Pennsylvania Legislature attempts to “fix” unconstitutional law

By Paula Reed Ward . . . A bill introduced this week in Harrisburg attempts to fix flaws in the state’s sex-offender registration system identified in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in July and could affect more than 10,000 registrants.

Bill sponsor Rep. Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, called it “imperative” to amend the law.

“We have worked hard to come up with a fix that will do just that and are expediting this fix,” Mr. Marsico said.

On Tuesday, the legislation cleared the House Judiciary Committee, of which Mr. Marsico is chairman, and could go to the floor for a vote by the full House as soon as next week.

Karen Dalton, a committee attorney who helped draft the legislation, said that without action, more than 10,000 sex offenders sentenced before the state’s registration law took effect Dec. 20, 2012, would have to come off the registry.

That would mean victims of those who have been deemed sexually violent predators would no longer get notice of changes in their circumstance, such as where they live or work or what type of car they drive.

The case that spurred the need for legislation involved Jose Muniz, who was found guilty in Cumberland County in 2007 of indecent assault. Under what was then Megan’s Law, he would have had to register as a sex offender for 10 years. But Muniz failed to appear at his sentencing. When he was apprehended in 2014, Megan’s Law had been replaced by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which called for a lifetime registration.

Muniz challenged the registration as unconstitutional because he said it increased punishment after the fact.

The state Supreme Court agreed, finding that SORNA’s registration requirements were punitive. But the decision provided no guidance, causing upheaval in the criminal justice system, as neither prosecutors nor the Pennsylvania State Police, which administers the registration program, knew how to address the court’s concerns.

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.

For example, a person required to register for life, as well as those labeled Sexually Violent Predators, could petition to be relieved of the requirements after 25 years.

“It’s going to be completely up to the judge’s discretion,” Ms. Dalton said.

In addition, offenders required to register quarterly, who previously had to appear to update their status in person, she said, could do it by phone if they have met all their requirements.

Ms. Dalton said the changes are meant to comply with Muniz, as well as a recent Superior Court decision out of Butler County that found that the state’s process for declaring an offender a Sexually Violent Predator was unconstitutional because of Muniz.

The legislation, she said, is a bipartisan effort and had input from the governor’s office, state police, the Board of Pardons, the Sex Offender Assessment Board, the Office of Victim Advocate and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association.

“We think it’s important for public safety to know who’s a convicted sex offender and where they’re residing,” said Richard Long, executive director of the DAs’ association.

But Aaron Marcus, an assistant public defender in Philadelphia, said the new bill, as well as all sex-offender registration laws, “create a false sense of security and a false sense of fear.”

“The Legislature is being reactive and has not once looked to see if this law does what they want, which is keep people safe.”

Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Avatar

This topic contains 63 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Tim Lawver 1 year, 7 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #28762 Reply
    Robin Vander Wall
    Robin Vander Wall
    Admin

    By Paula Reed Ward . . . A bill introduced this week in Harrisburg attempts to fix flaws in the state’s sex-offender registration system identified in
    [See the full post at: Pennsylvania Legislature attempts to “fix” unconstitutional law]

  • #28763 Reply
    Avatar
    Mark

    So it has begun, but how? The only thing I can find is House Bill 1952 http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2017&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=1952 but where does that fix Muniz? This was a topic of our latest session with our therapist yesterday. He is opposed to the whole situation as he believes that it makes things worse for the public and not a safety issue at all. Got to head off to work.

    • #29756 Reply
      Avatar
      who removes from list

      If anyone is from Pennsylvania, and have been charged or convicted and are incarcerated with or for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender under SORNA.

      My husband has had his case dismissed due to MUNIZ, the DA has dropped both the charges of failure to register accurate information and failure to register updates to his internet identifiers.

      My husband’s attorney filed for Motion to Dismiss his charges per Muniz and the DA dropped the charges after using a delay tactic called 30 days to file a brief which they never filed it because Muniz applied to my husband.

      He was convicted in 2006 for his crime that placed him under Megan’s Law 3, he is PRE SORNA.

      There is no stay and they cant prosecute for failure to register as sex offender under SORNA, per Muniz and only if Muniz Decision applies to the defendant.

      Commonwealth Shawn Christopher Williams, had his cased overturned by the Superior Court for Failure to Register as a sex offender under SORNA. Muniz applied to him and he was released from prison on Oct 20, 2017 one day after his charges where dismissed.

      Look up Shawn Christopher Williams, who is not my husband, but this case was used to help push the dismissal of my husband charges.

      If anyone in jail and anyone needs an attorney or motions written for a low cost please reply to this message and I will direct you to contact the attorney who will fight for you.

      • #29812 Reply
        Avatar
        Bernie S

        ATTN: Who Removed……..

        The attorney information would be great, please provide.

      • #29821 Reply
        Avatar
        R

        Hi anonymous I have a couple questions, without intruding too much. You said charges were dropped due to muniz. My question is 1, if he was charged for those offenses. Then I’m guessing he must have still been on the registry, did he or his he if so going to be removed from the list ?. My 2,ND question is what was his tier status please, thank you.

        • #30033 Reply
          Avatar
          Who removes from list

          He was a tier 3, IDSI conviction in 2006. He was Pre Sorna. He is still on the registry but they cant prosecute for the failures because he under Muniz is unconstitutional. His attorney said to keep compliant or they will keep charging you and then dropping it down the road. He told my husband dont deal with the headache for now, just comply. Stay off the Da radar.

          He also has a writ in the lower court pending a hearing per Munix, asking the court to remove him from SORNA by court order.

          My husband put some money up. $10,000 for attorney to fight his failure to register charges, internet identifiers. And he put up $4500 for his lower court writ.

        • #30672 Reply
          Avatar
          R

          It makes absolutely no sense at all, how they can drop charges based on muniz. but keep us on the registry, Muniz is not on there. I had a write of habeas corpus hearing continued, to be removed from the list. And the Commonwealth pulled the ol continued b.s, pending the outcome of the muniz decision, I have pending charges which my p.d said. is confident they will be dropped due to Muniz, but as for getting off m.l. I was told that’s not going to be easy, I will have to file a write of mandamus hire private attorney $$$$$ .To petition the psp, to be removed, wait now should they not follow the courts ruling ? a bunch b.s is what it is.

        • #30992 Reply
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          @ R

          Filing habeas corpus is not the writ for getting off the registry – It is the Mandamus Writ.

          If you have money for the lawyer they can do it for you. If No money you can Pro Se if you know the court’s rules, or the last thing is to wait it out and see how the PSP will react to the MUNIZ – remand from the SCOTUS on Cert denial. It is a personal matter to way. . . .

        • #31041 Reply
          Avatar
          R

          My p.d filed the writ of habeas corpus, thank you I’m well aware of the legal proceedings.

        • #31012 Reply
          Avatar
          Tim Lawver

          Demands for update will cease, but that doesn’t preclude the State’s obligation to maintain the database. That is the difference.

          The right for any state or private individuals to own a database is de-facto. What one DOES with that database is another matter.

        • #31127 Reply
          Avatar
          Paul

          Im pretty sure there is not a right to publish false information and the courts are ruling people removed and PSP has complied so far.

        • #31206 Reply
          Avatar
          R

          The lower court followed the pasc, ruling and Shawn Williams was released, but as of last night when I checked he is still showing non compliant on the website. ? Hypothetically let’s say the p.s.p has Jon Doe in custody, he is sent before a judge and ye Honor says let him him go!. No strings attached I do believe that they have to grant the person his freedom, so how can they think that they can just do what they want is beyond me. It’s absurd, is the p.s.p agency whatever title it holds. A court of law now, writ of mandamus my expletive. Writ of lawsuit is more like it, for unlawfully disregarding a legit court order. And continuing to smear my name and reputation, for something that I’ve already paid for, put it this way. If I go into magistrate court via cuffs, and the judge says time served due to this new ruling he’s free to go. no police agency has the right to say, nope sorry don’t care what the judge says we’re holding you anyways. B.s unless they have new charges against you, they should be held in contempt of court.

  • #28794 Reply
    Avatar
    Maestro

    “That would mean victims of those who have been deemed sexually violent predators would no longer get notice of changes in their circumstance, such as where they live or work or what type of car they drive”

    That would mean “victims” would never be able to put this sh*t behind them. Even the “victims” of consensual relationships.
    Also, this is the same excuse that ALL states use as a means to say we NEED a registry. Yet NOT ALL states require lifetime registration, so, therefore it’s a load of horsesh*t because EVENTUALLY we come OFF the registries. Then what? What does the “victim” have to say then? Nothing. Because then it goes from “keeping the victims aware” to “oh well, they (the offenders) have fulfilled their obligation, now they’re free to live their lives”
    This makes 0 sense to a level headed person.

    “We think it’s important for public safety to know who’s a convicted sex offender and where they’re residing,”

    Yeah, they THINK. But they’re not entirely SURE. But they don’t care where the gang members, drug pushers or armed robbers live. Interesting.

    Welcome to the USA; Land of the fear mongering, home of the unforgiving.

    • #29185 Reply
      Avatar
      Candice

      My thoughts exactly! I had some of the article copied in preparation to write a response, But you did it for me. When a victim gets updates on the offender it brings back memories they otherwise may have gotten over. This just keeps the memories fresh and stirs up anger and hate.

      I wonder if anyone has tried to pass a law where the victim can suggest the offender no longer has to register or be put on a ‘public’ registry? When the victim is a family member the registry does not allow the family to heal and move on. When the victim marries the offender after the fact (teenage sweethearts), they both will have a hard time moving on also.

      If there was ever a ‘real’ reason to have a ‘public’ registry, it should be for those who’s offense was on a non-family member (not to include victims who marry the offender after the fact) AND who has prior sexual offenses. First time offenders should not have to be on a public registry.

    • #29735 Reply
      Avatar
      JoeHillsGhost

      Politicians think?

  • #28815 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    I tell you what lets bring back “stoning” that way everybody in the nation gets a piece of the pie. From a simple stealing a kiss to a sexual harassment suit or a simple touching or petting inappropriately. That would be a quick fix for everybody. Women can say anything but the proof is in the pudding.
    Now from this article is that Pennsylvania wants to fix flaw’s…………I guess they would want to fix law’s in the Ten commandments also as it seems the USA doesn’t have any love in any of this sex offender stuff, weather its having a potty mouth, setting someone up on the internet or some mom complaining that her daughter was raped by some guy or a little touching incident. How cold are these law’s when those that self-righteous peopleseem to have the wisdom of Solomon don’t even have a clue.
    The courts are almost like matching for nickels. Heads I win, tails you lose but if we lose we are gonna fix the flaw so we win. See its all about government. Seems they couldn’t care one thing about God’s commandments and law’s. I guess that’s what people get for not standing up to all this.
    I still wish someone would investigate those little e-mails that one gets from these little tramps that want to set you up and trap one in a lot of this… I would bet you a dime a dollar that it is the government trying to pull one over like they always do in these sex issues.

  • #28832 Reply
    Avatar
    Chris

    I didn’t read the whole bill, but from what I did read it’s the same old, same old. This is a typical response by states when one of their statutes is deemed unconstitutional. Re-write the law and say, “oh look, we fixed it.” Courts will rule existing lawsuits to be “moot” because of the modifications and dismiss them, or in the case of PA v. Muniz, the state can simply withdraw their petition for certiorari. Then the process has to start all over again with people filing lawsuits and the courts bind it up for a year or two while thousands of peoples’ rights are being trampled on. Meanwhile incumbents get re-elected based on their “tough on sex offenders” record and their love of “saving the children.” (While they sometimes have victims along the wayside of their own past.)

    This is exactly why I would rather the US Supreme Court had taken up the whole issue of the registry in Snyder. I know that the denial of cert was a “victory”, but if they had heard the case and upheld the court below’s ruling, this cycle of rewriting laws would become useless. I’m holding out hope that more and more district and circuit court judges have the balls to stand up for what’s right, and eventually push the whole issue of the constitutionality of registries back to SCOTUS. And the sooner the better.

    • #30232 Reply
      Avatar
      Trish

      To Chris…..
      You are exactly correct the same old bs…. when the people need and deserve justice!….abuse by governing authorities runs far and wide until the people suffer and endure in humane hardships and provide some amazing thing to convence and prove idiot officials that the majority of ex offenders are not bad but bad behavior or bad judgement and that the very corrupt laws they have supported, implemented and imposed on citizens have and are or will destroy lives, which have looooong been proven to be unconstitutional and out right WRONG! Why is it hard for self righteous overzealous abusive authorities always allowed to do their harm upon the masses? Yet deep down ……everyone knows……treating a person who has already paid a heavy price losing years of life in prison and the stress, physical toll and mental depression as well as all the madness that comes from the registry, well anyone looking at the idea of a public registry surely would recognize quickly that it infringes on rights that should not be allowed and that organizations should be established immediately to protect and defend against tyranny!

  • #28837 Reply
    Avatar
    Registry Rage

    The registry does not protect and safeguard children. It’s primary purpose is to incite fear into the community and provide JOB SECURITY via security theater for the local police and U.S Marshals. It’s no different than privatizing fear for profit at the expense of the taxpayer. There is absolutely no tactical advantage in “knowing” where someone lives. NONE.

    Megan’s law? Adam Walsh Act? They’re nothing but a collective hate and fear campaign. They do not deal in absolutes, only “what ifs” (intangibles) where speculation trumps science and facts – where logic and reason caves to FEAR and EMOTION.

    • #31542 Reply
      Avatar
      Tim Lawver

      Soot Rage,

      The under lying purpose was to advance the cause of the electronic deep state. Databases are proving to be a useful tool to maintain political clout. NSA is already tapping into every American’s info with the collection of biometric data on every American, felons or not. The reason is obvious. Repubs and Dems will do anything and everything to maintain power and lucrative government contracts for their people.

      What we are experiencing is not, “Justice” rather it is the two parties securing “just-us”.

  • #28871 Reply
    Avatar
    R

    Ex post facto ex post facto, they should not be allowed to write anything to overturn that ruling.

  • #28870 Reply
    Avatar
    R

    Changes meant to comply with “muniz”, hmmmm! Left out the part of the fact that it was based and won on the ex post facto clause. Not only is ex post a violation, I also believe it falls under the double jeopardy rule.i don’t see how they can apply any changes to construe the decision pre 2012, due to ex post facto. If that’s the case then the ex post facto clause should be non existent, hope I made some sense of my input.

  • #28875 Reply
    Avatar
    Wisdom of Solomon

    Note to Pennsylvania Legislature: HOW ABOUT ABOLISHING THE REGISTRY ALTOGETHER???!!! And for all the other 49 states, the same message. This is not NAZI GERMANY circa 1930! If you want excessive punishment for people who commit sex crimes then build the excessive punishment into your penal code and be done with it. In other words, do all the punishing of the prep at the time of his/her trial, not add on years AFTER conviction and sentence. Does that not violate the EX POST FACTO CLAUSE??? Which by the way is being steadily eroded by the federal courts—along with the rest of the US Constitution. And about the US Constitution, I wish I could get an artist to draw this picture: “A town square, in the year 1776, the US Constitution stands on a high pedestal, 10 feet high, muscle bound, proud, a crowd standing around it, in awe, praising the new document. Flash forward to the year 2017, a back alley any city USA, the document, diminished to only 2 feet, tattered, torn, sloven, cigarette butt in its mouth and empty wine bottle in hand, musing about its past glory.” Yes ladies and gentleman, this is or will be very soon, the fate of our precious US Constitution.

    • #28937 Reply
      Avatar
      Tim L

      Wisdom of Solomon,

      I like you believe our courts have failed us in many ways but the congress has to take more of the blame for diminishing basic constitutional protections and limitations.

      The reason the founders undertook writing the constitution in the first place was to keep the union whole. Other constitutional republics have failed in the past. The American version imagined by the founders was ratified after much deliberation. The rules were established to keep government under control by purposely limiting the power to do certain things that undermine the peoples trust in their FORM of government.

  • #29049 Reply
    Avatar
    Adam

    I read a good portion of the bill but can not tell how it will affect my case. I was convicted in 2011 and was not required to register at all until AWA came into effect. Does this “fix” reset things to pre-AWA enough that I would come off the registry?

  • #29073 Reply
    Avatar
    R

    The article states, attempts to fix flaws in “m.l”. O well let’s see here, I guess there missing the whole point again about this ruling was based on ex post facto. Left that part out, for the general public to read and understand. So how now is that a flaw hmmmm!, No no wait it wasn’t a flaw until now. It wasn’t one to begin with, it’s a legit ruling by the pa,supreme Court. And its only a flaw for now for registered sex offenders, not a flaw. A foolish attempt by these crazy politicians too keep the money train flowing,now there going back to the older version!. Let me see here, how’s this you can’t fix something that can’t be fixed. I would think that no matter how they write this new construed silly bill, that they can’t bend the fix to Trump ex post facto. Next up to bat the 8,the amendment, cruel and unusual punishment for are new battle.

    • #29175 Reply
      Avatar
      Tim Lawver

      The most important aspect of the ruling here for pre-Megans law convicted is the INTENT of the people has been exposed. They intended to punish those already convicted. While SCOTUS 2003 found no punitive INTENT in the Whetterling act they can no longer make that claim. The proof is in the banishment! That was always going to be the goal of such another,” electronic regulatory regime…TO IMPOSE AFFIRMATIVE DISABILITY AND RESTRAINT PERIOD!

      Soon we will see the use of facial recognition devices in America to do the same thing. The devices are cheap to produce but are worthless without the all important DATABASE. Thus we see recently Mr. Schumer making law that opened the FBI database to the general public. He’s gotta have some financial interest in there somewhere.

  • #29251 Reply
    Avatar
    henry

    Fact 1- When Pa sorna went into effect 12/20/12 all former laws expired.42 Pacsa sec.97799.41 and1 Pacsa sec.1971(A) and Pacsa sec.1928 (b)
    Fact 2 – Pa sorna deemed punitive per muniz
    Fact 3 – only the punishment in effect date of crime can be imposed -basic expost facto -not date of conviction .
    Fact 4 – Pre Pa sorna R.C. have no legal duty to comply,.Com.V. Willams, no2191 EDA2016 decided 10/04/17 and Com.V.Dechammer ,no 121 map 2016 Dec.11/22/17,ect.
    Fact 5- File petition for review / habeas curpus all in one your county court do not name PSP as a party. They have no standing as are administrative branch.relief must be granted per the above said
    Fact 6- Every individual PSP employee,Att gen staff governor staff and the lawyers they employ have each violated the Pa.Rules of professional conduct as well as engaged in ultra vires conduct in thier non compliance with muniz. Haefer V.Melo,502 us 21 (1991) can be disciplined sued in their individual capacity and should be it has to stop..
    Fact 7- If date of crime after 12/20/17 precedent contractual law dictates adverse contracts of adhesion are unenforceable .
    Fact 8-fact 6 also applies to the proposed non-punitive Pa house bill1952 of 2017 with the added fact the USCA13 permits the punishment of involuntary servitude only when duly convicted of a crime and thats backed up by the expost facto date of crime provision.
    Fact 9- repeat the lords prayer every morning you all can’t go wrong for a fact…

  • #29373 Reply
    Avatar
    henry

    All m.l. have 2 things in common.they all fall under the involuntary servitude protection of the 13th amendment of U.S.C and Pa counter part as well as unconscionable adverse contract of adhesion laws.
    Fact is they ll are punishment ans unenforceable .
    First of all your government mandates you to serve them without compensation by supplying them your personal information on your own personal time and expense with ne benefit to you what soever . The 13th amendment plainly states no one shall be held in slavery nor involuntary servitude unless dully convicted of a crime. So clearly m.l. has to be deemed punishment and the expost facto clause clearly states only the punishment in place date of crime be applied .This fact effectively automatically prevents any retro active application as proposed by Pa house bill 1952 of 2017 . There never has been a non-punitive m.l. and there never lawfully ever can be by virtue of the 13th amendment and its Pa counter part. It was created long ago because they knew the future government might pull this sort of thing.
    Secondly, all these m.l. dictated by use of written terrorist threat you must enter into an unconscionable adverse contract of adhesion .Or be severely punished .
    Against your will you must provide the government your personal information and agree that if their is a change in that you will re-enter into a new contract quickly supplying the new information.Regardless whether or not there are changes ,you also agree to re-enter the contract at least once a year just as contractual law states must be done.
    After you provide the info they dictate you must verify its correct and that they can severely punish you if it is not. The verification is accomplished by signature,telephone or computer electronically. However,that is not all the form you are verifying states. It clearly states the obligations and duties you are agreeing to comply with and severe punishment if you violate those contractual terms.
    It is extremely well settled laws that under no circumstance shall any person be unwillingly forced into an unconscionable adverse contract of adhesion .
    None the less the gun packing cop will give you an order to sign to verify while your in the locked police station room and if you refuse he will arrest you for failure to obey a lawful order and who knows what else he and his comrades might frame you for .However,it is not lawful for a cop to force you into any contract and puts himself in the position of being sued personally in federal court as it’s beyond his scope of duties. Hafer V. Melo
    Before you get yourself caught up in the situation it’s better to file a petition for review/mandamus with the commonwealth court of Pa explaining the application of USCA 13th Pa. const._______ and contractual law.This way the court can point these facts of law out to your government and once and for all end these nazi-era laws.
    They already have doubled the possible sentences for these type of crimes and created 3 strike laws since the ridge admin days these m.l. are over the top…
    As far as Pa house bill 1952 of 2017 goes it is punitive and violates contractual laws.Also in Pa. nothing is allowed to become law until published in the Pa. Bulletin for 6 month.

    • #29524 Reply
      Avatar
      R

      I’m listening to ya Henry, like what your saying makes good sense to me. Thanks

    • #29525 Reply
      Avatar
      R

      From what I read bill 1952 was removed from table on Monday, is this good news . I also read that if they figure it won’t fly, they pull it rewrite it again. then put it back on for review, ? And I’m not seeking legal advice just opinions. Are county judges bound to the muniz decision, I would think that anyone granted a writ of habeas corpus hearing. Based on muniz, the judge would have to follow that order. Otherwise I see that as predujudicial misconduct, ?

  • #29589 Reply
    Avatar
    R

    I came across an article that said, depending on the charge one pled guitly too.they may not qualify for pre 2012 sorna relief retroactively, I hope that’s not true.

  • #29598 Reply
    Avatar
    JS

    As a child, I was molested multiple times by no less than 5 people. However, I did not go through my life playing the part of a victim, always needing attention and someone to feel sorry for me. If people did this today, it would cause mass unemployment (psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.). Today’s society thrives on attention, no matter what they have to do or how they have to act to get it. Sad.

  • #29677 Reply
    Avatar
    R

    If I read correctly bill 1952 passed, so there you have it end of story.

  • #29694 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike

    Can someone please read and translate page 9 for me. Letter F (applicability) under F read a,b,c,i,ii. To me it states that if you were convicted after 1996 and before 12 of 2012. Then you don’t need to register. I need an attorney to see how this new amendment affects me. Thanks

    • #29741 Reply
      Avatar
      R

      We’re what page and what website is the bill on so I can read it, can you or someone please send me a link thanks.

    • #29846 Reply
      Avatar
      R

      It is to say the least lol very confusing, but it sounds to me that yes within those date periods pre sorna are due relief. It says due to invalidity, which in legal terms means a contract that they can longer hold on offenders. I’m just giving an opinion and and a guess, I looked up Shawn Williams and although he was released from prison. Due to the muniz decision, he is still on the psp website as abscond. So either they haven’t updated the info yet, which if I remember correctly he was released in October,. Then the psp are ignoring the ruling on his behalf. Interesting how can that possibly be hmmmm!, I wonder why his attorney is not taking care of that muniz is not on the list ?.

    • #29847 Reply
      Avatar
      R

      I posted something in regards to page 9 look for a time of 11,05-6 am 12_16

  • #29767 Reply
    Avatar
    Brian

    R
    The bill doesn’t pass till governor Wolf signs the bill which at this point it looks like he will do. If you go to billtrack50.com you can see the bill and the progress.

  • #29768 Reply
    Avatar
    Who removes from list

    If anyone is from Pennsylvania, and have been charged or convicted and are incarcerated with or for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender under SORNA.

    My husband has had his case dismissed due to MUNIZ, the DA has dropped both the charges of failure to register accurate information and failure to register updates to his internet identifiers.

    My husband’s attorney filed for Motion to Dismiss his charges per Muniz and the DA dropped the charges after using a delay tactic called 30 days to file a brief which they never filed it because Muniz applied to my husband.

    He was convicted in 2006 for his crime that placed him under Megan’s Law 3, he is PRE SORNA.

    There is no stay and they cant prosecute for failure to register as sex offender under SORNA, per Muniz and only if Muniz Decision applies to the defendant.

    Commonwealth Shawn Christopher Williams, had his cased overturned by the Superior Court for Failure to Register as a sex offender under SORNA. Muniz applied to him and he was released from prison on Oct 20, 2017 one day after his charges where dismissed.

    Look up Shawn Christopher Williams, who is not my husband, but this case was used to help push the dismissal of my husband charges.

  • #29837 Reply
    Avatar
    Paul

    Can anyone that has contact with their lawyer please post any info you can get on this? I will be meeting with REEDS lawyer next week and update.

  • #30013 Reply
    Avatar
    Brian

    Anyone hear anything from Muniz? Haven heard anything yet.

  • #30016 Reply
    Avatar
    Brian

    Thank you Fred.

  • #30100 Reply
    Avatar
    Tom

    Muniz filed a brief supporting denial of certiorari. That probably means at least another 30 day wait and then next business day if it falls on weekend or holiday. The Court is not in session till next year 2018

  • #30386 Reply
    Avatar
    henry

    It’s good that everyone is talking to each other about this law. However ,you must now flood the Pa.senate and governor with e-mails,fax’s,telephone calls and letters.
    Explain to them they took an oath to uphold your individual constitutional rights and they would be engaging in ultra vires conduct if they vote yes on Pa.House Bill 1952 of 2017.
    You don’t want to whine as if they are your master. Instead,let them know you are theirs and 1952 is a violation of Pa. Constitution and flys in the face of Muniz precedent .
    1-the legislative finding the s.o.have high recidivism rate is an outright lie. The actual rate found in ton’s of professional studies and actual factual Government statistics prove the rate for committing a 2nd sex crime is less then 3%.
    2-Supply them that data if you have it.New York has compiled a lot of them . Dig,work and show them.
    3-All pre-2012 m.l. in Pa.expired under sorna-42 Pa sec. 9799.41 and 1 PaCSA sec. 1971(A) and sec. 1928(B).
    There does not exist any former 2012 m.l. in Pa.that house bill 1952 wants to retro actively impose.
    4-That Muniz tells the senator and governor that no one can be put on the internet pg. 38-40 and that they told them that first in 2003 in com.v.williams,832A.2d at pg.980.yet H.B.1952 ignores this legal fact..
    5-That by threat of punishment forcing you to provide and verify registration info at your own time and expense without compensation is involuntary servitude which can only be imposed when duly convicted of a crime USCA 13th and that means it is punishment.
    6-The only punishment in effect date of crime can be imposed. See Muniz expost facto clause .
    7-That the senators and governors oath mandates they protect you from being forced into contract,s against your will and how H.B.1952 demands you verify the info you serve the psp. is correct and ,that you agree to m.l. terms and re-enter the contract no less then once a year. It’s an unconscionable contract of adhesion.
    8- That it’s obvious the house members did not read the Muniz precedent,nor H.B. 1952 and as your senator they have a sworn duty to stop H.B. 1952 in its track’s as it not only is the most unconstitutional law ever created, it id fiscally irresponsible and satanic.
    9-Everyone must flood the Pa.senate and governor with the info.They return Jan.2,2018. There is no time to waste ! Remember the senator;s and governors secretary aid’s will first get the info and likely will not pass it on to the senator,nor governor just like how the judiciary committee did not allow any general public input when making H.B. 1952. So you must repeat your flooding demanding senators and governors personal response to you .

  • #30444 Reply
    Avatar
    Mine

    Has anyone from Pennsylvania read this man’s profile? (Rep. Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, called it “imperative” to amend the law.) This is a man that betrays his party, and has been in the people’s house of Penn. since 1988. No wonder he feels as though he can do whatever he wants! Government service was NEVER intended to become a career. He is for bigger— biggest government/regulation. He has based his submission of laws; and strengthening laws ( which he prides himself on, in his public profile, especially sex offender laws), on nothing more than being from a small town with population of about 800, and graduating from Ohio State University, both of which are of a “very low level” of insightfulness, perception and discernment. Pennsylvania people……you’re going to lose that which was recently gained if you do not speak up! SPEAK UP!
    In support of:
    Papillon Foundation-You are not your criminal record!

  • #30457 Reply
    Avatar
    Brian

    @Mine
    Not to sound sarcastic but, who exactly are we going to speak up to that’s going to listen to a bunch of SO’s honesty, I mean we can call the governor, the president of the United States, head of psp, you can call marsico or maybe call freed and tell him to call off the dogs, excuse my rant, as we can see the government don’t care, Hess been in his seat sense 1988, SCOTUS and PASC will uphold the constitution, do they care about us, I don’t think so, unless you got a lot of cash nobody’s going to listen. I should say NARSOL will listen and they do care so I shouldn’t say nobody but 90% don’t. I contacted the ACLU in Philadelphia in 2012 when they made us all register under SORNA and you know what they told me, I even donated to them, they told me to call lawyer, I said at the time if I could afford one I would, unfortunately they couldn’t help, I was a little pi$$ed because they were helping all sorts of other causes but just left us in the shadows.

  • #30533 Reply
    Avatar
    Marzico doppleganger

    Mr brian I too contacted the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, tried a few lawyers and non profits for the past 7 years. None have ever actually helped. They all seem to be press for time, money, or other causes.

    • #30551 Reply
      Avatar
      Trish

      Interesting you talk about this subject. I talked multiple times with Alabama, and had similar answers, they are lies! I was told the spend every waking moment with death row cases! Bs….they are either incompetent ahooos or someone is a lier! Example if the Supreme Court cannot or will not or whatever, handle cases or case loads……Well, does anyone see they NEEEEED addddddditional SUPREME courts for it is unlawful to take decaaaaaades to have reasonnnnnable time statutes and relieeeeeeef from over burdensome and unlaaaaaawful, rules, regulations, policies, and proceeeeedures! Are we the people of the U.S. short of intellectuals or professionals? Are we a dumb nation that cannot pass good and right legal system structures that are functioning for the good of all citizens? We sure have whom ever passing all these bullllll sheeeeep laws on ex offenders! Well, have we lost all sense of legal and moral direction in this great land? Why are none of the important questions being asked and considered?

  • #30550 Reply
    Avatar
    Trish

    Legislation “DID NOT” attempt to fix a Daaaam thing! It is hell bent on being a victim based point of view which is NOT TRUTH OR JUSTICE for all people! The powers should not be allowed to continue with victim hood mentality! It is unjust to hurt (punishhhh) some citizens (ex-offender) that lawfully paid debt to socieeeeety, PERIOD…….! Conjecture, hear say, hypothetical, and assumption mixed with other in admissible bogus statistics that do not spend adequate time and contemplation on motive shows deep concerns for in-depth exploration as to true intent and further criminal psychological analysis! What we have is a fast drive through court system that has not is not giving fair representation and regard for individual rights! George w bush , pulled the same non sense when he said in the name of national security we the government should hurt 100 good people to catch the one supposedly bad guy! It was and is scary too see the people still agree and allow this idiotic mind set to prevail all other rationale! I hope it’s their loved one that’s hurt not mine!

    • #30552 Reply
      Avatar
      Trish

      The government should be given a mandate, specifically for the courts expansion! Surely, with all the excessively mandatory bs registry laws…..the Supreme Court in all fairness bow to the point on the floor “that the time delays and lack of professional input puts registrants at an empass that is not only burdensome beyond what humans should maintain but it is unjust and unfair to expect an ex offender to be law abiding and whole and in good sound mind while subjected to severe consequences of Megan’s law and sorta etc. etc…….therefore relief in all areas concerning the individuals rights to live free in society should be fully restored to pre sentencing, thereby released from all legal obligations on the grounds and basis that ex offenders were unduly obligated and wrongfully abliged to obey laws that conflict with civil and constitutional rights which cannot stand for the right of the state, government should have no legal claim upon the individuals rights to function in a NORMAL capacity, hence the governing laws on ex sex offenders should now and from hence forth be eliminated from all states and localities, permanently relieving all responsibilities/liabilities.

      • #30668 Reply
        Avatar
        R

        Well spoken

  • #30694 Reply
    Avatar
    RObert noble

    My question is what does this do for the people such as myself that plead guilty in 2008 but did not require Megan’s law only five years of probation and then 2012 was put on Megan’s website due to Adam walsh act I did my five years of ovation and I am still being punished not being able to get a job not being able to find a place to live this needs to stop!

    • #30961 Reply
      Avatar
      R

      Have lotsa loot for a good attorney
      , or like the majority of us sit back and keep sucking on it. Seriously though just have to wait out to see if scotus will review, even then if pa, is turned down. Gonna be a big legal battle to be removed. And buddy I’m in the same boat as you, and it stinks.

  • #31035 Reply
    Avatar
    Brian

    @R
    I highly doubt their going to review cert, f already said their going to deny it, pa has already lost to Muniz, after 1952 is up to bat it will be challenged a knocked down on the retroactive constitutionality, you can’t apply a mew law to someone retroactively hence Muniz, Muniz is not about the punitive part of the law he’s about the retroactive law, they may take the punitive out of 1952 but they can not apply it to current registrants retroactively, my friend Terry is very knowable as well as my friends Chuck and Cary, you should read in the good news area AWA LOOSES IN PA they have a lot of knowledge. It’s on NARSOL unless you already know of it, people can answer a lot of your questions.

    • #31145 Reply
      Avatar
      Paul

      They can apply anything or law retroactive if it shown to be non punitive Because PASC hasn’t defined that will be an issue.Pa legislature is banking on the fact that the new bill is written like the old ML rules that were shown to be not punitive in the past however that doesn’t mean that the courts can’t change their position on this and rule even those rules or laws were and are punishment. So what will happen is the bill will be signed PSP will drag their feet removing people and there will be new challenges to new bill. One thing that is not shown is how PSP will act if Muniz case is denied cert and new bill becomes law Will they keep people due relief on the reg and apply the new law to them until they have time to verify their case up to 18mo later? The new law says a 90 day notice has to be given Will they do this for people due relief before they verify? I say they should have to verify before they send notice but will most likely happen is they will just send people notice to update.

  • #31152 Reply
    Avatar
    Tom

    The US Supreme Court will be reviewing this case in Conference on January 19th based on my reading of their website. Denial or Acceptance of Certiorari should be announced the following week. This is my opinion. I do not know this for a fact.

  • #31164 Reply
    Avatar
    Brian

    @Paul
    Artical 1 section 17 of the Pennsylvania constitution states, No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed. They can pass the law and apply it all they want to but as you can see it violates the Pennsylvania constitution, yes it may not be punitive but is still considered ex post facto, even though SORNA is punitive it was still ex post facto because it was applied to people who already had a plea agreement or people like Muniz who committed there crime and charged pre SORNA, I never agreed in my plea agreement to even register, I shouldn’t even be in this mess because the judge clearly states in the transcript that the court is not recommending mr me to register as a sex offender, I just learned of this when I learned of Muniz by then I said why challenge it we will be off soon enough now. Anyway Paul, I’m not trying to argue, if I’m wrong which I have been then I am wrong, but what I read in the constitution makes sense to me that ex post facto is illegal because it violates the constitution. Correct me if I’m wrong I won’t be offended, we’re all in this mess together and God willing we will all get off this monstrosity together.

    • #31989 Reply
      Avatar
      Paul

      Brian I see where you are coming from but all ML bills past have applied retroactive I am not saying if the new bill has punishment in it that it can be retroactive only if they consider it to be regulatory and non punitive can it be applied retroactive Someone that still has time on reg will have to go on new bill if it is non punitive, non punitive in comparison to what was on the books at the time of their convictions As far as other challenges to it Im only talking about ex post facto punishment.

  • #31763 Reply
    Avatar
    Tom

    It appears that the U S Supreme Court has denied Certiorari in the Muniz case (Docket #17-575. Has not anyone noticed this? Is this not good news?

  • #31779 Reply
    Avatar
    Joseph

    This today from the United States Supreme Court, results of conference of 01/19/2018:

    17-575 PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, JOSE M.
    The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari
    is denied.

    I’m assuming that this is a good thing since Muniz will stand as decided in Pennsylvania. Some may consider it not so good because a Supreme Court decision in favor of Muniz would have been incontrovertible confirmation.

    What do you say?

  • #31804 Reply
    Avatar
    Bobby
  • #37868 Reply
    Avatar
    GERALD GOEBERT

    Gerald goebert

    I visited the Megan’s registry site and viewed my entry this week.
    I am being shown an Offense Date of 10/1/1993 and a Conviction Date 2/14/1996.
    The offense was before the existence of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania. At the time of conviction I had no registration requirements.
    NOW IT IS ON THE SITE !! I believe this constitutes retro action.

    Can anyone help me ?

    Jerry

  • #39884 Reply
    Avatar
    Dave C

    Question for all??

    Is there any language in Act 10 that states that you do not get credit for registry time when you are incarcerated or was that from the old Megans laws?

Reply To: Pennsylvania Legislature attempts to “fix” unconstitutional law
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links to other websites
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">

Printer Friendly Version Printer Friendly Version