar and feathering without a due process hearing to be put on a PSP website Pa. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 1, and Sec. 9

    Punitive point 2 – Ex Post Facto application of new law on people who’s offense date is before law enactment date. See Pa. Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 17

    Punitive point 3 – Discrimination against group in set date range as Pre- SORNA RSO’s that Commonwealth by new law is allowing PSP to enforce against people in these date ranges sex offenses after April 1996 but before 19 December 2012. See Pa. Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 26

    Need I continue? ? ? ? HB 1952 will not face the hot water as it becomes law, but when it becomes law it will be put in the hot spot quickly to be kicked back to the PASC who will bring Muniz back to the table – on State right alone and the new Law is done. Then where do PSP and Pa law makers put 18,500 RSO’s then????? Pre- SORNA people will be free to step away and have the Pa. law makers try one more again to limit the exodus off the registry.

  • #29736 Reply

    Chuck

    The following is an email I sent to the Post Gazette concerning their inaccurate, misleading news article:

    Mrs. Ward,
    Hi, my name is Chuck. I am not an attorney. In fact, I am a sex offender currently registered on what is commonly known as “Megan’s Law”. I have been on the registry since 2010, so I am known as “Pre- Sorna. In other words, I belong to the group of offenders that have been on the registry since before 12/20/212 when Adam Walsh Act aka Sex Offender Registry Act became effective in Pa.
    Even though I am not an attorney, I am expert as to what are the requirements for Pre-Sorna offenders because I had to be or risk being thrown in prison. I have spent countless hours on the phone with Pa State Police’s Megan’s Law Section to ensure I am 100% compliant.
    I say all this to let you know I am heavily invested in following the Commonwealth v Muniz decision as it is challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court, and tracking any changes the Pa General Assembly may make to the registry due to the Commonwealth v Muniz Decision on July 19, 2017
    This brings me o PAHB 1952 and your story on it that was published on December 5, 2017, at 7:05 pm. In your article you state the following:
    Ms. Dalton said the legislation puts back into effect the Megan’s Law statute provisions to apply to offenders convicted prior to SORNA’s implementation. It also addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns that SORNA is punitive by backing off from some of the more onerous registration provisions ( Ward, 2017).
    The text of PA HB 1952 shows that this statement is not 100% accurate. The following is from the text of PAHB 1952:

    (1) An individual who committed an offense set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55 on or after April 22, 1996, but before December 20, 2012, and whose period of registration under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55 has not expired. (2) AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE UNDER A FORMER SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION LAW OF THIS COMMONWEALTH ON OR AFTER APRIL 22, 1996, BUT BEFORE DECEMBER 20, 2012, WHOSE PERIOD OF REGISTRATION HAS NOT EXPIRED. (2) (3) An individual who, before the effective date of 20170HB1952PN2820 – 9 – <– <– 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 this paragraph: (i) Commits an offense subject to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H (relating to registration of sexual offenders); but (ii) because of a judicial determination on or after the effective date of this section of the invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H, is not subject to registration as a sexual offender.
    The quoted text starts on page 9 and goes to page 10. I will post a link to the bill’s text.

    Please respond to this email asap.

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1952&pn=2820

    Ward , P. (2017, December 05). Legislature to address flaws in Pa’s sex offender registration laws. Retrieved December 14, 2017, from http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2017/12/05/Pennsylvania-sex-offender-SORNA-registration-state-police-Ron-Marsico-legislation-Muniz/stories/201712050172

  • #29744 Reply

    Pixar Stories

    first time commenter. Question 1. found this site today after a google search for organizations advocating reforms for sex offender laws. I have been physically/emotionally assulted for theses laws. I am a family member protective and supporting a tier 2 registrant. I noticed in several articles i read on this site today, that no one in position of law speaks or guides anyone. There is no area or link to get solid info, accurate updates or legal advise to all. we are poor and in bad mental health, all due and documented thru our psychologists/psychiatrists due to these decades of registrations and pressure under the threat of imprisonment. We are subject to dying of a heart attack every time a door bell rings (we’ve none in these house). Is there no one willing to guide and protect people and their constitutional rights and universal rigths to humanity without a profit? Were are the lawsuits to strip states of money? which is how the only understand!

    2. Is anyone willing to start a registry for convicted politician or public figures and celebrities? i read that somewhere someone interested, but not one person has responded to that commenter. So sad the lack of support and the cowardice while many of us take the brunt force of illegal acts of violence and effects of laws and get told to shut up of face having something found in not compliance.

    • #29751 Reply

      Chuck

      Hi Pixar,
      I would call some attorneys or even do a google search for free legal clinics in your area. For example, I live in Carlisle and due to the law school here, we have a free legal clinic. Also, you may want to think about contacting your local chapter of the ALCU.
      Next, if you need medical assistance I would suggest applying for Medicaid services at your local assistance office.
      Finally, PSP (Pa State Police) has a ‘Megan’s Law Section’ that can address any question you may have concerning an offender’s registration requirements. The number is 1866 771 3170. All they do is deal with Megan’s Law issues so hey know their stuff, as long as you are talking about current law and not propose new law.
      I hope this helps. Don’t worry we will all figure this out together.

    • #29752 Reply

      Chuck

      @ Pixar
      to answer your question why it seems no one is willing o help without making a profit. First, we have the ALCU. Second, obtaining the skills to be a lawyer is expensive and very time-consuming. As such to compensate those who spent the time and money to become a lawyer, they typically have to charge rates, low-income people, like myself, cannot afford. There are a few lawyers that will work for peanuts but they are so overworked it is hard to get on their schedule, and if you do get on their schedule it’s tough from them to give your case the attention it needs.
      It’s hard to not have a “the world is after me” attitude when you are on the registry. I know, I, and I believe most if not all of us here, are on the registry as well. However, having this attitude will prevent you from finding the one person who will help you.

  • #29765 Reply

    Brian

    Ok sorry but I have to ask this AGAIN because I need clarification on this matter, Are people who are pre SORNA and ordered to register for 10 years and their 10 year has long been served going to get relief once SB 1952 in signed into law by governor Wolf.
    I have many different answers from asking this before now I would like the correct answer if someone can please give me that thanks..

    • #29795 Reply

      Chuck

      Brian, My Brother all ty have to worry about is waiting for PSP to officially acknowledge the denial of Muniz( assuming it happens).
      Most likely, you are going to have to make you March date. However, by the time it rolls around again, you should be clear. As always, double and triple check with PSP Megans Law Section before you make any final decision concerning your registration.
      Make sure we spread the word guys. For those, who will still be on the registry PSP WILL NOT be mailing reminders to certain classes anymore. I think it’s only SVP’s but I am NOT 100% sure. You are going to have to pay attention to the calendar yourself. Spread the word guys, tell every offender you know.

  • #29783 Reply

    Snoopy

    @ Chuck & Pixar…

    Re: It’s hard to not have a “the world is after me” attitude when you are on the registry. I know, I, and I believe most if not all of us here, are on the registry as well. However, having this attitude will prevent you from finding the one person who will help you…

    While it is not necessarily on topic… Amen to that, and I know I have had more than my fair share of fear and meltdowns and self pitty… and yes would even admit to be depressively unstable depending on the day… sometimes it is easier than others to pull myself out of it.

    But I love snow days. I clear our driveway and sidewalk. Then I clear out 80 something year old lady next doors driveway and sidewalk… then the next house down has an 89 something year old guy and i get his driveway and sidewalk. Then i go and clear the fire hydrants, and where my kids elementary school bus stop is i clear the street where the bus stops so when they get off the sidewalk to go on the street to get on the bus they arent going in the snow… and since the business was just sold and nobody is maintaining it yet i also clear the sidewalk for that area of the school bus stop… and not that i am doimg anything wrong by being there, but just to be clear no kids are there at the time… then i went up to my inlaws and cleared out my wifes parents big driveway and sidewalk… i do that every time it snows. Even when i can barely shovel anymore because we got over a foot of snow.

    I think i have $2 in my wallet, and maybe $35 in our checking account till my wife gets paid next week… but i had people offer me money – just like they always do, and I turned it down, just like i always do. It makes me feel good and appreciated to help someone who needs it and at that moment anyone who knows and sees me doesnt care that i am a sex offender… and while my wifes brother and sister would and have called in tips to the psp that are provable lies, i have proven to my wifes parents that i have changed and a good person worthy of being forgiven.

    Sometimes the good can outweigh the bad… sometimes we all, including myself, just need the reminder

  • #29789