Viewing 771 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #41688
      Avatar
      Brian

      So now what the hell are people supposed to do who haven’t been removed yet and the people who have time to go still, 5000 feet, there is not a place we can work or live in pa then. This is bullshit, the PASC ruled it unconstitutional and now they are blatantly passing something that was ordered by the PASC, why the fk doesn’t someone do something.

      • #41761
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Brian,

        Can you imagine them explaining to a judge, “Yoir honor. This defendant has lived NEXT DOOR to a school for 12 years WITHOUT offending but NOW he must move. 20 years ago that would of passed but the whole “ oh no he is a sex offender. We can’t allow him to have rights ” mentality is wearing thin in the Judiciary.

    • #41712
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      So after reading about this last night I was terrified. I then e-mailed Theresa over at PARSOL.

      She is at the National conference, and is going to be checking with the legal guys, but basically told me this:

      “I can tell you that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has ruled that residency restrictions in Pennsylvania are “invalid and unenforceable.” I’ve attached the decision. Nonetheless, residency restriction bills continue to be proposed by legislators. So far none of them have gone anywhere, but we obviously still need to stay on top of these, and I’m most thankful to you for sending this along!”

      She sent me a pdf of the decision that I can’t upload here, but I’m attaching enough information below that you should be able to find it online. Even if it DOES get signed, I think it would be shot down rather quickly by the courts. So it still has me worried, just as all registry stuff has me worried, but I’m no longer terrified by it… Hope this helps.

      IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT FOR  THE  WESTERN  DISTRICT  OF  PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES  FROSS,  et  al. 
      Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY   OF  ALLEGHENY, Defendant. 

      Civil  Action  No.  08­1405 

      MEMORANDUM  OPINION 

      Gary  L.  Lancaster, District Judge  March  20,  2009

      IV.  CONCLUSION 
      For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  predict  that  the Pennsylvania  Supreme  Court  would  find  that  Allegheny  County’s residency  restriction  ordinance  is  preempted  by  state  law.  Thus, the  ordinance  is  invalid  and  unenforceable. 

      • #41760
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Snoopy
        Links to legal decisions are always welcomed here. As long as it is a link to the actual court opinion, and not a news article about the opinion. Just copy and paste the link.

    • #41710
      Avatar
      Mark

      This just ruined my day. More nonsense. Oh well, what can we do?

      • #41757
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        @ Mark,
        Don’t let it ruin your day, my friend. We will overcome. Think about this: you are a judge and you are asked to review a law that virtually excludes an entire class from a state. Not from a county, but from an entire state. No way the judge signs off on that.

        The politicians are freaking out because the “dam” as in Smith v Doe (2003) has been breached. I have at least 3 people a month tell me I can’t live where I do. They are SHOCKED when they find out I can.

        Politicians passed laws ALL the time that they know WILL NOT stand in a courtroom. They don’t care. They get props for passing it and they can argue this is why judges should not have life time appointments because they are endangering the “children”.

        Do you know what kind of back lash there would be to tell 20,000 people “Ok, as of tomorrow you can’t live in Pa.?” There would be no point if having s registry as everyone would have to live out of state. Which would cause a large influx of people into other states that would force them to pass the same laws and then you can’t live anywhere at all. It is one thing to force people out of s town, but out of an entire state? I don’t think so.

        There is a REASON residency restrictions has never passed the General Assembly before. You think it was they were afraid of looking too tough on “child molesters?” Um, no. That was NOT the reason.

        I love it when people try to tell me I am not allowed in Wal Mart because “children are there”. I tell my one friend you can’t go to a store because “there is money there”. He was arrested for robbery.

    • #41754
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Guys,
      Don’t worry any new (more restrictive) regulation would face Ex Post Facto and cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment violation) challenges. Of course, as we all know, Pa claims Act 10 (For us Pre-SORNA People) is non punitive. I am not worried because the General Assembly already knows the Pa Supreme Court is skeptical of their registry efforts as it is. If you read the comments from the Hearing process that eventually produced ACT 10, every senator on the judiciary committee hated the bill, but knew they HAD to VOTE for it in an election year.
      Also IF ACT 10 is found punitive, Pa would risk having to create a 3rd registry as IF ACT 10 is found punitive, the residency restrictions would not apply to Pre-SORNA or SORNA people.

      I say BRING IT, we will stomp you in court. If ACT 10 is found punitive, and they pass these new residency restrictions, they open themselves up to years in court and an Article 1, Section 13 of the Pa Constitution challenge (state equilvant of U.S. 8th amendment)

      The tide is changing guys in our favor. Let them make the registry more restrictive. All they will be doing is proving our claim that the registry (as spookiest in PA) is punitive and cruel and unusual .

      Being inconvenienced for 3-5 years for the chance to drive the stake into the heart of the registry for good, is WORTH IT.

    • #41755
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @ Brian,

      The way we stand up and “do something” to stop an unconstitutional law that the General Assembly is forced, for political reasons, to pass is by going to court. The courtroom is the arena where we will defeat the “registry”.
      This is what a democracy is all about. The Courtroom is the refuge of the oppressed. It is where we ALL demand that the laws of this land are evenly appokied to ALL and if the laws of this land do not fairly and evenly apply to all , the courtroom is where we go to remedy the situation. It is how we tell our politicians specifically and our society as a whole. “STOP, you CANNOT treat me differently. I demand my rights as a citizen of this country, and as a member of the human race. “
      The law evolves slowly. It took over 50 years to overturn “Separate but equal” for the Black Community. Took them hundreds of years and a bloody war to get “Separate but equal”.
      Megan Kanka was killed in 1993 and the first “Megan’s Law” was enacted in 1994. In 24 years, we have almost killed the beast. By historical standards, we aren’t doing too badly my friends.

    • #41756
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Snoopy,
      It depends what the state in question defines as a sex offender. Some might argue that once you complete, you are complete. While others may view you as never done. Case in point, what is a 10 year offense in Pa, might be a lifetime offense in another state. In Ny, the same offense that put me on the registry in Pa for 10 years, put me on the registry for 25 years in NY, because NY does not have a 10 or 15 year option.
      The best way to not have to worry about it would be to apply (and receive) a full Pardon for the Pa Governor. They are EXTREMELY difficult to get.

    • #41758
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Damaris
      I don’t think the bill he has drafted has been voted on. I do not think the bill you mentioned as having passed is the bill he drafted for the residency requirements. I could be WRONG. I haven’t researched the issue yet.
      Plus I think the Commonwealth would be hard pressed to show that the residency requirements adds to public safety.
      Until we know more, nothing to worry about. If he wrote this bill 20 years ago then I would be concerned. He write this bill AFTER the PA Supreme Court kicked their butt. Also, they are acting as though ACT 10 and HB 1952 is legal. The Pa Supreme Court hasn’t ruled in that yet.
      Remember ACT 10 was suppose to “fix” the punitive nature of SORNA. How can it “fix” the punitive nature of SORNA if it is more restrictive?

      A lot of fear mongering by claiming that is it “proven” that sex offender re offend. I guarantee you that if the Commonwealth felt they could prove sex offenders are more likely to re offender if they live close to a school, they would of passed residency restrictions a LONG TIME AGO.

      Everyone, Patience….. Even if their worse desires come true, it has to pass through the Pa Supreme Court who just spanked them. There is no going around the Pa Supreme Court. As long as the decision is based on state law, the US Supreme Court will not get involved as we saw in the Muniz case.

    • #41759
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      You have to remember guys this is an ELECTION YEAR. They do not have to pass the bill. Just table it until after the election, and slowly kill it.

      A state senator could write a bill that requires everyone to wear s pink shirt and slap their neighbor every Tuesday. That doesn’t mean it will pass. And if it passes, that doesn’t mean it will pass constitutional muster
      Bobby Mcfarin’s “Don’t Worry Be Happy” comes to mind.

    • #41791
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Snoopy

      This would be a state law! Something like this would definitely get more attention than Act 10 or HB 1952.
      Both of those would keep us where we were. This would really make us a subclass of society.
      Haven’t told my wife yet as this is just a proposed law.

    • #41794
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck

      Yes, what you said is true but for the few years, it takes to get thru the courts. we will be wearing pink shirts and slapping out neighbors on Tuesday.

    • #41816
      Avatar
      Brian

      I told my wife right away so we can be prepared for it, I like to be ready in case something happens and I think she needs to know se we can act on it, I am going to give my attorney a call Monday and tell him to put a brick on the gas pedal.

    • #41826
      Avatar
      Brian

      I would like to add that my place of work is less then 5000 feet from a daycare so I will yet again be out of a job because of this bs registry, I’m not going to leave my job until they show up and make me leave, good luck finding another one that is a mile from a school, daycare or any of the above, and just good luck finding one with the background checks everyone does now, my line of work has nothing to do with kids or being around them but I have applied a several places that have denied me because I am on the reg.

    • #41840
      Avatar
      Brian

      I guess before I start jumping to more conclusions, who exactly will this resident restriction apply to because it says predator, does thus mean SVP’s? Or everyone on the reg?

    • #41844
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      Chuck,
      I suppose I could look it up and find it and post it, but it’s late and I’m tired. The only thing I had of the decision was a pdf that Theresa had e-mailed me.

      I’m quite certain that a less tired but motivated person could find the decision without too much difficulty.

    • #41915
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hello Everyone,

      The General Assemvly has to show that ACT 10 scaled back the punitive nature of SORNA. They cannot do this if they start passing more restrictive provisions.
      They would be hard press to show there is a public safety issue considering Megan’s Law been around for over 20 years.

      They know the registry is in its death throes and they are trying to throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the Courts hoping they will delay the death of the registry just one more day.
      The Pa Supreme Court has every chance to maintain the status quo in regards to the registry and they choose not to.
      Remember after the Pa Gerrymandering decision was handed down, the General assembly started impeachment proceedings against the judges that overturned their congressional map. This was until the Republican Leadership realized there would be a huge backlash at the polls if they allowed it. You can’t fire judges just because you hate their decision.

      It goes beyond the “smell test” Everyone believes that sex offenders are single without a family.,If sex offenders can’t procide for their family, they wouldn’t be able to be productive citizens.
      This bill is not about passing it. It is about getting an article in the newspaper about it so the general public thinks they are “fixing the problem”.
      There are a few people that get so mad when they see me going about my day. They think I shouldn’t be allowed in public by myself. I laugh because I have moved on and they can’t let go of what they think the past was.

      Two more years to register and then just wait for my letter of freedom. I know a lifer that was just realized from the registry because of the recent court decisions. He was able to re interview st s place that turned him down simply because they didn’t want their address on the registry. He got the job this time around. Things are getting better, we just have to be patient and ignore the noise. I know it stinks when they tell you we are going to take away your job and house. However, that would be the WORSE thing they could do.

      On a cheerier note, ACT 10 challenges are starting to be filed. Megan’s Law never made the public “safer”. You know how I know? Because if it did, they would of plastered every tv and computer screen in America with the evidence that they were right.
      They want people to get angry and lose their cool. Perhaps then they will reoffend. Lein said a Capitslist would sell you the rope you plan on using to hang him with. Let them hang themselves. When they are on tv crying about how the court took away a vital public safety tool, they will have no one but themselves to blame because they kept pushing and pushing to make the registry more and more restrictive.

      Remember they thought they could increase our time on the registry with SORNA. Took 5 years, but we found out they were DEAD WRONG. They were SO CONFIDENT they were right when I called them back in 2012 when I first got the letter. I had a friend you went from having less than 1 week left to being a lifer. Just like that. Like I said, it took 5 years but he got the last laugh.
      We will prevail. Let them try to lock us up simply for where we live or work. They will in the end lose their cherished “public safety tool”
      . They couldn’t be happy with just a picture and listing of the charges. Now, they will lose it all.

    • #41916
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      when I lived in Ny, the local town wanted to pass a law that employers could not hire sex offenders even if their place of business was not open to the public (minors do not visit). After the news article ran, they had to back down. Even the employers were up in arms. Because they weren’t happy with just banning workplaces that minors frequent, they lost the entire ball of wax. No one could support the proposed law. Same will happen here in Pa.

      • #41928
        Avatar
        Brian

        @Chuck
        I hope your right my friend, and I think they do want to make people angry and want us to recividitate so they can say look look we’re right, they are a danger neener neener neeeeeeenerrrrrr. So with that said I am just going to sit back and watch the curtains close and applaud the fall of the Great Wall of the registery happen, it make take the next 20 years but it will fall by the hands of the people passing this garbage, I think they need to enforce the laws on the ML page stating, Using this information to harm a registered citizen may result in criminal prosecution yada yada, because this is exactly what this is, their using th information to hurt is and out families by making us loose our homes and jobs if we live and work within the 5000 feet from a school.

      • #44195
        Avatar
        Stumped

        Was removed from registry for approximately 1 month while my case was being reviewed put back on called Harrisburgh was informed that I had to remain on for another year due to being incarcerated I believe someone clearly didn’t do there homework because from what I read and believe I understand correctly is the section that says applicability paragraph f due to invalidity and all that follows in that section I should not be on the list no more I will be calling them I think that I was categorized in the section further down it said something about scope that if the person committed the crime on or after 2012 they are not eligible for credit while serving a sentence which i think is also b.s because while I was locked up I still received the official p.s.p paperwork informing me that I was due to register so o were not gonna credit your time on m.l because you are not an imminent danger to society while your incarcerated but we’ll still send you your registration update notification ?

    • #41963
      Avatar
      Mark

      Well, all HB1952 is now Act 29. Where do we go from here?

      @Terry
      I see that PSP lawyer has filed her responses to the court. What does this all mean? Are you able to tell us?

      • #41975
        Avatar
        Brian

        I joined the legal Intelligencer to be able to read th bill wolf just signed, I hope the moderators can allow this posting. There may be more information they their not posting in the article but this is the copy and paste.

        Sex Offenders

        The state House of Representatives on May 23 passed, on a unanimous vote, a measure to fix Pennsylvania’s version of Megan’s Law to ensure that persons removed from the sex-offender registry under a state Supreme Court decision would be obligated to continue to register.

        The House voted to concur in Senate amendments to House Bill 1952, which was drafted in the wake of the justices’ 2017 decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz, which held that those convicted prior to the effective date of the 2012 amendments to the law could not be required to register, as that requirement was among the punishments for the predicate sex offense, and punishment may not be added to crimes after the fact.

        Wolf in February signed into law Act 10 of 2018 as the initial response to Muniz. It was enacted to ensure that 12,000 persons required to register as sex offenders would remain subject to the requirements in effect at the time of their offense.

        The sponsor of HB 1952, state Rep. Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, said it added “highly technical” language to the law to restate Act 10 and reinforce “the General Assembly’s intent that sex offenders who would have been removed from commonwealth’s registry of sex offenders due to the case of Commonwealth v. Muniz will continue to register if their period of registration has not expired.”

    • #41989
      Avatar
      Brian

      Looks like the 5000 feet rule is only applying to svp and anyone convicted of svp who has been let off has to bet let back on, as far as I have heard anyway.

    • #42031
      Avatar
      Brian

      Never mind the comment about the 5000 foot rule, in speaking to Teresa Robertson and she said that the rule would apply to everyone, my bad people, but it hasn’t been introduced yet but she said they are prepared to fight it, but we have yet to have a resistance restriction law pass, fingers crossed and knocking on wood that it doesn’t.

    • #42034
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian

      You just copy and pasted the part about sex offenders correct? Is there more to the bill that does not affect sex offenders? If so, what?

      If so could be ripe for a multiple subjects challenge.

    • #42039
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      If Megan’s law was only a few years old, they could argue that we are still adjusting the law. However, they have had over 20 years to do so. So why Mr. Morgan who lives next Day was perfectly ok for over 20 years,but now it is a safety issue? No way!! It won’t wash. You have to try to make it look good. You can’t just wave a magic wand and say “public safety”.
      Besides they are trying to show ACT 10 is not punitive. They only way they can interfere with where we choose to live is if they can show the Go ernmemt has an legit reason aka public safety. They can’t do it. Not even if they close their eyes and pretend, they come up way short.

      They are sore they lost last year. They are also sore the Supreme Court didn’t take up their appeal

      Always pandering in an election year.

    • #42050
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      That’s all that was on there, I believe I has to do with probation and people who haven’t completed their ten years, other then that, that’s all I know. I thought for some reason they were tossing residential restrictions in with HB 1952 because that guy mentioned the 5000 foot bs, but that’s only because his wife is a real estate agent, all he’s doing is trying to line his wife’s pocketbook by riding all SO’s from school zones, daycare centers and whatnot.

    • #42065
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      He Confused everyone by mentioned he drafted a bill and 1953 in the same document. That was what he was trying to do. He wanted people to think that HB 1952 was the bill he was referring to. This has the desired effect of scaring sex offenders and making people think their sex offender neighbor has to move.
      Really guys, we are giving this bill the respect it does not deserve by talking about it. I am confident that either A it won’t pass, or B if it passes it will quickly be defeated in the Courts. Trust, the Pa General Assemvly has NEVER been a friend of the sex offender. There is a reason why they haven’t been able to pass residency restrictions yet. They know if they do, the registry will be considered punishment which would put it one step closer to being destroyed.
      Don’t worry be happy guys. Don’t let these guys steal your life away by scaring the hell out of you. Do you think the few employees that do hire sex offenders are going to like the Government telling them they have to let them go simply of where they are located?? No, of course not.
      It will all work out. They are just frustrated that people are actually getting off the registry. That was never their plan.
      Remember anything they do now can be challenged on Ex Post Facto ground for those of us already on the registry.

      Now, Let’s all listen you, “Don’t Worry Be Happy” to soothe our stress levels. It will all work out

    • #42066
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Every time they say “we fixed Muniz” remember they were CONFIDENT they could increase Pre Sorna people’s time on the registry as well. Who is having the last laugh now? WE ARE!!!!
      When I get stressed out about potential issues I remember by focusing on them, I can’t focus on today’s benefits which are my friends and my hobbies. Take 20 minutes to do something you enjoy to do. Forget about the mess they are trying to create. We will prevail!!

    • #42072
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      Chuck

      Ok, I’m confused…. you wrote:

      “He Confused everyone by mentioned he drafted a bill and 1953 in the same document. That was what he was trying to do. He wanted people to think that HB 1952 was the bill he was referring to. This has the desired effect of scaring sex offenders and making people think their sex offender neighbor has to move.”

      So does HB1952 as the new Act 29 have the 5000 foot residency / work restriction or not?

      • #42146
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Snoopy,
        The residency restrictions are NOT in Hb1952. The residency bill hasn’t even been introduced yet. It has only been drafted. In other words the state rep hasn’t filed it yet. Just because they draft a bill doesn’t mean they will introduce it right away. They might be consulting with lawyers trying to figure out the right wording. Or something else. Never know until they file it.

    • #42103
      Avatar
      Debo

      Looks like Terry got his petitions denied for not being coherent. Has anyone found anything in the new act that effects people that were due relief from act 10?

    • #42110
      Avatar
      Mark

      Terry only had one of his petitions denied, he has 30 days to respond to the other one.

      • #42145
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Mark,
        Terry asked for an injunction while he fights the case. The injunction was denied. He wanted to put his duty on hold while they fight it out but the court said he didn’t meet the standard for that kind of relief.

    • #42132
      Avatar
      Brian

      It’s nice vw how psp leaves us in the dark till the next time we update, them they slip the new requirements in our letter, very slick indeed.

      • #42147
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Brian,
        You have to remember that PSP only enforces the rules. They don’t know about changes until they are told here are the changes this is how we want you to enforce them.

        The residency bill hasn’t been introduced yet. Patience. They may decide the time isn’t right and not file it. I believe the General Assembly adjourns for the summer at the end of this month. Perhaps they are going to wait till the next session. This being an election year, I don’t see them getting much work done besides what they have to to keep the state running. We wil see

    • #42159
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      I didn’t think of that, yes they do only enforce it, but either way it sucks hacing to find all of these new requirements the next time you go in to update, my patience has worn thin, I know there is nothing I can to at the moment, my attorney is definitely working on it and I should have some results in the next week or two of what we’re doing. But that’s all I’m going to say about it until I have a final outcome weather I’m still going to be on for life or removed by judicial determination, but my attorney believes I have a strong case. Chuck I don’t know you other then just this site but you have been such a great friend, you and Terry and a few other who have communicated constantly on here.

    • #42193
      Avatar
      Debo

      I do not see any new requirements on the new act vs act 10 Can someone please point them out thanks.

      • #42209
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Debo
        That’s because there isn’t any. They are just trying to prevent pre-Sorna people from being able to leave early. Or so that how it goes in their mind. They believe they can make ex post facto laws because the registry is civil in their mind.
        What changes did the make from SORNA to ACT 10 anyways to make it “civil” . The only thing I saw was the ability to fight your SVP status after 25 years and whether or not your charge qualifies for the registry. Oh and the ability to call in after 3 years , yet for only certain pieces of information.

    • #42210
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Look what that state rep did. All he said was he drafted a bill,and he made slot of people upset..Residency Restrictions face an uphill battle. They may win it in the end, but that doesn’t mean it will pass muster in the Courts.

    • #42225
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      Yea they are confusing the hell out of people for sure with all of this mumbo bs, I was out near Carlisle this weekend but not exactly in Carlisle, was up there on a 2 day vacation, yeah big two days so I don’t have to go in and register it, just fing bs if you ask me, so we probably won’t be seeing anything on thei new act 29 or we won’t see it for a while I’m assuming.

      • #42300
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Hi Brian,
        That is one thing I like about living in Carlisle there are plenty of places close by to camp at. You can do up to 7 days as long as YOU ARE IN YOUR HOUSE at exactly 7 days since you left. Do not be a minute over. I ALWAYS buy gas when I leave and when I come home. It sucks being on the registry when you are trying to rebuild you romantic life. It affects it everyday.
        If we do get the residency restrictions it will be awhile. Summer will def be over.

    • #42258
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Hey Guys –

      I would like to give up date – About ACT 29 and new Residency Restrictions – New matters to fight. But these will shoot the gun backwards to add restrictions to help kill the registry in the eyes of the court. More restrictions is the fools way of saying we can do what we want – But cases of the distant past are still good law to say to the political fools STOP: Some cases like:
      1. Weaver V. Graham 450 U.S. 24 (1981) greater legal consequence of new law making old law more onerious

      2. Doe V. Miller 886 A2d 310, 315 (Pa. Cmlth 2005) Rational basis for restriction on Sex offenders is not legitimate .

      3. Lindsey V. Washington 301 U.S. 397, 401 offense date of a crime must not be disadvantaged to apply greater restriction without legitimate cause.

      4. Calder Residency Restrictions . Bull 3 U.S. 386, 390 It is punishment to add more government restraints by a new law.

    • #42305
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      Hey long time no here, I sent you a few emails but I guess your pretty busy with your case and whatnot. I like the gun shooting backward terminology lol, yea it takes some really smart people to do that right? Hey let them do what they want, if they apply it to everyone then everyone has a case now and a fight to win.

    • #42341
      Avatar
      terry Brunson

      @ Brian
      Sorry I missed your email – I did not check but will now.

      My case is not at 339 MD 2018

      I filed a brief and not a new matter of ACT 29 has come up but the PSP has not given me notice of effecting me. When they do I will amend and attack it.

      I am in good standing with the court because any one else without a lawyer would have been gone and case dismissed.

      I was denied the PAP 1531 injuction to mot register on May 22, 2018 until my case done that was denied in that I did not make clear to the court my position. They said they did not understand why I needed immediate injunction – If I was arrested they I could have filed a Heabeus Corpus for RAP 1531 injuction, But it is not worth sitting in jail fighting this case just to make a point. That would be crazy. . .

      But the court granted my ACT 10 challenge and I filled the Brief on Father’s Day a Sunday in Emergency Speedy trial rights I will also oppose any extra time delays of the PSP They have until July 30 2018 and any time after that will get an Priliminary obection under rule R.A.P. 1028 within 14 days.

      It need to get to the PASC as soon as I can get there with out delay. All the lower court BS is just part of the drive threw. I know where I need to go PASC and they are the only court that matters in ACT 10 challenge now.

      ACT 29 is another extension of ACT 10 in that it take away the word smithing on parole and probation talk . HB 631 was to be a probation parole law that got tuned into adding people not on parole and probation – In my fight I have shown the court that ACT 10 subchapter ” I ” in SORNA-2 of 21 February 2018 and SORNA-1 is subchapter ” H ” and I show that SORNA-1 subchapter “H” was not not not deemed unconstitutional – it is still in effect to post SORNA after 20 Dec 2012.

      MUNIZ – decision made SORNA-1’s application in retroactive application unconstitutional.

      Hence SORNA-2 and SORNA-1 stand as SORNA[.] an amended SORNA-1 is SORNA-2 and two laws standing like that confuses the court the DA’s and PAG’s of Pa.

      The construction act of Pa. says at 1 Pa. C.S.1917(a) that is not possible and 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) and 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b) . Pa. legislatures are in a situation where they have not two sex offender law in effect at the same time.

      SORNA-1 was never repealed and SORNA- 2 was enacted – this is was got MEGAN’s LAW 2 in trouble under single subject deal of having two things saying two different things to the courts, to the DA’s and PAG’s and SORNA needs to be narrowed to a single subject .

      Thie Pa. Legislature are going to be forced to Repeal SORNA-1 all together and enact a New new sex offender law that is on a single subject page for all sex offenders – not a Post dec 2012 and a Pre-Dec 2012

      The New New Sex offender Law will be hard to make because it will be applied retroactive and hence Expost Facto The Pa. Constitution Article 1 Sections 1, 11, and 17 will kill the new new Sex offender law. The Pa. Legislatures will be made at the court for not letting they have their way.

      They are attacking the judge ship appointment even as I typr this to you.

      They good old days are gone where the court went along to get along. The court are now the Commonwealth power place to say yes or no to Constitutional mutter of laws in Pa.

      If you know the law you will find freedom in Pa. The Mandamus will be the key to freedom. and R.A.P. rule 1531 and 1532 and R.A.P. Rule 1028.1

      The Pa registry will be gone in 5 years. It is a waste of effeort. Megan’s Law 1 2 3 and SORNA-1 SORNA-2 and now SORNA-3 ACT 29 can you see that the Pa. Court are not letting it go on . . . . . This is the only state that cannot get it right on sex offender laws.

      What other state has these issues?

      Maybe Michigan. OHIO gave up – Maryland gave up the fight – Alaska gave up – Pa. will soon give up too – – – You will be around to see it. Brian since you have known me- which is about almost 2 years WOW I told you what would happen with MUNIZ and I am telling you are SORNA-1 2 and now 3 is on the way out soon

      Ther is a case ahead of me call Polzer – – – – – – – His lawyer are not setting up the fight right. but that is lawyers for you . Only in it for the money. not justice in truth

      Well I will see you and I will read your e mails – – – Brother you are my friend to the end thank you for reading all this – follow my court case and you will see how God will lead me to take on the PSP no lawyer

    • #42343
      Avatar
      terry Brunson

      @ All from Terry Brunson

      Please re call my instructions of the Past about HB 1952 Page 120 Line 3-6

      Which says – “BECAUSE OF A judicial determination of SORNA-1 which is chapter 97 subchapter “H” ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 21, 2018, OF THE INVALIDITY OF 42 PA.C.S. CH. 97 SUBCH. H, is not subject to the registration as a sex offender.

      We me this again – The Mandamus of all pre-SORNA-1 subchapter “H” application is what I am still seeking in case 463 MD 2017 – – – PSP is trying to give me voluntary cessation on SORNA -1 subchapter “H” but I want a judicial determination of subchapter “H” not their freeby off of SUBchapter “H”

      Can any one guess why I need a court order from SORNA -1 subchapter “H”?

      It will free me from ACT 29 and ACT 10 – Chuck I told you so that it would come to a case by case fight in the courts. . . .

    • #42380
      Avatar
      Brian

      I do remember reading that about judicial determination, I think this is ridiculous, if we’re due relief then give us damn relief, of corse their hopping people aren’t smart, but then there are people like yourself Terry who are, I know of another guy who is also prose, what sucks is I was never ordered by the Colorado court to reg, I was only ordered by psp to register which I believe will play in my favor because my sentencing court never ordered me to reg. We shall see once I receive my court date, hope that comes soon.

    • #42393
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      I told you that Polizer Lawyer were not going the right direction – What I meant to say was Polizer’s lawyers quit on him with a withdraw and left him to pro-se his own case. The appeal court oredered that new lawyers take over his case, and they got Polizer to the PASC his date to be heard will come up soon.

      However; reading his brief – He is fighting a SORNA-1 issue that in the eyes of the PSP under SORNA-2 fixed. i.e. making his case “MOOT”

      See the PSP is using voluntary cessation as a merit’s block on getting a “judicial determination from a court. The PSP think that fixing the issue by voluntary cessation on SORNA-1 a count determination is no longer needed. The is my case of 463 MD 2017 fight.

      But – my position is not expost facto – like MUNIZ. . . . My case is simple. . . . Expiration of former Megan’s Law 3 by 42 Pa. 9799.41 and 1 Pa. 1971(a) all Megan’s Law 3 applications were expired by SORNA…… There the rule 42 C.S. 9795.1(a) and (b) and 9795.2 no longer apply as expired.

      In order to apply SOANA 1 or SORNA-2 and now SORNA -3 you have to have a former Megan’s Law offense after 1996 before December 2012. If the former Megan’s Law 3 is gone- – – – so is the offense needed to apply to SORNA applications hence the expired former Megan’s Law completed the requirement to register with the PSP.

      This is my case to the court in 463 MD 2017 If I get a judicial determination It will kick me off the registry as PSP is using Expired offense law to apply to new law which will give me a win.

      My 339 MD 2018 is an ACT 10 fight. If I win on 463 MD 2017 that ACT 10 fight is Moot for me because I will not be under ACT 10 or ACT 29 to have to go to court. I am also fighting life application simply because my offense is from TEXAS like Tommy Lee Jackson case. Brian I hope you understand what I’m saying to you. Others reading this may and it will help them to see the real deal on the PSP trying to get in the way of the court making a judicial determination by their voluntary cessation. The law says you must have the court determination on SORNA -1 to get off all registrations. The PSP is using voluntary cessation to stop court review. . . . . I put this in my brief. . . it is unfair to say we fix something to stop a court from having to order them to stop it. That would make the fight moot.

    • #42397
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      To All

      Expired former Megan’s Law 3 combats 42 C.S. 9799.55 (b) (2) by 42 C.S. 9799.41 and 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a)

      It is complicated to the PSP as they classify people who are to stay on the registry under ACT 10 and ACT 29. The Megan’s Law section workers are doing a good job, but – They are not trained to understand the legislature amendments that are germane to convictions within Pa. and that happen out side of Pa.

      Outside jurisdiction language can be challenged under the Equal Protection Laws of the U.S. Constitution Amendment 14.

      The U.S. Constitution 14th and 5th under due process fairness of states applying laws equally to all people whether the offense was in or out side the Pa. state line.

    • #42458
      Avatar
      Brian

      So now with this new resident restriction bill bs for everyone in pa, if we work next to or in the radius of a school or daycare then we get to loose our job, so I’m sure most of us do work close to one or live close so one which means we would loose out homes as well, so the unemployment rate is going to skyrockete and put pa farther into dept, I will be filing for unemployment if I loose my job, I don’t know what people are going to do who loose there homes though, it’s just ridiculous, people keep saying that they have tried and tried to pass these laws but it seems at this poin they are passing and signing everything that hits wolfs desk, as long as it’s an SO bill it’s has 0 problem passing, so yes it will eventually be knocked down but what do we do in the mean time is the question, do we have a place for people to go, jobs for people who have a background like ours?

    • #42468
      Avatar
      Mark

      All

      Look up HB2507 it is the residential distance BS. Now what?

      • #42482
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        HB2507 will only apply to new crime SORNA – violators

        42 Pa. C.S. 9799.13 is where it will be placed to add to ACT 10 which is amended to say:
        2018 Amendment. Section 20(1) of Act 10 provided that the amendment of section 9799.13 shall apply to an individual who commits an offense on or after December 20, 2012 and not before December 21, 2012.

        • #42534
          Avatar
          Debo

          Thanks Terry I posted on another site the same thing but I wasn’t sure I was right Hope you are doing well with everything I finally got my letter from PSP saying I no longer have to register. I did not have a lawyer contact PSP about this so I think more people will start to get letters that have been removed so everyone hang in there. The one thing I want to look into is which states have laws on the books saying a person has to register on their registry even if they no longer need to in their original state. I remember someone from MARSOL said it is unconstitutional for a state to do this and stated some cases that won removal but I cant remember what they were. Hope we can look into this for the people that are getting relief in their original state. Anyone know anything please post it.

    • #42504
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Gentlemen,
      Don’t Worry, Be Happy!!! It is possible they Have the votes to pass this bill but I doubt it. If they do, the Courts will be waiting for them. Think about it: Your Honor we want to lock this person up for years. Why, you ask? Oh he committed the most heinous crime ever. He lived/ worked within 1 mile of a school. The fact that he works within 1 mile of the school makes the children unsafe because they are in danger!!!! Not going to fly!!!

    • #42505
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      I had to look at the bill again, you are right. 9799.14

    • #42520
      Avatar
      Mark

      I know that my employer will not be happy with this bill. What we could do is this. Contact your local Rep.
      Ask them not to support the bill, If they do let them know you and any other family members will not be voting for them in Nov. In my town, there are over 350 of us SOs on the list and unknown how many are in stasis, off the website but still under review. (like Me) That is a lot of votes!! Most candidates for local state office don’t win by that large of a margin. One time the “List” could be of use. Here is where I heard of it. Not in the local media.

      There is also a possibility that since the change if approved will take effect in 60 days after signing that there will be an injunction to stop implementation until the courts can look at it, just like other things like an abortion bill that gets passed etc.

    • #42523
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      Terry noted something, on or after12/20/2012, people who commit their offense on or after 12/20/2012 are the people who are effected by the bill, not pre 12/20/2012. So as your offense was before 12/20/2012 this bill does not apply to us. Unfortunately for those on or after 12/20/2012 will be.

    • #42538
      Avatar
      Mark

      Since when does the MLS of PSP do what they were supposed to? If the AG thinks he can get away with applying it to everyone he will, knowing that it will be 5 yrs or so before it is declared unconstitutional.
      It would wreak havoc with everything. I just don’t trust any of them anymore

    • #42535
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry
      Thank-you my friend for the info about HB2507 only applying to SORNA violators after Dec. 20, 2012.

      I still say fight because its wrong and I have friends who are classified like that, but I’m no longer terrified about leaving the house that I’ve lived in with my family since 2004

    • #42560
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      I don’t know what they will do but I do know they did take the work addresses down, everyone who is pre SORNA only has to appear once per year and we have no more teir designation, but yes I do see what your saying, when Muniz came down and the cert was denied yes we all should have been removed, they should not have not waited for them to make a bullshit fix, they should have just let us go, so yes indeed, they could stick everyone with this restriction, but I am thinking they won’t, I could be wrong though.

      • #42595
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Brian,
        Their argument is that they are in the process of giving everyone the relief they are entitled to because of the Muniz Decision. I disagree, but I am not a lawyer or judge. You can’t tell me it takes 18 months to “verify” we are entitled to relief when the day before Muniz came down you were happy pink to use whatever start date our file said. Now because you have to do something you don’t want to do, you have to “verify” the date? Get out of here!!

        I am kind of glad I have 2 years left because there is NO WAY they can claim they are still “processing” my file 2 years from now. They would be laughed right out of court.
        I spoke to the Megan’s Law section just to ask for an update, and they told me it’s only been 4 months since they started processing files, so I need to “calm down” The way I figure it, if my file is still being “processed” when I go for my 2019 updste, that is when I will push the issue as by that time they would have had their precious “18 month” window expire. The problem is they had a lot of people who needed to be taken off immediately. I think the Pa Supreme Court should of said the sex offenders do not have to wait for you to process their file. If you arrest an sex offender that doesn’t need to register for not registering , the Judge will have the authority to let them go immediately. They “claim” all investigations (which they claimed to have stopped doing for now) for not registering have to be “authorized” by the Megan’s Law Section and you can’t just be arrested for it, but I don’t believe them.

        I would be chewing my arm off if I was done like you guys but still waiting for official word.

    • #42596
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Hey Guys –
      There is a case called polizer – itis in front of my case. . . . In the ACT 10 race to the PASC.

      I may have to amend my ACT 10 fight to include ACT 29 by leave of court application.

      My main argument is based on the construction ACT that SORNA -1 of 20-12-20 is the law in effect in PA. over sex offenders. . . . . . It is SORNA-1

      Listen please. . . . . . . SORNA-1 can only be applied to people who has a offense conviction date after 12-20-12. . . . . . .

      The Muniz -decision of 07-19-17 made SORNA-1 unconstitutional only in the retroactive application of SORNA-1 in that it cannot be used in an ex post facto way on people with offense dates before 12-20-12 . . . .
      MUNIZ- decision make this clear. . . . . . . . . .

      You may say I know this Terry what is the key to SORNA-1 ? Here is the Key. . . . . . .

      SORNA-1 is still a law in effect . . . . it is not unconstitutional as a whole. Meaning it is the SO Law of PA that is the base that all DA’s and PAG’s operate. . . . . . . . Muniz – decision stops them from applying SORNA-1 to alot of the people on the PSP registry because most have an offense date pre-SORNA-1 12-20-12 Right?

      Her is the caught that you all must understand to explain to a lawyer. SORNA-1 as the main SO law only has power over new offenses. . . . What about old one? All old sex offenses were substances in MEGAN’s LAW 1 – 2 – and 3. Former Megan’s Laws. When SORNA-1 was enacted 12-20-12 it lead off with a statue Law 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41. I will show it below:

      The following provisions shall expire December 20, 2012:
      Section 9718.3 (relating to sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders).
      Section 9791 (relating to legislative findings and declaration of policy).
      Section 9792 (relating to definitions).
      Section 9795.1 (relating to registration).
      Section 9795.2 (relating to registration procedures and applicability).
      Section 9795.3 (relating to sentencing court information).
      Section 9795.4 (relating to assessments).
      Section 9795.5 (relating to exemption from certain notifications).
      Section 9796 (relating to verification of residence).
      Section 9797 (relating to victim notification).
      Section 9798 (relating to other notification).
      Section 9798.1 (relating to information made available on the Internet and electronic notification).
      Section 9798.2 (relating to administration).
      Section 9798.3 (relating to global positioning system technology).
      Section 9799 (relating to immunity for good faith conduct).
      Section 9799.1 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania State Police).
      Section 9799.2 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole).
      Section 9799.3 (relating to board).
      Section 9799.4 (relating to counseling of sexually violent predators).
      Section 9799.7 (relating to exemption from notification for certain licensees and their employees).
      Section 9799.8 (relating to annual performance audit).
      Section 9799.9 (relating to photographs and fingerprinting).

      Somewhere in this list above is your pre-SORNA-1 offense provision which has been expired. Done away with, completed, finished can’t say any more than what is written as they wrote it.

      You may say so what does that mean to you?

      Your Megan’s Law requirements are expried and done. . . The PSP knows this so they went to the legislatures and asked for an amendment to SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 and they got it on February 21, 2018 called ACT 10 BUT – – – – –

      In a knee jerk the legislatures forgot to read THE STATUE CONSTRUCTION ACT of 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) which says:

      “Whenever a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes upon a particular subject, or sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute, such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statutes upon the same subject.”

      Meaning Megan’s Law 3 was the last SO law in effect of 12-19-12 but Nieman struck it down as unconstitutional so Megan’s Law 2 would fit in its place – which makes no diiference because SORNA-1 on 12-20-12 took out all former Megan’s Law’s and for all Pre-SORNA people there is no megan’s law because 9799.41 expired all the provision of all former Megan’s Laws.

      So the Pa. Assembly did something called an illegal amendment to SORNA-1 which potions of it MUNIZ made unconstitutional in retroactive application for Pre- SORNA people. Like terry brunson. They voted in the amendment and on the 3rd consideration by passed The Pa. Propreations Committee on funding and the Governor signed the bill in haste.

      This is the problem with ACT 10 and ACT 29 too. But notice ACT 10 and ACT 29 is an amendment of the based LAW SORNA i.e. which is still in effect 100% but for the muniz prohibitation of retroactive applications of SORNA to Pre-SORNA people.

      The Pa Assembly has made two new laws from SORNA -1 by amendment. . . . . . That is not how law making works.

      Their should have been a repeal – with savings clause on the parts of SORNA they want to take into the new law – vote to repeal and replace and then ACT10 and ACT 29 would have a true chance to be good law.

      But as of today – ACT 10 and ACT 29 are amalgamation laws of SORNA-1 meaning SORNA-1 is the real law being still put on all sex offenders in PA by the PSP and legislatures.

      It just has to be explained to the courts the right way. Of couse they will fix it, BUT they cannot bring back provisions of no former Megan’s laws whic is what they are doing to put people under ACT 10. If I had a sex offense under Megan’s law 3 . . . . . It is in the past . It has been expired it is gone – it was after April 1996 before December 2012. SORNA-2 ACT 10 grabs the dead expired law and says – you have to register under ACT 10 now due to you dead expired Megan’s law of the past. Do any one understand this process?

      If you do this is the upfront fight to ACT 10 and ACT 29 Not whether it is punishment or not added. You fight that upfront you will loose in court at last.

      • #42617
        Avatar
        Debo

        Great points Terry but doesn’t the legislature acknowledge the fact that the new acts are retroactive because they used the language of ml2 because it was shown to be civil not punishment? I do not think they are saying anything is effect accept the current laws from SORNA and the new acts. I believe this is why they are removing the people they know they could not increase their time. I do believe the PASC is going to hand them their arsses because they will say the language they used from ml2 is now punitive along with the svp and other stuff they added. Aaron Marcus’s recent update goes into this.

        • #42669
          Avatar
          Chuck

          Debo,
          The court’s explicitly DO NOT look st the General Assembly’s words but rather the intent of the statute.

          Every version of Megan’s Law including SORNA, the General Assembly has explicitly said the statute is civil, yet last summer the Pa Supreme Court said it was punitive. If you read the decision you will see the test that they use to determine if a statute is civil or punitive.

          • #42851
            Avatar
            Debo

            Yes Chuck I was not implying they were saying the stuff literally They used old versions language to justify them “saying” the new acts are civil. However the Justices have said that things are different now, so my guess is once someone gets back infant of them these acts will go bye bye too.

    • #42624
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck

      You are entirely correct it should not have to take 18 MONTHS to do this. All that needed to be done is to look at the date of charges were filed as everything is based on that anyway and apply the correct ML to it.
      If their records don’t go back to the beginning of the section they still have to go by the court transcripts
      I know mine for a fact states a 10 yr registration period. I have copies 🙂

      I personally know some people who were up tiered to a lifetime because their charge was moved up to lifetime but was only 10yrs where the charges were filed. They are still on the website due to this. That and ML3 was also declared unconstitutional if I am not mistaken.

    • #42628
      Avatar
      Mark

      I had another thought. Since act 10 or 29 now includes the 3yr mandatory probation tail, would not this be an ex-post facto application for people between 12/20/12 and 02/21/18?

    • #42641
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Debo

      The ex post facto issue will rise to the top of the argument on its own when it it presented to the court that the new ACT 10 and ACT 29 are amendments of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12. The amendments quatumed backwards to grab former Megan’s law element to that were expired to be used. The way the amendments of ACT 10 and ACT 29 get their enforcement is to reach back to to when former Megan’s Law – 3 was in effect. Former Megan’s Laws that were by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 and lists them one by one.

      The statue construction ACT 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) clearly says that repealed laws that are expired by unconstitutionality which Megan’s Law 3 was in it entirety by Commonwealth Nieman and instead of making savings clause to see which part of the former parts of Megan’s Law 2 could be saved that are constitutional to go forward to support SORNA would give them a leg to stand on today to apply retro- active principles.

      In saying if you ever did a Megan’s law offense of the pass – You have to go in the pass to get it to bring it forward to apply it to this new amendment of SORNA. They would say ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not SORNA at all. Well it is. MUNIZ – decision did not deem SORNA unconstitutional is it entirety just the retro-actiness of adding time to a former Megan’s law of the pass that you singed up for and agreed to as 10 years, but SORNA brings 15 – 25 – or lifetime in to put on you, and the increase of up date time yearly – semi yearly and quarterly. This is adding punishment that was not in former Meagan’s Laws.

      Take for example 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) under Megan’s Law 2 this was a M-2 low crime not a registration requirement at all. Then in Megan’s Law 3 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) went to a M-1 10 years requirement – Then This was expired at 12-20-12 at SORNA and 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) was placed at teir 3 lifetime.

      Now to reach back to you who had a 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) offense under Megan’s law 2 M-2 (no registration) or Megan’s Law 3 (10 years registration) – Then the Pa. Assembly expires former Megan’s Laws by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to come into compliance with A.W.A. to get the money – SORNA comes along and changes your 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) from time date it happen back under Megan’s law times to SORNA times as increase status of lifetime – you cannot see that this is an increase in punishment?

      Something that was not under registration requirements under ML-2 then went to 10 years under ML-3 and under SORNA lifetime but the same 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7).

      Who can see this? If you can the Judge can too.

      And when they see it- they will act and call it what it is and Case law to show it would start with Weaver V. Graham Tommy Lee Jackson V. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Bangs Commonwealth v. Booth Commonwealth V. Derhammer Commonwealth v Green commonwealth v. Pennymaker
      I cannot give them all who got relief But the King daddy case for you all is Commonwealth v. Muniz

      Muniz is the top case that cracked the code on arguing the statue construction ACT of 1 Pa C.S. 1971(a) – 1928(B) and 1922 (I) and the judges saw the rest and they acted and saw that all this is ex post facto and gave relief and told the Pa. Assembly to fix it and they are trying but they are going in the wrong direction.

      The PSP and Pa. Assembly are too into recapturing 17,000 OS that they are going beyond the limits and making the OS laws more restrictive. . . . Making it easier to get the point across to a judge.

      They know it is ex post facto – they are hoping the Court will return to the good old way of looking the other way.

      Pa. a is a Commonwealth where the courts mutter what is acceptable in law practice in this state.

      States that are not commonwealths can use the people to referendum to over throw laws that they think are no good. In PA there is no should monster as a people vote on laws constitutional muster.

      That is a fact Jack. I am not a Lawyer but I am in a law fight and I am only showing that If you want to get relief you have to do it pro se or get a lawyer. ACT 10 and ACT 29 opens the door to this by saying if you get a judicial determination on 42 Pa. Chapter 97 Subchapter ” H” that judical determination will cut you away from 42 Pa. Chapter 97 Subchapter ” I ” .

      Debo I pray some one on this forum would hear me clear and act and stop the waiting. 18 month will soon turn into years waiting on the PSP to be your savior – they care noting about your rights. They look at you as being in the wrong.

      The PSP wants you to only fight this from a surface legal concept of ex post fact at the lead as the only position you have and they will bring up Smith V. Doe of Alaska and show that the SCOTUS said it is ok to use retroactive punishments that don’t increase in oniriousness over rights. That was true of the pass it is not working no more. Change is here. Get in where you fit in – you cannot miss if you work with this. . . . What I am telling you.

      Show it to your lawyer – or if you understand it fight for your rights Than you

      • #42849
        Avatar
        Debo

        Terry I hear you. I was just trying to say That lets say all pre SORNA people were removed a few months ago Then the legislators decided Lets make a new law to capture the people that were taken off the reg and we will use the language of an old law that has been expired but before was shown to be civil only. So they think they can apply it retro active. Muniz only says SORNA is punitive not ML 1 or 2. This is what they are saying is the reason why they can pick pre SORNA cases. However you are saying they can’t because they would have had to be still under a law for them to apply it to them. You would have to show the person was never under SORNA in the first place to do that.

        • #42890
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          @ Debo
          Sorry for the late post – You have it clear but listen clearer. The PASC in language said the retroactive part of SORNA- 1 of 12-20-12 is “PUNITIVE” The PSP and the Pa. Assembly say that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are “CIVIL”

          The burden is on them to show the civil application to the PASC when we get there. The burden is their baby, not ours. The PASC said application of SORNA is punitive . Not the whole law. The Pa. Assembly did an amendment of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 twice just to re-capture Pre-SORNA people.

          ACT 10 and ACT29 are still SORNA[.]

          1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) say clearly that if a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes which sets up a general exclusion system on matters of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statues upon the same subject.

          That means ML 2 was the enforceable Law to repeal – bu the Pa. did not repeal they did something expressly different. They EXPIRED all former Megan’s Law statutes listed them at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 on date 12-20-12

          1 Pa C.S. 1928(b) says Statutes expired should go in the favor of the accused of the Sex offender. meaning – all expired Megan’s Laws which have your offence in them after April 1996 before December 2012 which no longer exist can be used to hold you to ACT 10 or ACT 29 amendment of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 which ACT 1`0 and ACT 29 are. Amendments of SORNA-1 yet still SORNA-1 can you see this?

          Then 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) provided the legislature did not intend an absurd result. It is absurd that the PSP
          asserts that statutory scheme of ACT 10 and ACT 29 can go back it time and un expire expired law that has pre-SORNA offense needed to put people under ACT 10 and ACT 29 as the former Megan’s Law no longer exists , it cannot be applicable[.]

          Dose any one understand this? it may be too legal too understand. The court will understand it.

    • #42699
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      I was thinking about life today and a thought came to my mind. That thought was patience. This month makes 6 months since they started processing the changes of Muniz. In the legal world, 6 months is the same as half the time it take to blink your eye. Yes, it is frustrating to be on a registry that you should be off of. Yes, being on the registry has its “costs”. Yet, we are all so much more than just people on a registry. Some of us are fathers, husbands, Supervisors, employees, and friends to just name a few hats we wear. My point being we cannot let PA boil our life down to waiting for the next legistrative update or court ruling. We are more than that. Yes, it is stressful what Pa what’s to do, but we cannot let their hate consume us. It will distract us from what really matters: being with the people that care about us.

      My Ex Wife always felt like we couldn’t be a normal “couple” because I was on the registry. She felt as though it somehow “downgraded” her ability to socialize with her friends. I was so worried about avoiding appearances, I would avoid making connections with her friends who had kids, and that did have an impact on outback msrriage. I let the fear of what other people would think destroy my marriage. My wife and I went to an event one time and we were bickering at each other. A friend of hers walked up to her (she never met me) greeted her, and told her how excited she was to meet her husband and kind of gave me s look that said I needed to leave the area, so I did. After a few minutes of chit chat she asked my wife where her husband was. She said you just met him. My point being because I was so worried about what people would think, I didn’t spend the time I needed to with my wife to maintain our martial bond. Don’t let PA rob you of your life.

    • #42700
      Avatar
      Brian

      Not sure what the outcome of this case was but it says case closed when I look up the docket information and just search in general, it says PER CURIAM.

      AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED and the Order of the Superior Court is REVERSED. See Commonwealth v. Muniz, ___ Pa. ___, 164 A.3d 1189 (2017).
      Edmund L Haenig, I thought this guy was fighting HB 1952. Anyone know anything about this case?

    • #42711
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Brian,

      https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-39-CR-0000743-1996

      He was challenging the retroactive application of Megan’s Law to him. The local court denied his motion and the Superior Court upheld the lower court decision. In light of the Muniz Decision, the Supreme Court REVERSED. He filed his appeal in 2013 so he was challenging SORNA as being a Pre-SORNA registrant.

    • #42712
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hey Terry,
      If you would like someone to proofread your drafts for you, I would be happy to do it for you at no charge.

      mcdchaz@yahoo.com

    • #42714
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      I would like to discuss the idea that the proposed residency restrictions not applying to Pre-SORNA as being a “good thing”. It is not. Creating different restrictions for different people only causes confusion among the public who are the ones that will be “reporting” Pre-SORNA as being in violation because they do not understand the differences. Let’s face it if you walked up to s random stranger and started a conversation about PA ACT 10 of 2018, they would have no idea of what you were talking about unless if them or a close friend or family member is on the registry or works for Law Enforcement.

      Whereas I am glad I do not have to personally stress on it, I do stress on the bigger impact the proposed residency restrictions will have. United we stand, divided we fall.

    • #42751
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      I agree, confusion is right, people are going to think that just because your on the reg that the restriction applies to you, even though we’re pre SORNA, the police may be a little confused also, I have one cop who has a hardon for messing with me, I noticed the same police car at my old job was patrolling excessively and going into my old job and talking to my boss right before I lost the job, up until a couple weeks ago at my new job it has stopped, I told my attorney what was going on with this officer and I guess he knows some important people, the next day and up until now I haven’t seen one cop, but I can see this guy coming back after that try and pass the restriction.

    • #42816
      Avatar
      Mark

      Terry won round 1 The judge ruled that he must be removed from and I quote:
      “Petitioner T.P.B.’s application for summary relief is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The
      Pennsylvania State Police shall not enforce the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s (SORNA)
      registration requirements, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared violated the ex post facto
      clauses of both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions in Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d
      1189 (Pa. 2017), cert. denied,_ U.S._, 138 S.Ct. 925 (2018), against Petitioner as a result of his August
      13, 1999 conviction.”
      The denial was partly for ACT 10 inclusion. Congratulations Terry! I know you wanted to get to PASC. You still might. Depends on the PSP and AG now.

    • #42821
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @ Mark,
      Yes, but ACT 10 makes the ruling moot as the Commonwealth is claiming that ACT 10 is civil in nature and thus can be appilied retroactively.
      PSP already removes Terry back in Feb because of Muniz. They are holding him on the registry because of ACT 10. This ruling changes nothing.

    • #42824
      Avatar
      Mark

      In the words of Emily Patilla “Nevermind”

    • #42830
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @chuck

      You said above:

      Yes, but ACT 10 makes the ruling moot as the Commonwealth is claiming that ACT 10 is civil in nature and thus can be appilied retroactively.

      As a pre-SORNA person I have about 2 years, 4 months to go. If they’re claiming ACT 10 is civil can’t they theoretically just keep us on after our time is up and still not take us, or anyone down? Or are we considered a protected class because of the PA Supreme Court ruling?

    • #42834
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      I had no I deal the court commented on 463 MD 2017 in Commonwealth Court 26 June 2018 @ 12:00 A.M.

      This win on SORNA is a round one win – When I filed Mandamus in October 13, 2017 I was not fighting ACT 10 or ACT 29.

      These came up after the suit began. The Mootness claim of the PSP doing the voluntary cessation is DENIED. I now have a judicial determination to offer as proof on ACT 10 and ACT 29 case still pending. on case 339 MD 2018

      The key in case 463 MD 2017 was to get a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. And to get rid of the PSP voluntary cessation BS. Mootness was not the claim of the court. my Mandamus was GRANTED that is all I needed.

      Now I will take this to the next level to show that SORNA – has been declared by a court that T.P.B. is not under the retroactive part of SORNA by MUNIZ and I can show that ACT 10 says in the Law that if a person has a court win or judicial determination under Chapter 97 subchapter “H” which is SORNA and I have now – then ACT 10 will not apply in Subchapter “I” I now just have to get it before the court under ACT 10. I got it At 339 MD 2018 I want to take leave of court and add ACT 29 and refile the new Mandamus under an added fight of PSP and Pa. Assembly violating the Statue Construction act on having 2 Sex offender Laws now may three in operation at one time.

      SORNA is the base law – ACT 10 an amendment of SORNA-1 which in tack is still SORNA same. My attack is to show that if chapter 97 subchapter “H” is not enforcable on me @ the retro application – How can “I” be for it is an amended part of SORNA. which is ACT 10.

      Wish me luck in round two. The PSP can appeal to the next court if they like. By my eye is still to get to the PASC. I am not fighting this battle just for me. I have all you guys in my heart. Especially Churck and Brian, Dave, Mark, Keith, and Snoopy my friends.

    • #42835
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      A mootness issue did arise in case (463 MD 2017) which T.P.B. plaintiff challenged because it was to be temporary in nature only until ACT 10 makes it on the seen as new law.

      I knew that ACT 10 developments would come up after my suit was filed resolving harm to me.

      I knew that generally, a case is not moot so long as the plaintiff continues to have an injury for which the court can award relief and that was under the MUNIZ- decision, even if entitlement to the primary relief has been mooted and what remains is small.

      Put differently, the presence of a “collateral” injury is an exception to mootness.

      As a result I distinguished that the PSP was trying to get me to say O.K. you guys are letting me off on your terms – but it will be short lived only until ACT 10 gets here.

      So I said no thanks to the PSP’s good faith BS of letting me off the registry by their say so – only to be put back on. I would have lost the opportunity for a judicial determination I been preaching so much about.

      I wanted the court to order me off. Not the freeby of the PSP taking me off of SORNA by voluntary cessatioin.

      Although later events may moot the claim for injunctive relief, the claim for the opportunity to let the court determine the legality of the conduct of the issues I know I had a right to.

      This is what saved the case involving mootness.

      11 Similarly, in considering mootness, it is important to distinguish between claims for different forms of injunctive relief. For example, claims for retroactive injunctive relief are not moot simply because claims for prospective relief are. The past injury has not been remedied.

      If the case was moot the court would have dismissed my Mandamus. I considered carefully the benefit to be gained in fighting for the judicial determination.

      Some cases are truly moot when no present consequences are traceable to the challenged conduct, and, for whatever reason, the conduct is unlikely ever to recur under ACT 10

      In such case, resisting dismissal without prejudice on the ground of mootness makes no sense. The suggestion of mootness should be an occasion to reevaluate both the factual and legal merits of a lawsuit. While the natural reaction during litigation is to resist, there are times when it is better to fight another day with a different plaintiff.

      But I knew the PSP could no put up a fight on MUNIZ- decision win for my side. Muniz is a judicial determination that was won in the high court that I can use in the lower Court to win a ruling.

      My ruling in Mandamus GRANTED is the judicial determination that will making to win in the next round of the fight on ACT 10 and ACT 29. We will win and ACT 10 and ACT 29 will go down. The PA Assembly will making up some new BS to come forward.

      PSP’s Voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct did not render my case moot. The Court has considered the principal of exception to the mootness doctrine.

      Commonwealth’s Voluntary Cessation of Unlawful Conduct Rule:
      A defendant may not moot a claim for injunctive relief simply by ceasing the unlawful conduct. A contrary rule would encourage the resumption of unlawful conduct following the dismissal of litigation. In United States v. W.T. Grant Company, the Supreme Court held that the voluntary cessation of illegal conduct would moot a case only if the defendant established that “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” Unless the defendant meets that “heavy” burden, the court has the power to hear the case and the discretion to grant injunctive relief which in my case they did.

      Notwithstanding the Court saw that the PSP was trying to bait me to accept their good faith act of taking me off the registry without Court order to block me from judicial determination.

      You get that the battle is half done. ACT 10 and ACT 29 both say clearly:
      “BECAUSE OF A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION ON OR AFTER
      FEBRUARY 21, 2018, OF THE INVALIDITY OF 42 PA.C.S. CH. 97 SUBCH. H, IS NOT
      SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER. ”

      That is round two fight at case 339 MD 2018 in this fight – I say – to all take one of three positions:
      1. Lead
      2. Follow
      3 Get the hell out of the way

      • #42850
        Avatar
        Debo

        Great job Terry keep kick but. One thing to look at is like the others that have received their letters from the PSP saying AT THIS TIME we no longer have to reg This could be used as a threat of things repeating in the future to defeat a mootness motion if we want to get a JD also, I would think.

    • #42864
      Avatar
      Brian

      First Act 10 win, I learned of this today. I told you my attorney said we will be seeing cases coming to light and here is one so far.

      Pennsylvania’s Recently Enacted And Revised Sexual Registration and Notification Act “SORNA” Ruled “Unconstitutional” by Montgomery County Judge, According to Attorney John McMahon
      Jun 28, 2018, 10:33am EDT
      NORRISTOWN, Pa., June 28, 2018 /PRNewswire/ —

      The following is a statement from John I. McMahon, Jr., Esquire, of law firm McMahon, McMahon & Lentz:

      MONTGOMERY COUNTY JUDGE WILLIAM R. CARPENTER ISSUED A STUNNING DECISION ON JUNE 22, 2018 THAT THE RETROACTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE RECENTLY ENACTED PENNSYLVANIA SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT “SORNA” ARE PUNITIVE, SEVERABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      Last Friday, June 22, 2018, Judge Carpenter granted our Motion to Terminate Sexual Offender Registration Requirements under the new, revised Pennsylvania Sexual Registration and Notification Act statute enacted on February 21, 2018, which we argued on behalf of our client, C.L., was punitive, retroactive and unconstitutional. Under the provisions of the most recently revised “SORNA” our client who was convicted of Sexual Assault and related offenses would have been subjected to a “lifetime” registration requirement with the Pennsylvania State Police. At the time our client was sentenced by Judge Carpenter in 1997 to serve a seven to twenty year sentence, his most serious offense carried a ten year sexual offender registration and notification requirement, under the then existing Megan’s Law I. Megan’s law I was later subject to significant revisions in Megan’s Law 2 in 2000 and then Megan’s Law 3 which expired in 2012, when the first “SORNA” replaced it. These revised Sexual Registration and Notification statutes broadly expanded the length of the registration and notification requirements for those previously convicted of most sexual offenses. Thereafter, in 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Commonwealth vs. Muniz that the Sexual Registration and Notification Act known as “SORNA” was unconstitutional, as it violated the ex post facto clauses of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions based on its retroactive and punitive registration and notification requirements for previously convicted offenders. The most recently further revised “SORNA” statute signed into law on February 21, 2018, was the Pennsylvania legislature’s response to the sweeping Muniz decision. Judge Carpenter wholly agreed with our argument, that notwithstanding certain less onerous yearly registration provisions of the new “SORNA” and the opportunity for a lifetime registrant to petition to terminate the registration requirements after twenty five years, the longer, the retroactive registration requirements and other provisions were still punitive, severable and unconstitutional. Our client had NOT determined to be a sexually violent predator at the time of his 1997 sentencing. He had no prior record and he has had no further law enforcement contacts during the last twenty years. In conclusion, it appears likely that the “SORNA” related litigation will not end soon as thousands of previously convicted sexual offenders are greatly impacted by this unconstitutional Pennsylvania statute that has been repeatedly and unsuccessfully revised to try and pass Constitutional muster for over a decade.

      John I. McMahon, Jr., Esquire (610-272-9502) website: McMahon4law.com

      John McMahon
      Sign in to follow this author
      McMahon, McMahon & Lentz

    • #42862
      Avatar
      Brian

      Terry Brunson
      That’s awesome, one brick at a time, it will be beaten. Good luck also my man.

    • #42891
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The PASC in language said the retroactive part of SORNA- 1 of 12-20-12 is “PUNITIVE” The PSP and the Pa. Assembly say that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are “CIVIL”

      The burden is on them to show the civil application to the PASC when we get there. The burden is their baby, not ours. The PASC said application of SORNA is punitive . Not the whole law. The Pa. Assembly did an amendment of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 twice just to re-capture Pre-SORNA people.

      ACT 10 and ACT29 are still SORNA[.]

      1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) say clearly that if a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes which sets up a general exclusion system on matters of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statues upon the same subject.

      That means ML 2 was the enforceable Law to repeal – bu the Pa. did not repeal they did something expressly different. They EXPIRED all former Megan’s Law statutes listed them at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 on date 12-20-12

      1 Pa C.S. 1928(b) says Statutes expired should go in the favor of the accused of the Sex offender. meaning – all expired Megan’s Laws which have your offence in them after April 1996 before December 2012 which no longer exist can be used to hold you to ACT 10 or ACT 29 amendment of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 which ACT 1`0 and ACT 29 are. Amendments of SORNA-1 yet still SORNA-1 can you see this?

      Then 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) provided the legislature did not intend an absurd result. It is absurd that the PSP
      asserts that statutory scheme of ACT 10 and ACT 29 can go back it time and un expire expired law that has pre-SORNA offense needed to put people under ACT 10 and ACT 29 as the former Megan’s Law no longer exists , it cannot be applicable[.]

      Dose any one understand this? it may be too legal too understand. The court will understand it.

    • #42892
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The ACT 10 and ACT 29 are SORNA. The PASC has spoken in clear words that the PSP don’t want to read. They want to say that Civil application gives them right to apply ACT 10 and ACT 29 on everyone they want too.

      The burden is on them to show that civil application is what the PASC allows in MUNIZ – decision of 19 July 2017. . . It is not the PASC words says retroactive application of SORNA application is puntive.

      The PSP has to argue that there is a difference.

      The will say they took away some punitive stuff. to make it Civil and less onerous than it was in the MUNIZ fight.

      It is not about that at all. The real fight is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 violates the Statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. 1928(b) and 1 Pa. C.S. 199(1)

      When 42 Pa. C.S. 9788.41 expiration to Former Megan’s Laws You and My former offense was in that expiration of former Megan’s Laws. If you had a offense after April 1996 before December 2012 You are entitled to relief from ACT 10 and ACT 29 – – – – Can anybody somebody see this all all? In my next round to the Commonwealth court I will show this clearly.

      I have their words from my case 463 MD 2017 which says that I have a former 1999 conviction that violates the ex post facto clause of the U.S. and The Pea. Constitutions based on Muniz, and can remind them of this in the next case 339 MD 2018 form them to act on ACT 10 and ACT 29 knock out punch.

    • #42899
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The real fight is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 violates the Statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. 1928(b) and 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1)

      When 42 Pa. C.S. 9788.41 expiration to Former Megan’s Laws You and My former offense was in that expiration of former Megan’s Laws. If you had a offense after April 1996 before December 2012 You are entitled to relief from ACT 10 and ACT 29 – – – – Can anybody somebody see this all all? In my next round to the Commonwealth court I will show this clearly.

      I have their words from my case 463 MD 2017 which says that I have a former 1999 conviction that violates the ex post facto clause of the U.S. and The Pea. Constitutions based on Muniz, and can remind them of this in the next case 339 MD 2018 form them to act on ACT 10 and ACT 29 knock out punch.

      • #42919
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        That is 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 sorry yall

    • #42918
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      to all
      I received in the mail from the Commonwealth Court Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion on case 463 MD 2017 and it reads Relief granted in part and denied in part.

      It looks different in the denied in part than the order.

      The mission for the Mandamus was to get off of the registry. . . . . Not just to get a declaration from the Court that the PSP under Muniz may not enforce SORNA’s registration requirements on T.P.B. as a result of his 1999 conviction . That was granted BUT to decline to order the PSP to remove all reference to T.P.B. from the Megan’s Law website related publications and documents to me is a loss of time and effort.

      I seen an appeal on ground of error in the conclusion of this court’s seeing that SORNA-1 subchapter “H”was amended to make SORNA-2 subchapter “I” to continue SORNA in application in a retroactive way.

      SORNA as a whole law was not declared unconstitutional – only the retroactive application, but that is the part that the Pa. Assembly is amending by ACT 10 to reclaim all effected by Muniz- decision after April 1996 before December 2012. ACT 10 is still SORNA the court cannot see this as I showed it.

      I want to put in a notice of appeal next week under case 463 MD 2017. I have 30 days form 27 June not encluding week ends.

      I can only attack what was ruled on and I cannot bring in new points. I will attack that SORNA-1’s amendment is still SORNA[.]

      By the statutory construction ACT of 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and 1928(b) and 1922(1) SORNA amendment is disallowed to create that AMENDMENT called ACT 10. It is still SORNA[.]

    • #42921
      Avatar
      Brian

      @ Terry Brunson
      This is going to be quite a fight in deed, the lawsuit in the article I posted was won on retroactive application of act 10 so a lot of people are going have to fight and win this, like you said, each person is going to have to get their own judicial determination, other then the people who have gotten their relief right away like psp was suposed to do for everyone, out of state people are last in line such as myself, this is why I hired an attorney in the first place was to get to my case faster, but the first one was doing me wrong and took my money, mfr, out of staters will beet act 10 and knock it down in the end I believe, post SORNA people have a whole different battle on their hands then us pre SORNA, if they apply the restriction to them and them only then a new Muniz will be born and the PASC fight will be on for them, and this time I believe SORNA in pa will be no more, there will be no more constitutional registry, Terry I don’t know who’s going to PASC on act 10 but I think you will be the one who makes it there my friend because the lower courts it looks like are paying 200 bucks and passing go, taking people off the registry once they get to court, such as the Montgomery County cast in Norristown, this guy didn’t need to go any farther, but I know what you are doing Terry, you did not pass go and you did not want to collect 200 bucks because your on the path to freedom my friend, the path that will free all my man.. keep going Terry, I won’t make it there, i don’t think my attorney will go to the PASC, I think they will get me off in the lower courts, but I have to go to court to get off because they want me for life, like the guy in Montgomery county, they put him on for life under Act 10, he was charged in 1997 without having a new crime and was never designated as an svp but they wanted him for life also, I was never an svp either.

    • #42923
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry

      So when’s the next big court date for you?

    • #42924
      Avatar
      Ricardo Zandivar

      PA Gov. Wolf signs ‘clean slate’ bill

      https://www.abc27.com/news/local/gov-wolf-signs-clean-slate-bill/1271013031

      HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) – Gov. Tom Wolf has signed legislation to give people with low-level, nonviolent criminal records a chance to seal their history from public view.

      Wolf said the update to Pennsylvania’s “clean slate” law makes it easier for people to reduce the stigma they face when looking for employment and housing.

      The law automatically seals from the public the records for certain second or third-degree misdemeanor offenses that included a less than two-year prison sentence if a person has been free from convictions for 10 years.

      The law also seals records related to charges that resulted in non-convictions.

      It does not seal serious offenses such as endangerment, firearms charges, sexual offenses, cruelty to animals, and corruption of minors.

      Criminal justice agencies would still have access to the records.

      Under Pennsylvania’s current clean slate law, people must go to court and ask a judge to seal their low-level records from public view.

      With the change signed into law, no action is needed to automatically seal a record.

      –Noticed the “sexual offenses” exemption clause??? …Yes, because all sexual offenses are a “serious offense” *sarcasm*

    • #42933
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hey Terry,
      You do realize PSP gets told how to enforce “Megan’s Law” by the Attorney General? All PSP does is follow instructions they are given. It stinks, but that is how it goes.

    • #42934
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Oh the Da’s of Pa are going to be hopping mad now!! Their precious “fix” is illegal. I can hear the General Assembly now. We need to impeach the judges of Pa!!! HA HA HA….. Come take a swing at ME!!! I am ready to SWING BACK!!! Gentleman THIS is how we get the last laugh. Let me guess, they need a “fix” for the “fix”!!!’

      I just keep thinking about when they told me in 2012 they were increasing my time and there was NOTHING I could do about it because it was legal. HA HA HA HA…… who got the last laugh??

      • #42975
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Chuck What are you so excited about – your words were so happy – your enthusiasm was touching. It was like I was in church listening to a preacher who knows what he is talking about without sharing the good news. What is the good news?

    • #42937
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Ricardo Zandivar
      That doesn’t apply to sex offenders only to drug dealers who can sell deadly drugs to kids, car thieves who kill people in high speed police chases and they can keep on re offending all they want with very little consequence. Oh and hey can violate probation and parole and only get 30 days and let out because I know someone that just happened to.

    • #42949
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Has any one heard of a King’s Bench appeal?

      It is what I am filling next week to by pass the Pa. superior Court and go right directly to the PASC on ACT 10 from 463 MD 2017.

      I have 30 days to fill notice to the Commonwealth Court that I desire to direct appeal their order of granted in part and denied in part. The Commonwealth Court never reviewed my argument on the statutory construction ACT. SORNA was never repealed and ACT 10 is not a re-enactment. SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 is an amendment of SORNA-1

      SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 never was deemed unconstitutional as a whole law – only in part that was applied to retroactive application to pre-SORNA-1 people. We are still under SORNA-1 limited to its amendment of 02-22-18 ACT and 06-12-18 ACT 29.

    • #42950
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      Once you or someone reaches the PASC with the Act 10 and 29 the feet will be swept from under the schemers, I won’t be at the PASC or make it there because the lower court will take me off, I am confident because of this last won case, only because I don’t have enough money to get there and the knowledge like you have of the law to make it there. You will win and knock it out of the park my man.

    • #42961
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Terry,
      I accidentally deleted your post. I am sorry. I meant to click reply and I clicked trash. I am so sorry. Perhaps Fred and fix it.

      To answer your question, I am happy because everytime they say something I hear Vinny from My Cousin Vinny stand up and say “Everything that guy just said is BS”. The Courts are starting to get over their fear of sex offenders. It makes smile that they want to make Megan’s Law more restrictive. They are cutting their own throat.
      They couldn’t be happy with a picture and a list of crimes. Now, they will lose.
      To get the US Supreme Court to vote unanimously in Packingham was HUGE. Especially since Facebook’s “Offical” policy is sex offenders are not welcomed although I hear they have started dragging their feet in enforcing the policy. Even Justice Thomas felt NC went to far. They is saying something.

      The total point of the registry is to shame and punish. Period. I have a neighbor who thinks it is her duty to tell every female in Carlisle I am on the registry. It is frustrating but it’s like if it makes you feel better, whatever. It made me so happy when my ex wife first started spending the night st my house and she told the neighbor, “ He already told me, and I love him anyway”

      We will prevail it just takes time.

      • #42972
        Avatar
        Brian

        @Chuck
        To bad you can’t press charges for harassment on her because technically it is in violation of that little paragraph before you enter the sec offender search on the ml web site as you know.

    • #42978
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The king’s Bench appeal is an extraordinary jurisdiction in the Commonwealth that allows a person to go directly to the high court from a final denial order from a lower court. The Commonwealth Court that I was in gave me a good bad final ruling.

      granted in part denied in part. That seems good but it is a denial to them not ordering me off the registry. The good part was that they declared that my 1999 Texas conviction cannot be used by the PSP under SORNA-1 but it can under SORNA-1’s amendment (ACT 10)

      But the court is not understanding that SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 never was deemed unconstitutional as a whole. only in part making SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 still in effect as law. With an Amendment to it called ACT 10. In order to have ACT 10 as SORNA-2 in amendment – there has to be a SORNA still there to Amend. ACT 10 is SORNA amended.

      The way the law should have went is SORNA should have been repealed. A Savings clause voted on to retain retroactive traits of SORNA to go forward without punitive punishment. That not what was done.

    • #42981
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      With Act10 still being SORNA in a disguise it is still expostfacto, I have seen two cases so far that have won on the retroactive application of SORNA / Act 10,I believe the courts are seeing the disguised bs the general assembly has done, there was no saving clause like you have said my friend, basically Act 10 is dead in the water with a shit load of hungry great white sharks swimming about waiting for it to finally sink, because there is a big hole in the ship and it’s going down, once you get to the PASC you will remove all the corks plugins all the holes and then, Act 10 is shark bate you friend, I believe anyone whos time is up challenges Act 10 who is pre SORNA will will, I just saw a case on ACSOL site that Debo posted, the guy was an out os state SO, he moved to pa and was put under SORNA registration and was to register for life, he also became noncompliant, he was out of NewYork and was required to register for life, even though Act 10 says us out of staters have to reg for what ever our original state requires, the courts are not upholding Act 10 at all, in accordance with Muniz, the lower courts are upholding the Muniz decision it appears. So anyone who is pre SORNA and their time is up and they are still requiring you to register under Act 10, the courts are the only thing that I can see that will set us free, Terry I k ow where yiur going my man, as long as you keep that path the registry will have its ship wrecked..

      • #42997
        Avatar
        Terry Brunson

        @Brian

        I am so proud of you Brian – when i met you you knew nothing of your rights – today you are a prince of knowing PSP’s tricks

        I knew nothing of the king’d bench high court appeal until I went to the Philadelphia State building and saw that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a office there.

        I went in and I could feel the loneliness in that place. No one comes in here it seemed.

        The lady at the deck was so excited to have a visitor. She talked and talked – then asked me why was I here and how she could help me.

        I told her of my situation and that I want to appeal to to the Superior court form my case – she said why do that when the PASC has jurisdiction of all court in the Commonwealth.

        She asked if I heard of a King’s bench jurisdiction appeal application for $90.25

        I said a friend Kieth said something about that but I thought nothing of what it meant.

        She told me that I was wasting time dealing with routine court matters – she said go to the top fast as you can – The king’s bench appeal is the king’s highway to the high court. Only thing is the application has to be granted – You have to suit the Commonwealth court for not giving a true review of your case.

        The PSP is banking on ACT 10 being the right law to recapture people they don’t want on the streets at all.

        They know that ACT 10 is still SORNA because in the Law ACT ACT 10 is a continuation of “H”

        to make “I”

        I”” is an amendment not a reeactment of law.

        reenactments can be done but they must have savings clause on which parts of the old law will carry over to the new reenactment law. ACT 10 is not like that at all.

        SORNA never had a total trashing – SORNA is the only law that Pa. has that governs sex offenders.

        SORNA is the law of this state [.]. That law has not been deemed unconstitutional as a whole. Just in part in applying retroactive conditions on Pre-SORNA people who had a law called Megan’s Law. SORNA expired Megan’s Law.

        The PSP things SORNA amended can unexpire – expired law.

        Impossible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Megan’s Law was a Law. SORNA was enacted not to repeal Megan’s Law , but to expire it to get money from AWA fund from Washington D.C.

        So the Pa assembly did as AWA asked thinking SORNA would be the king of all sex offender laws.

        SORNA enacted – didawy with old former Megan’s Laws. Not just repealed them.

        So if your offense was done before 12-20-12 at SORNA that former offense was expired.

        a 1999 conviction went away never to come back. MUNIZ- saw this first.

        He filled – and won – this single win did the PA. Assembly in. They forgot to add saving clause repeals to go forward into SORNA.

        So instead of getting rid of SORNA and loosing AWA money – they think they can just amend SORNA and get the effect of reenactment rights of a repealed law.

        Not so. . . . . . SORNA must die first as a whole. and saving clause desires choosen to go forward to the new law.

        BUT the Megan’s Law that has all the sex offenders dates of conviction are before 12-20-12. they were expired by SORNA never to come back. so the DA Freed convinced the PA judicial Committee to amend SORNA and say that it will be retroactive but without the more punitive stuff on it. The courts will by this. This is why Muniz made it he thinks.

        But not so. Muniz made it because the Pa assemble keep adding restrictions – every year some new sex offender restriction is piled on to SORNA. The PASC is tire of this bs.
        Inter net inform Vehicle, nick name, on and on

        adding restrictions to sex offenders is making the case that this sex offend law thing is build for one purpose – TO PUNISH[.]

        This is going to be the death of all sex offender laws in PA which will move from 14 Amendment challenges to 8th Amendment one for cruel and unusual punishment. Remember terry brunson said this to you

        • #43041
          Avatar
          Debo

          Great points Terry I believe the recent wins in superior court are due to the simple fact that they are still punitive in nature and therefor can’t constitutional be applied retroactively The new acts being connected to SORNA 1 via sections I to H and saving clause is not what the superior court used to shoot the new acts down.

    • #42984
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Brian,
      I hear you. The police have talked to her about how rubbing people noses in it is not helpful and how technically she could be cited for minor infractions. It is not worth the hassle. The police Dept is very big in telling the public to leave us alone. I have a life to lead. Besides her seeing me successful just heaps hot coals onto her head.
      She use to be a lot more crazy with it until they told her to cool it. Like I said the local police don’t want us causing trouble so they look out for us. Any time someone makes an issue, they are told leave us the f**** alone. Yes they say it just like that. The one SGt says I am too busy chasing these drug dealers to worry about what he did years ago. If you don’t want to talk to them, don’t. If you don’t want them next door, MOVE.
      The cost/benefit is simply not there to file a complaint. The only people who come to my house are my close friends who know what happened so she isn’t hurting anything except my ears. Just annoying that’s all. Kind of how you put up with your annoying brother n law because he is your brother n law. Because you love your wife, you love him. Well because I love my brother and don’t want to make waves for him, I put up with her. When my brother first started dating his current GF, she was a bit uncomfortable but my brother said, “ look he is my brother. You can’t trust him then BYE.”
      She has since fallen platonically in love with me and doesn’t question me.

      Anyway, sometimes you have to grin and bear it.

    • #42985
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      HAPPY 4th GUYS. Get out and do something fun Today!!!

    • #43184
      Avatar
      Dave

      @TerryBrunson

      Well, you know me, I know you, you know I know what I am talking about so I’ll drop this:

      King’s Bench relief has only been granted 3 times in the state of Pennsylvania.

      Twice to people on death row and once in a child custody case.
      Over 30,000 filed for King’s Bench in 2017, none were accepted or even reviewed.

      Look for better avenues.

    • #43183
      Avatar
      Dave

      Okay, let me just chime in here…

      Savings Clauses are a worthless argument in Court, they always have been, they always will be.

      The point is (Without all the legal mumbo jumbo)

      SORNA does not apply to anyone convicted pre- December 20, 2012.

      Megan’s Law III does not apply to ANYONE (it EXPIRED on December 20, 2012)

      Megan’s Law II does not apply to ANYONE as it was deemed unconstitutional as well as expiring when Megan’s Law III took over.

      Megan’s Law I does not apply to anyone as it was deemed unconstitutional as well as expiring when Megan’s Law II took over.

      Act 10 does not apply to anyone because it is an ex-post facto violation (Making a new law for crimes and making them effective for years past, in essence, you must be sentenced to the laws in effect at the time the crime was COMMITTED (not sentenced).

      Sexually Violent Predator status in Pennsylvania is DEAD to anyone convicted or found to be an SVP before December 20, 2012. I beat my SVP status in a one-page demand letter to the court, they agreed, the DA didn’t even file opposition.

      I have not been back to this board in months since I was released from prison, because, in reality, I laugh at the PSP, they have already (for some reason) come to my apartment twice and knocked on the front door. I open it and say “What”. They say “Oh we are just checking to confirm addresses”. I say “Fuck off assholes” and slam the door shut.

      It has happened twice in 5 months. I called the PSP to complain and they tell me the mayor of Harrisburg has PSP going through all reg offenders in the city a few times a year.

      There is nothing they can do to me, there is nothing they can say to me.

      I have talked to all my neighbors, I am the only white guy in the neighborhood (They all know me and of my sex crime now) and all of them stop by when I am sitting on the porch and talk to me as a friend and neighbor.

      I even played a game of softball with all the neighborhood kids (age 5-15) the other day with the entire neighborhood, drank beers with all the dads, ate chicken and potato salad with the moms (All Church Loving…)

      I don’t run from it, I bring it up in the first conversation, I wear it like a badge of pride, I don’t hide it, I take the power of the Megan’s Law Registry away from it.

      “Yes, I was convicted and sentenced to prison for 8 years for a sex offense for my ex-wife when she was 15 and I was 21 and we had sex, and we were also then married for 14 1/2 years and had 3 kids. Yea, I did it, and yea, I went to prison for it and yea I’m on the registry for life, but, you know what, if I hadn’t have done that, my 3 kids wouldn’t be here today, and I love my kids and they love me so it was worth it”
      is usually enough to shut anyone’s mouth very quickly.

      The conversation only came up once, an old old black lady just said: “Well the lord tells me not to judge and love others so that’s what I do”.

      One of these days I will sit down, spend the 2 months researching and typing it up and will finally file in Commonwealth Court (They are right down the street from me)

      • #44226
        Avatar
        R

        Yea kings bench blah blah blah forget it stop talking about its a fart in the wrong direction ain’t happening o but go ahead keep give good ol pa more of your hard earned dollars Lmao lol

    • #43188
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hi Dave,
      The to it all is having the registry deemed punishment. Then you can’t pass Ex Post Facto laws and we get to challenge the registry as cruel and unusual.
      I do believe within the next 5-10 years the registry will fall. People are starting to see that people are being jammed up for life for one mistake.
      Everyone in my church knows my charges and for a while I was banned from on site visits (they stream their services online ). I went to s church in NY where you had to have an escort and if you were a Tier 2 or 3 you were banned for life. My church trust me now so I can come and go as I please. I avoid the nursery not because I have to but just to avoid the appearance of conflict.

      Society is starting to realize that branding people for life regardless of the charge (yes even sex crimes) is not in the best interest of society. How can you help people move on if they are forced to work for minimum wage jobs. In the 9 years I have been out, it has gotten a bit easier. People are starting to see I am just a human being like them. It takes time.
      Sorry your marriage didn’t work out Dave. At least you tried. I couldn’t imagine doing 8 years. I did 5 1/2 months in and 18 months out (parole) and that was enough. I had a friend get 15 year sentence. He did 2 of it and was paroled. He went to his Po’s office and they tried to give him some restrictions he didn’t like. So he went to the parking lot and drove a police car into the building. He finished the rest of the 15 inside. He got off on the new charges though. Went in when he was 19 and was almost 37 by the time he was done with everything. Spent only 2 weeks of that time on the outside.

    • #43234
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The King’s Bench is a shot in the dark – to make noise to let the PSP know where I stand.

      In my case 463 MD 2017 I got grant in part and a denial in part. I was denied the money – I was granted the declaration of PSP not being able to use my 1999 conviction But I am sadden that I could not get ACT 10 in this fight and removed off the registry.

      I have given my brief on case 339 MD 2018 and I have taken leave to amend it to add ACT 29 even through ACT 29 notice in a letter from PSP has not come to me.

      I will return to court to fight ACT 10 and ACT 29. I got Commonwealth v. Derhammer of 11-22-17 and Polizer and person cases. These seem to be cases that are leading and beating the ACT 10 fight. My hope is in justice.

      My argument is simple. People before 2012 December who committed a set offense are not under ACT 10 because it is still SORNA. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are recapture laws – But they are Ex Post Facto in application. The PAG wants to lead with non-punitive issues.

    • #43248
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      Do you think it would be a good idea to use
      COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : Appellee : v. : : STEVEN ANDREW WILLIAMS
      I believe this guy won againsed Act 10 on his out of state claim as well. He was out of New York and Act 10 tried to get him to be a lifer but he won’t hat case, he doesn’t have to register anymore I believe.

    • #43261
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @ Dave,
      I do indeed live by the Po-Po’s. I know E Street quite well. My landlord has properties all around this area. I tell everyone this is the “Ghetto of Carlisle” . As you know, they are only a few blocks from me.

      I think that is why they check up on me EVERY YEAR. Suppose to be random but I get it every year. I am not sure what you meant by “don’t touch this” but I didn’t mean to offend anyone with what I said.

      Carlisle isn’t too bad. They do tell everyone to leave us alone. I do enjoy living close to Washington DC, Baltimore, Nee York etc etc etc. As you know, from Carlisle you can be in the city (Nee York) in 4 hours. I have been year off and on for 10 years (left for one year) and Carlisle is def growing. Once they finish the development they are building on the old Tire and Wheel Property Carlisle will really be bigger

    • #43268
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Dave,
      We do NOT put up with Profanity on this blog. Nor do we tear each other down. It is ok to have a difference of opinion but we do not need to insult each other.
      Due to the insulting behavior of your post, I have deleted it. Please do not use profanity or insult others again. It is ok to disagree but do not attack the person.
      If you find it hard to speak to others without using profanity or insulting words, please leave this blog.

    • #43273
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      King’s Bench request is the fastest way to get to the PASC on an issue of public importance.

      Under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) it gives Pro se filers in court rooms to write a legal argument as a non-learner attorney. The rule of “drastic sanctions” against pro se – is when pro se pleading is based on non sense.

      The matters in Pa. on Sex offender registration requirement are of a public importance. The PASC issued the Muniz -decision, and the PA. lower courts are not on board to understand how to apply Muniz.

      The Superior Court of Appeals in Derhammer case has a twisted idea of how to apply Muniz-decision, and even Derhammer had to appeal to the PASC to get the Superior Appeal court off his back on 11-22-17 see Commonwealth v. Derhammer 11-22-17 in light of Muniz.

      I don’t think it is remiss to use the King’s Bench to get as fast as I can before the PASC.

      How you file in court or use your words is individualized – the high court will take time to understand what is trying to be said. They will ask for a statement of jurisdiction, and questions of what is it you want they to review.

      It is a shot in the dark to use the King’s Bench but it does not have the result to stop others from going forward in ACT 10 and ACT 29 issues.

      The King’s Bench is a right to each to apply and it will not hurt the legal process of others. The King’s Bench in the PASC is set up for matter such as these that are going on in Pa. on sex offender issues.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 are amendments to SORNA. – yet still SORNA non the less.

      SORNA has not been deemed unconstitutional as a whole law – The PASC only deemed part of SORNA unconstitutional on ex post facto application in retroactive way.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 reverts this application to say the PSP can apply ACT 10 and ACT 29 in retroactive way as long as they take away the punitive elements.

      The PA assemblies thinks that they can just re-write Civil – collateral element over the effects of using ACT 10 and ACT 29 in retroactive way today no matter what the PASC said in Muniz- decision.

      Some lower court are seeing the error, that the PSP has a appeal right during the appeal things stay as they have them until the PASC says differently.

      It will take the PASC to get to the bottom of ACT 10 and ACT 29 applications.

      It is not a waste of time or effort going through appeal by the King’s Bench – it is a straight shot to the court that can change this matter right away.

      It is a logical step to try the King’s Bench. I am not a lawyer but I know the fight- and I have to try every possible avenue to get the high court to see what is really going on.

      My issue is not waive-able due to the illegal construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29 of SORNA.

      SORNA expired the former Megan’s law sections that apply to T.P.B. 12-20-12

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 of the SORNA amendment wants to use expired Megan’s Law application that no longer apply to people who’s offense before 12-20-12 has gone away. It’s as simple as that.

      No matter how many words I use to carry this message to the high court – it will come down to this in reality.

      All Former Megan’s Law applications were expired 12-20-12 at the enactment of SORNA and cannot be used to apply ACT 10 or ACT 29 of the amendment on people who’s offense is after 1996 April and before 2012 December.

      The law is written in 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 “All former Megan’s Law’s shall EXPIRE”

      yOU CANNOT WRITE INTO act 10 AND act 29 that which has expired. My 1999 conviction from Texas is gone never to return to be applied to ACT 10 or ACT 29 or SORNA. Which all are of the same SORNA law and this is what the courts must see.

      In my non lawyer way that is how the law reads to me. It is the Pa Assembly that cause this in a hunt for AWA money in 2006 when Washington D.C. asked the Pa. Assembly to expired all former Megan’s Laws. They did not figure Muniz -decision would ever come to get them in a legal jam like they are in now.

    • #43271
      Avatar
      Dave

      And that is why the group of the 5 of you who have no idea what you are doing will sit here by yourselves.

      • #43659
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Dave,
        July 2020 my registration requirements expire. It would take longer than I have left to fight my registration requirements.. I believe the registry will fall within the next 5-10 years.

    • #43278
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Dave
      I never said I knew what I was doing, I hired a lawyer to handle my case, and yes I don’t know what I am going and that is also why I hired an attorney my man. No need to be attacking people this is suposed to be a peaceful place to post.

    • #43294
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Dave

      You seem to to set set about something – I am not sure of what but the Fight is not among us to fight out – it is in the courts with with violation of rights.

      We have no power to change – the power is in the filling in court. Most lawyers want dollar dollar bills that we don’t have.

      And if we do have they file miss directed until we figure out that that lawyer is not helpping

      I know my rights and I have to defend vested rights as I see them. Dave you are entitled to your own opinion – but you are not entitled to a right to cut people down.

      We are already in a fight with the PSP we don’t need to fight each other due to a greater understanding on the issue. If you have a greater understanding share it please.

      Other will accept it and add it to the fight. We are in the same boat, don’t turn it over for we all will be put in the water. . . . . . .

      The issue is that 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired what the Pa. Assembly is trying to re-writ into ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      Former Megan’s Law was expired and ACT 10 and ACT 29 is a re capture Law to correct that 42 Pa. C.S. 9788.41 has said.

      To Expire a law is not the same as to repeal a law. With a repeal you can save portions of the old law by a savings clause that you want to keep.

      But that is not what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 did. It expired applications of former Megan’s Law that they now need to enforce an amendment to SORNA. They need your form offense that they expired. It it is gone how can they bring it back?

      It is ABSURD to accept that because 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says that the legislature did not intend absurd results to subject a statutory scheme which expired to be re-captured. That is ABSURD. See 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) for your self.

    • #43383
      Avatar
      Mark

      Hello all

      Just an update. Still no letter! We are coming up on the first anniversary of Comm vs Muniz. HB2507 is in Committee, so no movement on it. Just wondering how Terry is making out on his 339 MD 2018 filing? I saw that an order was filed. It looks like it was transferred for him by the Court. Am I correct?

    • #43436
      Avatar
      Brian

      I posted something earlier but after I got through the captcha my comments never showed back up, such is life, kind of glad it didn’t post because I answered my own question, hope everyone is doing ok, hoping to be in court soon, just waiting on a response with a time and date, after all is said and done I will post it here but not with my personal info though.

    • #43621
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Terry bruson has filed in the PASC at two dockets as 336 MT 2018 and 335 MT 2018 to make permission for allowance to PASC by King’s Bench by R.A.P. Rule 3309 and Pa. Code Rule 1113 to make allowance of appeal on ACT 10 and ACT 29 challenge.

      PASC has to give permission on acceptance of my appeals. I ask for all to pray for much grace to be accepted to stand before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to challenge ACT 10 and ACT 29 as ex post facto in retroactive application being applied in a disadvantage way to all sex offenders with an offence before 12-20-12.

      The Statutory Construction ACT of Pennsylvania 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) disallows former expired Megan’s Laws that were expired to be used to quantum from a past date to be used in subchapter “I” ACT 10 and ACT 29 to call 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52 and 9799.75(a)(b) to revive former Megan’s Law provisions that were expired by SORNA 42 Pa. C,S. 9799.41 to attach to SORNA in a separte way to say “H” and “I” are not the same. The Statutory Construction ACT 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1922(1) and 1928(b)(1) are to mean that Pa law on constructions of amendments disallows an amendment cannot bring back a former expired Law that no longer exist to be used in SORNA amended. The former Megan’s Laws are not AWA complaint and the funding from Washington D.C. is for SORNA not expired former Megan’s Laws. To bring them back is impossible by the statutory construction ACT.

      SORNA never was deemed unconstitutional as a whole law – just the application in retroactive operations. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are amendments to SORNA to recapture pre- SORNA people – you can find this in HB 631 page 55 line 22 of HB 631 as signed into law on 02-21-18 stating expressly: “Subchapter “I” ACT 10 9799.51 through 9799.75 is AMENDING Subchapter “H” SORNA. (which is still SORNA nonetheless.)”

      The Commonwealth V. Derhammar case J-60 -2017 decided 11-22-17 speaks the clearest on the use of former Megan’s Laws that expired that ACT 10 and ACT 29 tries to revive by amending SORNA to make Muniz and Butler decisions invalid as a fix of the SORNA problem.

      Many in this forum must understand that this is the true fight. It’s not the punitive element on civil collateral consequence where to put attention. That is the Doe V. Smith challenge that the Commonwealth is making. The Commonwealth thinks that it can make a retroactive law and apply it to pre-SORNA to protect the Pa. public over the rights of Pa. sex offenders as long as they make the law less onerous in punishment than was in place when the offense date came into being compared to now and then. Th Commonwealth feels that they can do what they are doing and the PASC will go along with them (SO THEY SAY AND THINK)

      Well Weaver V. Graham 450 U.S. 24 (1981) of the U.S. Supreme Court says differently.

      Muniz is the case that will keep hitting the Commonwealth in the face – It is the base case to latch to as a pre-SORNA sex offender. Until Muniz is over turned – it will be the win case for all sex offense before 12-20-12 .

      In my case I have delivered to Brian and Chuck my promise to get to the PASC on a judicial determination mandamus. I got an in part win on my mandamus that fell short of ordering PSP to remove me again. I fell that the Commonwealth Court failed to render a full part grant because they feel that the PASC has not heard case case on ACT 10 or ACT 29 to deem it unconstitutional yet.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 stand until challenged at the PASC. I am now taking the steps to get closer to that goal.

      I also thank Dave for his encouragements to be exact on my pleadings as a pro se person (my own Lawyer) to the court so as to not be denied to hurt the chances for others to fight better with I with a lawyer.

      I am in a wait now until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepts my appeal and the fight there will begin with briefs and oral arguments.

    • #43644
      Avatar
      Brian

      Terry Brunson
      God bless my friend and good luck, if pasc accepts then game on, because A10 and 29 will be knocked down and kicked out the door, the General Assembly don’t have a comeback after this last bs law,

    • #43651
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry

      Good luck to you! You are in our family’s thoughts and prayers.
      Hoping you or someone else can help me out though – I saw you gave docket numbers, but I when I search for them I can’t find them when I go to The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania Web Portal.
      Was hoping to follow your case and find out when the next day you should be getting some news.

      • #43664
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ snoopy

        My case is in a special part of the Supreme Court of Pennsyvania called the King’s Bench. Me not being a lawyer seems to be giving the PSP and the PAG hell.

        They cannot figure out how I would know what the king’s Bench was to make a direct appeal from a Commonwealth court to the PASC. That is not a normal move. There is to be a Superior court of appeals stop that I use the knig’s bench to bypass.

        Not many know about the king’s bench in the Supreme court of Pennsylvania. a pro se person like me knowing this is a black eye to the PSP and the PAG. I won a Mandamus in part victory but it came up against ACT 10 and ACT 29 not yet being put before the PASC. The fastest way to get it there is by the King’s Bench.

        Look it up and you will read about it. I have a MT docket at the king’s Bench. it is 335 MT 2018 and 336 MT 2018. One is an appeal and the other is an ACT 10 challenge.

        The Supreme Court King’s Bench is not a 100% thing. There is still a application for appeal allowance. They have to agree to take on my case.

        When I get the permission to appeal approved I will be given a public docket and you will be able to see it. I am head of Polzer now. He did not do a kings bench. Derhammer just won in the PASC on former Megan’s Law not allowed to be used under SORNA.

        What the PASC must get before them is ACT 10 and ACT 29 based not on ex post facto and punitive, That will take care of it self. The big fight is the Statutory Construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

        You may not know what I mean, but ACT 10 and ACT 29 are still SORNA. Sorna by Muniz was not deemed unconstitutional as a whole. Only the retroactive application was. So it short. ACT 10 being apart of SORNA makes the amendment unconstitutional because law in pa is not constructed on Amendment to a unconstitutional law in part. A half truth is still a whole lie. A half unconstitutional law like SORNA is unconstitutional in to amend. See 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) ; and 1928(b)

        The king’s bench must be informed that Muniz did not declare SORNA unconstitutional itself, it only said its punitive thus barring retro application.

        This is huge because had SORNA been deemed unconstitutional. Then Megan’s LAw 2 would have automatically went back into effect. Since ML 3 was deemed unconstitutional.

        And had that happened then a new law like ACT10 and ACT 29 29 could be done.

        HOWEVER; 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired former M.L statues, the statutory construction ACT does not allow something like ACT 10 or ACT 29 it is just that simple . That is what I am telling the king’s bench in the PASC

    • #43658
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      All,
      I guess there was some confusion among the local PSP Barracks and the Cumberland Distrcit Attorney Office as the local PSP Barracks was under the impression that Pre-SORNA still had to register their internet information (they do not). This has been RESOLVED to the benefit of Pre-Sorna people as PSP Headquarters has confirmed that Pre-SORNA registrants DO NOT have to report Internet information. I personally had my internet info removed. Just tell them you are Pre-Sorna and would like your internet info deleted if they have it and you want it removed.

    • #43668
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Snoopy
      As a Pre-SORNA registrant you DO NOT have to report your internet info AT ALL. “Technically” Facebook has a “no sex offender” policy, but they now make it so difficult for someone to report you, it is almost a defacto reprieve from their policy.

      No you are not violating any law. Some companies have a no sex offender policy but all they can do is remove you from their site.

    • #43663
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Chuck

      So I’m pretty sure I knew the answer before…. and that I know the answer now… but I’ll ask to check and clarify…

      I am pre-Sorna.

      Right now I could go to gmail and create an e-mail address, then go create a facebook or twitter or whatever and not have to register those with the State Police… more to the point, if I do NOT register those with the state police I am not in violation of ANYTHING and am OK.

      Am I correct in that viewpoint?

    • #43674
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Snoopy,
      To be more clear and direct,
      Yes you are correct. Some sites may ban you if they find out you are a sex offender but that seems to be dying out except for dating sites.
      Whatever you do, DO NOT hide you name when you sign up. I am NOT talking about your screen name. That can be whatever. When they ask for your name when you sign up, if you lie, that could get you into trouble as you are trying to hide the fact you are a sex offender they could claim. 99.99% This won’t matter, but if there ever was a dust up concerning you and one of the site you belong to.
      I personally on certain sites that “officially” do not allow sex offenders, but as long as you are not doing or saying things you shouldn’t be doing, you will be ok. I do know all major dating sites will not allow sex offenders on and yes they run registry checks.

      • #44225
        Avatar
        R

        Just my 2 cents on ur post and the moderators sorry but your making absolutely no sense at all’ 1’st off if your pre sorna and you ask the question of whether or not you can open a gmail account I.e twitter Facebook etc’ and were told it would be okay just use your real name when you initially register such as a dating site because they do background checks and the moderater said ‘because your a sex offender’ stop if your pre sorna then you shouldn’t even be deemed a s.o so therefore your real name barring you are free from the registry don’t matter correct on dating sites but most you can be whoever you want

    • #43677
      Avatar
      snoopy

      @Chuck

      Thanks for the info. Being honest, I’ve no interest in dating sites – I’ve got two kids and a wife that have stayed with me 1000% and I would never even think of leaving them or doing anything stupid that would risk me losing them.

      That being said, facebook would be nice just to keep in touch with family more.

      Twitter would also be nice for following news and groups and such.

      • #44227
        Avatar
        R

        How’s this for some fuel to the fire how about a zero percent chance of being a sex offender you tell the guy he’s OK to have web identifiers email addresses etc then you say o but don’t give a false name just in case “because as you stated he is a “sex” “offender” pre sorna as you say says not maybe you mean that as in former but if he has word from the courts he”s free to roam aaboutyproofread before you send

    • #43678
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ All
      I may be always saying something that is not well understood. Talking about the Statutory Construction ACT of Pennsylvania.

      I want to say the fight clear as not to confuse anyone.

      1. SORNA has never been deemed unconstitutional as a whole meaning (42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41) expressly expired former Megan’s Laws. see Commonwealth v. Derhammer PASC decided 11-22-17

      2. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says that the former Megan’s Laws ended by SORNA 12-20-12. All former Megan’s Law before 12-20-12 are satisfied as complete. No longer exist to be used in future.

      3. 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(2) addresses lenity. Penal statutes shall strictly construed in favor of the accused, no ambiguity should exist in what Section 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is saying very clear (All former Megan’s Laws expired 12-20-12 as expressed in penal code statute)

      4. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) is the nail that kills ACT 10 and ACT 29.
      it is absurd to think that the Pa. Assembly is saying strictly that former Megan’s Law will be retroactively applied that have been expired. That is what ACT 10 and ACT 29 are saying in Absurdity at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75(a)(b). look for the words “former Megan’s Laws” in 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75(a)(b).

      ACT 10 and 29 can be challenged on constructional muster without saying anything about retroactive punitive points. The way the ACT 10 and 29 was constructed will show that a thing like it cannot be done.

      How can pre-SORNA people be held to former Megan’s Laws that no longer exist to be applied to ACT 10 and 29’s scheme.

      It is the position that terry brunson’s former Megan’s Law offense was expired 12-20-12 and satisfied never to be applied to amendments to SORNA – as ACT 10 and ACT 29 are.

      HB 631 page 55 line 22 as signed on 02-21-18 and ACT 29 of 06-12-18 says expressly: Subchapter “I” ACT 10 42 Pa. 9799.52 thru 9799.75 is an amendment to subchapter “H” SORNA which all is SORNA [.]

    • #43690
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @Snoopy

      Feel free to use Facebook and Twitter. You know how to act like an adult. What gets some offenders in trouble is that they want to hang out with the kids or do kid things. Perhaps they see themselves as a teen but when you are a sex offender, There is a code of conduct you have to follow to keep people from overreacting. Is it fair? No, it is not but life is not fair.
      I have a *cough* friend *cough* that uses Facebook all the time. They make sure they stay away from all the kid drama. They use it for family purposes only.

    • #43704
      Avatar
      Brian

      Anyone know how long it takes for the court to receive a petition and issue a court date, I know it’s a loaded question but average time.

    • #43713
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Update on Commonwealth Court case 339 MD 2018 on ACT 10 challenge

      Leave court court has been given me to amend my mandamus in this court.

      I have applied for a King’s Bench in the PASC but until that court grants allowance I have to obey the call of the Commonwealth Court.

      They are asking me for my amendment to my Mandamus to add ACT 29 to the ACT 10.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 is provision of Subchapter “I”

      Subchapter “I” is an amendment to “H” making “I” SORNA like “H”. In order for “I” to be enforceable a “Former Megan’s Law” must be added to it. That is an impossibility because all former Megan’s Laws before 12-20-12 have been expired by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.

      Subchapter “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 (a)(b) calls for one to have this BUT if all former Megan’s Laws were expired what Megan’s law is there to apply in subchapter “I” ?

      It’s absurd in result to apply an expired former Megan’s law which no longer exist . All former Megan’s Laws were expired by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41. The Pennsylvania statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) will not support sure absurd result in a law scheme to allow expired laws to which no longer are valid to be used to be an element to give application to new law call to use old law that was expired.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which is a penal statue strictly defined to expire former Megan’s Laws which are no longer operational by 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) to give former Megan’s Law provisions like 42 Pa. C.S. 9795.1 and 9795.2 before December 2012 application in new law such as subchater “I”.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which did expire the offence I had under Megan’s Law 3 which automatically reverted back to Megan’s Law 2 because Megan’s Law 3 was deemed unconstitutional by Commonwealth v. Nieman and then Megan’s Law 2 was expired by SORNA 12-20-12; cite at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 in subchapter “H” and then the Pa. Assembly amended “H” to make “I” which “I” calls for absurd call for former Megan’s Laws before December 2012 to be used to compel pre-SORNA persons to obey “I” because you have an expired former Megan’s Law that cannot be used. The “I” provision is at Subchapter “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 (a)(b) calling for the use of former Megan’s Law application. Based on the following – case law precedent – Commonwealth v. Derhammer; Commonwealth v. McCullough, Commonwealth v. Person (No. CP-41-CR-2173-2015) ; Commonwealth v. Muniz it is impossible to apply subchapter “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 (a)(b) calling for the use of former Megan’s Law application to bring a pre-SORNA person under ACT 10 or ACT 29 provisions [.]

      There is no need to ague ex post Facto or ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment. That is secondary to the primary of the impossibility of constructing subchapter “I” to be applied. A former Megan’s law before 12-20-12 is needed. If the former Megan’s Laws are gone, WHERE WILL THE PSP GET THE FORMER LAW APPLICATION FROM?

      I am trying my God given best to show this to all. I pray someone with goos understanding will connect the dots and file to get free. . . . . . . . . . I am close and getting closer. . . . . . . . to being just that. FREE

    • #43731
      Avatar
      Mark

      @ Terry

      I saw that it looks like the PSP lawyer response was either late or ignored. HA!

      • #43760
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Mark

        The PAG missed a resonse – on 1532 special and summary judgement motion of 11 May 2018

        The court vacated its order and gave me leave of court to refile the original mandamus to add ACT 29 bs to my mandamus.

        How I file now is not to attack no punitive ex post facto – I am going for the juggler and attacking Statutory construction under asking for former Megan’s Law application under ACT 10 and ACT 29 just is not possible.

        42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired all the former Megan’s Laws – what former offense is there for ACT 10 and ACT 29 to apply? Former Megan’s Laws expired are no longer in existence to attach to ACT 10 or ACT 29

        This is undependable by the PSP. This window of attack will only be open for a little while. Commonwealth v. Derhammer decided 11-22-17 is the case that opened this door.

        The PA. Legislatures will will close this attack as soon as they get back from summer vacation.

        The courts that give relief orders will stand. Until PSP appeal is final. PSP wants 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.57(7) to have some kind of stay to the court order, but if subchapter “I” is not applicable to a pre-SORNA person the scope of 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.59 (7) don’t mean much. The PSP must appeal to the next appeal court to get a stay. Thai is going to take a fight.

        I know I am not a lawyer but I am doing good so far with little help from a lawyer. Get me in your prayers to keep on fighting towards victory in humility. God is the lawyer for me now.

    • #43727
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Snoopy
      I have had a facebook account before the internet identifiers were required by snora (small letters from now on because of it no longer applies) Got a Twiter account after Muniz, not heard by SCOTUS. Never had a bit of trouble on either but I behave myself.
      @Terry
      Great news Bro!

      Still no letter

    • #43824
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Great news guys from Terry Brunson

      We made it to the mountain top.

      I have jumped ahead of Polizer to be the next Muniz, Muniz helped me get to the PASC but now as of 19 July 2018 exactly one year to the day of Muniz – I was put at the PASC docket 112 MM 2018

      The show is on ACT 10 and Act 29 are going to go away.

      I still have no lawyer. I am so grateful for Chuck and Brian who have lead me with comments to go for it. Chuck use to tell me to wait and see, but I told him waiting is good, but filing Mandamus and waiting is better. Chuck my man I love you and I thank you for being a tough dad to push his son forward.

      All the lawyer I talk too told me that I would never get to the PASC without some help from them. They wanted dollar dollar bills yall.

      I though the fight was to attack the ex pos facto line, but then I noticed that SORNA was never deemed unconstitutional as a whole only in part as relation to ex post facto increase in punishment from 10 years to 15 to 25 to life with updates every quarter. That is what Muniz won for us. Thank you Muniz. But in order to amend SORNA with ACT 10 or ACT 29 a former Megan’s Law offense is needed. ACT 10 and ACT 29 need a old sex offense after April 1996 and before December 2012.

      I began to say to myself it is good that I did not fight ACT 10 in 463 MD 2017 because I would have been off key fighting an ex post facto issue and like Dave said I would have loss an opportunity to see the real weakness of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      The weakness is in the construction of the way the Law ACT 10 and ACT 29 are written. The are amentments to SORNA not new enacted Law. If they were new Law we would get SORNA 1 and then SORNA2 and on and on.

      In order to make a new sex offender law – SORNA must be repealed as a whole and a new SORNA-2 must come forth. If that is done by the Pa. Assembly . The flood gate to SORNA 1 people would open on the ex post facto fight for them that there offense happened before SORNA2 and here we go to fight again on Ex post facto and civil collateral consequence under Weaver v. Gram – The Pa. Assembly thought that amending SORNA would gain a ok from the court system. The court are not on the side of the situation.

      at the Court of common pleas the case CP-41-CR-2173-2015 Gregory Person filed pro se habeas corpus on SORNA and ACT 10 being the same and the court saw his view.

      SORNA never has been deemed unconstitutional as a whole law. Anything done to SORNA as an AMENDMENT is still SORNA amended[.]

      SORNA amended is what ACT 10 and ACT 29 is. BThe Pennsylvania Statutory Construction ACT title 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) disallows an amendment law to reverse only in the part of the law that the Pa. Assembly wants to that effects Muniz only. Like they are attacking only the Muniz – decision making it seem like Muniz never happen.

      That is what ACT 10 and ACT 29 are all about.

      But the Pa. Assembly never realized that SORNA is still active in the good part that says at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41. This is the good part of SORNA that they left untouched to Expire all former Megan’s laws.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 need a former Megan’s Law application to work like they want it to in the recapture of people that Muniz helped. If you expire all the former Megan’s Laws – where is the offence after April 1996 before December 2012?

      SORNA good says they are E X P I R E D – completed – done – gone- no longer to be used – and satisfied.

      SORNA law 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 was to be used to get money form the AWA to be in compliance. This is the reason the Pa. Expired the former Megan’s Laws thinking that SORNA would not meet a Muniz.

      They should have repealed former Megan’s Laws and made a Savings Clause saying that they way to keep the Former Megan’s Laws in place to attach to old offenses for future new law application. They miss the ball on that.

      It is going to be hard to do that now. I have figured the puzzle out. The PAG has put five Lawyers on me to study how did a pro se low life sex offender figure this out on his own without legal training.

      I give respect to NARSOL for having the foresight to open this forum without it I would have never found friends to fight for in the same boat as I – Snoopy – Brian – Dave – Chuck – Mark- and others I love all the comments and questions – I don’t know it all but I know that the part that I do know is going to change the sky line to give hope to Lifetime sex offenders for a way off the registry that the Pa. Assembly by knee jerk push out in haste bad law called ACT 10 and ACT 29 not realizing such a thing could not be done at all legally in Pennsylvania.

    • #43851
      Avatar
      Brian

      Looks like a post sorna lawsuit was won in westchester July 10, the da is appealing it but it’s as good as won, I can see this case going farther, possibly up ther with Terry Brunson.

    • #43863
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      The West Chester case you talk of is not in a good position to win on appeal. The next level appeal court will show the inexperienced lawyer that SORNA has not been shoot down as a whole. SORNA is still the sex offender land of the Commonwealth.

      SORNA has only been shoot down in a part called ex post facto. SORNA was put on the books 12-20-12 and all offenses after that date was be govern bt SORNA that stands a part from the Muniz – decision to Pre 12-20-12 people. The West Chester lawyer is taking a position of a pre- SORNA not realizing that her client is a post SORNA and SORNA is the the law that will be applied the Common’s Plea Judge is in violation here.

      His decision will not stand as good support. The Commonwealth court will vacate and remand that the West Chester judge order be put aside and that the 2015 offense be held to SORNA that is still the law of the Commonwealth. Sorry you didn’t see this.

      Subchapter “H” of after 12-20-12 SORNA that is still good law – BUT it is the the subchapter “I” before 12-20-12 that the problems begin.

      The is only Muniz help for pre-12-20-12 people in the Pa. courts not Post 12-20-12 people. The West Chester court is just grand standing to only be proven wrong by good SORNA law.

      Hey My King’s Bench to the PASC was approved 19 July 2018 that is the i year mark of MUNIZ that means something to me. . . . . . Sorry to school you on the hope taking success of a win that will crash on appeal.. . . .

    • #43861
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      my supreme court docket is 122 MM 2018 for those that want to follow the case

    • #43862
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      I miss typed the PASC docket
      Terry brunosn PASC docket is 122 MM 2018

    • #43876
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      Terry that’s awsoeme news that you got the king bench , your on your way Terry can’t wait till you smack the hell out of Act 10 and 29, I thought for some reason that this guy somehow found a loophole to get through SORNA but you know your stuff better then I that’s for sure. I will be in court soon but I won’t make it he the pasc, I am confident I will be let off by the lower courts.

    • #43875
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry

      I should have read all of the posts all the way thru – I read that you made it to the Supreme Court and went there to look up the the docket and got all confused with what came up. Then I found your corrected docket number and will definitely be following.

      Good luck and God speed to you my friend. As always you are in my family’s thoughts and prayers.

    • #43939
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry

      I’ve been going thru your docket sheet, and maybe I’m missing it, but has anything been scheduled yet?

      • #43959
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Snoopy

        The King’s Bench at the PASC is at docket 122 MM 2018
        That is a 60 day process

        I have file a sealed King’s Bench on ACT 10 and ACT 29 Statutory Construction applied challenge.

        I asked the Commonwealth Court for leave to do the King’s Bench at the PASC.

        That is at docket 339 MD 2018

        The Commonwealth Court has vacated their order on Special and Summary Relief 1532 R.A.P. rule.

        The Commonwealth Court is saying please mr. Terry do not go to the King’s Bench yet – give us a chance to get your matters on ACT 10 and ACT 29 before this court first. We don’t want to loose jurisdiction to the PASC on this case yet.

        So the Commonwealth court has asked me to re- file the the original Mandamus with a Brief and re-file the Special and Summary Relief 1532 R.A.P. rule.

        Now the PSP has 30 days to answer.

        The King’s Bench is in the 60 day process – if the Commonwealth court does the right thing and give me a win. The PSP will appeal to the Superior Court of Appeals and bogg me down until everything becomes final that will give ACT 10 and ACT 29 some life for a time.

        I did file as they asked, but when the King’s Bench process starts I will do a leave of Court petition in the Commonwealth court and request jurisdiction go to the King’s Bench. The Commonwealth will most likely give me relief and order me off the registry, but t he PSP will appeal and that will stay the order of the Commonwealth Court under 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.15(a.2)(7) which says – (7) “The petitioner and the Commonwealth shall have the right to appellate review of the actions of the sentencing court under this subsection. An appeal by the Commonwealth shall stay the order of the sentencing court.”

        This is a bs way to delay justice on ACT 10 and ACT 29. It is a master of deception on making it look like the court gives you a win only for the Commonwealth to appeal to get a stay that will drag on and on and on.

        Even if the court order removal from the registry – the Commonwealth has their appeal lingering on and on in a stay of the order to remove a person from the registry that wins in court. The Commonwealth will drag out the stay and not remove that person until the appeal is final.

        That is what docket 339 MD 2018 is all about in my case, But I have a King’s Bench that has a 60 day process to be done by – that King’s Bench will put the to appeal 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.15(a.2)(7) on ice because the PASC is the highest court in the Commonwealth and when the King’s Bench rules – there is only one appeal the Commonwealth can take to delay like DA Freed did. Cert to the SCOTUS – and when that is denied – They will be force to remove me. That is a 90 day process. If Muniz did not make it up there PSP will be denied again a Cert under T.P.B V PSP my case and then ACT 10 and ACT 29 will be dead law to all sex offenders in this Commonwealth, and they will have to make a new law to try to recapture all the people that will be let off the registry by my case[.]

        Re-read this and get a gooder understanding please. . . . .

    • #43949
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      Does that mean that PASC is going to hear it?

      • #43960
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Mark
        Yes the PASC will hear the Kings Bench this is at Docket 122 MM 2018 at the PASC docket

        Waiting for a answer from the PSP they don’t have to give one yet. They can file a petition not to answer hoping the King’s Bench argument I made will fail to win the ear of the Court. This is a 60 day process.

        If the PASC accepts the argument I make – then a Brief has to be filed and case law support and the PSP will file a brief and the PASC will then decide if ACT 10 and ACT 29 is good or bad. A decision will be hand down. If I win and I will – the PSP then will accept the PASC decision or they can file an appeal to the SCOTUA for a CERT like they did in Muniz. and loss.

        Their Cert will take 90 days. . . If they do file a Cert I will have opportunity to file an answer to the SCOTUS on why the Cert is not wise.

        It is a time wasting thing on their part to draw this out to give the Pa. Assembly time to come up with a new law that will be challenged too. It is a game to them but it is our life they are playing with.

        If I had a lawyer I would be in a better position – my inspiration come from knowing I am fighting for all sex offenders in Pa. not just for me. There are 17,000 people that I am battling for. Those that the Muniz decision helped that ACT 10 and ACT 29 put right back on the registry or never took off.

        I hope all reading this understand that history is being made in Pa. and Muniz got us to the mountain top, but Terry brunson’s case will take all sex offenders to the promise land of free from ACT 10 and ACT 29.

        • #43971
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          All pre SORNA sex offender I meant to say those with offense before 12-20-12

    • #43973
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      A lot of companies are now willing to hire felons. The focus is now on how long it’s been vs do you have a clean record.

      I think Soceity is beginning to realize it is not fair to punish someone for something that happened years ago. I do believe soon non violent felons will be able to have a gun.

      All this is to say the Courts are starting to see the registry as harmful. Employers do backgrounds checks anyway. The only thing a public registry does is make neighbors excited for no reason.

      • #44001
        Avatar
        Mark

        @Chuck

        My company does hire felons (Me). I know there were some others too.
        Depending on the person, felons make the best employees as they are trying to rebuild their lives after,
        in most cases a bad decision.

        My place of employment also uses highly skilled labor. So skill sets matter more.

        Still no letter 🙁

    • #43970
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      This is terry brunson – can you ask your lawyer about PSP appeal rights and stay of your order to remove your from the registry. Have your Lawyer read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.15(a.2)(7) which says – (7) “The petitioner you and the Commonwealth the PSP shall have the right to appellate review of the actions of the sentencing court under subsection “H”. An appeal by the Commonwealth shall stay – stay stay stay stay did I say stay? the order of the sentencing court.”

      While under the stay you will have to keep compliant until the final decision of the appeal. and read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.15(a.2)(9) which says – (9) “If the petitioner is exempt from any provisions of this subchapter “H” and the petitioner is subsequently convicted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1 (relating to failure to comply with registration requirements), relief granted under this subsection shall be void and the petitioner shall automatically and immediately again be subject to the provisions of this subchapter “H”, as previously determined by this subchapter.

      This is a bs way to delay you right to justice on ACT 10 and ACT 29 relief which is subchapter “I”. Also lower court are under It is a master of deception on making it look like the court gives you a win only for the Commonwealth to appeal to get a stay to drag your case on and on and on and your lawyer will want from you dollar dollar bills.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23(b)(2) (2) which says, “Except as provided in sections 9799.15(a.2)(7)(9), the court shall have no authority to relieve a sexual offender from the duty to register under this subchapter “H”or to modify the requirements of this subchapter “H” as they relate to the sexual offender.”

      Even if the court order your removal from the registry in a lower court – the Commonwealth appeal fight on a stay of your order to be removed from the registry – even if you win in court the lower court. The Commonwealth will drag out the stay and not remove you until the appeal is final. Depending how high they go. In Muniz they went to the SCOTUS on Cert.

      The King’s Bench cuts out the middle appeal courts and get you to the PASC in a 60 day process with a 90 day PSP cert to the SCOTUS a 150 day process in all.

      Aske your lawyer about this please. Would hate to see you get disappointed if you win in court and are still on the registry and you are trying to understand why.

      Re-read this and get a gooder understanding please. . . . . Brian I would never lead you wrong. ASK before you ACT. Your lawyer should tell you. Read to Him 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.15(a.2)(7)(9) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23(b)(2) (2) and ask him, “What does this mean?” Let Him explain it to you. If you don’t get a good understanding ask Him if you win in court and the PSP appeal is your court win put on a stay until the PSP and you go to the next court, and will you have to pay more money for him to be your lawyer on that appeal? Then you will tell if you have a true and good lawyer………. I am Pro se but I am getting a good understanding of the hidden stuff in ACT 10 and ACT 29 and SORNA that is still good law that Muniz did not make go away.

      Muniz only won us a prohibition of ex post facto application. The rest of SORNA is still good Law meaning 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.15(a.2)(7)(9) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23(b)(2) (2) they did not expire when ACT 10 came or ACT 29. SORNA is still the sex offender law in Pa. and it applies to pre-and post SORNA people be watchful. 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says which parts of former Megan’s Law’s Expired – none of SORNA expired only what Muniz decision of PASC deeded unconstitutional 19 July 2017. Not the whole law only the expost facto application of retroactive stuff that ACT 10 and ACT 29 brought back into law.

    • #43996
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      Are we in a stay right now, sorry I’m a little confused, we already submitted our petition and have a court date so I’m assuming we’ll have to amend our brief then, I will read through the brief again and see if the code is written in the brief that you provided, I had home put some extra language in it as well but I will tell you about it off the record.
      Terry thank you.

    • #44004
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      The stay clause does make sense, but the Commonwealth should not be able to use it to keep someone on the list indefinitely.

    • #44009
      Avatar
      Brian

      @ Terry Brunson
      Never mind, the westchester case will be appealed and that will creat a stay I get it now, sometimes I am so dumd, I sent your message to my attorney telling him I think we may want to amend out brief, I told him also about Act 29 as well.

    • #44052
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.15(a.2)(7)(9) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23(b)(2) (2) is a portion of SORNA that the PSP will use when they are taken to court and the court don’t rule in their favor. Or You can use to appeal as well.

      While the case is on appeal a stay will be in place all the way until final appeal order.

      That means if you win in a lower court – The stay is from that court all the way up to the PASC or a Cert to the SCOTUS.

      The lower the court the longer the process. The King’s Bench get pass all that It takes you right to the PASC. and the only appeal from there is a 90 day Cert wait to the SCOTUS.

    • #44059
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Brain

      Got your e-mail Your Lawyer is the balm. . . He has the right cases Derhammer is the winner for you. And 9799.41 on the expiration of former Megan’s Laws. Former Megan’s Laws are not AWA compliant at all, that is why they had to be expired to get SORNA. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not like a SORNA 2 as Megan’s Law 1 and Megan’s Law 2 and Megan’s Law 3. SORNA is SORNA and ACT 10 and ACT 29 are Amendments of SORNA.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not allowed to be constructed to cause an ABUSRD result as a penal statue. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says expressly this: In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

      (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

      It is abusrd to make a statues like ACT 10 and ACT 29 say that former Megan’s Laws that have expired by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) expressly says that an expired law is expired and cannot come back to life to be used with an ABSURD result. Subchapter “I” calls for the use of a former Megan’s Law after April 1996 and before December 2012 – that is absurd in result.

      Just this point says that subchapter “I” should have never been made at all. The people in Harrisburg never stop to check ACT 10 and ACT 29 closely.

      To make ACT 10 and ACT 29 work, they must make a whole new SORNA with a savings clause, but that is too late. 9799.41 is here and you cannot go backwards now to undo the absurd result of subchapter “I”

    • #44065
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      I can’t wait till you get to PASC and knok this thing down, once that happens that will show these people a thing or two, they can pass all thus crap they want to but it won’t hold up in court.

    • #44067
      Avatar
      Brian

      @ Terry Brunson
      Yea not cheap that’s for sure, seeing that the other attorney ripped me of, this guy is good, I knew it the second we shook hands, I got a bad feeling from the other guy because he never ever shook hands with me or my wife, that should have been my first clue, good thing I’m not the old me no more, that was 20 years ago, not me today. I got tired of typing to be honest Terry so I just started typing codes, I wish I could send the brief but it don’t copy and paste.

    • #44091
      Avatar
      Solaris

      New here to this community!
      I was given a referral to this organization. Have follow many comments on many articles.
      I wanted to thank all of you for the close community you have!

      1. I wanted to ask, in PA has anyone with 10 years completed in PA’s registry been given automatic relief (no lawyers or monetary costs involved) under the Muniz decision?

      2. Has anyone been able to make any updates or changes to their PA Megan’s Law info over the phone (pre-SORNA registrants only) without any problems? If so; Who does one call? Harrisburg PSP or any of them? I am looking for work…again…and may have to update, but do not want to go to any of their Barracks offices if I do not have to. Plus, I am going to try to enroll in school, if they accept me (which I think the school can legally deny me) or not allow FASFA government financial assistance due to the one -time sex offense criminal record.

      3. Has anyone not granted relief, but due relief under Muniz been granted monetary compensation for each day they are not given relief? Are they going to pay us all due relief?

      4. Has the ACLU (I though about asking for their help) or other organizations like NARSOL offered to take cases to court in PA for people due relief that have not been granted such? Any marches planned?

      5. Brian, I think it is…sorry, Sir (if I may and with all due respect!) how much have you paid this lawyer (personal question, my apology) you speak off that you employ? (or what will the total cost be, for I ran into lots of law people that wanted between $5,000 to $30,000 to work for me to do things like check my background, court history, letters, court filings, etc.) …and would you provide me the phone or name or both of this lawyer you employ so I may contact them to find out if they can do for me the work they are doing for you?…if I can afford them and if I like them like you seem to.

      Sorry if I am out of place with my questions. I have been looking for a close-knit community of like minded people for awhile. It is very hard. Hard to trust too. Anyhow, I do not mean to impose or disrupt your community. I will now end my chat, but will keep an eye on any responses to my questions for the next few days. Any answers (civil and truthful please) will be very appreciated! Thank you in advance!

      Mr. Terry, best of luck on everything you do Sir! (from what little I read or understood for my head was going to explode from anxiety attack on the terminologies used)

      • #44173
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Solaris,
        Automatic relief? You must be new to Pa!!! PSP isn’t going to do anything that a Court doesn’t order them to do. Each sex offender who believes their registration is wrong has to challenge their registration using Muniz as precedent. The Courts will waive the filing fees if you are low income if you apply for a fee waiver.

        I personally have 2 years left on a 10 year sentence. By the time I get to court my 2 years would be done. So it doesn’t make sense for me to challenge. Do my 2 years and then walk away. July 11,2020 I am going to be on the phone with them raising hell if I am still on the registry. Just saying they threatened me with jail if I didn’t register within 48 hours. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • #44125
      Avatar
      Cameron

      Pennsylvania News
      Court: Probe found over 300 ‘predator priests’ in 6 dioceses
      The 900-page report is expected to be made public in August

      HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) – Pennsylvania’s highest court says a landmark grand jury report identifies over 300 “predator priests” in six of the state’s Roman Catholic dioceses.

      The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday that allows the report on clergy child sexual abuse – and alleged cover-up efforts – to be made public.

      But the names of priests and others who have challenged the findings will be blacked out in at least the initial version to be released.

      The court wants the redaction process to be completed by Aug. 8, when the 900-page report is expected to be made public.

      The court says it will still consider the challenges by some priests and others who say their constitutional rights to their reputation and to due process of law are being violated.

      https://www.wkbn.com/news/pennsylvania/court-probe-found-over-300-predator-priests-in-6-dioceses/1330244409

      …now, correct me if I am wrong, but we “Sex Offenders” do not get the right to be considered, claim and be awarded “constitutional rights to our reputation and due process of law”? …Just a couple of simple questions so, why are “they” concerned or given concern about being shamed!? Special treatment to another group of elites…yet again? Are they now better humans because of their faith or because of connections? Anyone seeing a pattern yet of the ruling class as it has been since the existence of civilizations? …do we care?

    • #44114
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Solaris

      I am in the PASC under the King’s Bench special jurisdiction

      my case docket is 122 MM 2018

      I have not filled a brief yet there is no brief schedule as of yet. The PSP has stacked 5 lawyers on my case. It don’t matter to me. . . . . How many lawyer does it take to answer my one complaint/ The answer is one.

      I will soon file a summary judgement relief application when 14 days go by. This will force the PSP to respond to the Mandamus action.

      They have only one response to give. To try to do voluntary cessation again. I will not go for that . . . I need a “judicial determination” The PSP use a tactic to remove you off the registry without having to go to court and face an appeal on there ACT 10 and ACT 29 bs.

    • #44115
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Solaris
      Just wanted to say it is far less then 5000, if they’re charging you that much they’re ripping you off, as for cost and name I decline to answer, I don’t want to compromise my case, after all said and done I will post it on here, no pun intended, just be careful because I got ripped off already by one bad lawyer, if he wouldn’t sue me I would put his name on here so no one uses him or his firm. I have heard people say they have gotten relief automatically, and saw someone who had a lawyer got relief that way as well, as for out of state people such as myself I haven’t obviously, out of state people were supposed to have their reviews done first but that changed, now we’re last I assume,

    • #44122
      Avatar
      Brian

      So If someone already filed in court before the stay took effect would that not be the same as filing mandamus, I mean that makes sens to me but then again I could’ve be wrong.

      • #44192
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        update on King’s bench 122 MM 2018 terry brunson

        The PSP has no answer to give to little old me on what I am saying about how absurd in result it is to expire former Megan’s law provisions in SORNA 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 and then in ACT 10 and ACT 29 call for the use of an expired former Megan’s Law provision to apply to a person who’s form Megan’s law provisions has expired. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) say that that cannot be done. 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) gives a express definition that former Megan’s law provision 42 Pa. C.S. 979941 does report expiration of former Megan’s law provisions.

        1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) provides that an ABSURD result to have a statutory scheme which expired still be applied by ACT 10 and ACT 29 use expired law that no longer exist – I can see why they cannot give an answer to the PASC.

        They don’s have one to give. Any of you can check the docket at 122 MM 2018 it is a sealed King’s Bench application that I filed directly to the PASC on ACT 10 and ACT 29 saying that the PSP wants to have expired law be used that good law SORNA 9799.41 expired 12-20-12.

        It is like bringing my dead grandmother back from the dead to give me a beating for spilling milk on the floor back in 1966 when I was 6 years old. She died in 1986 and now you want her to get up out of a dead stupor in 2018 and discipline me? come on which law school did these people go to?

        I am not a lawyer and I am not trying to be a know it all – but I am just showing the court what Pa. law says and the PSP and the Pa Assembly is out of line with good Pa. law on statutory construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

        You don’t have to bring up punitive ex post facto and the unconstitutional arguments – that is what the PSP want to hear. They have an answer for that ACT 10 is Civil and they ignore the construction of ACT 10. That would be waived if not challenged right away.

        I saw this when I filed in 339 MD 2018 and thy gave no answer to what I was saying like they argued something I was not talking to the court about. The Commonwealth court took it as a non answer to my Mandamus and vacated their order to let me attack ACT 10 and ACT 29 in the Commonwealth court, but the King’s Bench application is about to rob the Commonwealth Court of it jurisdiction over my case.

        The PAG use to call me on the phone and make exparte communications. I filed to the court abourt her doing that. She did not thinking that I knew that law. I did 8 years in Texas prison law Library’s that had the best legal minds in this country as my friend. Other lifer inmates that were at the SCOTUS fighting and winning.

        Pa. is much more constitutional than Texas. Texas is not a Commonwealth it is a republic that does not see itself as a state but another country within the USA. Texas has never bought into SORNA at all. They have Texas sex offender laws that are old law new law in scheme – Texas has no one law fits all. That is Pennsylvania’s problem. The One law fits all. will kill the whole scheme.

        Pennsylvania has been trying to get Megan’s law right since 1996 and the PASC has not yet affirmed Megan’s Law or SORNA or AWA with constitutional muster that passes acceptance. Muniz and Derhammar are the two that we must thank for this present death of Pre-SORNA application of Law.

        Derhammar is in jail but he has fought the best fight to get the PASC to decided 11-22-17 that Former Megan’s Laws are dead in application to ACT 10 and ACT 29. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are good law for Post SORNA offenses.

        Bu to quantum leap backwards and resurrect expired law to make a law today work is a thing that is absurd in result. Can any one reading this understand what I am saying. Well I pray that the PASC will went they unseal the King’s Bench application of 122 MM 2018 I filed 3 July 2018

    • #44110
      Avatar
      Mark

      HEY!!
      I just thought of something. When Terry is successful in bringing Act 10 and 29 down, Would not the Medcafe residency bill just go away as it’s tied to act 10?

    • #44143
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      I thought Act 29 was the resistance restriction thing they are trying to pass, I could be wrong but that’s what I though.

    • #44152
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian
      This is the relevant part of HB 2507:
      Section 1. Section 9799.15 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania
      Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a subsection to read:
      § 9799.15. Period of registration.
      * * *
      (k) Residency.–An individual specified in section 9799.13
      shall not reside within 5,000 feet of any public school, private
      school, parochial school or preschool for the duration of the
      required period of registration under subsection (a).

      It amends and adds this too, I believe, Act 10. So if Act 10 goes down there is nothing to attach this too.
      HA!!

    • #44119
      Avatar
      Michael

      PA: Judge upends sex offender registration

      July 23, 2018 ·29 Comments

      WEST CHESTER >> A Common Pleas Court judge has ruled that a West Goshen man convicted of forcing himself sexually on a sleeping woman will not have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

      In an order signed July 10, Judge Anthony Sarcione found that the law that defendant ____ ____ was required to report to state police as a sex offender was unconstitutional. He said the law, the Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), violated the fundamental right to reputation under the state Constitution, as well as federal guarantees of due process.

      **LINK TO CHANGED TO FULL ARTICLE BY MODERATOR**

      http://www.dailylocal.com/general-news/20180723/judge-upends-sex-offender-registration

      • #44174
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Hi Mike,
        My name is chuck and I am a junior Moderator here. Just so you know links to outside article are typically restricted on this site. We understand it is important to cite what you talk about, but we do not want to become just a site for reposted news articles. So if you could post the article instead of linking it that would be helpful, please.
        Links to actual legal docket of a case will always be welcomed. Generally, use your judgement. The idea is to discuss sex offender issues here and to cite authority for our opinions but not become a reposting site for news articles.
        I just want to say as long as you are respectful in your posts, you will never be edited here. We encourage disagreements. However, NEVER attack a fellow poster. The content, as long as polite and respectful, of your posts is of no concern to us.

        Thank you for posting

    • #44164
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      9799.13 I believe it looks like only applies to teird people and for pre sornas that have time left, the way I read it anyway, in other words, 9799.13 in inapplicabile to peaople with no time left on the reg. Unfortunately the people who do have time left and post 12/20/2012, it would be applicable to them.
      If they add it to Act 10 that’s more pununitive, more unconstitutional laws that with put more nails in the coffin, If the PASC agrees to hear Terry’s case then Act ten will have an untimely demise, we all need to put a prayer up for Terry they they will accept his case. I do believe they will though because he has the balls to go all the way the PASC and ask for king bench rights…
      Mark it’s only a matter of time before Act ten is dead and the rest of the registry will fall, then the general assholes will make another’s bs law.

    • #44175
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Brian,
      I would be careful with your reading. I am sure PSP would argue anyone in the registry, in their mind, has time left. Since they are the one giving out free bracelets and housing (handcuffs and Jail time) their opinion carries the day. Granted, you might win but it would take time.

    • #44179
      Avatar
      Just another so in pa

      Speaking about re thinking of s.o and s.o are just like everyone else in this world

       

    • #44178
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      Long time no hear, you are correct Chuck, I guess as long as we’re still on the reg we have to comply with whatever they throw at us, I guess I was getting ahead of things and looking into the feature, I haven’t even gotten into court yet, I had to start over, we wasted a lot of time with the other guy that ripped us off, from the looks of it it looks like it doesn’t take toto long after getting in court, it sure could take the first time in court to win or 2 years later, who knows, guess we will find out when we get there Chuck, I’m not going to sit around and wait for it though, your a more patient man then I am Chuck, that use to be my bes virtue but it has faded, such is life right?

    • #44183
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry – although open to us other mere mortals that might have an answer…

      I was checking out your case 122 MM 2018 and I noticed on Page 3

      July 31, 2018 No Answer Letter to Application

      Respondent Pennsylvania State Police,
      Megan’s Law Section

      Is that good, bad, indifferent?
      Also, maybe I missed it in your explanations, but I thought I read the Kings Bench thing means 60 days – is that 60 days from July 3rd then? Are they able to extend or delay things beyond 60 days?

      Still praying for ya brother.

      • #44193
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Snoopy

        The no answer to the rule R.A.P 3309 you can look up. The don’t have to give and awer up from but they have to give a letter to the Pathonotary that they don’t want to say much about my King’s Bench because it is sealed now until the PASC open it and read it.

        The PASC don’t have to accept my King’s Bench – that is what the PSP is hoping, then the case 339 MD 2018 will go forward at the commonwealth court.

        If the 122 MM 2018 king’s bench is accepted by the PASC to be heard – the PASC will take over the commonwealth case 339 MD 2018 and all filling will be to the PASC and not the Commonwealth court. \\

        I think the PASC will hear what I have to say because there is no other law means to get by the PSP’s mandatory stay built into ACT 10 and ACT 29 and the good parts of SORNA that are still good law.

        The PSP would rather fight this out by the normal court scheme of Commonwealth court – then appeal to Superior court and then go to the PASC all that would take years. It took Muniz going that route from 2014 to 2017 that is 3 years. King’s Bench will shave off time. Once the king’s bench is accepted it will give me 30 days to file my brief and the PSP 30 days to file their answer in brief, 30 and 30 is 60 days.

    • #44211
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry

      Thanks, I thought the the PASC had already decided to hear your case thru the kings bench thing. Is there a time period for them to make this decision?

      • #44240
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ snoopy

        The king’s Bench works like this- You first get a temporary docket to make application. Mine was 335 MT 2018. That is the application stage. The Pothonototary of the supreme court makes sure all the pleadings are in order and files a king’s bench to the court for allowance. It the court accepts the jurisdiction statement the case moves into the supreme court to go on the supreme court docket for reading and a new docket is assigned mine is 122 MM 2018.

        At this stage I filed a a brief in the lower commonwealth court at docket 339 MD 2018 all that paper work work will be sent to the supreme court for them to read. They can accept that or ask for new briefs. The PASC will take over the case from the 339 MD 2018 commonwealth court and give a decision on ACT 10 and ACT 29 without going through years of appeals through the appeal court levels.

        If I was paying a lawyer he would not want to do a king’s bench because he would be loosing money. Lawyers love to hide what they are doing. They want to take the longest route to force your to pay the money.

        And besides most lawyer and in bed with the PAG and DA anyway.

        I don’t trust lawyers. They don’t out right lie, but they don’t tell all the truth to us up front. We find out at the end and they want more money to go on to the next part of the case. If I had a lawyer doing a king’s Bench it would cost 5,000 for the Application. That would be docket 335 MT 2018

        Then 10,000 for the PASC docket 122 MM 2018, 3,000 for oral argument before the PASC court. The PSP is going to Cert this case that is another 5,000 for the Cert to the SCOTUS. You add all that money up.

        5,000 plus 10,000, plus 3,000 plus 5,000 equal what? 2 3, 0 0 0 dollars when you can pro se and go just paying the application court fees and postage and copies of the fillings. spending about $300 tops.

        I use to think that the ACT 10 and ACT 29 issue was ex post facto and retroactive application but that is not so. It is the statutory construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29 that is the big problem. It would normally take a lawyer to figure that out, but I did it by seeing the wording between subchapter “H” and Subchapter “I” that subchapter “I” is an amendment of “H” and not a new law like SORNA 1 and SORNA 2 and SORNA 3

        This is a normal construction flow of old law new law. With ACT 10 and ACT 29 this is not the case.

        SORNA as a whole was never deemed unconstitutional by MUNIZ. only the retroactive part, making SORNA still the main sex offender law.

        The Pa Assembly came up with the idea to amend SORNA and put back 17,000 Pre SORNA people with offense from the passed.

        Only problem is – to get the AWA money back in 20 Dec 2012 all the former Megan’s Law provisions had to be expired. That is at 42 PA. C.S. 9799.41

        When that was done SORNA became the whole law one law fix old and new offenses, and a 3 teir system classified every body in 1 2 or 3 but there were people who made a contract with the court is plea deal for 10 years, and they found themselves at 15 years and some lifetime.

        This was crazy Muniz suited and won. Now it was not easy to put back the Megan’s Law provision expired 12-20-12 because no savings clause repeals were voted. The Pa Assembly thought SORNA would never meet a Muniz. They had no need for saving clause repeals on keeping old megan’s Laws in place. SORNA is a one law fits all.

        When Muniz became final there was not old Megan’s Law for 17,000 offenders in Pa.

        The Muniz – decision freed them they were old law people that the Pa. Assembly made go away.

        Now in 2018 the Pa. Assemble wants to rewrite Megan’s Law 2 and put it in the law as ACT 10 and ACT 29 with no repeal rights to do so. The Pa. Assemble of 12-20-12 did not repeal Megan’s Law they expired it meaning killed it dead never to come back.

        Now thy want it back. six years later. so they wrote it up and they know it is ex post facto, but they think that is ok public safety over rides the rights of a sex offender anyway, and they think we will take all punishment stuff off the ACT 10 and ACT 29 and make it different so sex offenders will not complain.

        But But But it is written in title 1 of the statutory construction ACT says that expire law cannot come back to life like that.

        in ACT 10 and ACT 29 it is written that a former Megan’s law is needed form April 1996 before December 2012. This is impossible.

        All former Megan’s Laws were expired 12-20-12 and can never be made to fit the bill to assist ACT 10 and ACT 29.

    • #44228
      Avatar
      R

      All this talk about muniz pre sorna and due relief I was removed from the registry for approximately one month while the oinky oinko’s reviewed my case then put back on I called up harrisburgg and was advised that the time that I spent incarcerated does not count towards my original 10 yr agreement I disagree anybody else in my situation any input ?

      • #44286
        Avatar
        Snoopy

        That makes me wonder now… When I was sentenced I was given 10 years on the registry, 6 months of HOUSE arrest, and 5 years of Probation…

        When I did my act 10 registration I saw in my paperwork that my 10 years that had been changed to 25 years with SORNA was changed to 15 years – instead of what it should have been for 10 years.

        I was sentenced on a Friday and the very next day even on house arrest (I called my PO and was given permission) I went to the PSP barracks and did my first registration, and it was always for a HOUSE and NEVER, EVER a PRISON / JAIL address.

        But if they’re taking that route of 10 years after probation that would be 15 years on the registry….

        I should CALL Harrisburg, but I really don’t want to because I want to just fly under the radar and coast because at 10 years I would have roughly 2 years and 3 months… at 15 years that changes it to 7 years and 3 months…

        ugh…

      • #44349
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Hi R,
        Back when Megan’s Law first started they allowed the time you were locked up to count towards your registration time. About 12 years ago they passed a law that EXPLICITLY DOES NOT allow you to get credit for the time you were locked up. The idea bring you are already being supervised so your registration clock does not need to start until you are n your own. They are right. You do not get credit for the time you were locked up in Pa.

        • #44354
          Avatar
          Snoopy

          I was never actually LOCKED UP though – Probation for 5 years, with the first 6 months of that on house arrest…

          My house / residence address was always listed as my residential house, and NOT a jail / prison because I was never in jail / prison…

          • #44562
            Avatar
            Anonymous

            Snoooy,
            Look at it this way. If you can’t leave Pa without asking permission, you can’t apply the time you were under that restriction towards registration time. It sucks but that is the law they made. The idea being if they weren’t nice by giving you the “Privledge” of not being locked up, you would have been. Just like your rehabilitation time towards being crime free does not start until you are finished with probation/ parole. Once again, the idea being it is a privledge to be serving your sentence on the outside.

          • #44640
            Avatar
            Snoopy

            @Chuck

            Ok, so let me get this straight….

            So I’m on House arrest for 6 months…. then probation for 4.5 for a total of 5 years…. During my time on house arrest on day 2 – I go and do my first ML registration with the PSP.

            About 2 years later, even though I am on Probation I am sent a letter saying that SORNA passed and I and being changed to 25 years, and have to go do more registration stuff AT the courthouse at a meeting with my probation officer and some other guy.

            Sometime during my time last two years on probation my probation officer who loves me basically says I can travel and do whatever I want, just give her a call and leave a voicemail.

            After 5 years, I get off of probation.

            But even though they sent me letters telling me I had to go register while on probation, I got my SORNA letter while on probation, even though the judge said I have to do 10 years….

            You’re saying there’s a law that says even though I was never in a jail / prison, and never had a jail / prison address on my probation time and never had a jail / probation address with the registry…. that those first 5 years still don’t count towards my 10 and THAT is why my 10 years that got upped to 25 and should have gotten put back down to 10, but was put down to 15 years…. That that’s really legit and not just an error?

            If that’s the case why did I have to register during those first 5 years at all if I was already being monitored?

    • #44241
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Any questions about the expiration of former Megan’s Law?
      read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 all former provisions of Megan’s law shall expire

      1 Pa. C.S 1971(a) Cannot bring back expired law provisions

      1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) it is absurd in result to think that expired law can still be applied that no longer exist to be used.

      1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) this gives expressed definition of what it means to apply 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to make expired Megan’s Law provision go away never to come back.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not new law. They are Amendments of a law calling for what title one says cannot be done.

      Use former Megan’s laws to make ACT 10 and ACT 29 work on Old Megan’s Law people. It is just not possible. The PSP is only doing it until the law is challenged and put before the PASC and me and Polizer are almost there. Polizer is in a 60 day hold to get a lawyer to to oral arguments before the PASC they have a rule that you must be a lawyer to talk to the PASC.

      My case will not need oral argument I am making an applied challenge to law not effects of the law.

      Effects of the law you have to get the PASC to see your argument. It Law challenge the law is read and if it don’t make sense to the PASC it will be deemed what they say to the PSP and the Pa. Assembly.

      in my case they will Kill ACT 10 and ACT 29 and tell the PA assembly to come up with something in line with the Pa. constitution of law on construction within the statutory limits set by law. Meaning the Pa. Assembly has to resurrect dead law Mostly Megan’s Law 2 But But But Commonwealth v Derhammaer has case of 11:22-17 settled this. The ACT 10 and ACT 29 makers ignored Derhammer, but the PASC will not.

      Derhammer is the real hero on Crushing ACT 10 and ACT 29 right now he is getting set free from his jail cell on to face ACT 10 and ACT 29. His fight did not have ACT 10 or ACT 29 in it.

      Derhammer was still in jail when ACT 10 and ACT 29 came to us, but he was fighting that Megan’s Law 2 is history never to trouble us again and the PASC agreed with Derhammer. You can look at Commonwealth v Derhammer J-60-2017 DECIDED 11-22-17

    • #44321
      Avatar
      Brian

      They took my picture down I am just in shock right now, I think they completed my review, my attorney sent psp a letter and the DA and they took me off, I hope it stays that way!!!!!!

      • #44350
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Hi Brian,
        Very good news!! I knew it was just a matter of them getting off their butt!! I am still waiting review of my case but I already know I have until 2020, so whatever. Already finished one year since Muniz Hard to believe it’s been a year and we are still waiting. I think they are still in SHOCK that SCOTUS denied Cert. The Court is starting to realize sex offenders are humans as well. They knew exactly what they were doing when they denied Cert. This is the beginning of the end of the registry. They are going to stomp their feet and raise their fists, but they know it’s over. Why do you think Pa has no residency restrictions right now? Because they didn’t want the fight. Now, might as well have the fight if the end is near is how they are thinking.

        I am glad Brian you are able to move on with your life. Now you can go on vacation for as long as you want and don’t have to report it!!!! I just had a mini vacation in NY and had to rush back to avoid reporting it. Everyone else was still there but I don’t like the hassle of reporting a vacation. They act like it is a MAJOR issue and they call all the law enforcement in the area. FORGET THAT!! I will stick with my under 7 day trips…

        Congrats Again!!.

    • #44335
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian
      That is wonderful news.
      Still no letter here, I bet they are going to drag their feet until next March.
      I hope to be wrong.

      • #44344
        Avatar
        Brian

        @Mark
        Are you still not showing on the reg? I was surprised for sure, I am confident I will get a letter within the next two weeks, my attorney want say but I think he know people in high places.

      • #44351
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Mark,
        Oh they are HOPING you freak out and either violate or punch the crap out of them so they can arrest you!! Stay the course my friend. It will come. According to PSP, not counting Muniz decision, how much time do they say you still have?
        Whatever you do, don’t let them push your buttons. They would love to see you violate. It sucks, but it’s ALOT better than fighting your case behind bars.
        A friend of mine just got his letter. According to Muniz, he has been done for over 5 years and they took their sweet time processing his case. Remember they are in NO HURRY. Not even close.

    • #44352
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      That’s why I read my printout meticulously every time I went in because they change things on it all the time, and yes they do want to see everyone behind bars that’s for sure, everyone’s time will come, Act 10 is expostfacto thus violating the constitution, I don’t care who has time left this law is indeed punitive, Terry will clean up and get everyone relief once he gets in front of PASC.

    • #44382
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian

      I haven’t been on the website since SCOTUS denied cert.
      But I have been down in May to be sure I didn’t get caught up in Act 10
      June when my vehicle registration renewed.

      @Chuck
      My paperwork from PSP says 3/26/2007 under Active registration date.
      3/26/2032 under Registration end date. 12 months under Appearance frequency
      Active Under Review under Status.
      At the time of my sentence, my charges were both a10 yr reg.
      sorna has one at 15yrs and the other at 25yrs. 2032 is 25.

    • #44393
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Judge William Carpenter of Montgomery county decision that the retroactive appilication of Act 10 is unconstitutional is being appealed. This is good news in the sense that the Judge gets to write an opinion as to how he arrived at his decision.
      I am shocked how Pa (with the Muniz Decision) and Michigan (with the Snyder decision) are refusing to admit they lost. How can a state government just ignore the SCOTUS when their Cert is denied?
      They want to punish us for not following the rules but they believe they can just waive a magic wand and the rules don’t apply to them. Frustrating to say the least.

    • #44398
      Avatar
      Brian

      I think there will be a lot of appeals going on, they don’t like loosing that for sure, even when their wrong, will be good that Judge Carpenter will be able to give his opinion and slam these MFRS.

    • #44397
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      I had tracked myself via the psp website, I got an email yesterday saying my status changed, I logged in and clicked on my profile, it said offender not found and Teir1 Expired, so I’m assuming my review was completed and they expired my, at the same time not sure if the petition my attorney sent psp and Da had something to do with it, I will be calling my attorney tomorrow, not sure I will call psp though, I am not due to reup till next year if I don’t get a letter from psp saying I’m off

    • #44538
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Called ML Section st PSP. I asked if my file has been reviewed. They said nope. I inquired on how much longer it would take. Of course they played their favorite song: we have over 20,000 ppl to review. I said not my fault you wanted to apply SORNA retroactive and YOU GOT SPANKED. She did not like that. Not one bit. She says you have to be patient. I said it has been over 1 year!!! She then said ,” oh you are countin since Muniz” Yes of course!! “Oh, we didn’t start until February”. Not my fault or problem.

      They crack me up how they act like they are reviewing cases because they decided to be nice to some people. I told them there is a court order ordering you guys to do this. She got really mad at this. “I don’t need you to tell me my job”. Hey I have someone willing to give me a $60,000/year job as soon as I can prove I have less than 2 years left. I make $12,000/year now. I am in a bit of a hurry please.
      You not a full fledged employee until you have 2 years in so they are willing to allow me to do my training while on the registry. Most ppl start in my field start at $40,000, so I am anxious for this opportunity to work out.

    • #44539
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      Hang in there man, it will come, the only reason they did my review is because of my attorney, if we hadn’t filled I wouldn’t have gotten off, but it may be short lived like Terry was off then on, then off and on, I’ll be going to court either way it seams but I would rather have a judge sign off on it, you were right about the courts being flooded Chuck, but it seams as though they are moving things along pretty quickly, it’s like a dam and that slightly open the spillway at ,ore then just a trickle pace, more like a steady flow. I was reading through told posts a couple minutes ago, a teir in my eye, when I first met you, Terry, Mark, Paul who I we haven’t seen in a while. Your all great friends who help each other, I can remember when I was ready to off myself, but you guys gave me hope and helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel..

    • #44561
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @ Brian,
      If it wasn’t for the fact they are holding up “my future” per se, I wouldn’t even care. It’s all good though in the sense that I am almost done. I was shocked when the guy who interviewed me said, “So what? I don’t have time to care. If you can make $$ for me, that is the name of the game.” Just like that. He didn’t even have to think about it. It was like I told him I had a parking ticket.
      Brian, I am glad you are making progress on your mission of putting all this behind you.
      A word to the wise: EVERYBODY STAY COMPLIANT. Yes, I know there are people that have been on way too long. You have to follow the system. The ONLY thing that matters is what is on paper. PERIOD. I know it sucks, but trust me they want you to violate.
      I am so interested in what the Attorney General’s Office has to say to PASC. “Because we said so AND waived our magic wand. Don’t forget about the magic wand, Judge”

    • #44572
      Avatar
      Brian

      Isn’t that something, when people actually look past our conviction and say, (SO WHAT). It’s the general assholes and the lawmakers doing all this and making SO’s such horrible people, I think that 90% of society doesn’t give a rats ass anymore because their more worried about keeping their heads above water nowadays, they don’t have time to worry about SO’s, there are a couple over exaggerated people, there is a woman at my job who will do everything I’m her power to avoid even waking by me now, someone did their own background check on me a few months back and told everyone about me, now they don’t have company outing anymore, I never went anyway, they will get the better though, I will loose my job because of them, I’ve been written up a couple times for making the same mistake as others but others make a huge deal of it when I make a mistake that I end up getting in trouble, they have been at the company for 10 pluse years, it’s a form of discrimination I believe but also legally writing me up though because I am making valid mistakes. I plan on starting my own business as soon as I find out I do or do not have to register permanently, that way I will be my own boss and not have to deal with anyone trying to get the upper hand on me, I don’t plan to hire any employees so I won’t have to worry a out that either.

    • #44613
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      I think society as a whole is realizing that banning anyone for life from normal social activities is just not humane or practical.
      The Pa registry will be outlawed because it is clear that it is punishment. I have a friend that says the registry is needed because he wants to make sure it is safe for his daughter to live where they do. I said, “ Why would you allow your daughter outside alone until she is an adult?” Same reason I don’t leave my $2,000.00 laptop on the front porch.
      The 12-24 months should be exciting to see what happens with the registry. It might still be here, but there will be more challenges.

    • #44641
      Avatar
      Brian

      Well got my official letter from psp today telling me I no longer have to register, but I believe IML still affects me because it states at the bottom of the letter that I may be required to register with other states to check with local law enforcement prior to entering their state because the FBI has everyone on file, My question is, how does one fight IML, maybe a questing for my attorney.

    • #44646
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Brian,
      CONGRATS MY FRIEND!!!! Frame that letter!! I am serious. Also, make copies and keep 1 in a safe deposit box. I am so glad you are able to start rebuilding your life. Take your wife out to thank her for sticking by you.

    • #44649
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Snoopy,
      I am sorry I confused you. The law I was referring to says while you are in prison your time DOES NOT COUNT. In the big scheme of things, even if they disallow your 6 month house arrest, 6 months is a small amount of time when we are talking about 10 years, 25 years or maybe 15 years. I truly wouldn’t worry about 6 months. In the big scheme of things, 6 months is one breathe. Yes the registry stinks, but not with the stress to fight over 6 months.
      I can tell you I personally have Parole time that was served during my registry time and as of today, they have always counted it towards my limit, whatever they said it was.
      I had a friend that was in the registry, went to jail on a non related registry charge, and when he got out, he had to bicker with them about the time he had in before he went to jail for the non related charge. They didn’t deny him the time, just didn’t count right.

      I am not a lawyer but if I was you, I wouldn’t worry about 6 months. I know your are worried. The residency restrictions they are prosposing are scary. Remember, take a deep breathe, it will be ok. We are in this together. There is strength in numbers.

    • #44650
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck
      Good for you!! HAAA 20K divided by 5 months (February) is 4K per month.
      20 Working days per month that’s 200 a day. Knowing that 200 a day is too many.
      Figure 5-6 a day maybe more depending how many people there. How many
      people came off the non-compliant list after Cert was denied? Oh, about 80.
      In one day!? So they did. They knew going in, it might happen so the non-compliant list
      got smaller quickly.

      @Brian
      Hang in there, dude! I don’t know if the people at my job know about me and I really don’t
      care. I hate to put it this way, but I’m too important. I know too much. 🙂 It helps people have
      to deal with me. It forces them to get to know me. No one has ever said anything bad to me
      either.

      I always plan on staying compliant until I get my official letter. it is annoying tho as if they
      hadn’t tried to play games I would be off altogether.

    • #44651
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian
      Great new!!!! Yes, Frame it scan it into your computer if you can. If you can scan it
      get Dropbox and put it there and if you have a smartphone get the Dropbox app and keep a copy on your phone. That’s what I’m going to do.

    • #44674
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Brian

      CONGRATULATIONS – You are free as long as you stay in your state of refuge. Most states have a 3 day limit that you can go and return. When you go out of state always but gas leaving Pa. and buy gas on your return.

      If you fly keep dated ticket for return. New York just pasted a law that they will arrest any out of state sex offender that comes withing New York and charge them with a first degree felony – check the law New York law very carefully.

      • #44686
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Terry,
        That is only if you move to New York and do not report you are there. There is an exception for “just visiting”. I do not know how long it is. I am dual registered in Pa and NY. Once you register in NY you cannot break your registering duties simply by moving out of state. Since I moved back to PA in 2015, I am stuck registering in both states.
        No state can ban you from visiting or traveling through their state. Might be only a few days, but they have to alllow you to visit.

        • #44698
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          @Chuck
          Thank you for the info on NY I just read briefly on the surface. It was a point that I did not look at close. I am so proud that Brian got the news he was waiting for. He is free in Pa. The FBI still has a national base to. If he sought judicial determination a court would have order Brian’s name off that letting him travel on vacation without FBI tracks in the NCIC.

          In His letter the PSP tells you this fact at the bottom of the letter. But if a court order is involved there are different rules. The case to read on this is J.J.M. v. PSP A3d 386 MD 2017 and In re D.A., 801 A2d 614, 616-17 on detriment on PSP letter without Court’s decision.

          Brian has a letter with a detriment statement from the PSP with no Court’s backing in judicial determination. This may seem a small thing, but in the future it will be the other states that open the door to make greater issues of this. But a court order close this detriment by extending Brian’s name to be removed off the NCIC FBI data base too so other states will not see his history. His Law should be smart enough to see the future in why in ACT 10 Section 20 (2) (iii) (A) and (B). this can be found in the HB 631 and in HB 1952 bills that were signed by governor Wolf. It is at the end. I will copy it word for word:

          Section 20 says what I been saying a long time:

          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.

          These are the words that why a court order is the way to beat the PSP and other out side jurisdictions from tricking a person to be right back on the registry by trusting the letter that the PSP gives, but they don’t extend your name removal to the FBI NCIC where other states can still see that you are subject to sex offenders registration.

          Brain must get clear understanding from his lawyer on this point – He may in the future want to take a trip to Florida where they have the craziest sex offender laws for a vacation, and there they don’t have no understanding of Equal protection of law rights on good faith credit.

          The lower courts don’t like 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23 where their court orders mean nothing to the PSP. The PSP only respect the PASC decision but that is suspect due to Muniz-decision

        • #44699
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          @ Chuck

          The words on Brian’s letter said, “Should you TRAVEL to another jurisdiction, the agency in the jurisdiction tasked with registering sex offenders may require him to register.’

          the missing words are reside, work or attend school.

    • #44685
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      I don’t advertise the fact I am in the registry but I don’t run away or hide from it either. All my friends know and everyone who I see on a consistent basis knows. If someone would ask me (has happened a few times) I would say, “yes, what of it?”
      There are two groups of people I have found that typically freak out when they meet a sex offender. Those are those over 50 and single mothers with young children. I also have found those that do freak out are the ones that want to create a town for sex offenders only.
      Attitudes have shifted and it’s the state’s fault. Once they started adding people for custodial interference to the registry, they lost their no 1 argument: it is not punishment. The Muniz Court specifically mentioned this. As people are forced to live around and interact with “sex offenders” they realize they are just people like themselves.
      I hope the PASC grants Terry’s request to be heard. I believe they will have a problem with the state saying they created a new law to “fix” their decision. To say you “fixed” something is to imply there was something wrong with it in the first place.
      As far as the residency restrictions they aren’t going anywhere and they know it. They passed ACT within 2 1/2 months. They could have a law on the books right now for residency restrictions if they wanted to. They may eventually pass it, but they know no way it is going to fly.

    • #44690
      Avatar
      Brian

      To everyone
      Thanks for all of your kinds words guys, everyones times will come,
      Mark
      maybe your letter got lost on the mail, if they took you off the reg one would tho k you should have received a letter stating your done.
      Terry go getem, if they accept to hear you which I think they will seeing you are prose, you present a case of high interest I believe, once they hear you and listens to your words act 10 will be done and over with, you will be the new Muniz my friend and the general assholes will be scurrying for another law fix.
      Snoopy
      Act 10 is so confusing and twisted even the Da’s don’t understand it, they the Da told me I had to register for life because Act10 says of this out of state crime says life then your life, but are the time of my sentencing out of state, my state didin’t have a ML, they try hard to interpret the law but even they don’t understand it. I can’t sit here and say sense you were on probation your time don’t count, I’m not an attorney, that s why I got one, even though Terry tried like hell to get me to learn the law I just didn’t feel confident fighting this prose, Snoopy if you can afford an attorney you may want to look into one, just be very careful because there are some lawyers out there that will scam you, I got ripped off once but caught onto his scheme, Terry saw it before I did, Terry said., Brian you have a bad lawyer, everything I told him he argued with me, Due process he argued, this law being punitive he argued, equal protection he argued, ex post facto her argued, he wasn’t trying to help me at all, he took my money and there is nothing I could do about it because I signed papers saying yes, you can litigate my case which he only litigated against me.

    • #44706
      Avatar
      Brian

      Sooo how do I go about getting these websites like been verified, home facts and such to removed me from their SO search criteria? any ideas

      • #44756
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Brian,
        You can send them a cease and desist letter which basically says you are no longer on the registry and if they continue saying you are, they will be sued. You can find templates for the letter online.

      • #44767
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Brian,
        The whole it is excite the public so you cannot live there. We already have the registry we do not need people to republish that info in their site. If they are not worried enough to find the info on their own, then they are not worried about it.
        Of course they agreed to remove your info. Once they had been notified they could be sued if they didn’t remove it. Keep all of your emails. Put them in a special folder.

      • #44776
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        Update

        In case 339 MD 2018 at the Commonwealth Court a panel of Judges will take a look at my applied challenge of subchapter “I”

        The PSP has until 22 August 2018 to file a Brief on their counter summary.

        I cannot image how they are going to make good argument on how expired Law can be defended.

        All the answer they give seem to stay on the road of Civil remedy is what ACT 10 and ACT 29 is all about.

        They have not yet mentioned in law argument opposing any points on the invalid construction of of ACT 10 and ACT 29 compared to Derhammer 11-22-17 that put the nail in former Megan’s Law 2 and Neiman put a nail in former Megan’s Law 3 – These have made it a clear way to rob ACT 10 and ACT 29 of what they need to work.

        Former Megan’s Law application to be applied after April 1996 before December 2012. 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 surly expired all former Megan’s Laws 12-20-12 at the implementation of SORNA subchapter “H”

        If anyone has a former Megan’s Law offence – SORNA has been amended to try to add your former Megan’s law to SORNA by an ACT 10 and ACT 29 call to use former Megan’s Law offenses to comply registration. Only problem is – SORNA expired all former Megan’s Laws and they are invalid to be used to make ACT 10 and ACT 29 live on pass my challenge to the Commonwealth Court.

        I also have a similar challenge in the PASC under a King’s Bench application pending acceptance under 122 MM 2018.

        The Commonwealth Court sees the hand writing on the wall for ACT 10 and ACT 29. It is a death call. The only problem is that that PSP will not give in to a defeat that easy.

        42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23(2)(b) gives them a court ignore rule. It is written in SORNA to keep the court authority out of the PSP business.

        That is crazy – The Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 11 becomes a denied right to go to the Pa. Courts to suit the PSP for ACT 10 and ACT 29 BS.

        The Commonwealth Court wants to fast track my 339 MD 2018 case to get the law decision right in spite of 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23(2)(b). They have put a panel of judges together suaspontae to hear the PSP oppose my position that expired former Megan’s Laws are gone. It has been so since 12-20-12

        All former Megan’s Law were satisfied and put to the trash heep. The court has never saw this until it was shown to them by me, and I am not a lawyer.

        Not being a lawyer is a better position to be in – in my case.

        In a quiet way – when case 339 MD 2018 is handed down lawyers are going to use my case to defend others on ACT 10 and ACT 29 challenges up front. ACT 10 and ACT 29 still must meet the PASC at some point because that is the court that will matter to the PSP.

        And in the mind of the PSP they still think there is help for ACT 10 and ACT 29 in Cert appeal to the SCOTUS.

        The Pa. Assembly will never give up the fight. Too many voters are watching their inability to stop the death of ACT 10 and ACT 29 by the court system.

        Now is the wait time – to see the end of law makers of Pa. sit and watch the shake up of the SORNA registry.

        The registry’s true mission is showing now. It is a tool of punishment, and the PSP can’t believe that the court will not protect their position to double punish sex offenders.

        The courts use to be down with the PSP and the Pa. Assembly, but the PSP and Pa. Assembly kept adding restrictions that made no constitutional sense.

        The courts are not stupid. They no longer go along to get along with the PSP and the PA. Assembly.

        I am so humbled by the position that God has chosen me to be in. The super bowl of all SORNA is before the Commonwealth court at 339 MD 2018 and no one knows about it yet. But when the court publish the opinion – I will be sought to answer question then.

        Their publish opinion will give aid to the sex offenders of Pa. to have hope that the PSP reviews will come to a halt and a direct order will be given to the PAG to command the PSP to stop oppressing Pa. sex offenders that have been delivered from the chains of SORNA ACT 10 and ACT 29.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 will not go away – it still be standing as law, but it’s application to pre-SORNA people will no longer be allowed.

        Per-SORNA people will be free. . . . . . . There will be no sex offender law for them to be under and they can go on with their lives to pursue liberty and happiness to build a good life in Pa. only this please don’t be a disgrace to the grace extended to be free from ACT 10 and ACT 29 applications to return to crazy BS

        • #44800
          Avatar
          Anonymous

          Terry,
          I can tell you what PSP is going to say: Act 10 is a NEW law based on a expired law and thus because it is a NEW law and Civil in nature, we can apply it forward and backward (retroactively).
          The idea being the ML version it was modeled after was the last version upheld by the Pa Supreme Court. They just let it expire to qualify for SORNA. So they made a new law (act 10) in the same likeness as the expired law.

          Too bad they are going to rule on your papers and not give you a chance to make an oral argument.
          I think they MIGHT( it would be hard) win the “its a new law” argument BUT it is punishment and thus cannot be appilied retroactively.
          All people want to do is move on with their lives. It’s hard to believe I am down to less than 2 years.
          Think about all the changes in the last few years. SVP was dramatically changed. The increase from Pre-SORNA to SORNA was ruled illegal. We have the right to counsel (a free lawyer) when we are first being assessed. When ML first started, we didn’t get a lawyer for the assessment hearing. Now we do. Things are changing

    • #44757
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      I contacted BeenVerified yesterday by email and they actually agreed to removed my data from there database, hope it’s that easy with all the others, I know employers can do background checks and stuff but these sites make it so the normal joe can do a check on someone, people that don’t need to be looking into other peoples background, they only look to stir the pot, I think that only employers should be the only ones to be doing the background checks.

    • #44791
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry – Good luck many, I know you can do it. You’re still in our family’s prayers!
      @Brian – congrats to you, live a good life off of the registry my friend!

      @ValeraSki – bitcoin is dieing, try xrp instead thru uphold or abra. Even coinsquare in a few months.

      @Chuck, I think the ValeraSki post slipped by the mods somehow 😉

    • #44801
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Snoopy,
      Yes it did and I found it and deleted it. I personally stay away from all digital currency. Too end of the worldish for me.
      I do believe the Commonwealth is going to eventually be told that “everyone currently on ML is NOW OFF. If you want to make a new one for futures crimes, fine, but everyone in the past is off. Just a simple mug shot online is all you get. You blew it. We gave you an inch and you wanted to take a mile.Bye-Bye, you got spanked again”

    • #44807
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Snoopy
      Thanks man, your day will come my friend, everyone’s day will come, let’s hope it stays this way for me, I have seen people come off and go back on but we shall see what the future holds, maybe Chuck is right, maybe they will just abolish this scheme all together and make a new law for future crimes.

      Terry good luck my friend, your I’m my prayers my man, I know the minute the PASC hears what you have to say Act 10 and 29 will go down.

    • #44804
      Avatar
      Mark

      I hope Terry is the one to do it too.
      Just think a “jailhouse lawyer” taking down the AG and PSP.
      I will laugh and laugh

      @Terry
      If the Superior Court does rule in your favor. We all know that the AG and PSP will appeal just to keep you on the list. Would that not mean an automatic to PASC? Everyone also knows that they are delaying.
      Would that appeal and your King’s Bench be combined? Or if not would a favorable ruling of the King’s Bench end everything in your case including 339 MD 2018?

      Keep it up!!!!

    • #44875
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      I thought king bench takes home right to the PASC, I am so dumb some times, oh well such is life. There is the bitcoin person again, I nerver understood bitcoin either but never put effort forth to do so. My wife asked why I’m still posting on here, I said because others need to know there is hope, and they need support as well.

    • #44907
      Avatar
      Brian

      Update on y case.
      Even though psp let me off we still had to go to court today just to find out the DA was in agreement with our petition, got the judicial determination that I wanted so they won’t be able to easily put me on a registry if they decide to try and change up the laws again, on that case I will go back and rehire my attorney, I will see if I can post something in the next week or so when I get a final copy of everything..

      Mark what’s your email again.

    • #44866
      Avatar
      Solaris

      From Chuck Moderator you wrote on July 31, 2018 at 2:26 pm:
      “Solaris,
      Automatic relief? You must be new to Pa!!! PSP isn’t going to do anything that a Court doesn’t order them to do. Each sex offender who believes their registration is wrong has to challenge their registration using Muniz as precedent. The Courts will waive the filing fees if you are low income if you apply for a fee waiver.”

      No Mr. Chuck, I am not new to PA. You however seem new to having a bit of social kills in the manner that you answer the public specially when they are newcomers. Typical of people in position of authority. Please do not make assumptions. Many of us have been thru that enough! You provided no help with your post to my post or questions. Actually, no one did. I was/am under the impression that PA registrant pre-SORNA had to be automatically released by PASC court order, but the PSP asked for within 18 months from denial of certuari to do so from the the PSP’s SO registry list by a lower court order. That is why I asked! Thank you not for your unhelpful answer.

      Mr. Brian you said on July 30, 2018 at 10:40 am

      “@Solaris
      Just wanted to say it is far less then 5000, if they’re charging you that much they’re ripping you off, as for cost and name I decline to answer, I don’t want to compromise my case, after all said and done I will post it on here, no pun intended, just be careful because I got ripped off already by one bad lawyer, if he wouldn’t sue me I would put his name on here so no one uses him or his firm. I have heard people say they have gotten relief automatically, and saw someone who had a lawyer got relief that way as well, as for out of state people such as myself I haven’t obviously, out of state people were supposed to have their reviews done first but that changed, now we’re last I assume,”

      August 10, 2018 at 8:04 pm #44641REPLY

      Brian
      “Well got my official letter from psp today telling me I no longer have to register, but I believe IML still affects me because it states at the bottom of the letter that I may be required to register with other states to check with local law enforcement prior to entering their state because the FBI has everyone on file, My question is, how does one fight IML, maybe a questing for my attorney.”

      So are you going to follow on your word Sir so that I may try to help my family member Sir?

      …and to terry you said on August 11, 2018 at 12:32 pm #44698REPLY

      terry brunson
      “@Chuck
      Thank you for the info on NY I just read briefly on the surface. It was a point that I did not look at close. I am so proud that Brian got the news he was waiting for. He is free in Pa. The FBI still has a national base to. If he sought judicial determination a court would have order Brian’s name off that letting him travel on vacation without FBI tracks in the NCIC.

      In His letter the PSP tells you this fact at the bottom of the letter. But if a court order is involved there are different rules. The case to read on this is J.J.M. v. PSP A3d 386 MD 2017 and In re D.A., 801 A2d 614, 616-17 on detriment on PSP letter without Court’s decision.

      Brian has a letter with a detriment statement from the PSP with no Court’s backing in judicial determination. This may seem a small thing, but in the future it will be the other states that open the door to make greater issues of this. But a court order close this detriment by extending Brian’s name to be removed off the NCIC FBI data base too so other states will not see his history.”

      You totally made no sense or at least confused me!!! If a person is off the registry in a State they are off
      all data bases FBI and otherwise right? …period! Otherwise, what is the point of receiving any relief or seeking/demanding it if the FBI/Homeland Security or other States are going to to hold a person hostage for the rest of their lives? Why is a darn Judge needed and more money required to feed this flawed system with SEX Offenses mainly the focus to something that is now State Law per PASC writings after the Muniz decision?

      • #44958
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @Solaris
        I did not mean to confuse you. The PSP issues a letter to people that they remove from their SO registry. They put on the letter a detriment statement that they cannot stop other states from from making thise that are dropped from their registry.

        It is written in the ACT 10 and ACT 29 law that a court determination is the true document that will save all who are removed from the PSP SO registry. The PSP can do a voluntary cessation by what if you go to another state on vacation and stay longer than you plan and you get stopped by the police and they run a FBI NCIC check find that your name is still in their bank as active and you have not registered in that state – YOU WILL BE IN HOT SHIT. Even if you tell them that the PSP said I don’t have to register.

        Yes in PA. but on the PSP letter they writ a detriment statement that other states must be informed if you travel to them. To curb all that you demand a court oreded determination for removal of your name from the FBI NCIC bs and the court will order a removal of your name from the FBI NCIC. The PSP alone has not this power, but a Pa. court does……….. When being taken off the PSP registry – by them they put the detriment statement on their letter. If you don’t know what it mean, and travel to another state thinking you are free to stay as long as you like – read case law J.J.M. v. PSP A3d 386 MD 2017 and In re D.A., 801 A2d 614, 616-17 on detriment on PSP letter without Court’s decision. Many in the future will find out the hard way.

    • #44944
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian

      It’s markjminnich at gmail dot com

    • #44959
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Solaris
      What is your email address I will send you info to the attorney I used, he charged me based on the complicity of my case as I had a lot of the information ready for him, also let me say this, I was removed from the registry August 3rd 2018, I received my letter before I went to court because my attorney petitioned psp and the DA to remove, they got that notice before my court date which the petition forced psp to do my review, when in court this morning the DA and my attorney spoke, my Attorney showed the DA my letter from psp that I was removed, from there the DA spoke to someone next to the judge, my name was called, my attorney stood and stated the DA is in agreement with our brief, judge said he needs something from my attorney ASAP and we were out the door in 5 minuets, with this said make sure your in compliance because if your going to mess with psp and force them to do your review and you not in compliance they will come arrest you. As for thr amount I paid I choose not to disclose financial information but I will give my attorneys name, do you live close to Chester or Montgomery County? If not then you will have to travel to him. He will tell you up front if you have a colorable case or you don’t have a chance in hell. As for being removed from the FBI list, my attorney says they have there own list separate from states, so I don’t know what the deal is with that and judicial determination but with only the letter from psp I would have to reg in other states if I traveled there. But I will be asking him more questions on that topic.

    • #45016
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry
      I have yet to receive a letter from PSP telling me anything.
      I am into my 11th year under my paperwork I got at sentencing,
      on 2 10 yr charges. So if my letter has the statement on the bottom, like
      Brian’s, I am going to have to go to court?

      I also saw that the PSP asked for more time.

      • #45038
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        Being off the PSP registry when your time is done allows you to go anywhere you desire.

        But if the PSP review your case and decide to do a voluntary cessation due to your review – they put a detriment statement on the letter saying that you are only off the PSP registry – if you visit another state and you plan to stay more than their SO registration requires – you would have to register in the visited state.

        There is a case that where the PSP reviewed J.J.M. and he visited another state and did not register with the other state and he thought he was off all state requirements to register.

        The PSP puts on the letter they give you instructions to warn about visiting other states. If you don’t plan to visit other states it is not a big issue.

    • #45033
      Avatar
      Brian

      Of corse they asked for more time, they are going to keep people on as long as they can, my attorney also said they will probably be amending Act 10 again to add new offenses or people with new charges, he wasn’t very specific though, so this may be why they are asking for more time, the thing is with judicial determination, there is a trick, not sure if we played the cards right but the judge will most likely, words from my attorney will not sign a determination if psp already removed us, the judge will say well, your already off there is no need to sign the order now. So I will have to stay out of other states or stay there for the minimum time.

    • #45097
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Brian,
      Don’t be afraid to travel my brother. If you are passing through they can’t touch you. Even if you are visiting they usually let you stay a couple of days before you have to register. What they are trying to do is stop people from claiming I don’t have to register here because I am just visiting when in fact they are living on the couch.
      I have been to Alabama, Viriginia, Tennessee, Georgia, New York, New Jersey to name a few within this calendar year and never had a problem as long as I call first and check out what the rules are. The worse The worse I have see is you can only stay 3 days.
      They will appreciate you taking the extra effort and finding out before you leave bs you saying “oh I didn’t know” when you have police contact.

      Don’t be afraid to call. Find out where you are traveling to and call the local police Dept. They will set you on the right path. I even moved from Pa to Ny and BACK to Pa all while on the registry.
      There will ALWAYS be people that will judge you simply because you are “a sex offender” but law enforcement appreciates the fact you are trying to be responsible.

    • #45098
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Also something to keep in mind guys:

      Those who are getting jammed up for visiting another state without registering were arrested for a different situation. First, they broke the law and THEN they said hey you didn’t register.
      Be responsible. Call first to find out what the rules are. Also, if you are traveling through, like through Pa from Ny to get to Maryland you do NOT have to register. As long as you can prove you only stayed overnight and have business in another state like a motel reservation. They stop you from traveling . Spending one night in a motel is NoT considered “visiting” as long you can prove you had no intention in staying more than one night. Also, driving for several hrs then stopping just to start driving and stop again after several hours in the same state is considered traveling as long as you can prove your Orginal desintstion was outside the state.

    • #45099
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Also,
      Every time I want to leave the state I ALWAYS ALWAYS buy gas from the gas station near my house and buy gas when I RETURN. Even if it is just a gallon. I want that receipt proving when I “left” and when I came “back” Always Always do this.

    • #45110
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      Thanks my man, that makes it easier to understand now, yes so the PSP removed me because my attorney and I petitioned them to removed me, they did my review and removed me voluntarily, my Antorny withdrew our order because the DA agreed on my brief, so therefore I did. To get a judicial determination but was removed voluntarily by PSP, I wanted a judicial determination but like I said, the judge is not inclined to signs an order because because the telling PSP to removed me because PSP has already done so, so I couldn’t even request it because I was already off, the judge was in a bad mood already before my name was even called, I am in surch of a new job now and we are moving to restart our lives.

    • #45122
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Brain,
      A new place can give you a fresh start. Just don’t move simply for the act of moving. Make sure you find s place you and your wife are going to enjoy. I hope you find the job you want. I am waiting for official word by background is ok and then I start training next month. I am going to take a couple weeks before I start to relax and just make sure my perspective on life is good. Every now and then I need to check out and just chill to refocus myself. I love going to the state parks and just walk around. Enjoy my friend!!

    • #45186
      Avatar
      Brian

      Hey Chuck can I get your email address if you don’t mind, if not that’s ok, just want the peoples emails who I’ve been talking to for the past two years on here.

    • #45416
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @ Mark
      Is your file still “pending review?” I asked them how long will it take to finish all the reviews and they said they don’t even know. Doesn’t sound like they are putting their best efforts on the case.
      I hear in Michigan they are still refusing to honor the SCOTUS Cert denial. It will all catch up to them sooner or later. If I was on the Supreme Court I would say, “you don’t want to follow the guidelines we gave you? That’s Ok, you don’t have to because your registry is now illegal for ALL. “
      We shall overcome my friends. 10 years ago no way a county judge would have ruled Act 10 illegal. I keep thinking of the scene on My Cousin Vinny where Al Pacino says “Everything that guy said is sh**” That is how I feel about their argument.

    • #45437
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck

      The last time I called them was just after Memorial Day. My file was still under review then.
      So now we are almost at Labor Day and still nothing.

    • #45427
      Avatar
      Brian

      I heard somewhere I think from my attorney when we were at court that psp is asking for more time to finish the reviews, let’s see how Illinois reacts now, wander if they will appeal and go to SCOTUS also, Michigan is just a freaking disgrace, they are braking the law by not upholding the ruling, so they need to loose their registry as well as pa and every state. Just like I thought I was going to loose my job, I lost my job Monday because my coworkers hate, got me in enough trouble and got me fired, I was able to pickup a job pretty quick, I thank God for that.

      Mark I don’t know if yiu called the attorney I gave you info for, I hope you were able to, the guy knows his stuff, but I don’t know that you live close enough though.

    • #45474
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @ Brian,
      What happened? Was this a new job or one you have had for a while? You can email me if you like. I am sorry that happened to you. Might be tough for s while but it will work out in the end for you. As we have said many times, employers are becoming immune to felonies. A couple of years ago, I heard about this job offer. They said they had no problem with felonies. So I go in to fill out paperwork and it just so happens a former employee of min when I was a Mgr recognized me. The hiring mgr came in and asked if I was on the registry. I said yes I told you guys I have a felony. He says “ I didn’t realize it was THAT KIND of felony. LOL. I told him thank you but I don’t want to work for someone that obviously has a problem with my background without even asking me what happened. So I have lost $$$ opertunities due to the registry. All you can do is dust yourself off and try again. I know a landscaper who doesn’t give a crap but he only wants to pay peanuts. I am not busting my back for minimum wage or a bit more than that. I am too smart for that. LOL

    • #45480
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      I use to think the 3 years I had left when Muniz was decided was enough time to have them get to me. Now, 13 months later, I am not so sure. This is why they were so sure they were going to win because it would be a nightmare trying to enforce Muniz for the sex offender. Sigh, just have to wait our turn. I know the fact the are staging their heels is going to bite them in the end.

    • #45481
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      I see that PSP got an extension of 2 weeks and only 2 weeks.
      It may be coming to an end soon. At least round 2 is.

    • #45479
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian
      No, I haven’t called him yet. I guess I’ll call PSP tomorrow.

    • #45491
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      Yes I had the job for a couple of years, the one guy I worked with had a family member who was in the state police and I guess he told him I was working there and then it spread through the entire building about me, it’s all good through because I talked to an employer I had left on a good note with and was able to start work today so pay is a little less but my wife and I will be ok. Sorry it took all day to respond I was learning a new system with is frustrating but good.
      Last time I spoke with my attorney he said psp is in no hurry that’s for sure and now that they want more time, for what because they aren’t doing anything, I am tracking a few people pre SORNA in my area whose tone is up and they haven’t move off the reg yet, only to the no their status is all.

    • #45492
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      Good luck getting anything out of PSP, when I was calling I got different stories just about every time.

    • #45493
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry
      Don’t give my man.

    • #45523
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Noticed they haven’t passed the residency restrictions yet? Took them only 2 months beginning to the end to get ACT 10 passed. They know if they pass residency restrictions it would be the final nail in the registry’s coffin. No way you can argue the registry is civil if there are residency restrictions. Not only that, it would the challenge to ACT 10 on the fast track. There is a reason Pa does not have residency restrictions right now.
      I hear Bill Cosby is fighting the registry. He def has the $$$$ to see a long legal fight to the end.

    • #45541
      Avatar
      Brian

      Bill Cosby is fighting SVP I knew that, maybe he is after the entire registry, and he definitely has the cash to, wander how much cash J Walsh has, wander if he has more then Cosby, I dought it because Cosby been on tv sense Fabit Albert, before I was born probably. Yea that is weird that they haven’t passed it, I believe Wolf did sign thr bill though, I saw something on the superior courts website while doing a search last week and saw Act 29 in there but I don’t see any language in the 1952 act 10 bills, yea that would be the final straw, that’s for sure, So I wander why when J wash admitted on national TV that’s he dated an under age girl and had absolutely 0 ramifications. So you have Cosby who has been charged and then you have Wash who was never even thought of being charged even though he admitted to doing.

    • #45535
      Avatar
      Mark

      @ Chuck

      I saw that Bill Cosby was classified as an SVP. I wonder if they did it the “Old” way or the proper way.
      I think it was not the proper way. It came back too soon. I found this too,
      https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2018/07/bill-cosby-fights-back-against-unconstitutional-sexual-violent-predator-status/

      Also, I just got off the phone with PSP and the person I talked too said my file in the process of review now.
      🙂

    • #45536
      Avatar
      Mark

      Can someone tell what 3124.1 – SEXUAL ASSAULT adjudicated in 2002 would be under the only good law for pre-snora people would be? I have a close friend who still hasn’t been reviewed and won’t call to find out.
      I want to give him and his family some good news

    • #45560
      Avatar
      Brian’

      @Mark
      That’s great news hope they get it done man.
      Looks like 3124.1 was amended several times in the past 8+ years or so, I gues you would have to know the date in witch your friend was charged and look back to see what the requirements for reg were back then. As long as he wasn’t life or SVP and his time is up then her should be good, and if he’s and out of stater they will play games with him until he gets a good attorney.

    • #45567
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian

      Well not sure of when exactly without talking to hin but it was around 2001when he was arrested.
      So it should be that version. Where do I find it?
      I believe he was a 10yr at the time of snora starting.

      Yea it is good news as long as she wasn’t blowing smoke. It seemed to take a while to bring up my file on the computer so ya never know

      • #45639
        Avatar
        Brian

        @Mark
        I’m not sure when pa began their registry, I know co was in 02, I was scooped up in 03 and I was a ten year, whatever version he was under is expired due to sorna 12/20/2012 because none had a saving clause as Terry has said many times, sorna was the fix all law and the general assembly assumed they could do the expostfacto and get away with it, if your friend was a 10 year then he she should be due relief, I’m not a lawyer obviously but from everything I have learned in the past two years, as long as he didn’t have any new sex related crimes, I know Act 10 says all this bs but Act 10 means nothing to a pre sorna who’s done or over done their time on the reg, as long as they can fight prose or get a (reputable) attorney, I emphasize reputable because these other non ml attorneys can’t do it, they will take your money and leave you broke, I know from experience but I caught on quick and Terry saw that I had a bad lawyer first, my X attorney was in bed with the DA, but I assume as long as no new crimes happened in between and he she’s in compliance and they weren’t in jail, not sure about probation, then relief should be there.

    • #45644
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The wheels of justice roll slow as she go. ACT 10 and ACT 29 will meet the grim reaper soon.

      Not under the expost facto claim of being punitive verse civil, but under the way they were constructed and Amended under SORNA. SORNA can be amended and the PA. Assembly can re write Megan’s Law 2 but all who were under it cannot be called back to it – that would be double jeperty. If your Megan’s law former was expired – How does it come back to life to be used under ACT 10 and ACT 29?

      Because the Pa. Assembly say so? I don’t think so. Former Megan’s Laws were expired 12-20-12 and on that date all former Megan’s Laws were satisfied and brought to an end. ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for their use now to be applied in scope and applicability to make Pre-SORNA people re-register with the PSP this is about to come to am end.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for people with a former Megan’s Law offense to re-register in an invalid way. It calls for people with former Megan’s Law offenses after April 1996 before 2012 all which by 42 Pa. C.S. has expired to be used in new ACT 10 and New ACT 29 amendment to SORNA.

      Subchapter “I” is and Amendment of subchapter “H” and both are still SORNA. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says you cannot have two sex offender laws pro porting instructions at the same time. Only one is the true law not both. If it is subchapter “H” or subchapter “I” it was constructed in an invalid way. Read 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a0.

      I I was wrong on this the courts would have never took my case under 339 MD 2018 or my Kings Bench at the PASC at docket 122 MM 2018 would have been throw out.

      But I am still there and the Court is pressuring the PSP and the PAG to come on with the opposition brief. They say they need more time. More time to do or find what?

      My case is not a case of fact finding it is a case of pure law conclusion. Does 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 mean what it says “All former Megan’s Laws shall EXPIRE. . . . . . ARE THESE WORD TO BE TAKEN SERIOUS.

      They were used to bring the Pa. SORNA into compliance with AWA not realizing they were also freeing sex offenders with former Megan’s Law offenses. They just put every body under SORNA who were under Megan’s Law back in 12-20-12.

      Now today SORNA was deemed unconstitutional in retroactive application and many Pre-SORNA people are due relief ever lifetime offenders. The DA Freed of Cumberland County was the first to see it. He tried hard to get the Pa. Assembly to re write Megan’s Law 2 that is why he appealed to the SCOTUS with a cert to buy time by the Pa. Assemble they did not re write ML2 because of Derhammer case so the amended subchapter “H” SORNA again and added subchapter “I” ACT 10 and ACT 29 which is not possible by the construction Act of Laws in Pa. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a)

      In the end no one on this site seems to understand what I am trying to say. It is deeper than most understand. But the courts judge understand me. and they are not playing with the PSP or PAG’s they want answers by brief now. The PSP has none they are looking to the PAG and the PAG is looking back at the Pa. Assembly, and the Pa. Assembly wants to hold to 42 Pa. 9799.23(b)(2) that courts have no authority to get into sex offender issues.

      That is BS Muniz and other cases so other wise.

    • #45645
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      I hope people on this site would join in the fight. Waiting is what the PSP want people to do. The PSP feel confident that the court will listen to 41 Pa. 9799.23(b)(2) and stay outthe fight.

      They know that it is the court that can give problems to what is really going on in PA ACT 10 and ACt 29 BS

    • #45643
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      I am still in the fight – the PAG is trying a time delay trick asking for extension of time to delay their brief. I made objection the court gave them the extension any way with instructions to ask for no more time extensions.

      Case 339 MD 2018 is the core case that the PASC kings Bench is watching close. The 339 MD 2018 case has a 3 judge panel on the case to make sure they get the decision on ACT 10 and ACT 29 right.

      The PASC is watching under Kings Bench 122 MM 2018 if the Commonwealth court makes one wrong order the jurisdiction will change. It is up to me to apply for jurisdiction change if I feel I am being treated unfairly by the court in case 339 MD 2018.

      So far the Commonwealth court is doing the right things in case 339 MD 2018. The PAG is stalling for time to file a simple reply brief in opposition to my brief.

      My position is simple. It it it under matters of conclusions of Law no facts to present at all.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says all former Megan’s Laws expired 12-20-12, and ACT 10 and ACT 29 call for all people with a former Megan’s law offense after April 1996 before December 2012 to register with the PSP.

      If you have an expired former Megan’s Law how can it be used to be applied under ACT 10 and ACT 29? Expired Law cannot be revived back to life to be used- You would have to do another offense.

      1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) in the construction Act that says that it is not possible to Amend SORNA to make ACT 10 or ACT 29 to amend it to call for former expired law to come back to life. They look at it as a re write of Megan’s Law 2.

      Commonwealth v. Derhammer 11-22-17 shut that down by deciding at the PASC that Megan’s Law 2 is Expired and Megan’s Law 3 was made unconstitutional by Commonwealth Neiman. The PSP has no room to call Pre-SORNA people to comply with ACT 10 or ACT 29 from their former Megan’s Law offense. SORNA 9799.41 means what it says – – – – EXPIRED __——-___
      expired law cannot be used in ACT 10 or ACT 29.

      1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) provides that Pa. legislature did not intend an ABSURD result to have ACT 10 and ACT 29 apply in statutory scheme as expired law to be applied to amended law.

      42 Pa. 9799.41 means what is says as good law of SORNA – expired former Megan’s Law is expired and cannot be applied in ACT 10 or ACT 29 [.]

      1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) gives express definition to old expired Megan’s Law expired in provision as 42 Pa. C.S. 9795.1 and 9795.2 no longer exist to be applied. The Pa. Assembly just cannot re write the law and unexpire expired law.

      If they knew that wanted to use former Megan’s Law provision they should have repealed SORNA and made a savings clause. They did not do that they expired the old Megan’s Laws out of greed for compliance money from The Fed AWA pressure. Former Megan’s Laws 1 2 3 are not AWA compliant. they cannot be recalled to life. can i GET AN amen. The PASC is the only court that put ACT 10 and ACT 29 to death. The Commonwealth court has to fight through 9799.23 B)(2) which says the court shall have no authority to relieve a sexual offender from the duty to register under this subchapter or to modify the requirements of this subchapter as they relate to the sexual offender.

      This is BS and against our right to suit in court. the Pa. Constitution says in Article 1 Section 11 says All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and eight and justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct.

      The PAG and PSP are running out of steam – they are going to need the Pa Assembly soon to re write SORNA to some how recapture a former Megan’s Law offender some other way than ACT 10 and ACT 29. Watch. it is coming.

      I just need my day in court to slam ACT 10 and ACT 29 off all of us.

    • #45665
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      Great report!

      I check in almost every day to 339 MD 2018. Now since you said that PASC is watching 339 MD 2018
      I can just focus on it.
      Isn’t 42 Pa. 9799.23(b)(2), the part about the court not having any authority over sex offender cases, in violation of our civil rights, yet alone the separation of powers? Talk about unconstitutional!! Well since the 5th is next Wednesday and they lose a day due to the holiday. We may have an answer in about 2 weeks or so.
      Is 42 Pa. 9799.23(b)(2) part of act 10 or 29? You take it down it goes away too correct?

      Keep up the good work. I am supporting you in this and might take the day off to travel to wherever. Will it be in Philly or Harrisburg if you have oral arguments in front of PASC?

    • #45683
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      I get what your putten down, I may not understand all the writing but I know your in it to win it for everyone, your a selfless person which in my opinion is awesome and ya don’t see that everyday, especially nowadays, if I had the money to pay the lawyer to keep going the SCOTUS I would have, funny thing is once PASC hear you their going to start throwing the book at PSP and the PAG, maybe even the General assholes, I do think they will try to appeal it to SCOTUS once PASC makes their rulling though.

    • #45682
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Mark

      The Court that I am dealing with is in Harrisburg, PA. No oral arguments will be needed because this is an applied challenge on a conclusion of law not a fight over facts. The Pa. Assembly wrote 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to mean what is the question? 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(2) sets the defining of what 42 Pa. C.S. means. There should be no ambiguity in what “SHALL EXPIRE” mean.

      1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) tells us that the Pa. Assembly must not set penal codes in front of people to be in an absurd result as having double talk. Expired former Megan’s Law are in reality expired like the penal code says or they are not.

      It is an absurd result to write a law that says the former Megan’s Laws shall expire and then years later write in ACT 10 and ACT 29 that a former Megan’s Law can be used to have a pre- SORNA person register with the PSP. This is the question the PSP has to answer 5 September 2018 in a breif and I have no idea what they can say other than lie or say something that will make no legal sense to the court.

    • #45721
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      I was reading an article titled “Pennylvania’s SORNA Update Spring 2018” written by Aaron Marcus Esq. as some of you know, he deals extensively with Megan’s Law issues.

      He says in his article that the General Assembly CAN reenact an expired statute IF the re-enactment contains every single word of the previous expired statute. He doesn’t address what if they add every word and then ADD MORE words.
      So I am confused as I thought once a statute expired, that’s it. There is no such thing as a re-enactment. Apparently, I was mistaken.

      My question would be does adding every word of an expired statute to ACT 10 of 2018 AND then ADDING more words, does that make the new statute illegal?

      • #45755
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Chuck

        Marcus Esq lawyer is sending you down a bad road. His article is not expressing Commonwealth law well.

        1. Read for yourself 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 It is still subchapter “H” ending ” ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE. this was written 12-20-12 to get the AWA compliance money. The Pa. Assembly did not realize that they open the floor gate to all pre- SORNA people when they did that one act 12-20-10.

        2. What does this mean? To get the answer read 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1)
        (b) Provisions subject to strict construction.–All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:
        (1) Penal provisions.

        42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is a PENAL CODE strictly to mean what it says[.] ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE.

        3. Now ACT 10 and ACT 29 comes years later to say i.e. if you have a former megan’s law offense after April 1996 and before December 2012 you must register with the PSP. – this is an absurd result by 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1)

        1 Pa. C.S. section 1922. Presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent.

        In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

        (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

        It is unreasonable and absurd in result to expire a law and they years later unexpire the law to fix ACT 10 and ACT 29.

        4. Read 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and understand what it is saying to you. § 1971. Implied repeal by later statute.

        (a) Revision or exclusive system covering entire subject.–Whenever a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes upon a particular subject, or sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute, such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statutes upon the same subject.

        What this means is Subchapter “H” is an amendment of SORNA, SORNA is the purported revision of all statutes for sex offenders in Pa. It covers matter of former statutes in saying they are expired. Subchapter “H” was not ruled as a whole unconstitutional just the application of retroactivity of SORNA. Now to correct this subchapter “I” shows up to purport new matters on a former Statute called Megan’s Law 1 2 3 and subchapter “I” uses expired former megan’s law out side the statutory construction of 1 Pa. C.S. 1928 ; 1922, and 1971(a) When SORNA as good law says at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 all former Megan’s Laws shall expire. The Pa. law is clear on what it is saying the PSP don’t want to accept it.

        Sept 5, 2018 the PAG in case 339 MD 2018 must provide the Commonwealth court with a brief explaining this conclusion of law. I wonder what they will say in that brief?
        Expired don’t really mean expired?

        WOW. I know the PAS will be the top court to close it all out. I am ready with King’s Bench to appeal and so are they but they want to waste time and go to the Superior appeaals court firt I will object and set metter to 122 MM 2018 PASC Kings Bench for 60 day shut down of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

        Do you understand any of what I am saying?

      • #45768
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Chuck

        The re newing of Former Megan’s Laws would put Pa. back out of compliance with AW for Federal money.

        That was the main reason to have expire them. Are you thinking as you read what lawyers are saying without understanding that Former Megan’s Laws had no money from AWA to help push Megan’s Laws .

        The reason for expired former Megan’s Law was to get the AWA money. Now They want the money and want to revert to no compliance status and have the cake and est it to. Chuck the article you read by that Philadelphia lawyer is not spelling out the tell all you need to know.

        It was a mistake for the Pa. Assembly to expire the former the Meagan’s Laws, but they did it and it has meaning that the courts will hold them to. If you spill the milk under the bridge can you get it back? They court will listen to the reasoning of the Pa. Assembly’s actions of the pass. They want to take it back now because they see now the miss steps. Of 42 Pa. 9799.41. Put that with 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. 1922 and 1928 you get the law saying want it is to say. Expired means expired.

        If you got a pardon would you want the governor to take take that pardon back?
        And say, when I gave it it was not a pardon. what was it? When you read 42 Pa. 9799.41 what do you see. what does it mean to an out sider looking at it?

        Expire means only one think to the every day people of Pa. Done- no longer there to be used. any other meaning is Bs

    • #45720
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      I thought you were going to be giving an oral argument, yea your right, psp either has to lie through their teeth or give some bs legal mumbo, there is no writing in the history of Megan’s law that they can use because like you said it’s all expired, when we went to court my attorney even said, there is no valid Megan’s law for pre sorns, ACT 10 is an illegal fix basically waiting for its demise, wander what they will come up with next when ACT 10 is knocked down.

    • #45718
      Avatar
      Molly

      Study: Oregon Has the Fewest Sex Offenders Per Capita.

      A new study shows that Oregon has the fewest sex offenders per capita of any state, with only 195 sex offenders per one million residents.

      The company that put out the study, called A Secure Life, looked at a database of registered sex offenders in official state registries to get a count, then compared that data to the overall state population. Oregon, has a total of 707 sex offenders in that database, which makes the state home to the fewest number of sex offenders overall AND the fewest per capita.

      Alaska is the worst off on the list, with over 5,000 sex offenders per one million residents.

      Of course, a lot of people have problems with the whole concept of a sex offender registry. Teens who share nude photos can end up on the registry for life for disseminating child pornography, even if the teen only shared photos of himherself. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that sex offender registries can isolate sex offenders from resources that could help them, making them more likely to relapse and making communities less safe.

      Perhaps the differences between the states has to do with Oregon’s sex offender registration laws—in our state, only “predatory” sex offenders are listed in the public registry, and they’re listed for life. Non-violent offenders can get removed from the state registry with a petition after 10 years. Other states register sex criminals of all stripes, including 18-year-old high schoolers who have consensual sex with their high school-aged girlfriends.

    • #45708
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      Thanks for the explanation. That said they still only have a week to get a coherent and plausible response to your brief. Oh, btw will you get a copy of their brief?

    • #45752
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chick
      I think adding words makes it expostfacto, adding punishment, correct me if I am wrong but that what it’s saying to me. And I don’t think they could reapply it to someone who has finished they’re time on the reg either. I could be wrong but don’t think I am, if they did apply it again it would be expostfacto, in my case there was 0 due process what so ever, it would also violate due process in my case, I wander of it would violate the equal protection clause also. I’m just rambling now.

    • #45754
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @Brian,
      Thus enters their favorite term “the registry is civil in nature and thus is immune from ex post facto protections.
      We shall see

    • #45763
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      One would think if the registery were civil and none punitive and the general assembly is claiming ,then why oh why would the lower courts in cumberland county and PASC have ruled on Muniz, Derhammer and the rest as a violation of the Pennsylvania and Federal constitution. The general assembly just won’t ever give up, no other class of criminal has to undergo this amount of punishment and banishment from society for the rest of they’re lives, I don’t know how many years Arron Marcus has of experience doing this, no offense to him when saying this though, he is a public defender, not that public defenders don’t know anything I just think that he may not have the experience as a long term defense attorney and he definitely doesn’t have an aggressive approach when dealing with Masico, just my opinion, my Attorney was pretty intimidating to the DA and they obviously didn’t want a court fight, my old attorney was a pushover and they were just walking all over him, they knew once I hired this guy not to mess with him, anyway like you say chuck, we shall see and hope we don’t have to deal with this bs again. I could be completely wrong about Marcus though,

    • #45765
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      I just find everything interesting. The issue is that there are those in society that do not understand how easily it is to be out on the registry This also don’t understand the concept of justice means punishing and then forgiving. If you banish everyone from good paying jobs, how are they suppose to move on with their lives. One gentlemen told me the other day that sex offenders are NOT meant to belong to society after being released. Ok, how are they suppose to live then? His answer was “that’s not my problem” it is your problem IF you are saying they can’t live in society.
      From what I understand Aaron Marcus was quoting a court case that explicitly said re-enactment was ok as long as every word was used. Even IF this is true, we still have the ex post facto question to solve. I don’t think after the current registry (Muniz) was deemed punishment you can claim the new version (Act 10 of 2018) is civil even though it is more restrictive than the version that was deemed punishment (Muniz).
      I can’t wsit until the registry is deemed illegal due to being cruel and unusual.

    • #45772
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Chuck

      What does the Pa. law in 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says happen to all former Megan’s Law?

      And them it list them:

      I will put it here for all to see:

      § 9799.41. Expiration.

      The following provisions shall expire December 20, 2012:

      Section 9718.3 (relating to sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders).

      Section 9791 (relating to legislative findings and declaration of policy).

      Section 9792 (relating to definitions).

      Section 9795.1 (relating to registration).

      Section 9795.2 (relating to registration procedures and applicability).

      Section 9795.3 (relating to sentencing court information).

      Section 9795.4 (relating to assessments).

      Section 9795.5 (relating to exemption from certain notifications).

      Section 9796 (relating to verification of residence).

      Section 9797 (relating to victim notification).

      Section 9798 (relating to other notification).

      Section 9798.1 (relating to information made available on the Internet and electronic notification).

      Section 9798.2 (relating to administration).

      Section 9798.3 (relating to global positioning system technology).

      Section 9799 (relating to immunity for good faith conduct).

      Section 9799.1 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania State Police).

      Section 9799.2 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole).

      Section 9799.3 (relating to board).

      Section 9799.4 (relating to counseling of sexually violent predators).

      Section 9799.7 (relating to exemption from notification for certain licensees and their employees).

      Section 9799.8 (relating to annual performance audit).

      Section 9799.9 (relating to photographs and fingerprinting).

      If you were the judge – what would this of SORNA subchapter “H” be saying to you?

      Then Subchapter “I” comes years later and ask the courts to ignore what “H” says “I” is bringing back all the former Megan’s Laws from April 1996 yet before December 2012,

      Are you not understanding that lawyer don’t have a good sense of plain law understanding like you and I

    • #45776
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Arron Marcus has of experience in selling out to the DA and judges that appoint him to cases. He is not a fighter of the cause saying what the Pa Assembly can do in bringing back megan’s Law provisions to apply again as of old. Question do you know what the Former Megan’s Law were expired? To comply with AWA money deal to get into compliance. Now they want to get out of compliance and still get the AWA money?
      Chuck take a few minutes to re think this.

      Does it make legal sense at all?

      Expired old law and years later bring it back to say we want it now for ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      They should have repealed the law instead of expired the old law. You can use a savings clause to bring back old law. But to expire is another creature in the legal world. check it out so you can be in the know. The court is on my side. If PAG that I am dealing with is trying to delay to find what Arron Marcus has experience in bringing back old law He is on the wrong team. He should be helping my PAG she ask for more time to give a brief on this very issue and she is finding it hard to stay on point other than you say ACT 10 and ACT 29 are civil and not more onerous that is the old argument they have to give to the courts pf Pa.

    • #45790
      Avatar
      Mark

      Of course the PASC could say that ALL of it is punitive and will not allow it to be called civil any longer.
      We could hope
      Oh still no letter

    • #45794
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hi Terry,
      I agree they have been expired. However, I take it there is some debate in the legal community of whether or not an expired statute can be re-enacted. Some, like Aaron Marcus, says there is precedent (case law) that says as long as every word is used, a statutes can be revived. HOWEVER, the point would be moot in this debate as the Commonwealth is trying to apply the new statute to crimes that already been committed.
      So the only true question is whether Act 10 of 2018 is civil or punitive

    • #45804
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Hi Chuck

      The punitive or Civil is not the real issue at hand in theses SORNA matters.

      The true issue is Statutory Construction make up of ACT 10 and ACT 29

      Re enactment of expired law is not possible.

      Repealed law yes with saving clause but expired law – No No No No way.

      Think of the pardon from a governor. Can it be ever un done? Expired law once expired is expired never to be unexpired.

      Yes the Pa. Assembly can re write ML 2 in word and call it new law, but it cannot be applied as if to offenses already done and over. You have to commit a new offense. The old offense is dead and gone. Never to come back to life.

      So if I did an offense in 1999 and it expired in 12-20-12 and a new law comes forth in 02-21-18 and 06-11-18 called ACT 10 and ACT 29 and in that law a call to cover expired law is risen. The New law says if you have an old law violation you have register now again. This is not so. Your old offense was expired to be satisfied and done. The only way to call to register again is to do another offense and be charged.

      The courts have to tell the Pa. Assembly and the PSP, DA’s, and PAG’s that Nieman put Megan’s Law 3 out of application. Derhammer put Megan’s Law 2 out of application. SORNA stated clear that all former Megan’s Laws are expired.

      Case law Weaver v. Graham is the SCOTUS is the case that puts all the Puntive and civil claims to an end. Smith v. Doe of Alaska was done in the Michigan fight and that case says that the highest court in the state makes the rules on civil and punitive issues. That is what ACT 10 and ACT 29 will come to.

      Pa. Assembly has tried to make ACT 10 and ACT 29 less onerous in restrictions, but. The new fight will be that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are

      1. Servitude where you show up to the PSP at your expense and report your information to PSP officer who is paid. You have to be a slave to the system this is cruel and usual punishment.

      2. The contract you sign is one sided and if you refuse to sign it you will see jail. Punitive action on state part.

      3. Pa. Assembly don’t know when to throw in the towel and face defeat. They are in a make any law mode that we can to get by this election year. The courts will figure it out later.

    • #45831
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hi Yerry,
      I think it is important to remember they are NOT re-enacting a statute rather just adding previous text of an expired statute to s new statute.
      I would argue that you can’t just add a new word or words to an previous statute and call it a new statute.
      I think it is also important to remember that the Commonwealth is trying to say “oh we didn’t lose because you are looking st the wrong rules. The right rules are the ones we are creating right now.”

    • #45833
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @Chuck

      I Think 1 Pa. 1971(a) is being over looked. It is the law of Pa. The Pa. Assembly made 1 Pa. 1971(a) I just am showing the courts what the law in in conclusion.

      My case is an applied challenge of law conclusion. Either the law says what it means or not. If it is an or not Explain to the court the reasons the Pa. Assemble made the law and why it is on the books.

      1. SORNA 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 was made for a reason.
      There are cases that put this law in perspective.
      Derhammer
      Nieman
      Persons
      Polizer

      All have set the bar on allied challenge on Former Megan’s Law application. It is today not possible to unexpire former Megan’s Law offenses.

    • #45852
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      No One seems to understand that the Pa. Assembly, PSP, and PAG’s, and DA’s are out of touch with their legal training. They are under a delusion that Pa. 42 C.S. 9799.41 don’t say what it says clear.

      I will put it before you are you tell me in every day talk what it says:

      Title 42 § 9799.41. Expiration
      The following provisions shall expire December 20, 2012:
      Section 9718.3 (relating to sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders).
      Section 9791 (relating to legislative findings and declaration of policy).
      Section 9792 (relating to definitions).
      Section 9795.1 (relating to registration).
      Section 9795.2 (relating to registration procedures and applicability).
      Section 9795.3 (relating to sentencing court information).
      Section 9795.4 (relating to assessments).
      Section 9795.5 (relating to exemption from certain notifications).
      Section 9796 (relating to verification of residence).
      Section 9797 (relating to victim notification).
      Section 9798 (relating to other notification).
      Section 9798.1 (relating to information made available on the Internet and electronic notification).
      Section 9798.2 (relating to administration).
      Section 9798.3 (relating to global positioning system technology).
      Section 9799 (relating to immunity for good faith conduct).
      Section 9799.1 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania State Police).
      Section 9799.2 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole).
      Section 9799.3 (relating to board).
      Section 9799.4 (relating to counseling of sexually violent predators).
      Section 9799.7 (relating to exemption from notification for certain licensees and their employees).
      Section 9799.8 (relating to annual performance audit).
      Section 9799.9 (relating to photographs and fingerprinting).

      This is SORNA law that is not touched by MUNIZ.

      Muniz came to us in July 19, 2017

      Title 42 § 9799.41. Expiration came to us on 12-20-12. Its purpose was to expire all former Megan’s Laws so that SORNA could be the new law on law fit all sex offenders in PA.

      But no one thought to repeal former Megan’s laws with a savings clause if the new law didn’t work out for PA. And it did not. Muniz has turned SORNA into a puzzle for the PSP to understand how it works for those who sign a contract plea to register 10 years, and under SORNA their contracted ten years went to 15 years tier 1 25 Years Tier 3 Lifetime tier 3 more onerous than what they signed for.

      Case Weaver v. Graham sets the expost facto claim in perspective by a test:

      1. Is the new Law expost facto in date to quantum leap the results of law application backwards in time instead of forward from the date the is signed into law forward.

      2. Does the new law disadvantage the offender in any result to add a punitive element to the New law.

      Under ACT 10 and ACT 29 the #1 test of Weaver v. Graham is yes. If your offense was before 02-21-18 ACT 10 or before 06-11-18 for ACT 29 that is RETROACTIVE and EXPOST FACTO

      Under ACT 10 and ACT 29 the #2 test of Weaver v. Graham is yes. in that it is punitive in that it is
      1. Servitude – you have to take your time to come to the PSP to give information like a salve to PSP workers who get money to collect the information from you.

      2. If you don’t come to the PSP on their time frame and give the information JAIL will be the result. That is punitive in nature. JAIl for not compliance to the boss system of servitude.

      3. The contract is one sided and forced on you – whether you agree to the terms or not they set them. That is a force contract of duress. That is punitive in threat of jail if you don’t comply.

      If it was Civil it would be a fine , it is not civil it is criminal

    • #45970
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Today is September 5th

      It is the date that PAG must mail a brief to the Commonwealth court to be file by 5 September in opposition to a brief that I filed in applied challenge to ACT 10 and ACT 29 in application to Pre- SORNA people, by use of expired former Megan’s Laws. under 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41

      The PAG has to explain in conclusion of Law what it meant when 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 mean when it says exprire.

      Derhammer and Polzer, and persons, and Neiman courts know what it mean. I think the PSP think you have to do all your time to get the benefit of 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41, BUT THAT IS NO SO. On 12-20-12 when SORNA took over as the main SO law in Pa. all former megan’s laws expire then, we just did not know it back then to make this challenge because wetter. We are not Lawyers and we had no idea what was going on back then, we we know now and there is a thing called Nuc Pro Tunc which means give me now for the back then and that is where we are today and the PAG will send me her brief and I will share it with all yall. My win will be your win. They will appeal but I will file a Superersedeas application to injunction ACT 10 and ACT 29 enforcement if the PSP appeal which I know then will under 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23 (b)(2) talking about courts not having a right to get involved with Megan’s Law issues. And they stay rule

      A win in my case of 339 MD 2018 will help people in two areas:

      1) If have a sex offense under Megan’s Law for life non SVP which required you to register as a sex offender as a result that conviction and it was prior after APRIL 1996 yet before to December 20, 2012, and subsequently the PSP is calling you to register as a result of that conviction due to Pennsylvania’s implementation of ACT 10 or ACT 29, you are entitled to relief when I win in court.

      2) If you were required to register as a sex offender as a result of a conviction prior to December 20, 2012, and subsequently was retroactively required to fulfill more obligations as a result of this conviction due to Pennsylvania’s implementation of SORNA on December 20, 2012, you are entitled to relief.

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

      • #46003
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        niether will ACT 10 or ACT 29 apply to you

      • #46005
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        neither will ACT 10 or ACT 29 apply to you

    • #46004
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      We will get a decision soon enough!!

    • #45996
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry
      I saw that your 339 MD 2018 file was just updated to show they responded…. eagerly waiting to see what they have to say! Keep going Terry!

    • #45992
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      Here is how I see what’s going to happen: You will win on the 339 appeals. and the Commonwealth will appeal But where to? PASC maybe, right into 122 MM 2018. They think they be smart. but NOOOOO!!!!!!

      Oh, what if they miss the deadline?

    • #45991
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      September 22, 2017 at 8:22 am Reply #21960 by terry brunson

      “The people who are at the PSP and the AG offices are afraid of Ghost and they are donw on what they should be up on – Their oath to protect and serve all people’s rights. . . . . .

      PSP and AG minister are like bullies. . . . .

      They are bothering you because you are the little guy. . . . .

      But you have big brothers – and your big brothers will deal with the bullies in due time. . . . . Wait until 19 October 2017 and you will see the light that Muniz and Jackson v. commomwealth of July 7, 2016 all the big brother protections will come to your aid. . . . Please trust that the little guy is not left out. You may feel that way because you cannot see all that is going on – but know this: people are thinking about your rights.

      I am one of them. . . . and I am one of many that you cannot count. . Hold on don’t give up – – – – – help is on the way . . . . .”

      …You may or may not remember your post, but it was your words at the end of what I quoted that caused me to cry far more than when I received my Eagle, Globe and Anchor in 2002 and almost as much as I did when I first heard my child’s cry after being born while I was serving this Country and protecting millions of lives.

      I am not a praying man, but I continue to wish well in health & life to you Sir. Our fate in Pennsylvania rests in your hands. Thank you terry brunson. 🙂

      P.s Glad to know that Chuck is a Moderator for NARSOL and Brian has been removed of the registry after paying for a lawyer. It is unfortunate that is the only way for a chance to so many without income or dwelling of their own. Even after the laws we are supposed to obey are not followed by the creators. Anyhow, I wrote this since I had a chance. I am serving a 30 months sentence for Child Support court payment violation (How can I pay if no one is hiring me to earn the money to pay, right?…well, not to the courts) and have a felony charge pending upon release for violating SORNA time frame compliance for registering a location while being incarcerated (How can I register within 36 hours if I am not let to do so even after telling officials?). My health has drastically dropped to near severe levels. I know I will not make it much further, but I hope, for that is all I can any longer do, that this laws get reformed or dismantled for the sake of future generations and the survival of this Society.

      Blessing to all! 🙂

    • #46022
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      Your 100% right, they tried saying I had to register for life due to Act 10 but as soon as we went to court the tone changed, even though Act 10 says people have to finish their time then jump through this flaiming hoop, and eventually oh now you have to register so more, just because we say you have to, It’s just not constitutionally possible for this to be happening, Michigan isn’t even complying to the supreme courts ruling, here in Pennsylvania we have to go to court to get off the reg for pre sorns anyway, until they hear you Terry, then all will be freed.

    • #46029
      Avatar
      8th grade kid

      I have read from the beginning of all this since July of last year. Never posted. Been a bit busy with 8th grade at school. What gets me is this: 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 aka Sorna 2 was suppose to be holding on to people by the necks with a leash so tight. The former Sorna is dead right. Ok, then we have another part which is act 10 Muniz I think suppose to be people off the registery right? Then you got Terry going in and say wtf cant hold on to people like this. So I’m a bit confused 2 laws into 1 law H and I type of thing. So really basicly Muniz just put a foot print in so others can try to challenge it even further and or enhance it to fit to get people off the registery. I’m only trying to learn things at my level. I have my older cousin who she is an offender. Before 12/02. Thank you Mr. Terry for your hard work and others who post on here.

      • #46060
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ 8th grade kids

        I am terry brunson – i am glad that you are up on the SORNA fight. If I can clarify the issue you may understand better.

        Pa.’s main sex offender law is SORNA which was enacted on 12-20-12

        Before SORNA was Megan’s Law 1 , 2, and 3

        Mr. J. Muniz appealed on SORNA issue that SORNA was applied to him in an expost facto retroactive way that increased his registration in time from 10 years to life time with 4 times a year report verification.

        Muniz won his case on July 19 2017 and because of his case win so many others won too.

        Now the Muniz decision has been undermined by the Pa. Assembly, They don’t want all people to take advantage of Muniz’s win so the Pa Assembly enacted an amendment to SORNA as subchapter “I” calling for former Megan’s Law 1, 2, and 3 people to register under new ACT 10 and ACT 29

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 are new laws that are illegal because the Pa. Statutory construction Act says that expired Law cannot be made alive again. Only repealed law can with a savings clause. The Pa. Assembly made no savings clause for Old Megan’s Laws. SORNA 9799.41 expired all the former Megan’s Laws.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 wants to use the old Megan’s Laws to recapture Pre-SORNA people to have then stuck on the registry forever, or until their 10 years is up.

        But the truth is that on 10-20-12 when SORNA took effect all former Megan’s Laws expired and was done. All former Megan’s Law people were to be let off the registry. 17,000 people This being an election year the PSP and DA’s and PAG’s hit the roof that 17,000 people have to be let off the registry They have to move with a quickness to close the off load of the registry.

        The PSP appealed to the Judicial Committee asking for 9 to 18 months to review all the sex offenders in Pa, and all that are to get relief by Muniz they will let they off only.

        Butler is another case that is to go before the PASC court in 30 days it is a PSP appeal to the PASC on SVP hearings are unfair and unconstitutional. That is as much as I can tell you to bring you up to speed on what is going on right now.

        I have a case before the Commonwealth court at case docket 339 MD 2018 that is set to make history in Pa on the Expired Law of former Megan’s Laws being used to recapture pre=SORNA people. You cannot not use expired law to hold people to ACT 10 and ACT 29 under a case called Weaver V. Graham.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 both are Expost facto and applied in a retroactive way the PSP and Pa Assembly think that they can apply ACT 10 and ACT 29 in a retroactive way because it is civil and not punitive.

        But Act 10 and ACT 29 are punitive in retrictive is these ways

        1. Servitude – the ACT 10 and ACT 29 make people slaves to a PSP worker who gets paid to take your information you have to take off from work and be a slave reporting to the PSP

        2. The PSP force you in to a contract to agree to give all your information by a threat of cohesion of jail if you don’t comply.

        3. The ACT 10 and ACT 29 are both invalid amendments against 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and 1922, and 1928

        4. The reputation of shaming in protected liberty interest violation of Pa. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 1

        5. Boader line cruel punishment in sex offenders done finished their time in jail now they are force to report to the PSP as if it is like being on probation or parole. against the Pa. Constitution Art 1 sec 13
        6. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are Expost Facto and applied to call for the use of EXPIRED former Megan’s Law. Expired means Expired.

    • #46072
      Avatar
      Brian

      Actually butler may not win, my attorney said he may not win, I can’t rememebr exactly what he said but it made sense what he said about the butler case, I wish I could remember but I just can’t.
      Well 8th grade kid, I hope we don’t strike fear into you like the government wants to happen, As you know that your cousin is not a monster either, not sure what he she was convicted of, I would be more afraid of what the government will do then us harmless flys, seeing we are a bunch of offenders here and have been on this site for a couple years, pretty funny with this so called high recidivism study’s going around that for the last two years we’ve been going through the Muniz case no one on here has recidivated, I know this because we would no longer be posting on here, we would be sitting in a jail cell, Recidivism means repeating or commiting a similar crime in case you don’t understand.
      My advise to you is walk a streigt line in life, don’t get in trouble, don’t watch porn, make sure you get a persons identification if your over 18 and decide to pursue a relationship, always make sure they are over 18 if you are, better yet don’t have intercorse until you get married, don’t get sucked into peer pressure, don’t use drugs and acohal, don’t steel, don’t cheat, obide by all laws, local and federal, no matter what anyone says, you could get in trouble when your 19like I did and pay for it for literally the rest of your life, good luck.

    • #46070
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      Since you haven’t posted it yet I assume you have not received the brief from PAG. Did they send it snail mail? One would assume that it would be overnight since it is a legal brief.
      Thanks for your explanation to 8th Grade Kid. Everyone who knows about the injustice of the system is one more voice against it.

      Still, no letter and it has been 2 weeks since I called them last.

      • #46183
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        @ Mark

        The Pa AG office files electronically with the Court and mails Terry’s copy by mail. There is no need for overnight mail as mail from Harrisburg ( Pa AG’s Office) to Philly (to Terry) takes no more than 2 days. Also, they are required to save taxpayer’s money by using standard 1st class mail unless there is a special need. Even if they dropped it in the mail late Aed eve, T every should have it by Saturday.

    • #46076
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @8th grade kid

      If you want to follow Terry’s case –

      https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/Appellate.aspx

      Do a Search as a Docket #

      He has two:
      339 MD 2018
      122 MM 2018

    • #46078
      Avatar
      8th grade kid

      To Terry,
      Thank you 😉 I’m up to speed now. You made perfect since for putting it on my level of understanding;-) I am also be doing a book report for my grade towards the middle of school year about all this which we were given a heads up on any subject that deals with a news clippings about current events which this will help a lot to help my school to get a deeper true understanding of what is really going on in the local regions area which in this state of Pennsylvania. It has to be in 5 pages of book report. I had chosen this subject due to misconception and people are really need to understand that not all offenders are not scary and not diabolical. Yes, in it also be possible to help others in light of things and somehow help others like yourself to gain an understanding that their is hope and not be helpless in life. My mom thinks this is a good subject to do. She gave me the ok to go on here to speak with you all threw out my research. Yes, she sits by me when I type this. Now as far as my own real opinion ^u^ I hope you all get to be off the bad list on the web. It really is not fair to be on the registration on the web. I know you will win Terry😉 it is matter of a short time before you knock them down the registration web site and psp. Please keep writing to let everyone know you have what it takes to get things done in it’s fullness

      Snoopy, thank you for the website to follow Terry😉😆

    • #46081
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Brian @8thgradekid

      You forgot to tell the kid to brush their teeth before going to bed, wash behind their ears, eat their vegetables, and never, ever speed!

      Also, be safe with selfies and social media. What seems cool now, could get you in a LOT of trouble.

      Seriously, it’s all the best advice that we can give you. Be smart and stay out of trouble. There are so many jobs or possibilities, or times with family that I could have had….

    • #46156
      Avatar
      Brian

      @ Snoopy
      Thanks for adding that in there, guess I forgot a few things, hope all is well for you my friend, haven’t seen you posting much, but then again neither have.

      @Terry I checked out you case, just waiting to see what the PAG has to say.

      • #46238
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        The PAG filed her opposition Brief on 5 Sept 2018

        By court rule no less than 14 days shall pass before court gives attention to the issues in the opposition brief. That would be 25 Sept 2018 that the Court has to render a disposition of the case 339 MD 2018.

        I think the Commonwealth court will do the right thing in this case 339 MD 2018 because the PASC court is watching under King’s Bench. 122 MM 2018.

        My case 339 MD 2018 has a double jurisdiction on it. I did this to skip the middle appeal court called the Superior Court of Appeals. It would only be a delay to go to that court. On the issue that I am challenging it is a matter of public importance of weather 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 means what it was voted to say. ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE 12-20-12

        Since this is true that the only reason it was done was because AWA was putting pressure on the Pa Assembly to expire the Former Meagan’s Laws or loose AWA compliance money. The Pa Assembly could have repealed the former Megan’s Laws and made a Savings Clause stating that if SORNA of 12-20-12 don’t work out, which it didn’t they could have brought back on line the old Megan’s Law and have old law and SORNA governing Pa sex offenders., But that is not what they did. They expired the Law. Expired law has no saving clause applications.

        So in hind sight the PA Assemble things that it can just Amend subchapter “H” and make a subchapter “I” for continuation of registration. Not so. That violates the Statutory Construction ACT of tile 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1922, and 1928 .

        “H” is the good law that says 42 Pa. C.S 9799.41 that all former Megan’s Law are expired. Once a law is expired it is dead, satisfied, and cannot be resurrected to be applied to nothing.

        Then the Pa. Assembly makes “I” to say that if a person has a former Meagan’s Law after April 1996 before December 2012 they will have to continue to register though their offense was expired 12-20-12

        Now this is as clear as I can make it. You be the judge. Is “I” trying to revive expired former Megan’s Law 1 , 2, 3, to say they have to register people who’s Former Megan’s Law has expired?

        This is what I put before the Commonwealth court and the PASC be King’s Bench at 122 MM 2018

        The PAG wanted to get me to argue with her about Civil, punitive, and crazy stuff. That is no longer the issue. The issue is. Read tile 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 and when it says that AL former Meagan’s Laws expired – did they expire?

        If yes then 17,000 Pa. sex offenders will again be set free from the PSP registry and the MUNIZ decision will be right back at the top of the win list,. The stake are high. The Pa. Assembly has put itself it a jam that cannot be fixed by making new law to bring back old law that has expired.

        A win in the Commonwealth court will not mean much because the PAG is going to appeal and ask for a stay, and challenge the court’s authority by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23 (b) (2)

        It is the PASC court that will make the change needed. Have to get to the PASC form us all to win on this issue that will why I did the King’s Bench to the PASC

    • #46268
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hi Terry,
      For accuracy, I think it is important to point out that the Pa AG is not a woman but a man. His name is Josh Shapiro. Maybe the assistant attorney on your case is a woman but then her title would not be PAG it would be PAAG.
      What do you think of the Commonwealth’s claims that Act 10 is a new statute because it has words in it that the old statute didn’t. That would make your expired argument moot, because it is an entirely different statute.
      I would argue that the intent is the same and thus the statutes are the same.

      • #46293
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Chuck

        Act 10 being a new statute because it has words in it that the old statute didn’t. That would make your expired argument moot, because it is an entirely different statute.

        Chuck look at what ACT 10 and ACT 29 need to trigger application to a Pre-SORNA person. IT NEEDS FORMER MEGAN’S LAW. (After April 1996 before December 2012)

        Here is the New law call in scope:
        See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.54(a)(4) call of applicability to
        a former law of this Commonwealth. What former law do you think that mean? I will tell you: Megan’s Law 1, 2, 3.

        In order for ACT 10 and ACT 29 to be enforced on a Pre-SORNA person # 1 requirement is to have a former Megan’s Law that would require you to register under ACT 10 and ACT 29. Do you understand this?

        QUESTION? What happen to all former Megan’s Laws on 12-20-12 that could be applied to ACT 10 and ACT 29?

        Read 42 Pa. 9799.41 to find the right answer – they expired 12-20-12

        How are you going to unexpire expired former Megan’s Laws the ACT 10 and ACT 29 need to apply it?

        The Court has to make this clear to the PAAG, and all others in pasting the muster of 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. C.S. 1922, and 1 Pa. C.S. 1928. Nieman made former Megan’s law unconstitutional. Derhammer decision of 11-22-17 made former Megan’s Law provisions expired as the 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says.

        Act 10 and ACT 29 makes a call for former Megan’s Laws that have be expired. B rule of nuc pro tunc now for then if former megan’s laws expired 12-20-12 we can challenge now for then to be set free from ACT 10′ and ACT 29’s call to be under that to the courts.

        you said you would argue that the intent is the same and thus the statutes are the same.

        The intent is in an absurd result that 1 Pa. C.S. § 1928(b)(2)

        Rule of strict and liberal construction.
        (b) Provisions subject to strict construction.–All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:
        (1) Penal provisions.

        42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is a penal provision that was constructed to mean what it means on the word (EXPIRED) IN SPEAKING OF FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS,

        then

        1 Pa. C.S. § 1922 (1) on presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent.

        In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

        (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 are in direct fight with this rule.

        they are absurd – ACT 10 and ACT 29 makes a call to use expired former Megan’s Law to be applied within their call when those former Megan’s Laws no longer exist. Do you see the absurd call chuck?

        Next ACT 10 and ACT 29 has an impossibility of execution that is unreasonable. It is impossible to unexpire expired law.

        It is also unreasonable to think that it can be done by just a re-write of an old statue and think it does not have to line up with strict and liberal construction rules that the Same Pa. Assembly wants to make sound crazy in application today under ACT 10 and ACT 29 application to Pre-SORNA people.

        Chuck it is simple as this – What does 42 Pa. C. S 9799.41 say? ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE

        Chuck – What does expire mean? You answer it now and the court may have the same answer that you give now. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are dead laws that cannot be set to Per-SORNA people with expired former Megan’s Law offense that not longer exist.

        No expost facto or civil consequence arguments cannot over come this ACT 10 and ACT 29 fight. The PAAG and others have to explain to the court to show that ACT 10 and ACT 29 call to use expired former megan’s law is in intend a result that has absurd results, impossible of execution and is unreasonable.

        See 1 Pa. C.S. § 1922 (1) on presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent.

        In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

        (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

        • #46294
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          @ chuck

          42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.52(1)(2) Scope.

          This subchapter shall apply to individuals who were:

          (1) convicted of a sexually violent offense committed on or 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; or

          (2) 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.

          notice the call to apply expired former sexual offenses. it says who period has not expired, but all former Megan’s laws did expire 12-20-12 at SORNA enactment.

          this does not line up with reasonableness, it is not strictly expressed well to match 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41. Pre-SORNA people were done their peior by nuc pro tunc but did not know it. 12- 20-12 and ACT 10 and ACT 29 call you to obey this in its scope. Every person cannot see what I am trying to say, but the Judge will understand it clear as day.

    • #46284
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      Is there any precedent on the 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23 (b) (2)?
      After all its the court’s job to discover and remove bad laws. How can the legislature tell the court
      it doesn’t have authority over the content of a law? It makes no sense to me.

      So we will soon know if T.P.B vs PSP is a win and make news thru out the country.

      Would the King’s Bench immediately pick up any appeal?

    • #46286
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck

      I just looked at ACT10 and it is an amendment to the existing law. There is a lot of bold text in it I believe are the amendments. The title of the bill stated it is an OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS

    • #46295
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      Yea I see what your talken about, his law is on its way to the toilet, they know it’s a dirty law yet they want to add add add, it’s like oops I forgot something, oh wait I forgot something else, oh wait a minute let’s a this to, this is clearly a very punitive law, and if the courts can’t see it then they need to have their vision checked, I mean you can look at other criminal laws and they never even revisit them, let alone amend any part of them.
      Once Terry is done with them I’m sure they will be full of butt hurt, once the PASC says this law ain’t no good they will try to invent a new law I’m sure.

    • #46304
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      All,
      Very Good, my friends. I have a feeling PSP is going to comply with the Court’s decision by putting your case in a “pending review” status. For how long you ask? “Let’s see you have 20 months left so it should take no more than 25 months”LOL LOL. If you deserve immediate relief, we are studying the court’s ruling and refuse to do anything until we are told we have to. Then, we will put your case in “pending review” status.
      We shall see what they do next.

    • #46305
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      @ Mark
      I think the General Assembly was upset that the Court found SORNA to be punitive and thus a violation of Ex Post Facto even though they expressly said it was Civil and thus immune to Ex Post Facto challenges.
      This is the whole point the Ex Post Facto Claude was set up in the first place. Politicians bend to political will, and sometimes political will goes against what is fair and just. This is the entire reason Supreme Court Judges are appointed for life and don’t run for election. It is to keep them from being influenced by political issues and the abuse of a child is a political issue.
      The General Assembly was so sure that the US Supreme Court was going to overturn the Pa Supreme Court. They were shocked when Cert was denied. I like how they say they wrote ACT 10 to “fix” Muniz as if “Muniz” was s bad opinion from the Court.

    • #46320
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck
      I have to agree. go ole PSP will drag their feet as long as they can to keep us on the list. I wonder how long it will actually take for them to do my review? My info has not been online since Feb 14th. but my paperwork from my last visit states I have to visit at least yearly but, with 2 vehicles it’s more like 3. I shouldn’t even be on the list as my 10 yrs ended in 2017. PSP has drug it out to 2032 because of one of my charges being changed to 25 yrs due to snora. Muniz puts it back to 10 and off the list. Terry kicking PSP and PAG butt will be a glorious day. How many other cases are in the pipeline we don’t know about? When I was SCI Houtzdale we had a saying among my group. When wondering why or how the DOC could do something against the published rules is “Because They Can!” it would be months before things get overturned because of the system and they know it. So they do as they please.
      @EighthGradeKid
      You and your mom take note of what we are talking about here. Sometimes it may seem like we are complaining and we are. We have no other recourse as most people don’t care what happens to us “sex offenders” and are shocked that we have what we do have.
      I hope you are getting some good info for your report.

    • #46327
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      to all

      I got the PAAG’s brief today. In it there is nothing speaking to the issues I file in my brief. I file about application of expired former Megan’s law to ACT 10 and 29. Act 10 and 29 calls for one to have a former offence after April 19996 before December 2012. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52.(2)

      The PAAG makes it seem to the court that I want to talk about ex post facto application of ACT 10 and 29. I don’t. My brief is about 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 when SORNA good law says all former Megan’s laws did expire 12-20-12.

      You cannot defend expired law. it is gone, done not there no more,. The PAAG has file her brief in Ex Parte argument meaning she and the court are taking beyond my issue. I am the petitioner I filed a brief with an issue on ACT 10 and 29 calling Pre-SORNA people to register under expired former megan’s laws by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.

      The PAAG brief should have said something about what I am talking about in my brief in pporsition, she said nothing about 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired former Megan’s law application ACT 10 and 29 calls pre-SORNA people to comply to.

      Nieman V. Commonwealth made former Megan’s Law 3 unconstitutional, and Commonwealth v. Derhammer showed that former Megan’s law 2 did expire 12-20-12

      so what former Megan’s law is ACT 10 and 29 calling pre-SORNA people to be held to under ACT 10 and 29′ provisions?

      Since 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expressly expired former Megan’s Law provisions, the statutory construction Act of 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) does not allow the Pa. Assembly to use a revision to SORNA of 12-20-12 to cover matters that were repealed by a former statute in result of such former provision being construed to supply as repealed on the same subject matter that SORNA makes amendment in hopes to bring back the result of a former provision to be applied retroactively.

      Muniz decision of 19 July 2017 wiped Sorna retroactive applications away under subchapterr “H” by 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) SORNA “H” is not applicable to Pre-SORNA people. So the Pa. Assembly put together Subchapter “I” as an amendment to “H” which is not applicable to Pre-SORNA people, don’t the Pa. Assembly realize that “H” which is not applicable to Pre- SORNA people is being amended into “I” to be applicable to Pre-SORNA people in retroactive way which “H” says cannot be done. If “H” cannot be applicable due to Muniz, and it is SORNA retroactive – and “I ” is an amendment of “H” then “I” and “H” are both SORNA undermining the results of Muniz decision that says no retroactive application to pre-SORNA people is allowed. If “H” says that and if “I ” is “H” amended, “I” cannot be applied in retroactive way neither.
      You must read read this to see the logic. The Pa. Assembly has voted “I” as a continuation of “H”. If “H” is retroactive so is “I” and “I” is an amendment of “H” which cannot be done, so neither can “I” which is ACT 10 and 29 .

      The ones that can do anything about this is the PASC this must get before that court before the PSP will act right. I have a King’s Bench directly to the PASC when appeals is made. If my brief is a loosing brief I will appeal to the PASC directly under King’s Bench rights by what is called a “supersedeas” injunction under R.A.P. Rule 1532 special relief to by pass the Superior Appeal Court and go directly to the PASC to save time.

      If the PAAG brief loose they will appeal to the Superior Court to take as much time as they can waste on this issue. They will never be able to appeal to the SCOTUS because I am making sure that I use no federal law to support my claims only state law.

      I am in a fight so deep that most many not know what I am talking about, but know this in the end all of us will win if I am successful. I have the PASC at my side on the Kings Bench sealed to be opened at my command if the Commonwealth court don’t do that right thing.

      Some may say, “why not go to the King’s Bench now?” good question. The commonwealth court is my trail court, by King’s bench rules the PASC would be the appeal court if things are needed to be appealed from the trial court. The PASC is an appeal Court. They don’t do trails. That is why the Commonwealth court has to be given the opportunity to have the trail before a panel of judges, if they fail me I will open 122 MM 2018 which is ready to go you can see it at supreme court docket if you need to.

      I am not playing with these so called lawyers, I did not sit is prison idle I was in the Law library 24 -7
      Texas prisoners are allowed to do law library all day. I got 8 years of time in there.

      I been setting up for this fight since 1999. also 20 years ago. I am ready to fight the battle. It was Muniz that got me going and I thank Chuck and Brian and Mark for being the starters mostly chuck he was the one that motivated me most to file mandamus while we wait on Muniz. Thank you chuck. I love you man…..

      But the work is in, no other lawyer has seen the fight on expired former Megan’s Law as I do. I am the leading pro se defender on this issue. I just need to apply the King’s Bench to bring it to a head. The PASC may or may not see what I see but I will fight the good fight of legal begalness form now to now on.

    • #46397
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      You do have the advantage of knowing more than most lawyers do. You are taking a tack that most if no other lawyers even thought of. The actual construction of the law. That is how ML3 was brought down not by the obvious but the obscure. You’re not fighting the same game as PAG is. I am surprised that they didn’t pick up on it YET!

      Rooting for you

    • #46423
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hi Terry,
      I think you might want to hire an attorney if you lose. The trouble is all this is so new, no one has any experience in it. An attorney will help you focus your argument.

      Using Muniz as a guide, we still have another 4 years or so before the Pa Supreme Court will weigh in. A lot of people will be done with the registry by then, people like me. I hope we can get there quicker!!!

      I think the bigger issue is the fact there are people that have completed their time but they are still on the registry because their case hasn’t been “reviewed” yet.

      Anyway, good luck!!! We shall see!!

    • #46430
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Terry,
      I think you are missing the point that, in their minds, they are NOT defending an expired law. I think you do want to talk about the ex post facto application just in case they don’t buy your other argument.

    • #46435
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      I am not making an ex post facto claim. That is the upfront surface OBVIOUS. I am under the surface at the subsurface OBSCRURE arguing actual construction of ACT 10 and 29.

      I have presented from The original Mandamus complaint, The Brief, Show cause to the respondent, and Commonwealth court that my issue with ACT 10 and ACT 29 is “ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION” in that Act 10 and Act 29 at 42 Pa. C. S. 9799.52(2) calls for former expired megan’s laws that expired 12-20-12 TO BE USED IN APPLICATION TO PRE-SORNA PEOPLE who’s offense expired in application for such used to be infolded into Act 10 or 29. Expired former Megan’s Laws cannot be infolded into ACT 10 and ACT 29 in a reasonable way by statutory construction of law shown in tile 1. 1971(a), 1928(b)(1) and 1922(1)

      Docket 339 MD 2018 has filed timely to respondent in service rules, if respondent has other attention demanding cases in her case load, that limits her understanding of what to reply to in opposition that is not my concern.

      PAAG lady Ms Nicole Boland is doing the best job she can, but to say that all she can glean from my court papers is an ex post facto challenge on my part is a forest.
      I am making an applied challenge to the construction of the ACT 10 and 29 amendments of subchapter “H” into subchapter “I”.

      It was constructed outside the normal flow of how laws are amended.

      The Pa. Assembly thinks ACT 10 and ACT 29 are SORNA-2 when it is only an amendment to SORNA subchapter “H”. Subchapter “H” is SORNA good law at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 that says expressly ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE 12-20-12.

      What does that mean is the question I asked the court. Because subchapter “I” calls for use of {FORMER} Megan’s Laws to make its Scope see 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2)

      [Quote] (2) 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. [Unquote]

      All former Megan’s Laws did expire (12-20-12) by 42 C.S. 9799.41 this is still good law remember. At 12-20-12 by nuc pro tunc all former Megan’s Laws were done at that time and no one knew it.
      The focus to expire former Megan’s Laws was to get the AWA money to put Pennsylvania in compliance with AWA, but no one realized that they were also freeing 17,000 sex offenders form former Megan’s Law application if SORNA did not work out. No one thought Muniz decision would fly but it did.
      The Pa. Assembly in this election year felt that they had to do something so ACT 10 and ACT 29 comes to give the old college try, and the courts will be blamed not the politicians.

      What I am talking about no lawyer in Pa. can touch. They are looking too close to the obvious and missing the obscure when it comes to ACT 10 and 29 applications to Pre- SORNA people..

      The problem with ACT 10 and 29 is the actual construct of the Law.
      Title one is the flow of construction of law in this Commonwealth.

      1 Pa. 1971(a) say that you have to repeal SORNA not amend it for it to stay live to recall if a new law don’t work out. The Pa. assembly did not repeal SORNA subchapter “H”, they amended it into subchapter “I”
      A repeal would have made SORNA into SORNA 2 We would have two SORNA LAWS. Pre- and Post.
      This is not the case. The Pa Assembly amended the potion of SORNA that the PASC in the Muniz decision shot down as retroactive in application.

      Then the Pa Assembly amended “H” into “I” which is still SORNA which amendment is daubed a Muniz fit when it is a Muniz under mind. Subchapter “I” tries to correct subchapter “H” to allow retroactive application with reduced onerous results.

      The Pa. Assembly thinks it can just take everybody back to where they were before SORNA and make Muniz decision go away.

      Only problem is – When you go to put people back to where they were before 12-20-12 SORNA like me. PRE SORNA

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired what Pa. Assembly wants to go back to. Former Megan’s Law provisions.
      That is want ACT 10 and 29 says at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799,52(2) go back to former Megan’s Laws. What happened to the former Megan’s Law chuck? Can you find them in google?

      Where are the former Megan’s Laws ACT 10 and 29 wants to use in 42 Pa. C.S. 9899.52(2) to have pre- SORNA people register under? Please some body any body tell me lawyer Judge, PSP, PAAG, Pa. Assembly. any body give me the goods please. . . . . . . What 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 means is expressed atr 1 Pa. 1928 (b) (1) IT LOOKS LIKE THIS:

      (b) All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:

      (1) Penal provision

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is a penal code to be strictly construed as such still is active good law status. and it says: All former Megan’s Law Shall Expire

      Then

      1 Pa. C.S. 19229 (1) looks like this:

      In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

      (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

      THE KILLED OF THE act 10 AND act 29

      The GENERAL ASSEMBLY made 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to say strictly what it means in 12-20-12. They six years later amend “H” with “I” saying what was formerly expired under “H” is going to be used in “I” talking about former Megan’s Laws. so “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) wants to apply what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) calls this result absurd, impossible of execution AND unreasonable.

      THE END. Where in any of what I just said to an ex post facto argument?

    • #46429
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Chuck

      Every lawyer I call talk about expost facto BS. That is the upfront substance they see. I am under the surface. The Commnwealth court understands me if they did not I would have been gone dismissed and thrown out the door.

      If you would go to docket 339 MD 2018 and read that the court understands what I am saying vacated their own order, demanded a brief from the PSP PAAG lady and she only responded with ex post facto BS as if I am making a ex post facto challenge. I AM NOT.

      I am making a applied challenge to the construction of the ACT 10 and 29 amentment. It was constructed outside the normal flow of how laws are amended.

      The Pa. Assemb;y thinks ACT 10 and ACT 29 are SORNA-2 when it is only an amendment to SORNA subchapter “H”. Subchapter “H” is SORNA good law at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 that is not touched by the Muniz wipe out. That says expressly ALL FORM MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE 12-20-12.

      What does that mean is the question I asked the court. Because subchapter “I” calls for use of (FORMER
      FORMER FORMER } former Megan’s Laws to make its Scope see 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2)

      [quote] 2) 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.

      All former Megan’s Laws did expire (12-20-12) by 42 C.S. 9799.41 this is still good law remember. At 12-20-12 by nuc pro tunc all former megan’s Laws were done at that time and no one knew it. The focus to expire former Megan’s Laws was to get the AWA money but no one realized that they were also freeing 17,00 sex offenders form former Megan’s Law application if SORNA did not work out. No one thought Muniz decision would fly.

      But it did and the Pa. Assembly in this election year has to do something so ACT 10 and ACT 29 comes to look like it is a collage try, and the courts will be blamed not the politicians.

      What I am talking about no lawyer in Pa. can toch it. They are too looking at the oblivious not seeing the obscure.

      The problem with ACT 10 and 29 is the actual construct of the Law.

      Title one is the flow of construction of law.

      1 Pa. 1971(a) say that you have to repeal SORNA not amend it for it to stay live to recall if a new law don’t work out. The pa. assembly not repeal SORNA subchapter “H” they amended it into subchapter “I” A repeal would have a SORNA 1 and a SORNA 2

      This is not the case. The Pa Assembly amended the potion of SORNA that the PASC in the Muniz decision shoot down as retroactive application.

      Then the Pa Assembly amended “H” into “I” which is still SORNA which amendment is daubed a Muniz fit when it is a Muniz under mind. “I” tries to correct “H” to allow retroactive application with reduced onerous results.

      The Pa. Assembly thinks it can just take every body back to where they were before Muniz decision happened.

      Only problem is – When you go to put people back to where they were before 12-20-12 SORNA like me.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired what Pa. Assembly wants to go back to. Former Megan’s Law provisions. That is want ACT 10 and 29 says at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799,52(2) go back to former Megan’s Laws. What happened to the former Megan’s Law chuck? Can you find them in google?

      Where are the former Megan’s Laws ACT 10 and 29 wants to use in 42 Pa. C.S. 9899.52(2) to have pre- SORNA people register under? Please some body any body tell me lawyer Judge, PSP, PAAG, Pa. Assembly. any body give me the goods please. . . . . . . What 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 means is expressed atr 1 Pa. 1928 (b) (1) IT LOOKS LIKE THIS:

      (b) All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:

      (1) Penal provision

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is a penal code to be strictly construed as such still is active good law status. and it says: All former Megan’s Law Shall Expire

      Then

      1 Pa. C.S. 19229 (1) looks like this:

      In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

      (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

      THE KILLED OF THE act 10 AND act 29

      The GENERAL ASSEMBLY made 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to say strictly what it means in 12-20-12. They six years later amend “H” with “I” saying what was formerly expired under “H” is going to be used in “I” talking about former Megan’s Laws. so “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) wants to apply what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) calls this result absurd, impossible of execution AND unreasonable.

      THE END. Where in any of what I just said to an ex post facto argument?

    • #46442
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Phone Conference presentation: In the Commonwealth Court by terry brunson

      I am not making an ex post facto claim. That is the upfront surface OBVIOUS. I am under the surface at the subsurface OBSCRURE arguing actual construction of ACT 10 and 29.

      I have presented from The original Mandamus complaint, The Brief, Show cause to the respondent, and Commonwealth court that my issue with ACT 10 and ACT 29 is “ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION” in that Act 10 and Act 29 at 42 Pa. C. S. 9799.52(2) calls for former expired megan’s laws that expired 12-20-12 TO BE USED IN APPLICATION TO PRE-SORNA PEOPLE who’s offense expired in application for such used to be infolded into Act 10 or 29. Expired former Megan’s Laws cannot be infolded into ACT 10 and ACT 29 in a reasonable way by statutory construction of law shown in tile 1. 1971(a), 1928(b)(1) and 1922(1)

      Docket 339 MD 2018 has filed timely to respondent in service rules, if respondent has other attention demanding cases in her case load, that limits her understanding of what to reply to in opposition that is not my concern.

      PAAG lady Ms Nicole Boland is doing the best job she can, but to say that all she can glean from my court papers is an ex post facto challenge on my part is a forest.

      I am making an applied challenge to the construction of the ACT 10 and 29 amendments of subchapter “H” into subchapter “I”.

      It was constructed outside the normal flow of how laws are amended.
      The Pa. Assembly thinks ACT 10 and ACT 29 are SORNA-2 when it is only an amendment to SORNA subchapter “H”. Subchapter “H” is SORNA good law at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 that says expressly ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE 12-20-12.

      What does that mean is the question I asked the court. Because subchapter “I” calls for use of {FORMER} Megan’s Laws to make its Scope see 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2)

      [Quote] (2) 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. [Unquote]

      All former Megan’s Laws did expire (12-20-12) by 42 C.S. 9799.41 this is still good law remember. At 12-20-12 by nuc pro tunc all former Megan’s Laws were done at that time and no one knew it.
      The focus to expire former Megan’s Laws was to get the AWA money to put Pennsylvania in compliance with AWA, but no one realized that they were also freeing 17,000 sex offenders form former Megan’s Law application if SORNA did not work out. No one thought Muniz decision would fly but it did.

      The Pa. Assembly in this election year felt that they had to do something so ACT 10 and ACT 29 comes to give the old college try, and the courts will be blamed not the politicians.

      What I am talking about no lawyer in Pa. can touch. They are looking too close to the obvious and missing the obscure when it comes to ACT 10 and 29 applications to Pre- SORNA people..
      The problem with ACT 10 and 29 is the actual construct of the Law.

      Title one is the flow of construction of law in this Commonwealth.

      1 Pa. 1971(a) say that you have to repeal SORNA not amend it for it to stay live to recall if a new law don’t work out. The Pa. assembly did not repeal SORNA subchapter “H”, they amended it into subchapter “I”
      A repeal would have made SORNA into SORNA 2 We would have two SORNA LAWS. Pre- and Post.

      This is not the case. The Pa Assembly amended the potion of SORNA that the PASC in the Muniz decision shot down as retroactive in application.

      Then the Pa Assembly amended “H” into “I” which is still SORNA which amendment is daubed a Muniz fit when it is a Muniz under mind. Subchapter “I” tries to correct subchapter “H” to allow retroactive application with reduced onerous results.

      The Pa. Assembly thinks it can just take everybody back to where they were before SORNA and make Muniz decision go away.

      Only problem is – When you go to put people back to where they were before 12-20-12 SORNA like me. PRE SORNA

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired what Pa. Assembly wants to go back to. Former Megan’s Law provisions. That is want ACT 10 and 29 says at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799,52(2) go back to former Megan’s Laws. What happened to the former Megan’s Laws? Can they be found?

      Where are the former Megan’s Laws that ACT 10 and 29 wants to use at 42 Pa. C.S. 9899.52(2) to have pre- SORNA people register under? Please somebody, anybody tell me – lawyer, Judge, PSP, PAAG, Pa. Assembly. Can anybody give the goods about what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 means is it expressed language.

      1 Pa. 1928 (b) (1) LOOKS LIKE THIS:
      (b) All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:
      (1) Penal provision – 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is a penal code to be strictly construed as such still is active good law status. It says: “All former Megan’s Law Shall Expire.” What does this mean to the every day joe in Pa.?

      Then – 1 Pa. C.S. 19229 (1) looks like this:

      In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

      (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

      THE KILLED OF THE act 10 AND act 29

      The GENERAL ASSEMBLY made 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to say strictly what it means in 12-20-12. They six years later amend “H” with “I” saying what was formerly expired under “H” is called to be used in “I” talking about expired former Megan’s Laws at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2).

      1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) calls this result absurd, impossible of execution AND unreasonable.
      Talking about the ex post facto part of the law would be moot if ACT 10 and 29 was constructed outside the bounds of law in a rush to recapture 17,000 Pre- SORNA sex offenders in an election year.

      Weaver V. Graham is the ex post facto case that best deals with this – but that would not be a fight. The fight is statutory construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29. It was constructed to give negative result in an absurd and unreasonable way by outside the bound of 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1).

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 did expired former Megan’s Law 1 2 3 provisions six years ago to get some AWA money to be in compliance.

      Then came Muniz.

      SORNA was never made unconstitutional as a whole, only the retroactive application, by Muniz decision of the PASC 0n 19 July 2017.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is still good SORNA Law never shot down and is still in effect and it says that all former Megan’s laws shall expire.

      That is the expressed language. And it is to mean WHAT?

      Forget the ex post facto problem; we have a poorly constructed statue to attack. I want to attack it right there and the ex post facto will be gone without saying anything about ex post facto violations.

      It is like complaining about the hole in a donut. If we have a hole in the donut, to fix the whole donut situation is to eat the whole donut and the hole in the donut that was a problem is now gone away.
      We have a problem with ex post facto in Act 10 and 29, yes – that is the hole in the donut, but how ACT 10 and 29 was amended is the whole problem. Attack the whole problem and the hold of ex post facto will disappear with the flaw in the whole law.

      Where in any of what I just said in an argument to bring down Act 10 and 29 by showing ex post facto problem, no need, attack the construction of the whole ACT 10 and 29 put together and the whole thing goes away. THE END. Would like to reserve the remaining of my time left for rebuttal comments.

    • #46440
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Talking about the ex post facto law would be moot it the ACT 10 and 29 was constructed ouside the bounds of law in a rush to recapture 17,000 Pre- SORNA sex offenders in an election year.

      Weaver V. Graham is the ex post facto case that best deals with this – but that would not be a fight. The fight is statutory construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29. It was Constructed to give negative negative result in absurd way.

      We expired former Megan’s Law provisions 1 2 3 six years ago to get some AWA money to be in compliance.

      They Muniz.

      SORNA were not made unconstitutional as a whole only the retroactive application, by Muniz.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is still good SORNA Law. never shot down still in effect and it say all former Megan’s laws shall expire. That is the expressed language. And it is to mean WHAT?

      Forget the ex post facto you have a poorly constructed state attack it. attack it there and the ex post facto is gone too.

      Chuck it is like complaining about the hole in a donut. We have a hole in the donut. To fix the whole in the donut all you have to do is eat the whole donut and the hole and the donut goes away.

      We have a problem with ex post facto in act 10 and 29 yes – that is the hole, but how ACT 10 and 29 was amended is the whole problem. Attack the whole problem and the hole of ex post facto will disappear with the flawed law.

    • #46486
      Avatar
      John

      PA: Extended registration periods under SORNA unlawful
      September 13, 2018
      Court ruling against retroactive extension of registration period for 19 individuals who were convicted before the enactment of SORNA – but resentenced to longer / lifetime registration under SORNA after subsequent probation violations. -Court Opinion-

      http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/Opinion%20%20Reversed%20%2010368668741574276.pdf?cb=1

      “We are constrained to order that under Muniz, the trial court may not increase their registration requirements under SORNA. Consequently, we find that Muniz abrogates Partee, and agree with Appellants that the original periods of sexual offender registration and conditions imposed in each case be reinstated. The relevant facts and procedural history of these consolidated appeals are as follows.
      Each of the nineteen Appellants accepted plea agreements to various sexual offenses prior to
      SORNA’s effective date, which was December 20, 2012.
      Under the law regarding sexual offender registration effective at the time of their plea agreements, two Appellants did not have to register as sexual offenders, and the remaining Appellants had to register for a period of ten years.”

      • #46567
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        I still remember the day I first got my SORNA letter that increased my registration from 10 to 15 years. I reread it 3 times Thinking I must be missing something. I called my local PSP office and they told me that yes SORNA did indeed affect me AND I was going from 10 to 15 years I was SHOCKED. They acted like it was the most natural thing they could have done. “Why of course, we can break our plea agreement. We are the state. We can do whatever we want” they told me.
        I cried for an hour while my ex wife (girlfriend at the time) tried to comfort me. She kept saying “it will be ok” and she was right. Took almost 5 years but she was right.

    • #46508
      Avatar
      Cary

      Great news. I’m off the registery as of today an out of state offender. My name is wiped off the stupid registry as of today. Soon will follow the letter. PSP said they will send a letter to me soon. It will verify that I no longer have to register. If I do not get a letter I can request one after 10 business days. Good luck to you all. Damn it sure feels great to be off the registery. I also called and went to Harrisburg in person to see if I am really off the registery and they said yes!

      • #46514
        Avatar
        Snoopy

        Congrats Cary!

        MAKE SURE YOU GET YOUR LETTER!

        Make copies, upload it to the cloud, e-mail it to yourself, keep it someplace SAFE.

        Enjoy life my friend. The rest of us hope to join you off the registry as fast as possible.

      • #46516
        Avatar
        Brian

        @Carry
        Hay congrats man, I was off last month, it’s a new feeling, I lost my job because of the registry last month bot got a new one right away, my family and I also relocated to start a new life, I hope to see Chuck, Mark Terry and everyone else get the relief they deserve also, and they will.

    • #46520
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Act 10 and 29 has not yet reached the courts – the case of 5 Sept 2018 is good for those non SVp’s who got ten year registration increased to lifetime back to ten years. great news. The superor court said clearly that ACT 10 and 29 is problematic to them. They said it is not before them yet. Wait for terry brunson case to get there. It is coming.

      case 339 MD 2018 is going to oral argument soon. The PAAG thinks she can glean only ex post facto from my brief. I made sure I said nothing about ex post facto stuff. I talked about ACT 10 and 29 being flawed by Statutory construction problems. 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) calls pre-SORNA people to register who have an offence of a former Megan’s Law that has EXPIRED. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41

      Expired law cannot be unexpired by amending the law to say it can. Title 1 will not let it happen. see 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a), 1922(1), and 1928(b)(1).

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 days to be in operation are in a count down to fall down. I am confident to say this. I have talked to 13 lawyers who tell me that I know just enough law to get myself in trouble, Poppy cock I say! They waited their money going to law school. The commonwealth court has taken me serious and put my case on a 3 judge panel. The PSP is being put in the hot seat to answer what did 42 Pa. C.S. mean when it said all former magan’s Law was expired? The PSP has not gave a clear reply to this court question yet. The keeping coming to a glean of ex post factor now punitive, civil collateral consequence ACT 10 and 29 less onerous than SORNA. Hell they don’t realize ACT 10 and 29 is still SORNA. There is one SORNA 2. ACT 10 and 29 is amendment form SORNA subchapter H into I still SORNA of 12-20-12 Dummies.

    • #46521
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The PSP now have to search the data base of all Non SVP life people and take them to ten years. who were Pre-SORNA.

      This will effect only the time issue and not the ACT 10 and 29. of 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.55

    • #46524
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Muniz abrogate Partee on per-SORNA plea of ten year registration increased to life time.

      That is good, but the ACT 10 and 29 that calls to do it is not before the court. If ACT 10 or ACT 29 increased the 10 year to life , that is a separate challenge under ACT 10. I went through that at 463 MD 2017. My life time was knocked to 10 years I was taken off and At ACT 10 put right back on.

      This Superior court decision has no effect on ACT 10 increases. They are going to take all 19 off of Lifetime, from former Megan’s Law and under ACT 10 and 29 put them right back on.

      The fight is at attacking ACT 10 and 29. The Superior court made it clear that ACT 10 increase from 10 plea under Megan’s Law is a separate ACT 10 issue.

      ACT 10 and 29 has to be challenged – at something more than the ex post facto cry.

      I got this yall just watch me work the court. I have applied for Oral Argument before the Commonwealth court. You cannot get hyped until act 10 and Act 29 are beat down. . . . . . . . . and if a lower court do it the battle is not over until PASC say the last word. ACT 10 and ACT 29 has a automatic stay. You have to ride the registry until final appeal decision of PASC.

      Don’t get too excited about what happen in Superior court 5 September 2018 at Commonwealth v. ET al 19. That is a kakeru court circus act. The ten will be order off lifetime only to go back on because ACT 10 and 29 rules.

    • #46560
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Terry my friend,
      I believe you are making a big mistake ignoring the ex post facto argument. You can make 2 arguments. Besides, being previously convicted, you do not need the law to fall. Only thing you need is for the law to be ruled as punishment and you would be immune to it.
      You could make both arguments. One, you believe the law is unsound, and even if they disagree with you there, it is a violation of the ex post facto clause.
      It seems like you think you can only argue one or the other. I don’t believe that is true

      Besides, you claiming that expired law cannot come back ignores their WHOLE POINT: that Act 10 is NOT the same as ML2.

      With respect my friend,
      Chuck .

    • #46559
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      No one on the PSP side is making on the challenge to answer SORNA law 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41

      What does it mean? EXPRESSLY. Somebody anybody give an answer that is not unreasonable and absurd in result. You all will see will I geyt my day in court. I am making my way there.

      The obvious is not the fight EX POST FACTO going there is a waste of time. That is the PSP old school standard. The jig is in the obscure. The statutory construction is the target. ACT 10 and 29 has flux stand on what 9799.41 says and means. Can any on on here figure out the puzzle that the PSP has to come up with?

      Make 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 match with ex post facto argument they cannot do it. It is not possible to have ACT 10 and 29 call for a former Megan’s Law to be used that is expired. What sense does that make? All this ex post facto talk is not adding up to can a new law like ACT 10 and ACT 29 use old former Megan’s Law application that is expired. Come on anybody give me the goods.

      I will put good SORNA law before you right now. Show me ex post facto in it?
      § 9799.41. Expiration.

      The following provisions shall expire December 20, 2012:

      Section 9718.3 (relating to sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders).

      Section 9791 (relating to legislative findings and declaration of policy).

      Section 9792 (relating to definitions).

      Section 9795.1 (relating to registration).

      Section 9795.2 (relating to registration procedures and applicability).

      Section 9795.3 (relating to sentencing court information).

      Section 9795.4 (relating to assessments).

      Section 9795.5 (relating to exemption from certain notifications).

      Section 9796 (relating to verification of residence).

      Section 9797 (relating to victim notification).

      Section 9798 (relating to other notification).

      Section 9798.1 (relating to information made available on the Internet and electronic notification).

      Section 9798.2 (relating to administration).

      Section 9798.3 (relating to global positioning system technology).

      Section 9799 (relating to immunity for good faith conduct).

      Section 9799.1 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania State Police).

      Section 9799.2 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole).

      Section 9799.3 (relating to board).

      Section 9799.4 (relating to counseling of sexually violent predators).

      Section 9799.7 (relating to exemption from notification for certain licensees and their employees).

      Section 9799.8 (relating to annual performance audit).

      Section 9799.9 (relating to photographs and fingerprinting).

      PAAG lady Nicole Boland I terry brunson will see you face to face in commonwealth court to meet this challenge to show where you glean ex post facto from out of SORNA 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41

      ACT 10 and 29 is asking for a tall order to use former expired Law to be used when it died 12-20-12.

      I read Aaron Marcus’ 2018 spring update on SORNA He did not mention the statutory construction problems that ACT 10 and 29 have in use of former expired Megan’s Law by good SORNA law Muniz left standing to be used to mean? WHAT? what what? TELL ME WHAT IT MEAN? anyone!

    • #46555
      Avatar
      Solaris

      @Cary
      What is the first letter of your name and first letter of your last name? I am not interested in your location but, could you say what county please. I just want to figure out if they are going in alpha order.

    • #46566
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Solaris,
      I can save you the trouble. They are going in NO particular order. Whoever has your case has dozens of others assigned to them. When they get to yours , they get to yours.

      • #46587
        Avatar
        Mark

        @Solaris

        I was told on Aug 24th that my file was under review. That was 4 weeks ago. In the past, post snora, I had to register in Sept. This is the first year since 2013 that I haven’t had to go to PSP. My wife is worried that PSP will say I’m not in compliance and put me in jail so I am calling PSP tomorrow to verify it.

    • #46569
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      To all – – – – – -The Argument is simple in presentation:

      1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) establishes the implicit repeal of Megan’s Law provision applications _There Pa. Assembly did way more than a repeal of former Megan’s Law provisions, SORNA 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expressly provided that all former Megan’s Law provisions shall expire 12-20-12[.]

      No ambiguity exist in what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is saying. The PSP wants to be quiet on this but I put it in my court brief and miss Nicole Bland PAAG only can glean that this means ex post facto challenge. What law school did she attend, was she present the day when the teach talked about substantive due process in fairness?

      If a Pa. good law says a thing is expired, and a new law comes out and says that it wants to use old expired law no matter what the good law say. Don’t that seem absurd and unreasonable? Well you need to read statutory construction ACT 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1). It shuts down ACT 10 and 29 call at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) scope.

      I know I am high siding a little but it is in fun and pun. Don’t think I am too bold and cocky. I am humbly grateful for the opportunity to represent all the sex offenders in PA on ACT 10 and 29 challenge. I don’t fight this fight for me alone. My win will take ACT 10 and 29 out of operation to over 17,000 sex offenders across this state. Please allow me to be me now that all the leg work is done. The ball is in the hands of Ms Nicole Boland PAAG – she is the state prosecute to me is a second rate lawyer that wants to be blind to what I am saying about former Megan’s Law expired law being used in ACT 10 and 29. She has to give reply in legal discussion to the commonwealth court in case 339 MD 2018 on how the use of former Megan’s Law in application to ACT 10 and 29 is possible and how does ex post facto results fit into 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.
      Ms Boland we love you, and we pray for you to do your best to be fair, and use your legal mind to answer the court straight up. Hope your side the best – It will be the judge that has the last word. I am not a lawyer but I know the law.

    • #46568
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The Argument is simple in presentation:

      1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) establishes the implicit repeal of Megan’s Law provision applications _There Pa. Assembly did way more than a repeal of former Megan’s Law provisions, SORNA 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expressly provided that all former Megan’s Law provisions shall expire 12-20-12[.]

      No ambiguity exist in what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is saying. The PSP wants to be quiet on this but I put it in my court brief and miss Nicole Bland PAAG only can glean that this means ex post facto challenge. What law school did she attend, was she present the day when the teach talked about substantive due process in fairness?

      If a Pa. good law says a thing is expired, and a new law comes out and says that it wants to use old expired law no matter what the good law say. Don’t that seem absurd and unreasonable? Well you need to read statutory construction ACT 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1). It shuts down ACT 10 and 29 call at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) scope.

      I know I am high siding a little but it is in fun and pun. Don’t think I am too bold and cocky. I am humbly grateful for the opportunity to represent all the sex offenders in PA on ACT 10 and 29 challenge. I don’t fight this fight for me alone. My win will take ACT 10 and 29 out of operation to over 17,000 sex offenders across this state. Please allow me to be me now that all the leg work is done. The ball is in the hands of Ms Nicole Boland PAAG – she is the state prosecute to me is a second rate lawyer that wants to be blind to what I am saying about former Megan’s Law expired law being used in ACT 10 and 29. She has to give reply in legal discussion to the commonwealth court in case 339 MD 2018 on how the use of former Megan’s Law in application to ACT 10 and 29 is possible and how does ex post facto results fit into 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.
      Ms Boland we love you, and we pray for you to do your best to be fair, and use your legal mind to answer the court straight up. Hope your side the best – It will be the judge that has the last word. I am not a lawyer but I know the law.

      • #46638
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Terry,
        They teach you in law school when someone has s point you can’t counter, you ignore their point and bring up another one. The idea is that you hope the court is so intrigued by your point, that they ignore the other guys point. You never admit you don’t have an answer. Never. Either the other guy’s point is the wrong point, of the premise of their point doesn’t deserve an answer (because you can’t counter it but you don’t say the last part out loud…lol)

    • #46588
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      I would say Cuck is right, I think that you should involve the X-postfacto argument as well as the other, my attorney had that in our brief, they didn’t want a fight because they know they lost before we even got to court, They knew if they fought it and tried to appeal it would have been a Muniz type case but for out of state people, that would have set presidents for anyone who was from another state and put on PA reg without due process, like you and I and many others. There was also a lot of other argument as well in my brief, Terry my friend, I can’t wait to see you win this.

    • #46615
      Avatar
      Mark

      Just got off the phone with ML of PSP. The person I talked to told me my file has been reviewed and is awaiting approval. I will be getting a letter after that. Who knows how long that will take!

      I was also told that I don’t have to go to the PSP barracks unless there is a change in the meantime.

      • #46637
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        @ Mark,
        Every one who is required to report once a year was covered for 2018 by their Act 10 registration in May. Of course, ANY changes negates this and you have to go in.
        Be patient my friend. They are doing what they need to. They might be taking a month to do a 20 min job, but they ARE doing it. They are NOT happy about it but they will comply with whatever it is they have to do. Just don’t hold your breathe.

        I have 4 friends that have received their “you do not have to report” letter. I am on until July 2020, I hope that is enough time for them to find my file, review it and process it. If not, the very first business after my time is done, I will be at the courthouse. I promise you that. It seems like last week I started my registration. It has been over 8 years. Time flies!!

        Anyway, chin up my friend!!! It will come.

    • #46616
      Avatar
      Cary

      Thank you all and I shall keep the letter in my safe. I got my letter today. Word by word at exact way I shall put it on here without my last name. Letter reads:

      Re: Sexual Offender Registration

      Dear Mr. Cary xxxxxx,

      Registration of sexual offenders within Pennsylvania occurs in accordance with Megan’s Law, 42 Pa. C.S. Chapter 97. Individuals convicted of certain sexual offenses or Individuals who are required with the Pennsylvania State Police.

      A review of your conviction record has revealed you are no longer required to register as a sexual offender with the Pennsylvania State Police at this time. Your information has been removed from the public website effective the date of this correspondence. You are no longer required to verify or report a change of your address, employment, schooling, or other required information to the Pennsylvania State Police. However, in the event you travel to or reside/work/attend school in another state, you may be required to comply with the sexual offender registration requirements in that state. It is recommended you contact the agency responsible for sexual offender registration outside of the Commonwealth when leaving Pennsylvania to acquire information that is applicable to your status. The FBI website is: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safty/registery .

      Questions concerning your personal legal situation should be directed to your legal representative.

      Sincerely

      Sgt. O.E. Towels
      Megan’s law section

      • #46636
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Cary,
        I would sign up for a Dropbox account. For the starter package it is free. Scanning your letter to Dropbox will e sure you ALWAYS have it no matter where you are at. All you need is an internet connection.
        If I were you, I would make sure I have a copy on my person when I traveled outside of Pa. Just to be safe. Always keep documentation of when you left Pa such as a receipt for gas. I ALWAYS buy gas before I leave Pa AND as soon as I return to Pa. I get off at the first Pa exit and buy gas. Even if it’s only 1 gallon. This way no one can argue when I left and how long I was gone.
        My GF says I am Parnoid but no way I am getting stuck in a different state and hoping a “hey guys I promise you I am legit” will get me out of jail because some cop decided it would be funny to lock up an out of state offender. Besides, I have family in NY and travel there frequently. I had one scary encounter in NY, but because I am registered in Pa and NY and had my receipts I was cleared to go back home. I probably would have won if it was pressed, but I didn’t want to find out.

        Congrats and Good Luck, my friend

    • #46632
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Cary
      That’s great, same as my letter, I think mine has a water mark with a middle finger on it.
      @Mark
      You will get your letter my man.

      They wouldn’t have to go through all this garbage if they would have just removed people like they were supposed to, now it’s costing tax payers thousands of dollars and courts are filling up with challenges.

    • #46677
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @Terry

      I saw this in your 339 MD 2018 case

      Filed Sept 18th:
      upon consideration of petitioner’s September 13, 2018 “Request [for] Oral Argument Before Panel** Application**[,]” the Request is denied.
      It appearing that petitioner’s Application for Summary Relief is fully briefed,
      the Chief Clerk shall submit the matter to a panel of the judges for disposition on the
      papers.

      It further appearing that petitioner’s May 9, 2018, “** Notice to Defend**
      [Pa. R.C.P. No.] 1081.1 Request Expired Former Megan’s Laws After 04-19-96 &
      Before 12-20-12 Be Ordered Inapplicable To Apply to Act 10 Registration
      Requirements” seeks the same relief that petitioner seeks in his Application for
      Summary Relief, the May 9, 2018 filing is dismissed as moot.

      I’m not great with the law, but that doesn’t sound great at first glance…. No oral arguments, just going to read the paperwork, and they’re dismissing the expired Megan’s law stuff? Isn’t that kind of the whole point to your case?

    • #46703
      Avatar
      John

      Snoopy,
      Terry is claiming that the Commonwealth interpretation of the law is wrong. Therefore, they only thing the judges need is an understanding of the law. Since as judges it is their job to interpret the law, there is no need to hear oral arguments.

      Further, they are not dismissing his argument. They are just saying you already asked us to review your argument in your original filing. No need to ask again.

      It would have been nice to hear oral arguments but in this case they are not necessary. That is why they denied the request.
      Terry’s case is going to be based on their interpretation of the law. As judges, that is what they do. They interpret law and decided whether that interpretation is constitutional.

    • #46733
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Snoopy

      Case 339 MD 2018 is an applied challenge on a question of law interpretation of 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which says that all former Megan’s Law provisions shall expire 12-20-12. The Court is being challenged to interpret that potion of the Law.

      I have asked over and over again by different rules of the Court to R.C.P. 1028, and R.A.P. 1532(b), and Pa. code for summary relief, and Mandaus, to cover every base I can to make sure that the court understandts that this is a Statutory Construction issue under Law interpretation of expired former Megan’s Laws. I know that Pa. expired the former Megan’s Laws to become AWA compliant to get the money from Washing, But they did not realize that when they expired all former Megan’s Laws that they were freeing 17,000 sex offenders from from being under SORNA rules once SORNA retroactive application became unconstitutional.

      For subchapter “H” could not be applied to Pre-SORNA peopple, that left no sex offender law to be applied to Pre-SORNA people, The Pa. Assembly had to rush HB 1952 and HB 631 to through to recapture 17,000 sex offenders that had no sex offender law applying to them.

      Hence Subchapter “H” SORNA was amended into subchapter “I” should amendment is invalid under the statutory construction ACT title 1.

      This is the constitutional muster challenge – It is not no ex post facto less onerous civil collateral consequence. It is that subchapter “I” calls for use of former Megan’s law offenses after April 1996 before 2012. The same time frame as MUNIZ – decision to make it seem as if Muniz decision never happen.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 are calling for laws to be used that goo SORNA law says was expired 12-20-12. if you read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) you will see the word former sex offender laws. What former sex offender laws? Megan’s Law 1 2 3? 42 Pa. C.S. says expressly them done expired. What form Laws could they be talking about?

      This is what the court should have put to the challenge of the PSP and PAAG to answer in their brief. (THEY DID NOT REPLY TO THAT ISSUE AT ALL) They brought the reply that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are Civil and can be applied retroactive if the punishment element is limited to less onerous standers.

      I am claiming that the Commonwealth interpretation of the law is wrong. Therefore, the only thing the panel of judges need to do is get a good understanding if the law (42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41).

      Judges are bound by the U.S. Constitution Article 6 Clause 2 supremacy Clause – I will post it here:

      “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.”

      Since the phrase all judges in every state is bound by the U.S. Constitution to interpret the law right, and not be shaded by Pa. Assembly’s out cry for public safety to over ride constitutional protection of rights for sex offenders,.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 are such state Laws that are notwithstanding in constitutional muster.

      ACt 10 and 29 are invalid due to their absurd result and unreasonable execution which – 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired the form Megan’s Law provisions 12-20-12 and now 6 years later ACT 10 and 29 of 2018 wants to use expired law in application to re-capture sex offenders. . . I am not a judge but I see that that is absurd in result. The is Pa. law against that at (1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1)) i will post it here:

      In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

      (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 have intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable
      d there is no need to hear oral arguments.

      You expire Former Megan’s Laws to get AWA money to be compliant in 12-20-12
      Now 6 years later you want to use expired former Megan’s Laws to re capture pre-SORNA people to ACT 10 and ACT 29? It this intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable?

      This is what I put before the court in my brief, and the PSP or PAAG has not given reply ti this expired former Megan’s Law use to enforce ACT 10 and 29.

      I see that the PASc will be the court to make the last word that is why I have 122 MM 2018 in the wind to rush the issue to the PASC. I may have been born at night, but I was not born last night. The judges of the Commonwealth court have tipped their hand to me in saying “My challenge is inappropriate for ACT 10 and 29 application.”

      What that means remains to be argued at a higher court level. I don’t exspect good treatment in the lower courts . . . My eye is on the only court that matters. THE PASC court

    • #46770
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      To All
      On September 19 I filed clarification to petitioner’s issues because the PAAG filed a brief that had all ex post facto issues that were not in my brief. She was like filing a ex prate brief on issue I had no idea of what she was opposing in my brief.

      I filed am application to inform the court that the PAAG is not clear on my issue and she is going in the wrong direction. She even thought this action I was filing was a PCRA application and was opposing PCRA that I filed. I never filed no PCRA I filed a Mandamus, then I filed application for summary judgement on grounds of Statutory construction challenge to ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      The court sided with me. . . . .The court wants to start at ground zero. They are allowing me to add a point on the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 to my brief in amendment. They gave the PAAG breif a strike to refile on the opposition issue at hand before them and no old trick of law school smoke shadowing of side issues that she want the court to know on ex post facto issues not rised by petitioner, (ME).

      I will re file a brief on the following:
      1. Statutory Construction challenge of ACT 10 and ACT 29 by letting the court know that tile 1 of the Pa. Statutory Construction Act will not allow ACT 10 and ACT 29 to pass constitutional muter on point of ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls form a use of Expired former Megan’s Laws to enforce ACT 10 and ACT 29. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) look for the word (FORMER SEX OFFENSES).

      2. The Pa. Constitution does not allow Megan’s Law provisions to be revived or amended to come back to life to be used in ACT 10 or ACT 29. See Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6. This backs up the Pa. tile 1 statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. 1922(1) and 1 Pa. 1928(b)(1) all of tile 1.

      3. Equal protection rights of U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 on equal offenses from Texas and Pa. Being treated different on same Pa. equal offense only because offense happened in Texas. see Tommy Lee Jackson 143 A 3d 468. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment to increase a 10 year offense to lifetime simple because equal offense occurred in Texas.

      4. Under Weaver V Graham 450 U.S. 24 the PSP is Applying ACT 10 and ACT 29 to terry brunson’s 1999 conviction in a disadvantage way. Yes it is retroactive in application and gives a legal consequence greater than the original punishment. Here is where the PAAG will glean ex post facto. I am not raising ex post facto though, I am raising unfair advantage of a retroactive application of law on 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) from 10 law application to lifetime application on out of state sex offender from Texas.

      5. I want my name removed from PSP registry due to unfair substantive due process oppression of PSP on retroactive application of Act 10 and 29 being use to revive and amend expired Megan’s Law provision that were expired 12-20-12 long ago.

    • #46769
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      On September 19 I filed clarification to petitioner’s issues because the PAAG filed a brief that had all ex post facto issues that were not in my brief. She was like filing a ex prate brief on issue I had no idea of what she was opposing in my brief.

      I filed am application to inform the court that the PAAG is not clear on my issue and she is going in the wrong direction. She even thought this action I was filing was a PCRA application and was opposing PCRA that I filed. I never filed no PCRA I filed a Mandamus, then I filed application for summary judgement on grounds of Statutory construction challenge to ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      The court sided with me. . . . .The court wants to start at ground zero. They are allowing me to add a point on the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 to my brief in amendment. They gave the PAAG breif a strike to refile on the opposition issue at hand before them and no old trick of law school smoke shadowing of side issues that she want the court to know on ex post facto issues not rised by petitioner, (ME).

      I will re file a brief on the following:
      1. Statutory Construction challenge of ACT 10 and ACT 29 by letting the court know that tile 1 of the Pa. Statutory Construction Act will not allow ACT 10 and ACT 29 to pass constitutional muter on point of ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls form a use of Expired former Megan’s Laws to enforce ACT 10 and ACT 29. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) look for the word (FORMER SEX OFFENSES).

      2. The Pa. Constitution does not allow Megan’s Law provisions to be revived or amended to come back to life to be used in ACT 10 or ACT 29. See Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6. This backs up the Pa. tile 1 statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. 1922(1) and 1 Pa. 1928(b)(1) all of tile 1.

      3. Equal protection rights of U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 on equal offenses from Texas and Pa. Being treated different on same Pa. equal offense only because offense happened in Texas. see Tommy Lee Jackson 143 A 3d 468. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment to increase a 10 year offense to lifetime simple because equal offense occurred in Texas.

      4. Under Weaver V Graham 450 U.S. 24 the PSP is Applying ACT 10 and ACT 29 to terry brunson’s 1999 conviction in a disadvantage way. Yes it is retroactive in application and gives a legal consequence greater than the original punishment. Here is where the PAAG will glean ex post facto. I am not raising ex post facto though, I am raising unfair advantage of a retroactive application of law on 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) from 10 law application to lifetime application on out of state sex offender from Texas.

      5. I want my name removed from PSP registry due to unfair substantive due process oppression of PSP on retroactive application of Act 10 and 29 being use to revive and amend expired Megan’s Law provision that were expired 12-20-12 long ago.

    • #46761
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      I filed a summary application to add the Pa. Constitution fight on how to apply expired law. I will post it here:

      Pennsylvania Constitution Article 3 Section 6
      Revival and amendment of laws.
      No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof
      extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so
      much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall
      be re-enacted and published at length.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 is meeting its maker in that it is going to die and go to heaven – The Pennsylvania Constitution is no joke to play with in revival and amendment of laws.

      Like I said always . I am not a lawyer but I know the Law. The Court is seeing my view and want me to brief them on this of Pennsylvania Constitution Article 3 Section 6 on Revival and amendment of laws.

      The Court today had a hearing and threw out the PAAG’s brief and wants me to amend my brief in 30 days. This is a good sign that I am saying something that they need to understand.

      I filed a clarification application on Pennsylvania Constitution Article 3 Section 6
      Revival and amendment of laws. ACT 10 and Act 29 are just that. They want to revive dead former Megan’s Laws to recapture 17,000 of my friends who is you all sex offenders. I love each of you as my family and I am fighting and studying to win the battle for us all. The case 339 MD 2018 can be seen it is public and the fight is on now.

      Guys I think the PSP and PAAG are being pushed into our corner to explain themselves to the lower court on ACT 10 and 29’s call to use former expired Megan’s Laws to apply ACT 10 and ACT 29 to pre-SORNA people.

      The Pa. Constitution is becoming our friend in deed in a time of need for it to protect us. Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6. Read it are you will see that it is your salvation from this PSP ACT 10 and ACT 29 BS

    • #46758
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The legislative enactment of Act 10 and 29 should be made void in application to pre-SORNA people.

      1. Muniz handed down a substantive rule change and must stop any retroactive applications of new law applications on pre-SORNA people. see Commonwealth v. Rivera Figueroa 174 A3d 674 (Pa. 2017)

      2. The Pa. Superior court in Derhammer held that convictions based on prior Megan’s Law offences are deemed void when challenged, and the court should VACATE any conviction based on Megan’s Law convictions on section 4915.1. See also Commonwealth v. Harmon, CP-51-CR-0006706–2015(Ct. Cm. Pleas, 1st Jud. Dist., March 13, 2018 appeal).

      3. Courts in Pennsylvania are applying Muniz to invalidate SORNA application on pre-SORNA people en toto what ever that means?

      Muniz held that SORNA could not apply to certain class of people of a pre-SORNA class. Act 10 challenge has not of yet reached the court in relation to 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41, and what it truly expresses but they feel it will soon be coming before them. It will be there under case 339 MD 2018. As they say in New Orleans “I gar-on-tee it.” The position of the court now is it is inappropriate for ACT 10 and 29 application relating to 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to be commented on until a case comes before them in this nature. I will be there soon. I have an appointment to bring this issue to the court.

    • #46822
      Avatar
      Mark

      Terry
      Got get them, dude. The court is seeing what you have been saying and wants to hear more.
      Your beating a person who has paid Thousands of dollars to get where she is and you are showing her up with the law. I smiled while I was reading your latest post.

      I’m rooting you on and would love you to be the new Muniz. It will be the Brunson decision!
      .

      • #46839
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Mark

        I am doing the best that God has given to me. I don’t say I am a Lawyer, but I know no better lawyer than me.
        The PAAG I have is a second rate lawyer she made a big mistake by telling the court that I am filling a PCRA. The court was getting ready to dismissed by PCRA being more than a year. I would have had to appeal to correct that mistake of her misleading the court.

        So I filed on SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 A special motion of re-clarification to the court to dime her out on thinking that my case is a PCRA. My case not only is a mandamus and summary judgement on applied challenge of ACT 10 and 29 trying to use expired Megan’s Law to hold pre-SORNA people to ACT 10 and 29.

        The court is turning to me for a brief on Pa. Constitution Article 3 section 6 talking about reviving old law by amendments. The PAAG opposed my brief with an argument on ex post facto, I was and am talking about Statutory construction of ACT 10 and 29 that is was invalid of the Pa. Assembly to amend subchapter “H” with subchapter “I” in that subchapter “I” is calling for use of former Megan’s Laws that subchapter “H” said expressly had expired for use.

        It is simple – “I” and “H” are still SORNA. SORNA is the only sex offender Law in the Commonwealth. There is no SORNA 1 and SORNA 2 like they did with Megan’s Law 1 2 &3 .

        SORNA is the one law amended in an unvalid way. IACT 10 and 29 need former Megan’s Law provisions to be enforceable. but the problem is SORNA leave standing good law that says expressly that all former Megan’s Laws are expired at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.

        This 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 part of SORNA must be interrupted by the court to mean something. It says clearly all former Megan’s Laws expired bu ACT 10 and ACT 29 need the Former Megan’s law to hold pre-SORNA people. it is a big mess that the y are in in trying to fix this. The PSP is not the problem, it is the AG, DA’s and PAAG that will not give up telling the court the lie that ACT 10 and 29 are not punishment. and is civil and lee restrictive than Megan’s Law was. You will see how the Court will rule when I tell them what they already know. Judge Jane Bower of the Superior court is on our side. She gave a dissenting opinion on Commonwealth v. Fernandez et al 19 on September 5, 2018 1888 Eda 2015

        Her words to her fellow Judges was I qoute her words
        “Revived former Megan’s Laws are in a judicial fait. It appears that ACT 10 and 29 calls for application of former Megan’s Laws that were eliminated to be revived in use. Derhammer at 726 questioned whether Megan’s law’s survived in vestigial application to be inculcated into ACT 10 and 29’s scheme, scope, and application. It is questionable to make allowance of statutes that no longer exist in framework to be applied. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41”

        If you look on my docket sheet at 339 MD 2018 you will see where the court was getting ready to show me down, on September 18, 2018 the following

        From the Commonwealth court panel they said:
        “It’s appearing that petitioner’s Application for Summary Relief is fully briefed,
        the Chief Clerk shall submit the matter to a panel of the judges for disposition on the
        papers.”

        “It’s further appearing that petitioner’s May 9, 2018, “** Notice to Defend**
        [Pa. R.C.P. No.] 1081.1 Request Expired Former Megan’s Laws After 04-19-96 &
        Before 12-20-12 Be Ordered Inapplicable To Apply to Act 10 Registration
        Requirements” seeks the same relief that petitioner seeks in his Application.”

        The statement that tipped me was “Expired Former Megan’s Laws After 04-19-96 &
        Before 12-20-12 be ordered inapplicable to apply to Act 10 Registration
        Requirements” Those were my words that I titled the application, but they laid it a side and wanted to here more on the Rule 1532 Special and Summary Relief Re-emphasized for clarity to the court. They striked the PAAG breif and ask if I would amend my brief on new look at expired former Megan’s Law application to my case.

        I don’s know what they saw but it got me excited to write more. . . . . . . . .

    • #46820
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      I feel that I was born to challenge ACT 10 and ACT 29 at the core to destroy it at every angel.

      If ex post facto is argued or the law will survive and allow ex post facto application if it is less restrictive in punishment elements, but if you attack the construction of ACT 10 and 29 you take down the ex post facto bs all in one blow. It is a gamble I have to take to get the court to do what courts do interrupt the law rightly.

      If the Pa. Assembly made the mistake of expiring Megan’s Law instead of repealing it they would not be in this situation. Money greed states men caused this problem. The repeal of a law and expiration of a law are to things all together.

      When you expire a law you give a pardon never to come back to take it back. When you do a repeal you can make a savings cause to reenstate the old law with it provisions like Megan’s Law. The Supper Court dealth with Derhammer and made a wrong move saying failure to compile in 4915.1 is not compile on Him so the Pa Assemble came up with 4915.2 and that was under ACT 178 of 2006 and the Court once again made a bold statement to say if we go with ACT 178 then Megan’s Law 2 applications of former Megan’s Law is expired as 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says.

      Derhammer case is the code breaker. The court don’t want to fill in the law for the Commonwealth, they interrupt law not make law. They way is is now is there is laws on 4915 failure to compile, but only one sex offender all in operation called SORNA. Sorna has been amended to revive former Megan’s Laws into operation. You cannot have two laws without the Pa Assembly voting that. It is impossible to vote that now. There is no SORNA 1 and SORNA 2. that would be two laws. No No No what is is not is just 1 SORNA given 12-20-12 and in 2018 this 1 SORNA was admended to add subchapter “I” to SORNA the same SORNA od 12-20-12. There is only one Sorna in this state or Commonwealth.

      at 18 Pa. C.S. 4915 there is problems too. one law SORNA tow punishments at 4915.1 for subchapter “H” and 2915.2 for subchapter “I” of the same SORNA law. this is a stutory construction night mare that is only going to get worse because the court is sentencing people that they are going to have to set free when the can of appeal challenges hit hard.

    • #46833
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      I am so grateful we meat on here, you and Chuck gave me an so many other courage to fight these bs laws, when you told me I had a bad lawyer before the last one, the first one argued me blue in the face about equal protection and due process, you lik me are from another state, another reason the didn’t want to challenge my fight in court, they are trying hard to protect Act 10 and 29, I see your path now, I didn’t completely understand it but I do now. My old lawyer was on the DA’s side, proof in what I copied Andy pasted below from what you wrote.

      3. Equal protection rights of U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 on equal offenses from Texas and Pa. Being treated different on same Pa. equal offense only because offense happened in Texas. see Tommy Lee Jackson 143 A 3d 468. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment to increase a 10 year offense to lifetime simple because equal offense occurred in Texas.

      • #46840
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Brian

        Hey I am still in the fight, if you can you will see the commonwealth court had a meeting today and striked the PAAG brief on her ex post Facto bs. They don’t want to hear that. They want me to send a brief on the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 which says – – –
        “No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof
        extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so
        much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall
        be re-enacted and published at length.”

        That means that The provisions of ACT 10 and 29 that call for use of Former Megan’s Laws should be written in an re- enactment not and amendment. There should have been a SORNA 2 written not SORNA with two subchapters “H” and “I”.. SORNA as a whole law should have went down and a SORNA 2 made.

        Muniz – decision made it clear that SORNA cannot be applied to a pre-SORNA person at all. “I” is SORNA and so is “H” The rope is getting shorter for ACT 10 and 29. My PAAG had no come back on my brief, she did not know what to tell the court about expired former Megan’s Laws uses to enforce ACT 10 and 29. She don’t know. All that money she spent to go to school and a little nobody like me got her seeking help from where I don’t know. All she know is that ACT 10 and 29 are not punishment and are civil in nature, it is not the nature the court will measure it is the effect og ACt 10 and 29 They are jail consequence for noncompliance. that is punishment…………

    • #46861
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      You are wrong my friend, you are somebody, somebody to me and everyone here, sobody to your family.
      That’s funny as hell that PAAG has nothing, nothing to come back with, no argument, no nothin, see these people think they can just say hey let’s make a new law a quick pass it, no one will fight it because we’ll call it civil and give it a new name.

    • #46883
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      “In Toto” means in total or completely. I believe that means the courts(local judges) are using Muniz to invalidate Act 10 and 29 when the cases come before them.

      PSP is still playing games too. Didn’t the letters that Brian and Cary receive have the following wording “A review of your conviction record has revealed you are no longer required to register as a sexual offender with the Pennsylvania State Police at this time.” The last 3 words are problematic. They think (PSP) if the legislature writes a new law that they can come and put us back on the registry. Muniz all over again, a never-ending cycle. A lawsuit for improper prosecution may be in order. I Want to see if my letter has that too

      • #47147
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        @Mark
        I think they say “at this time” because the law could always change. They don’t want to confuse anyone. I knew a guy that was 3 days away from being off when SORNA kicked in. I told him he needed to register. He didn’t believe me but called them to double check. He was shocked to find out I was right.
        Only 21 more months to go!!!!

    • #46896
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      That’s why I wanted a judicial determination so they couldn’t just turn around and put me back on, my attorney even said the judge wouldn’t give a judicial determination because the DA was already in agreement or something to that fact. Hope Terry nails them ang puts Act10 and 29 to death for good. I didn’t spend all that money to be put back on, I will go back to court if I need to and I will demand a determination then.

    • #46910
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian
      You were from out of state correct? I’m not so when PSP finally gets off their collective a$$es and sent me my letter I will be off for good. My letter should not have that at all. I think I’m calling them up and ask why it’s there if it is. My 10 is in and then some. Anything else is punitive!! I hope Terry kills Act 10 and 29 and the courts send a message to the legislature that they blew it for money and that makes them all whores. Ha, couldn’t pass up that last one.

    • #46916
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      I think Cary is from PA, I could be wrong and have been many times, if they did or do put us back on there will be some serious lawsuits going down. I saw a few other people who posted about there letters and they were similar to ours, yours may very well say something different, guess you have to wait to see when you receive your letter.

    • #46991
      Avatar
      Cary

      Yes, I live in PA and been transporting to my stuff to the new address here in PA. Sorry been a bit busy as well getting the 3rd party websites to take me off from their websites

    • #47039
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Cary
      I emailed been verified, instant check mate, home advisor and mugshot .com. Mug shot said they never had i info Andy I searched their site and was not in there, but the others have complied, the one asked for proof of my removal from the reg and I sent a photo of my letter from psp. But they are very willing to removed people who are no longer required to register which was amazing, I used to read how it was a nightmare to get your info removed before and they used to make people pay for removing them, I guess they know people aren’t afraid to sue nowadays.

    • #47122
      Avatar
      Cary

      Brian, spokeo and city data dot com would not remove anyone from their websites unless it was expunged. So I emailed them and I told them I would sue. They never got back to me yet on that one. But, the ones you mentioned they took me off really fast. As for typing my first and last name in google yet still pops up but then when hit the link it’s a dead link meaning it’s not there. They said I would have to await for web crawler to snake threw and go threw things and delete it off from the web search on front page of each of the few. So I hope you gotten all your info off all of the sites and off from google search of your name cleared. Try looking up your name and scroll down to see if you pop up anywhere like city data dot com . 8

      • #47154
        Avatar
        Brian

        @Cary
        Yea I just googled my name and there are several more sites, I need to start working on those now.

    • #47162
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Cary
      I found a site called Offenderreader, they have my photo and old address info posted on google, I moved so they can’t track me now thank god, I emailed them asking them to remove my info, the ones you said as well as these others. truth finder and people smart, I wander if I talk to my attorney and see if he can have his office do a search and destroy of these sites.

    • #47189
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Cary
      So I emailed every site online that has my data on it, Truth finder said to send them proof that I have been removed which I do have, people smart said they only remove people who’s background has been expunged, I told them if they don’t I will sue them and anyone involved, I explained the Muniz situation and that it was illegal to put my information online about me being on the registry, my background is public knowledge but posting my photo and saying that I am on the registry is a violation. A website called Check Them has yet to respond, If they don’t want to remove my info then I will be spending more money in another lawsuit, I will go after these sites as aggressively as they go after us.

    • #47187
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Hello guys: I filed my brief in the mail today. it should reach the court by 12 noon to be filed in the clerk office. the docket is 339 MD 2018 the PAAG has 30 days form 10-03-18 to file a responds in opposition to my brief.

      The PAAG think I am fighting ex post facto I am not and never have there are law firms fighting that, But no one but me is fighting the statutory construction of ACT 10 and 29.

      The Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 is the violation that is in question. it says :
      No law shall be revived, amended, or the
      provisions thereof extended or conferred, by
      reference to its title only, but so much
      thereof as is revived, amended, extended or
      conferred shall be re-enacted and published
      at length

      If you would notice not one lawyer will get on this site and go toe to toe with me on the issue that I am rising. I use to have one judge on my case – then I filed a King’s Bench to the PASC and was getting ready to jump to the high court when the court realized that I am a heavy hitter in the law question of former Megan’s Law expiration.

      42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is the freedom statue. The Pa. Assembly got greedy for D.C. money in 2012, and D.C. asked the Pa. Assembly to expire all Pa. Megan’s Law to get the compliance money. When other states went for the money they repealed their old Megan’s laws and wrote savings clauses to revert back to old law if SORNA did not work out. Pa. did not repeal they expired. There is a difference. I saw this way back in 2014 but I kept it to my self.

      I am not law buff but I do know the Legislature process, and ACT 10 and ACT 29 are high jack laws. As they were being made they had no debate session and both HB 631 and HB 1952 never went to appropriations committee to see how they will be funded. That was a big flag. Subchapter “H” is SORNA but subchapter “I” is not AWA compliant because it is not funded by appropriations. Pa. Assembly thing that “I” will get money from “H” In the long run it will show up and you guys will hear that the Pa. Assembly is in trouble for stealing money from the AWA program thinking “I” is being paid for out of AWA money. It is but it is not in compliance with SORNA.

      Really there are two SORNA’s “H” and “I” but only one of there is the real SORNA. that is “H” it was given in 12-20-12. “I” is an illegal amendment of “H” that is flying until challenged in court rightly.

      The ex post facto game will not do the trick. Why, under DOE v. Smith states can violate ex post factor by saying public safety is more important. and the ex post facto retroactive new law has to be non punitive and less onerous in effect. ACT 10 and 29 is close to that.

      But ACT 10 and 29 was put together in a hace and the Pa. Assembly did not check the title 1 laws to see if they could amend subchapter “H” with a continued registration law.

      It is now impossible to fix ACT 10 and 29. They will trash it soon. The are Pa. Superior Court has cases ready to be heard on guess yes ex post facto. So many on Ex post facto. Bill Cosby’s lawyer has a good ex post facto argument. He attacks Subchapter “H” what they put Cosby under.

    • #47207
      Avatar
      Mark

      Good day all, and it is a good day. I FINALLY got my letter! It appears to me that it is a form letter. It even contains the problematic words “at this time”. As Chuck said it a catchall so the “whores in HBG” can try to put us all back on. My 10 is now done!!! That’s what I signed up for at my sentencing. They are the ones who tried to change the rules and got burnt.
      @Terry
      I saw your brief is posted on the Court report. so now 30 days from now the PAAG Lady has to have hers in. Nov 1 is the day since your is the 2nd, I will say she will wait the whole time just to drag it out.

    • #47208
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian and Cary
      I googled my name and crickets?! Only one or two came up.
      I wasn’t willing to pay for anything at this time maybe in a few weeks after things have time to settle out.
      Me being listed for my offense is one thing and to be expected but I if I am still listed as a registered SO I will have to ask to have that error removed. I paid for one month of service from Been verified but never got anything. Every time I tried it asked for $$$. I canceled. That and I didn’t like always being sent to instant checkmate. after running my info.
      I haven’t been on the website since Feb 14th anyway. That was right after Muniz failed cert.
      Since Terry filed his brief we have to wait until Nov 1 for a PAAG response. I think they will use all the time just to delay.

    • #47210
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      After you knock down 10 and 29 everyone still has another fight aperintly, all of these sites posting non valid information about us after we’re off the registery, some of them are willing to remove out information but others are apparently looking for a fight which I am will to get into. Tired or people shitting on my already.

    • #47238
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      Wow that’s great news man, congrats it’s a different feeling for sure, I have heard back from a couple of sites I threatened to sue and now they are saying my record is not showing up on their site, I have to figure out why my photo keeps showing up on google as an a SO but I am not on the registry. I think everyone’s freedom letter will show that catch fraze, (At this time), if they try and put people back on there will be a new Muniz or shal I say, A new Brunson, I think Terry is goin to hitem where it hurts, I should say he already have, The PAG Is lost without a clue, seams like trying to sway the judges into thinking it’s an expostfacto fight, but like Terry said, it’s not an Expostfacto fight he’s in.

      • #47244
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Google is another matter. It is displaying the information it picked up from those sites in it’s search results. If you have been removed from those sites, your information will start to drop off google’s search results over time, as their crawlers can no longer find and index it.
        We have a caching software on this site that automatically updates every five minutes. So when you first post a comment, you won’t see it right away, as you are still looking at the cached page. If you wait five minutes and refresh, it should show up. It will show up when you post a new comment though, because that refreshes the page.
        Has anyone noticed if this page has been loading faster?

    • #47270
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Chuck
      Hey just wandering how it’s going, haven’t heard a peep out of you for a bit, must be busy with testing or something, hang in there bro, your time will come for your freedom letter as well.

      • #47355
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Brian,
        I am here!! I have been working, going to class,and working on a personal project that will help me in the future.
        I know it sucks but stay current guys. We are almost done!! I think next year the Pa Supreme Court will deliver the final nail in the sex offender’s registry in Pa. It just takes time.
        I am excited for the fact I am finally getting to the point where I have enough time in since I was sentenced to be considered worthy of a 2nd chance.
        Knowing my luck, the Pa Supreme Court will rule the registry illegal the day after I finish my time. At least it will be dead though!!
        20 more months and I am DONE with PSP.

    • #47272
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Fred
      The pages are loading faster now.
      I can understand the delay of 5 min but my last post was waiting for moderation for over a day and was not even visible until I posted something. I messed up and made an error but the page refreshed.
      It’s one thing for the page not to show an unmoderated post but those should be shown as in moderation. It was that way before then is changed and it was hard to say when exactly.
      There was nothing new and if I hadn’t tried to post I may still not have seen it.

      Wii I am Free (for now) from the PSP Bozos. No more PD and the US Marshalls showing up at my home. I live in a third-floor walk-up apartment so they got a workout doing my verification :;

    • #47273
      Avatar
      Mark

      PS I didn’t see Brian’s post until I sent my last one in. It needs to be fixed!

      • #47283
        Fred
        Fred
        Admin

        Yes Sir! Is there anything else I can do for you?

    • #47274
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      I see that PSP has a new player in the game.

      Show her she is not dealing with no lightweight pro-se person.

    • #47287
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Fred

      The caching issue is still there. last night I posted 3 items and they showed up as waiting for moderation.
      This morning they are gone, lost in the ether of the internet.
      they will probably show up after I post this

    • #47288
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Guys I got a call from the PAAG office, asking me about the brief they received. They said that it is not clear to them what I am trying to say. They wanted to know what is the main issue I am trying to fight.

      I first told them that I filed the Brief with the court system, they will interrupt it and know what I am saying. If the PAAG office is not clear Oh well, re-read the brief and take your time, and I reminded them of the meaning of EX PATE COMMUNICATION.

      I don’t think the PAAG has a clue of how to look a 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 and understand what this on statue means in plain talk.

      If you go to ACT and 29 statute you will see at 42 Pa. C.S.A 9799.52(2) and 9799.77(a)(1)-(2)

      which calls for use of former Megan’s Law provisions that 9799.41 expired. What former Megan’s Law application can the PSP be referring to? What former laws are there?

      I want to know this. If I did my offense in 1999 and it was under a former Megan’s Law 2 or 3 provision of registration, and in 12-20-12 the Pa. Assembly got greed for AWA money and E X P I R E D all former Megan’s Laws on 12-20-12 when SORNA took over. question? What happen to all the former Megan’s Laws? or better what does Pa. law 9799.41 say happen to those former laws?

      If you on this sight can answer this the PAAG should able to understand this. It is a Sesame Street question. Oh lawyer are too advanced in law analysis to understand simple terms. I forgot about that.

      I filed my first brief on the same things I change very little on this new brief, and the PAAG thought I was taking about ex post facto I am taking about statutory construction. ACT 10 and 29 were constructed with a goal to de-affect the effects of MUNIZ on retroactive application of law in a disadvantage way in a legal consequence that rewrite expired law back into the book that repealed, by implication, BUT WAS EXPIRED 12-20-12. On that date all Megan’s Law Provisions were done complete, not usable as law no more.

      MISS NICOLE BOLAND can you understand this? I made it simple in my non lawyer terms.

      the Pa. Law does a better job than I as

      1 Pa. C.S.A. 1903
      1 Pa. C.S.A. 1922(1)
      1 Pa. C.S.A. 1928(b)(1)
      1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a)

      all fore mentioned tells by title one of the Statutory Construction ACT of Pa. that 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 means “SHALL EXPIRE” means done, finished, complete, no longer exist, impossible to execute as of 12-20-12. All you guys that have an offense before 12-20-12 was emancipated on proclamation of December 20, 2012, but you did not know it until oh terry brunson looked hard in the Pa. law to show it.

      It is like in Texas , the slaves did not know they were free by Abraham Lincon’s emancipation proclamation of 1864, But Texas slaves did not get the word until june 19, 1866 2 years later.

      We Pre-SORNA people were free 12-20-12 but no one figured it out. But by God’s grace and help arguing with chuck and Brian pushing me, and Mark asking questions, and snoopy, and good old Mr. Keith. I thank all of yall to the max.

      I love yall like brothers from another mother.

    • #47294
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry
      Way to go Bro!! Ya got them confused from the get-go. Can they ask for more time?

      Just because I am finished with them means I will forget you all, ain’t happen’!!

      @Fred
      FYI This time the page loaded like it normally did.

    • #47292
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Deibert, Allison Louise was the person that called me Friday asking about what is the real fight or issue I have with ACT 10 and 29.

      I don’t know this lawyer, but the PAG has three lawyer on my case and one from the PSP – I am not a lawyer yall I am only a humble Pro-Se person that did 8 years 6 days a week Prison Law library research on sex offender laws oh 6 hours a day.

      I feel that God has prepared me for this fight. I am the little guy up against 5 Pa. Lawyer from Harriburg on my case.

      I I were wrong on my legal fight I would have been seen the door. It is the King’s Bench appeal at the PASC that they know they have to deal with. The Commonwealth court is running nervous too to do the right thing. They took my case from a one judge hearing to a three panel of judges.

      When the News people here of my case it will be out there then. I am not one looking for fame, I am looking to protect my fellow sex offender brother who are being molested by the PSP to force them to get a lawyer they have no money to get. I will speak for us all. MUNIZ lawyer did good, but he is not a brother that the PSP is oppressing like all of us in the same boat.

      I prayer every day for all the sex offenders in Pa. and I see the day when the 8th Amendment will come after Subchapter “H” and make the whole sex offender registry cruel punishment.

      I am not under “H” so I could not put that issue in my Mandamus.

      I got notice of “I” which is “H” amended. Look at Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 13 (nor cruel punishments inflicted.) Notice usual is not mentioned in the Pa. Constitution only one text to pass. If you under “H” file mandamus.

      Subchapter “H” is cruel. Punishment.

    • #47305
      Avatar
      Brian

      @ Terry Brunson
      Terry you have been there from the very start of Muniz, You told me to file a mandamus but I was scared, I didn’t know or understand the law like you do my friend, but then I got the balls to do it but it was to late, PA had gone into a stay and court was frozen, I am not on the registry now but I am giving others hope by staying here and posting to let others know that there is hope, there is light at the end of the tunnel and it’s not a train, I was going to commit suicid, I was going to eat two bottles of my wife’s sleeping pills of 200 per bottle because I was so sick of thus bulshit registry and forever punishment from the police and the public, but Terry, you Chuck, Paul I think, Mark, Snoopy and a few others gave me hope, I wish the person Anonymous still posted or read this site but he stormed off in frustration to never return, seamed like a nice person. To anyone out there whose on the edge just don’t do it, don’t let these pricks win you over, it’s not worth it…

    • #47335
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian
      I’m glad you didn’t give up. If you had they would have won. They have started using the list as a tool to keep up down. Just imagine the public outcry if this would be for DUIs too. After all just talking about “Public Safety” these people are far more dangerous. Freedom is good, never having to worry about forgetting to do something.

      • #47354
        Avatar
        Brian

        @Mark
        I see this controversy with Bret Cabinal going on, Bill Cosby. Guilty until proven innocent, I heart two guys talking at burger king the other day saying how we have a back words system while watching the Cabibal thing, looked like to normal people, amazing how society is seeing now how broken this system is, politics have messed everything up, all for a couple votes to be elected, starting all this ish. They say the road to hell is wider then the road to haven, I pray every night but not sure which way I’m going, I doing my best to go up though.

    • #47529
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      The PSP has many lawyer on my case that were not on my case before. They want to stack lawyers to see if I will not service the new lawyers. I don’t think the PSP lawyers understand my case at all. Then keep gleaning a ex post facto issue. That is not my issue upfront.

      My issue is three fold:

      1. Statuetory Construction Defect of ACT 10 and ACT 29
      The good part of SORNA says that former Megan’s Laws expired 12-20-12 at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41
      1 Pa. C.S. 1903(a) says plain words in a statue mean expressly what they mean. So SHALL EXPIRE does not mean something other than expire.

      1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says that a statue should not give an absurd result in impossibility of execution in unreasonableness in that ACT 10 and ACT 29 ask for the use of EXPIRED former Megan’s Law provisions to put pre- SORNA people on ACT 10 and 29 as if it is okay to use expired law that no longer exist.
      You can find that at ACT 10 and 29 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2), and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 look for the word use former Laws after April 1996 before December 2012 . What former Laws are they talking about? (Former Megan’s Laws)

      1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) gives the expressed definition to what a statue means. Like 9799.41 means what it means. If it says all former Megan’s Law provisions are expired, they are. And if ambiguity in in there anywhere it is to the favor of the petitioner. 9799.41 has no ambiguity in what it saying, but ACT 10 and ACT 29 do in that ACT 10 and 29 calls for use of laws that no longer exist to be used.

      1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says when a law purports to be the law of the Commonwealth and it is repealed or done away with, the new ported law cannot revive to purport enforcement of an old law that expired.

      The Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 says that law that has been amended to revive old law is not possible without repeal savings clause help. When SORNA came into law effect 12-20-12 it did more than a repeal – it expired the former Megan’s Laws [.] never to come back.

      2nd issue is on Unconscionable contract of adhesion. You all may be thinking what do that mean? That means that the PSP forces ACT 10 and ACT 29 on pre-SORNA people over the contract that they had with the court form registration requirements. If in 1999 the sex offender signed a plea form 10 years, now in 2018 the contract is what the PSP says it is. And if you don’t do it you will go to jail.

      The will of the person is threatened. So you comply to keep from going to jail. ACT 10 and 29 calls for some to register for lifetime now, when they only had to do so for 10 years in 2003. They are crazy to think that ACT 10 and 29 is not punitive in effect. ACT 10 may seem civil in form, but it is its effect that the courts in Pa. are looking at. The challenge is on now. The briefs are in, ACT 10 and 29 are in effect punishment in that they determine legal consequence in an increase to many that had an enumerated offense that was ten years back in the day, now it has increased to lifetime with no regards to consequence effects to the fairness of rights under the Pa. and U.S. Constitutions.

      That is what Weaver v. Graham case was all about. it was an ex post facto issue, but that shall be seen by the court any way as the other issue are being brought forth. I did add the ex post facto issue at the end of my brief to cover the grounds.

    • #47564
      Avatar
      Mark

      No news or is the caching acting up again??

      • #47669
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Mark

        The Superior Appeals Court has a docket full of ACT 10 and 29 appeals. They are lazy to do each case one by one, so they are letting the cases pile up and will do like they did in the Commonwealth v. Fernandez case 0f the 19 that appealed the Megan’Law contract case. The 19 won, ACT 10 and 29 was not issues in this case and they were put on ACT 10 and 29.

        That is why I want to skip the Superior Appeal court, The King’s Bench is the direct road for me, only fall back is that in the PASC there is no right to be heard they have to pick you to be in front of them.

        It is a risk but the reward will be great. My case is like none other. I am showing that ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls pre-SORNA people to it on a over sight that former Megan’s Laws were expired by SORNA law 42 Pa. C. S. 9899.41.

        Then I show that the Pa title one tells what that mean. I know I will bring ACT 10 and ACT 29 down to a crash . The PSP lawyer are many against me. I am not a lawyer. The commonwealth court also set a panel just for my case alone. They want to get this case out the way. The PSP is the wait now. Their brief is due 2 November 2018, no more time extentions. They have to come to the court with the opposition goods. I know they don’t have them goods that I showed the court. All they got is Ex Post Facto talk

        It is quiet until the court makes a move that will cause a stir

    • #47690
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      My Kings Bench appeal was denied by order on 11 October, 2018. docket 122 MM 2018. The PASC may not have understood my issue as an importance to public matters. I know that they would have to select this case. The Commonwealth Court panel is the next round, 2 November 2018 the PSP’s brief is due. My hopes bank on the panel seeing the points in my brief.

      ACT 10 and 29 are invalid laws to Pre-SORNA people. Stay tune on this saga. . . . . . . .

    • #47705
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry
      I got a question
      . How can it be EX PARTE COMMUNICATION if you are pro-se?
      Not defending the new PSP lawyer. If you had a paid attorney she would be calling them? Yes or No?

      @Everyone
      All is well here not having to worry about the man showing up to check up on me. Terrorizing my wife in the
      process. I am hoping this all ends soon for the rest of the people who still have to deal with these Bozos!
      I wonder how many people were put back on the list (were done under the previous versions) or added to the list on 12/20/2012.

    • #47706
      Avatar
      Mark

      Oh, now that I see Terry’s latest 2 posts I’m all caught up. Too bad about the king’s bench. So, now it thru the normal path?

    • #47715
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry

      Can you refile you Kings Bench with clarification on your motion?

    • #47736
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark

      What sucked for me was I was due to come off like 10 days after New Years I think in 2013, I think the world have put me back on the hate list anyway though. All people can do now is keep fighting and chipping away this the hate list, Terry I hope the appeal and win my friend. Good luck to all.

    • #47901
      Avatar
      Mark

      Crickets!!!

      • #47928
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Mark

        The King’s Bench filing was a risk because the PASC is a court does not give right to be heard. They must accept your filing. About ex parte Communications, It is true that I am Pro Se and have no lawyer, but the new Lawyer doesn’t have a right to communicate with me about my case where the court has not ordered a sit down conference to work things out.

        The PAAG that called me wanted free discovery on what I filed in the Brief. I filed my Brief, serviced it, and if he being a lawyer cannot understand what I am saying in the Brief, he should find a new profession.

        The Court did not order that me and the PSP sit and talk in conference. He called to investigate what my filed argument is. If he can read, he should read the brief and it will tell him what I am telling the court.

        Ex parte communication is when the lawyer takes it upon themselves without court instruction by an order and want to talk to me – if I had a lawyer it would be the same, have permission from the court to talk in conference. If the court don’t know you are talking it is ex parte. That is like me talking to the judge without the PSP knowing it. I write the judge in my case a personal letter asking why is my case taking so long to get to the hearing level. This is ex parte communication and it is illegal to do.

        As of now it is the PSP that has to file a brief in opposition to my brief by 2 November 2018. The will try to ask for extension of time by I will oppose that as a delay of justice. They have 30 days to get in a brief.

        They claim heavy case load for needing more time, more time request is normal for a good reason, need to find a witness, need to wait for a report, but in question of law issues there is no need to delay and ask for more time.

        My issue is 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says – All former Megan’s Law provision did EXPIRE 12-20-12

        The question of Law is: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

        The PSP should oppose that to tell that it don’t mean what it says.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) says that if a sex offender has a former Megan’s Law offense from April 1996 before December 2012 must register with the PSP. That is clear in what that law is saying, but it is ambiguous, and impossible to execute, absurd in result by normal law standard under Pa. statutory construction.

        1 Pa. C.S. 1903(a) a word in statue mus say clear what is mean so every one can know what is the meaning of the Law

        1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says that the Pa. Assembly intention must be in law making clear, not with absurd result of make a law impossible to execute in an unreasonable way.

        ACT 10 and 29 is is such a law.

        If you read 42 Pa. C. S. 9799.52(2) you should see that is is asking sex offenders with a sex offense from after April 1996 before December 2012 to register with PSP. That sounds clear Right? Wrong.

        Read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 all former Megan’s Law Provisions shall expire 12-12-12.

        So if I have a 1999 sex offense under Megan’s 3 and The PSP send me a letter saying a new law says that my Megan’s Law 3 provision is a need to register with the PSP. I would ask they how?

        What former Megan’s Law offense you talking about? on 12-20-12 all former Megan’s Law 3 offense were expired.

        You don’t see that the PSP and Pa. Assembly is calling in new law a action that is absurd in result, and impossible to execute, and it is unreasonable in that my 1999 former Megan’s law offense expired when SORNA was made law in 12-20-12.

        now six years later you want me to register with the PSP?

        Qustion of Law? What did $2 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 mean in clear talk that all former Megan’s Law provisions expire? Now ACT 10 and ACT 29 are calling me to register due to a Former Megan’s Law provision that is no longer in law effect. Do you see this or am I crazy?

        The Pa. Constitution at Article 3 Section 6 says that no law shall be revived, amended or provision extended to be re-enacted like ACT 10 and 29 to call people with former megan’s law provision offense to register with the PSP.

        1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) says if law is saying something crazy – the penal statue should be ignored as lenity in favor of the sex offender because the new law is calling the sex offender to register in a way that is crazy.

        Expired law is done complete and ACT 10 and ACT 29 cannot change that.

        IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CALL REVIVE DEAD LAW BACK INTO EFFECT – by amendment. You have to repeal then make a savings clause and enact a whole new Law.

        Right now in Pa. there are TWO sex offender laws. 1. Subchapter “H” and 2. Subchapter “I”

        But 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says that a two law system is not supportable by using new law not repealed, no savings clause given.

        MUNIZ made part of SORNA illegal, SUBCHAPTER “H” not for pre-SORNA people

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 steps in to attack MUNIZ decision and call for Former Megan’s Law provisions to be enforced again even though there is no repeal no savings clause – just an amendment of “H” to Make new law “I”

        1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says this is a no go. . . This is a statutory construction error.

        Read 1 Pa. C.S.A 1971(a) and you can come to an understanding that the lawyers in this state are stupid.

        1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) implies repeal, but the Pa. Assembly went beyond repeal of former Megan’s law provisions to EXPIRE them 12-20-12.

        Subchaper “H” is the purported law in the Commonwealth for sex offenders, that is CALLED SORNA

        all former Megan’s law provisions expired 12-20-12 so all pre-SORNA people have no law to be under, so one was made up called subchaprter “I” an illegal amendment of “H” this is not enacted law.

        42 Pa. C.S. 9799.76(1) shows this: “PSP shall create registry under “I” to incorporate “H” though expressly former Meagan’s law provision have been expired “IN TOTO” .
        Simple put, “I” in unconstitutional it calls for an act in law that makes no sense to normal thinking people.

        How can you expire a provision and then call for it to come back by not an enactment, just an amendment.

        Pa. Contruction of Law don’t suport that.

        I have shown this in my brief the the Commonwealth Court. They don’t have to agree with me. The PSP don’t have to agree with me. I just make plain sense to see how the is to work, but people in the Pa. government not letting it be so because they hate the thought of sex offender going free in large numbers.

    • #47960
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Terry
      Thanks for the explanation. Well, we just have to wait until Nov 2 to see what is in PSP’s brief.

    • #48037
      Avatar
      Anonymous

      Hi guys,
      Funny how they were threatening to enact residency requirements and that sort of went away. Perhaps they realized residency requirements would only make the registry more punitive.

      It’s hard to believe this time last year we were waiting for the US Supreme Court to make a decision on cert concerning Muniz. Since the day PASC ruled on Muniz I have completed 50% of what time I had remaining. All told, I have 99 out of 120 months completed. Here’s to the next 21
      Months going by just as quick as the last 99!!!

    • #48054
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck

      Since when do they think? Only after 2 things up there, money and power. This would get them neither and actually will cause them to lose money. It could have brought the whole snora down and then where would they be? Time is running out for PSP in Tery’s case. But since its Commonwealth Court, we know they are going to appeal. Then off to Superior Court. Since the Kings Bench was dismissed it’s going to take longer.

      • #48162
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        Mark,
        No matter what issue you are debating you always have people on team a and team b and then you have those that take a bit of both teams to form a 3 rd team. I think what happened was the more extreme team wanted residency restrictions and the opposite team along with the moderates said “he’ll no. That will make things worse”

        We shall seee as time goes by. It took almost 5 years for Muniz to happen, so considering we are less than a year since ACT started, we have a ways to go.

        We shall see!!

      • #48152
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        Mark

        There superior appeals court is not paying attention to Derhammer decision of the PASC of 11-22-17

        They came up with the dumd idea to stack all the appeal cases that are the same, and decides Commonwealth v. Fernadez et al 19.

        Commonwealth v. Oliver
        Commonwealth v. Major
        Commonwealth v. Shane Antoine Thomas
        Commonwealth v. Clark Emanuel Mead
        Commonwealth v. Bryan Allen
        Commonwealth v. Denton Martin
        Commonwealth v. Bicker
        Commonwealth v. Partee

        All these cases are PCRA cases that the Superior appeal count shoot down under ACT 10 and ACT 29 under Collateral Consequence Act that bars PCRA court actions in jurisdiction to bring up collateral issue not directly related to the conviction of the crime. this is bs.

        If this were true then registration would not be an issue. The reason for registering is due to the collateral issue of the conviction. It sounds crazy to me – not being a lawyer I see thing clearer than they do.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 are collateral consequences however; they can always be attacked under the Habaus Corpus Writ it give up the body form ACT 10 and 29 oppression.

        You don’t need a PCRA appeal just file Habaus Corpus and you will see results. Must start filing at county court level called Court of common pleas. They appeal to commonwealth court, then Superior court of appeals, and then PASC.

        Most are doing a PCRA and getting shoot down because ACT 10 and 29 are not yet unhatched from
        collateral consequence. Muniz decision had no retroactive fight on collateral consequence just punishment in punitive results.

        This difference is the court’s confusion. MUNIZ did have retroactive effects fight – just not in collateral consequence area, but that don’t mean any one can’t file a Habaus Corpus on collateral consequence attack. Then the court would have to add collateral Consequence to MuNIZ ‘s punishment issues under retroactive effects.

        Do any one understand this?

        • #48176
          Avatar
          Anonymous

          Terry,
          Collateral means “additional” as in additional penalties. Like it or not, the registry is an additional consequence of conviction. A Prison sensetence, or in lieu of, a probation sentence is the primary direct consequence stemming from a criminal conviction.
          It is also helpful to remember that in Muniz the court DID NOT say the registry is punitive but RATHER the registry is so severe in nature it is to be considered LIKE punishment. A little bit of a distinction.
          Because the registry is not directly related to the conviction, the judge can’t grant relief from ACT 10 under PCRA grounds.

          As long as you face a prison sentence and or a possible fine, the registry will be an “additional” consequence. Just like an “additional cinsequence” of being convicted of a felony is that you lose your gun rights under Federal Law even if the felony has nothing to do with guns. Or, just like when you commit welfare fraud, you lose your ability to claim welfare benefits. The principle is grounded in our legal system no matter where you turn.

          The reason you can only appeal issues directly relating to the conviction after sentencing is that they don’t want you still appeal your case 50 years after you were sentence because you are complaining about any and everything.
          Otherwise, someone might appeal their conviction because they feel the color shirt a juror was wearing somehow influenced their sentence. Or, a juror was a Yankee fan and the defendant was a Red Socks fan. Bogus claims but it keeps you alive that much longer if you are facing the death penalty. Or, you got life and got nothing else better to do. They have to cut the line somewhere.

      • #48154
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        Mark

        There superior appeals court is not paying attention to Derhammer decision of the PASC of 11-22-17

        They came up with the dumd idea to stack all the appeal cases that are the same, and decides Commonwealth v. Fernadez et al 19.

        Commonwealth v. Oliver
        Commonwealth v. Major
        Commonwealth v. Shane Antoine Thomas
        Commonwealth v. Clark Emanuel Mead
        Commonwealth v. Bryan Allen
        Commonwealth v. Denton Martin
        Commonwealth v. Bicker
        Commonwealth v. Partee

        All these cases are PCRA cases that the Superior appeal count shoot down under ACT 10 and ACT 29 under Collateral Consequence Act that bars PCRA court actions in jurisdiction to bring up collateral issue not directly related to the conviction of the crime. this is bs.

        If this were true then registration would not be an issue. The reason for registering is due to the collateral issue of the conviction. It sounds crazy to me – not being a lawyer I see thing clearer than they do.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 are collateral consequences however; they can always be attacked under the Habaus Corpus Writ it give up the body form ACT 10 and 29 oppression.

        You don’t need a PCRA appeal just file Habaus Corpus and you will see results. Must start filing at county court level called Court of common pleas. They appeal to commonwealth court, then Superior court of appeals, and then PASC.

        Most are doing a PCRA and getting shoot down because ACT 10 and 29 are not yet unhatched from
        collateral consequence. Muniz decision had no retroactive fight on collateral consequence just punishment in punitive results.

        This difference is the court’s confusion. MUNIZ did have retroactive effects fight – just not in collateral consequence area, but that don’t mean any one can’t file a Habaus Corpus on collateral consequence attack. Then the court would have to add collateral Consequence to MuNIZ ‘s punishment issues under retroactive effects.

        Do any one understand this?

    • #48148
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Chuck you are rolling along, will be on the done side soon. Chuck thank you for all your support since we meet. I got a decline from the King’s bench 122 MM 2018. The PASC court is not a court where you have a right to be heard. They choose the case they want to hear.

      The case I have in the Commonwealth court is in wait of the PSP opposition brief due 2 November 2018.

      in my brief i am pointing out that an amendment in not a new enactment of law on an amendment if you can get that.

      ACT 10 “I” is an amendment of SORNA “H” which is the purported law on sex offenses of registration.

      SORNA is the main law. that has been amended in an illegal way. Then on the Amendment of ACT 10 comes ACT 29 which they call an enactment of the amendment to confuse us.

      However, Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 is the meter on amendments and enactments:

      § 6. Revival and amendment of laws.
      No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof
      extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so
      much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall
      be re-enacted and published at length.

      ACT 10 was never re-enacted, it is an amendment of SORNA in attack of MUNIZ

      ACT 29 in the enactment of ACT 10 – Now the superior Appeals court is in a confused state of two things

      1. That Former Megan’s Laws are still enforceable because the collateral consequence of sex offender registration is not yet constable under ACT 10 or ACT 29 in PCR courts. But under the Habeus Corpus Collateral consequences are constable by restrictions that are more onerous than when they first was given.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 claim non punitive form – one must show punitive elements of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      The PSP is making it seem as ACT10 and 29 are rosies laws that are not punishment to anyone.

      But that was not my issue to fight.

      I am trying to bring down the Statutory Construction ACT issue. and the all former Megan’s Laws were expired 12-20-12 and ACT 10 and ACT 29 call pre-SORNA people to register who’s former Megan’s Law provisions have expired 12-20-12 to put Pa. in AWA compliance.

    • #48303
      Avatar
      Mark

      Well all, we are a week away from the date that PSP has to file their brief.
      Things will start to get interesting.
      I am hoping for the best for Terry and everyone else still illegally under the thumb of PSP.

    • #48308
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      This week pass a non-precedential decision in the Superior court case of Commonwealth v. Jason Hoover Sensenig No. 141 MDA 2018 decided 22 October 2018

      This case is showing that 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 the expiration of Former Megan’s Law provision in effect did expire all Megan’s Law 3 provisions on date 12-20-12. Consequently, Megan’s Law 3 is no longer a statute under which registration requirements can be imposed.

      Megan’s Law 3 provision being up lifted as former to give life to ACT 10 and ACT 29 is dead moot issue now at the Superior court level.

      In foot note 1 of this case it tries to show that ACT 10 of February 21, 2018 is striking by ACT 29 which is more in effect than ACT 10. ACT 29 is the Law to challenge. ACT 10 was repealed by ACT 29 June 12, 2018. This is the opinion of the court.

      However the court is not quite right on the conclusion in light of the statutory construction ACT of 1 Pa. 1903, 1922, 1928, and 1971(a)

      ACT 29 is still in defect to its construction by Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6

      Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 is the meter on amendments and enactments to revive laws:

      § 6. Revival and amendment of laws.
      No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof
      extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so
      much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall
      be re-enacted and published at length.

      ACT 29 calls for former Megan’s Law applications of Megan’s Law 2 as rewritten into ACT 29 but not word for word published in length as the Pa. Constitution calls for.

      ACT 10 to the Superior court is dead, but they are holding to ACT 29 as a new law application.

      The main problem with ACT 29 right off the bat is the PSP has never given no one in Pa. a notice letter to register under ACT 29.

      The Superior Court says that ACT 10 is dead to them, question who killed it? Which case appeal court has said that in 1925 opinion?

      I sad the whole subchapter “I” whether ACT 10 or ACT 29 is dead.

      There is two SORNA laws alive in pa now. Subchapter “H” SORNA of date 12-20-12 and subchapter “I” of date June 12, 2018 known as ACT 29.

      If you read 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) to amend “H” with “I” to mesh them together there must be a repeal of one to enact the other this was never done, and a savings clause should have been written to revive or amend shubchapter “H” with “I”.

      The Pa. Assembly went beyond the repeal requirement to the expire stage. all former Megan’s Laws were expired at SORNA enforcement 12-20-12 by goo SORNA law 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.

      The Superior court is moving close to see this, but they are putting ACT 29 in the position as if it was enacted as law correctly. It will stand as such until challenged. My case make change on both ACT 10 and 29 I covered both bases.

      The Commonwealth Court that I am in is the Middle district. They are not yet clear themselves on what position to take on Former Megan’s Law provisions expiration by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.
      terry brunson is the only one in Pa. that has opened challenge on Statutory Construction defect of both ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      I am showing something that lawyer in this state have not yet put two and two together to equal four. The lawyers of pa. are money hounds that have not yet connected the dots on Statutory Construction defect of ACT 10 and ACT 29. They ought to give their degree back in law and go into another field of work.

      I filed a brief on Statutory Construction defects on July 23, 2018 and the PAAG Ms Nicole Boland filed a 5 September 2018 brief and in it gave no mention on Statutory Construction defect but only gave opposition in her brief to ex post facto challenge.

      She was told by the the Commonwealth court to redo her brief and answer the opposition in line the Statutory Construction defect question of law by what is 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 saying and mean to what happen to all the former Megan Law provisions on 12-20-12 at SORNA induction to Pa. law.

      She never has said to this date. It is a simple reply, even you reading this blog should be able to tell the court what happened to the former Megan’s Law provisions by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41. I will put it here to see if you are as smart as she:

      § 9799.41. Expiration.

      The following provisions shall expire December 20, 2012: (all former Megan’s Law provisions listed below)

      Section 9718.3 (relating to sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders).

      Section 9791 (relating to legislative findings and declaration of policy).

      Section 9792 (relating to definitions).

      Section 9795.1 (relating to registration).

      Section 9795.2 (relating to registration procedures and applicability).

      Section 9795.3 (relating to sentencing court information).

      Section 9795.4 (relating to assessments).

      Section 9795.5 (relating to exemption from certain notifications).

      Section 9796 (relating to verification of residence).

      Section 9797 (relating to victim notification).

      Section 9798 (relating to other notification).

      Section 9798.1 (relating to information made available on the Internet and electronic notification).

      Section 9798.2 (relating to administration).

      Section 9798.3 (relating to global positioning system technology).

      Section 9799 (relating to immunity for good faith conduct).

      Section 9799.1 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania State Police).

      Section 9799.2 (relating to duties of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole).

      Section 9799.3 (relating to board).

      Section 9799.4 (relating to counseling of sexually violent predators).

      Section 9799.7 (relating to exemption from notification for certain licensees and their employees).

      Section 9799.8 (relating to annual performance audit).

      Section 9799.9 (relating to photographs and fingerprinting).

      So when ACT 10 and ACT 29 at 42 Pa. 9799.52 call for use of former Megan’s Law provisions after April 1996 before December 2012 – question, what former laws is ACT 10 and ACt 29 calling to as former sex offender laws? Megan Law what? 1, 2, 3, these are the only pre- SORNA sex offender laws I know. May there are laws that I have not yet noticed.

      May be some of one among you – know more than me on this topic can help me out on this. What former Sex offender laws other than Megan’s law 1 2 3 can there be?

      So ACT 10 and ACT 29 call pre- SORNA people to it by former Megan’s Laws that no longer exsit

    • #48402
      Avatar
      Mark

      It has been at least 2 days since my last post and I still cannot see it or anything else. The caching system seems to be malfunctioning.

    • #48393
      Avatar
      tom henery

      About subchapter I of Pa sorna. on 10/22/18 Pa superior court stated act 10 of 2018 has been struck and act 29 of 2018 re-enacted act 10 and they won’t address an act 10 argument. Com v sensenig, no. 141 mda 2018 also that court has ruled in several cases in October 2018 that using Pcra to be removed from sorna is a fool’s game .
      Sorna is not a sentencing issue unless you had a plea contract! Logically then a writ of habeas corpus in your county court that sorna was deemed punitive by muniz and can not be applied any longer as a collateral consequence as you were already punished once for your crime and must be removed.
      You also now must state when act 29 of June 12, 2018 re-enacted act 10 of Feb.21, 2018 neither act ever re-enacted the former expired megan law as is mandated by Pa const act 3 section 6; I Pacsa section 1971 (A); I Pacsa sec. 1922 (1) and therefore subchapter I of sorna is voidable and your habeas must be granted under I Pacsa sec.1928 (b)(2).please tell all lawyer ASAP

      • #48520
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        Mr Tom you are right on target. I am in court at the Commonwealth court level on just what you are saying.

        When you quote the pa law put title number down. you put Pacsa 1928(B)(2) it should look more like this:

        1 Pa. C.S.A. 1928(b)(2).

    • #48500
      Avatar
      Snoopy

      @terry

      I’m cautiously optimistic…. when I read your post I dug out the paperwork I received earlier this year and it only showed me being dragged back in by Act 10.

      I’ll admit, I get confused with all of these amendments, acts and add ons… What was Act 29 for again and who did it effect? If my memory is correct I thought it was for people still on probation or something….

      I am Pre-Sorna, due to get off the registry towards the end of 2020… Well, at least I was originally 10 years with 6 months HOUSE arrest and 5 years probation…. I did my first registration 2 days after I was sentenced and always had my HOUSE address – never a jail or prison…. When SORNA came out I was bumped up to twice a year and changed to 25 years…. With Muniz I should be bumped down to 10 years, but my last paperwork showed 15 years… I sent the PSP paperwork showing I should be 10.

      If I’m reading what you wrote correctly….

      Based on the current cases ML 1, 2, & 3 are now officially gone and Act 10 is also gone…….. but Act 29 is in effect…. I never got a letter for Act 29. Is that because I was originally never “captured” by Act 29?

      If ML 1, 2, & 3 are gone and Act 10 is gone… I appreciate that there will probably be an appeal of the court decisions, but doesn’t that mean that theoretically I am done?

      Obviously I will do all of my updates until I get a letter…. and since I did my in person Act 10 earlier this year I am done for in person yearly for this year…

      BUT WOW… I’m hoping I followed everything that you were saying correctly.

      • #48523
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Snoopy

        You got it right – ACT 10 was a Bill called HB 631. This was the probation and parole Bill that became Law on date Feb 21, 2018 and noted in Pa law as ACT No. 10. This is the Law that the PSP gave all people notice to be under by 22 May 2018.

        Now ACT 29 was the HB 1952. It was enacted on date June 11, 2018 as ACT No. 29. It is an added support to Subchapter “I” It is a law that is tossed around with no real concept of what it means. If ACT 29 re-enacted ACT 10 on what date and by what Court opinion shows that?

        Commonwealth v. Jason Hoover Sensenig No. 141 MDA 2018 decided 22 October 2018 foot note 1 it says that ACT 10 was reenacted by ACT 29, but gives not court precedent opinion on this. It is quickly said, but that is all.

        No one in Pennsylvania has been given notice on ACT 29 in violation of Matthews v. Elridge 424 U.S. 319
        We all been tar and feathered with ACT 29 without notice in a letter by from the PSP. ACT 29 has no reenacting process other than a Pa. Assembly vote and Governer signature, and that is it.

        The Superior court don’t want to hear about ACT 10 at all they seem to have an understanding that ACT 29 did away with ACT 10.

        I am in court now over this very issue. my case is 339 MD 2018. The PSP lawyer filed a opposition brief to me. I have not got it in the mail yet.

        If that opposition breif say anything about the federal AWA rules, I will file a motion to strike AWA federal rule s, This is not a federal court issue. State courts can only deal with SORNA not AWA.

        I got the motion to strike ready to file.

        I am by the grace of God a 1/2 step in front of the PSP. They think all are challenging ex post facto on the appeal. not me. It is the Statutory Construction that is the problem.

        No one but me and God can see this issue. School trained Lawyers cannot see it, Judges can’t see it even people on this Site cannot not see it – But this is the issue. The Pa Assembly think they can erace MUNIZ results on retro activity of what the PASC said and voted July 19, 2017.

        The PSP want to ignore MUNIZ. and Derhammer., and Reed, and other positive cases that give relief to us.

        It is a fight and a battle today. It is the Pre SORNA issue that they want to keep in tact – why? over 70,000 will be set free if ACT 10 and ACT 29 was not in the way.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for the use of former Megan’s Law provisions to be used that have expired by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41

        This law is from good SORNA law. Subchapter “H”

        Subchapter “H” is the only true Sex offender law in the State . Subchapter “I” is subchapter “H” amended with invalid revival of expired Megan’s Law 2 and 3 provisions.

    • #48525
      Avatar
      Mark

      Tomorrow is the day! What could the PSP lawyer lady come up with to counter Terry’s claims?
      The next few days or weeks will be interesting.

    • #48526
      Avatar
      Mark

      Oh, I see that the PSP lawyer filed today. Now we wait.

    • #48541
      Avatar
      Brian

      Good to see everyone is still hanging around, Terry Brunson, your a true savior, good luck my friend, these people don’t know what to do with you, they need to go back to law school and freshen up a bit, lol Darhamer helped my case and it should help others also..

      • #48548
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Brian

        You were the first person I talked to on this site – I always vision you as the one that got me started. Telling you how to get the victory was a miracle. You did the lawyer thing good. The first law I told you was not for you. He was letting the DA lead him, NOT GOOD. Glad you got rid of him Boy, that clown was getting ready to milk you of money at every step to go down a dead end path to nowhere

        Yes Derhammer of 11-22-18 is the case that make all Megan’s Law application provisions go away. The PSP don’t see this to apply Derhammer automatically. You have to challenge them.

        The best tool is the Mandamus, not a PCAR. Other say the Habeus Corpus –
        The difference between the two writs is

        1. A Mandamus makes an agency do what law tells it to do in relief – like Muniz says no expost facto bs,

        2. The Habeus Corpus is a writ that attacks the collateral Consequence as punishment that need to stop. The Habeus Corpus to not as effective because it will fail at showing ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment steming from your conviction.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 went into law after your conviction. a Pre-SORNA person will be wasting time doing a Habeus Corpus.

        Post SORNA people are the ones to file Habeus Corp writs.

        Pre- SORNA people stick to the Mandamus. The Court voted MUNIZ make the PSP follow MUNIZ.

        MUNIZ has nothing to say about collateral consequence. MUNIZ is about only question of law on retroactive application of SORNA being more onerous in punishment than when you were convicted. Esample. Under Megan’s Law 3 you got ten year registration, now under SORNA you get 15 years, 25 years of lifetime under enumerated offense that only gave 10 years under Megan’s Law rules which by the way EXPIRED 12-20-12 AT THE ENACTMENT OF sorna

    • #48581
      Avatar
      Brian

      @ Terry Brunson
      The bad lawyer I had supposedly wanted to hire another lawyer in Colorado to get the information that I already provided, your right, he was going to take every dime from me so that I would be stuck and still on the registry, he had the hots for the DA lady, As soon as I got the good lawyer she knew the gig was up, I’m not law smart like you Terry so the lawyer root was what I had to do, I didn’t feel confident doing the mandamus, Muniz was the first major savior, Reed, Darhamer and the rest were the starters, Butler may not win because of the election year, my good attorney told me he may not stand a chance do to elections, he could be wrong though.. But you Terry, you will be the one, I believe you will make it to scotus, I believe pasc will hear you and rull in favor but psp will appeal to scotus, Pa will be in a stay the whole 9, the ending will be a much more complex ruling which may have a wide spread good effect.

      • #48623
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Brian

        I got the PSP brief – they still think I am saying ex post facto stuff. They are saying that because they have legal myopia. They cannot not see that Subchapter “I” has two amendments as “H” SORNA of 12-20-12 and subchapter “I” the bs law with ACT 10 and ACT 29 bunched into a hodgepodge of confusion of amendment or reenactment of the amendment. .

        There are really three sex offender laws on the books w1. is SORNA, subchapter “H” the real law, 2. is ACT 10 and 3. is ACT 29, The the Statutory construction Act says there should be but one purported sex offender law to keep down confusion. You can look at it at 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a)

        Subchapter “I” has ACT 10 and ACT 29 two in one of a kind that confuse people.

        You and I got notice to be under ACT 10 by 22 May 2018 right? When are we to get notice to be under ACT 29? It was voted into law in June 2018 and not a soul has gotten any notice to be under that law yet, but is is to be the new law for pre-SORNA people.

        If ACT 29 was so much of a new Law why is not the PSP making people register under it. It seems to be a secret law that makes no sense even to the PSP. In ACT 29 there is a section that says that the courts cannot change this ACT 29 it is at 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9799.23(b)(2) That is not right to make a law to say what the courts cannot do. that is crazy. Who do the law makers thing they are. The court is the judicial part of the government that do what they do as a checks and balance to law makers.

        In the Superior court case Commonwealth v. Sensenig it says that ACT 10 was done away with by ACT 29’s reenactment to do away with ACT 10. Where did that come from. What court oppinion said that ACT 10 was done away?

        When will people have to be under ACT 29? The PSP is quiet on that. They are government gangsters that don’t know the law of Pa that well. Even lawyers don’t know the law that well. It is now up to the courts to fix all the bs on ACT 10 and ACT 29 in my case. I did my best to build the fence to protect the rights of us all. If I have to appeal I cannot bring in no new points. I got them all in to the court.

        I think it will take 30 days and we will know the ruling granted or denied. I see a win on my part and the PSP doing the appeal to the Superior court. I will sit back in watch the end.

        I am not a lawyer, but I know I am right about what I am saying in the law about statutory construction.

        In order to have one purported law on sex offenses law which we do have as SORNA subchapter “H” with the teir 1 2 3 stuff. This cannot be put on pre-SORNA people. so they came up with subchapter “I” but following the statutory construction you must repeal the “H” to make the “I” this was not done.

        And the “I” calls into operation old Megan’s Law provisions that “H” says was expired 12-20-12. like I said “H” is the last real right sex offender law in Pa. Subchapter “I” is an invalid law that should fall when challenged in court. I am fist up to challenge “I”

        I know you are with me Brian and I am looking to the hills which comes my help. This being an election time, the court is slow to act too fast for fear of getting looked at too hard as being too soft on crime

    • #48631
      Avatar
      snoopy

      @terry

      Here is a thought for you to consider that came to me when I read your post earlier today….

      Let’s say that they agree that there really is NO ML 1,2,3 and SORNA for PRE-SORNA people…

      In the process of that argument can’t they simply say – so what if that stuff is gone, the legislature passed this and we are arguing that it’s not ex-post facto so those sex offenders should still be able to be captured by Act 10, Act 29, or whatever else the legislature wants to pass because it’s not ex-post facto and it’s civil, blah blah blah…..

      Is that actually a legitimate argument they could make legally?

      That’s the only thing that could make sense with their argument.

      When should the court actually decide then, or are there more delays and still more back and forth paperwork argument and stuff that has to be done first?

      • #48682
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @Snoopy

        The brief that I filed has noting to do with Ex post facto other got that covered my position is statutory construction

        1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) says that there is only one true purported sex offender law in Pennsylvania, and that is SORNA of 12-20-12

        MUNIZ decision did not fully do away with SORNA. It is the pre- SORNA people that got a won in Muniz.

        So the pa Assembly had to make a new law for the Pre SORNA people ACT 10 came and then ACT 29.

        by 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) to make way for ACT 10 or ACT 29 or should I just say Subchapter “I” there must be a repeal of Subchapter “H” to make “I”, when in reality “I” is “H” amended, and then reenacted as ACT 29 without any repeals of former law. So there stands 3 purported sex offender laws. This is confusing to the DA’s and the Courts.

        There is SORNA subchapter “H”
        There is SORNA subchapter “I” ACT 10 amendment of “H”
        There is SORNA subchapter “I” ACT 29 reenactment of “I”

        In this above process is a statutory construction flaw.

        Subchapter “I” is invalid to be made because “H” still stands as the purported law without being put aside in repeal with savings clause to be amended.

        The Pa Constitution Article 3 Section 6 says that the way the Pa. Assembly did the ACT 10 and ACT 29 is out of step with normal law making rules.

        “I” should have never been done with “H” still standing in the way without being repealed. This is what 1 Pa C.S.A. 1971(a) is all about.

        and also ACT 10 and ACT 29 make demand to revive Former Megan’s Law provisions 2 and 3

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 need to the former Megan’s law provisions after April 1996 before 2012 to make ACT 10 or ACT 29 enforceable of old law.

        Snoopy asked so what with all I am saying. They voted new law as ACT 10 and ACT 29 – But “H” is still good law and “H” says at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 all former Megan’s Laws expired 12-20-12 at the making of SORNA. Hos can an expired law be used in ACT 10 and ACT 29 if they are gone?

        This is the construction glitch I been telling you all about.

        The court has never seen this argument but in one lower court win that no one but me knows about. Mr. Keith won on this same arguement months ago in a Habeus Corpus . I am greatful to Mr. Kiethh and I stepped up to fight his insight and the Commonwealth court is paying attention. I may be the face of this fight but Mr. Kieth is the brians. I love this man and his wife for adopting me into their life.

    • #48635
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry
      They are trying hard to confuse everyone, I think psp see Act 29 as Act 10 possibly, also maybe they haven’t been ordered to enforce it because everyone knows it’s illegal just like Act 10, quite a question we have here, statutory construction makes a lot of sense, why have 20 laws for one class, Muniz decision can not be undone, Muniz is law, rulled by PASC and denied by SCOTUS, whatever they pass on pre sorna people has to be expostfacto, with the end result being punishment by jail there’s no way they can call it civil, they’re just going to keep spending taxpayers money because people are not going to give up, Muniz is law period.

    • #48724
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      The PSP’s Brief is in and I made a reply brief to their brief, my reply was that their brief says noting about what 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 means in clear plain talk. “ALL FORM MEGAN’S LAW PROVISIONS SHALL EXPIRE.’ Is this hard to understand?

      1 Pa. C.S.A. 1903 says that a law should not be hard to understand. Its plain wording should be set for the every person to understand what it is saying.

      My case hangs on this 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 being interrupted by the court to mean -WHAT?

      The PSP in Subchapter “I” ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for use of former Megan’s Law provisions to be used to recapture pre-SORNA people that subchapter “H” cannot hold to register.

      So if ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for sex offenses after April 1996 before 2012 December. What former Laws do ACT 10 and ACT 29 need? There was only one law that could be spoken of – Megan’s Law 2 and 3.

      So if you had a Megan’s Law 2 or Megan’s Law 3 offence provision, and ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls them to be subject you to registration – I am fighting for you.

      If I win you too will will. I know the PSP will appeal. They have 4 lawyers on me. I am out thinking all of them with God’s help. They thinking I have a lawyer helping me. No I don’t have no lawyer helping me. Just me my self and I and God. This new lawyer is just out of law school. I been studying ex post facto sex offender law for 19 years. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not in a position to get a win on ex post facto issue alone.

      The Pa Assembly took ACT 10 and ACT 29 back to civil collateral consequence with no punitive issues so they think. There are restrictions in ACT 10 and ACT 29 that are punishment. but they are not to the point more onerous than pervious laws such as Megan’s Law 2 the law that got pass the PASC with no punishments.

      Based on Doe v. Smith. There are lawyers fighting that I did not want to get into that. The statutory construction defect is more clear to win on.

      SORNA is the purported law on Sex offenses in Pa. Subchapter “H” of 12-20-12

      This was amended on 02-21-2018 into ACT 10 – Subchapter “I” from HB631

      Then on 06-11-2018 ACT 10 subchapter “I” which was an amendment of subchapter “H” was reenacted to make subchapter “I’ all over again as ACT 29.

      Now normally- to make new law right – you repeal old law. so you still would have one one one did I say one purported law on the sex offence registration. The old law should be set a side to make way for the new law.

      You want to know where in Pa law it says this? in 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) I will put it here

      § 1971. Implied repeal by later statute.
      (a) Revision or exclusive system covering entire subject.–Whenever a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes upon a particular subject, or sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute, such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statutes upon the same subject.

      So subchapter “H” SORNA of 12-20-12 should have been repealed and if the Pa. law makers wanted to keep some of subchapter “H” to carry over into the new law a savings clause should be made to revive or amend by the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 I will put it here too

      Article 3 Section § 6. Revival and amendment of laws.
      No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof
      extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so
      much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall
      be re-enacted and published at length.

      That means re-write subchapter “H” SORNA word for word and add the subchapter “I’ new law stuff (which will still be retroactive ex post facto) then subchapter “I’ would have half a chance to look like good law constructed well.

      But this is not what happen with ACT 10 and ACt 29.

      ACT 10 was amended from SORNA subchapter “H” with no saving clauses to carry over into new law.

      then ACT 10 subchapter “I’ was reenacted from an illegal amendment to make ACT 29 subchapter “I”

      The defect in statutor construction is in ACT 10 was never put into law correctly making it void law when challenged and I am challing this in court and the court is hearing me.

      I had one judge at first not I have a panel of Pa. judges looking at my case – and the PSP case to see who is wright.
      I gave the Pa. Law they only give that they think I am talking about ex post facto. Well I am not. I am talking statutory construction of ACT 10 being amended improperly

      Then that ACT 10 illegal to be done was reenacted as if ACT 10 was good law to make ACT 29.

      I I were wrong any lawyer would get on here and correct me.

      Then ACT 10 and ACT 29 in it call for use of former old Megan’s Laws by saying if you have a former sex offence under any former sex offender laws you have to register under ACT 10 or ACT now ACT 29 subchapter “I”

      Making two purported sex offender laws in pa. where they should be only one purported law.

      We have a sex law for -post SORNA after 12-20-12 and that is subchapter “H”
      and
      We have a sex law foe pre- SORNA before 12-20-12 as subchapter “I”

      “I” would be good if they followed the law on putting it together. They that would leave just the clever fight on showing how it is punishment.

    • #48743
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      To all following my case – I want to clarify for those who are following my case. My case can be confusing to follow the way I am saying subchapter “H” and “I” and amendment and then reenactment of “I” with “I’ ACT 10 and ACT 29
      I want to be concise:

      Subchapter “I’ in ACT 10 as amendment to subchapter “H”
      Subchapter “I” in ACT 29 is a reenactment of ACT 10 to re-support Subchapter “I”

      All of this is fine to do BUT BUT BUT the problem area is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 call for the use of FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS THAT EXPIRED 12-20-12 at the enactment of SORNA

      When ACT 10 was written, all the old former Megan’s law provisions had no saving clauses to be used in future laws in a re write. The Pa Assembly thought SORNA would be it forever. They never thought MUNIZ would come along to turn over the table on punitive retroactive application. Pre-SORNA people were set free from registration[.]

      The Pa. assembly went into a frendze to not let 17,000 pre-SORNA people go free under MUNIZ, so they came up with ACT 10 subchapter “I” without without without the saving clause words to use any old megan’s law provisions in ACT 10 and ACT 29 as law.

      and ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls use of former Megan’s Laws to revive them without saving clause they just think they can write old law to come back. 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 is the hurtle to jump over. ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAW PROVISIONS IS EXPIRED 12-20-12[.]

    • #48742
      Avatar
      Chuck

      Hi Terry,
      I have a question. Let’s assume the Court agrees with you that ML 1-3 cannot be used today. Well, why can’t the Commonwealth say, “Well, that’s ok, because ACT 10 and ACT 29 are civil and thus exempt from Ex Post Facto concerns”? I mean you spend all this time arguing this and that are expired, but they do not need them. All they have to do is claim that ACT 10 and 29 are civil which they are claiming.
      By them claiming, and you conceding by not arguing against, that ACT 10 and 29 are civil they do not need any of the previous ML versions.
      What am I missing? How does ML 1-3 being expired or not expired help or hurt us? It seems to me as long as they have their civil argument, they are set. Thank you in advance for your response. I look forward to learning from you.

      • #48752
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Chuck

        The return to a civil collateral consequences result was and is the goal of the PA Assembly. To say forget about the way ACT 10 and ACT 29 were amended ten reenacted.

        Well we cannot not forget it. What the Pa. Assembly did was re-wrote Megan’s law 2 terms into ACT 10 as an Amendment of subchapter “H” SORNA of 12-20-12 which was punitive. The Assembly thinks and did put a call in ACT 10 this defect 02-21-18 to revive expired law outside the process of 1 Pa. C.S.A 1971(a) and the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6. They simply amended “H” to add “I” as ACT 10 with SORNA “H” still set as the purported sex offender law law which never repealed a small part of subchapter “H” 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 which says that former Megan’s law provisions expired 12-20-12 when SORNA took effect.

        The issue I put before the court is – can 42 Pa. subchapter “H” be amended to amalgamate subchapter “I” to revive forme Megan’s Law provisions that subchater “H” says by 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAW PROVISIONS EXPIRED 12-20-12.

        My premise is Subchapter “I” under ACT 10 of 02-21-18 in its scope and aim is to apply former Megan’s Law provisions after April 1996 before December 2012 to revive that which expired 12-20-12 without saving clause supports and a check with 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) and Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 to see if ACT 10 can make a call to revive by amendment expired Megan’s law 2 or 3.

        Megan’s Law provisions were expired because they were not in compliance with AWA to get funding form Washington D.C. so the Pa Assembly expired Megan’s Law provisions by SORNA subchapter “H” which Muniz did not make go away at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41. It is impossible to fix this because Megan’s Law 1 2 3 are disqualified to get money to be under SORNA which Subchapter “I” ACT 10 is Subchapter “H” SORNA amended 02-21-18.

        I guess the Pa. Assembly realized that Megan’s Law was to be repealed to be revived – the Pa. Assembly did something beyond repeal. They made former Megan’s Law provisions go away by expiring them. This act of expiring a law has rules of construction to follow and repeal of the law is one of them that was not done – by 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) and Pa. constitution Article 3 Section 6 so ignoring the law on statutory construction 1 pa and the Pa Constitution it is impossible to make ACT 10 amendment of SORNA subchapter “H” . ACT 10 is voidable . I thik the Pa. Assembly realized this so they got back together on 06-11-18 and tried to re-enact ACT 10 (which is voidable) into ACT 29 which still sits beside a purported Subchapter “H” that still says that former megan’s Law provisions EXPIRED 12-20-12 at the SORNA law. Not the want to try to do what they should have done 02-21-18 under ACT 10.

        The Pa. Assembly is too late to correct this statutory defect of ACT 10 amendment into a reenactment by ACT 29 of the Amendment ACT 10 which was put together illegally outside a proper construction of law. Did you miss this?

        Well I did not miss it – I stand on it – Civil or punitive it not the up front fight no more. It is the construction- The statutory construction of ACT 10 amendment ACT 10 into a reenactment ACT 29 to call for expired former megan’s Law provisions that subchapter “H” 42 Pa. C.S.A. says that is expired law that ACt 10 and ACt 29 is making to revive.

        I was removed from the registry 02-09-2018 and then under ACT 10 of 02-21-18 put back on under and amendment called ACT 10 which used my 1999 Texas conviction which was under Megan’s Law 3 which Megan’s Law 3 was gun down by Nieman, and Megan’s Law 2 was gun down by Derhammer, and all megan’s Law provisions were gun down by SORNA Subchapter “H” 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 that says ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAW PROVISIONS EXPIRED 12-20-12.

        with Muniz, Niema, and Derhammer and the plain language of 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 all say the same thing. ACT 10 and ACT 29 call at 42 Pa. C.S.A 9799.52(2) and 9799.74 under Subchapter “I”‘s call for use of former megan’s law provisions is voidable at constitutional challenge – applied under Mandamus for me, and timely PCRA and Heabus Corpus in the court of common pleas in your county court.

        The Pennsylvania Superior Court has also caught on to the statutory construction issue. No one but me so far is making the challenge in court but the justices are sending cases back to lower courts in PA. to review if ACT 10 and ACT 29 can be applied to any one. None of the lawyer in those cases are saying anything about statutory construction as I am, but the court is hinting that lawyer should file argument to get it before the higher courts to rule to settle this. See I am not a lawyer but my thinking is superior to them, lawyers that they are still at the ex post facto level, and the court is not vacating and remanding for lower courts to get the issue right before they come before the Superior Court.

        Judge Mary Jane Bowes is the lead voice now on this statutory construction issue. Just last week in the Superior Court in Harrisburg, Pa. the Superior Court voiced this in Commonwealth v. Morrow 939 WDA 2017 filed in Superior Court 09-05-18 questioning ACT 10’s position in law to be reenacted into ACT 29. How can we have the reenactment of a voidable amendment of a Active statue never repealed to rewrite Megan’s law 2 wording at length word for word – which was never done. ACT 10 and ACT 29 has added words that were not in Megan’s law 2

        ACT 10 is the Amendment that has the defect that cannot be corrected because former Megan’s law provisions are not AWA compliant to be funded by the US federal government. ACT 10 and ACT 29 is stealing money from the Feds to hold up ACT 10 and ACT 29.

        The Pa Assembly should be investigated for this construction on statute of law to deceive the feds to get the money for SORNA amended to ACT 10 then reenacted into ACT 29 and now sits side by side with what was amended called subchapter “H” SORNA. SORNA is the purported law that never loss its position by a repeal to make way for new purported law ACT 10 or ACT 29 with savings clause supports to call in them revival of former Megan’s Law provisions that subchapter “H” 12-20-12 expired. Now ACT 10 and ACT 29 want to use pass law to recapture. If you miss this Chuck May be it is too complicated.

        I am not a lawyer, but any lawyer if shown this cannot refute it.

        The Ex post Facto issue in not rising it up front is not as important as statutory construction.

        If the Pa. Assembly starts the process all over again – Former Megan’s Laws were asked to be expired by the Feds because they were now AWA compliant. Most of the State repealed there old sex offender laws. But Pa. went beyond repeal and expired. which means in plain talk they did away with Megan’s law 1 2 3 at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 99799,41 now they want to use the expired Megan’s Laws that they expired 12-20-12 to be used in ACT 10 and ACT 29. For ACT 10 and ACT 29 to be enforceable you have to have a former sex offence from the pass. What sex offender law pool will they get the former law from? SORNA? come up with their own? Megan’s Law 2 or 3 ?

        Can you guess with pool the Pa. Assemble is getting the former sex offender law provisions from to make ACT 10 and ACT 29 work?

        • #48753
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          @ Chuch PS.

          Remember the judicial determination that I was telling you about – this is it going on now with me in the Commonwealth Court. ACT 10 and ACT 29 or should I just say Subchapter “H” has been amended in ACT 10 and then reenacted in ACT 29 to say that a Pa. Court has no authority to relieve a sex offender from the registry
          at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.23 (b)(2)

          This is a change from the judicial determination the Pa. Assembly spoke of in HB 1952. They don’t want the courts to settle this issue in favor of relief to sex offenders. They want recapture. They want MUNIZ fix to be a return back to civil collateral consequence to go back to DOE v. Smith amd Williams 1 and 2.

          But the Superior court is on the ball at this issue of statutory construction without any lawyer thus far saying anything in a filed brief. The Court is sua sponta vacation in remand back to the trials courts for further proceeding on Subchapter “I”‘s construction to be applied to anyone in Pa.

          The Superior court is not letting no more durhammer stuff get by them to get to the PASC court. Derhammer 11-22-17 got by the superior court. There was the case Commonwealth v Fernandez et 19 that was sent back to the lower courts to match all 19 up with ACT 10 light amendment and ACT 29 reenactment to make their way back to the Superior Court to argue whether ACt 10 and ACt 29 can apply as written amended and reenacted. The Superior Court is the watch dog Court now to not let this get to the PASC so they are vacating and remand issues back to the lower courts for further processing on the ACt 10 ACt 29 press on not punishment be can ACT 10 and ACT 29 be allowed to make a law revive or amend former megan’s Law provision expired to make am ACT 10 and ACt 29 call that if you ever had a former Megan’s Law sex offence after April 1996 before 2012 December under WHAT?

          wHAT FORMER SEX OFFENDER LAW PROVISION? can you answer this for the PAAGs on my case because they think I am nuts on what I am saying to the court but the court is hearing me. The opposition brief the PAAGs file all 4 of them are singing the ex post facto thing telling the court that they don’t understand what terry brunson is saying about expired former Megan’s law, ACT 10 and ACT 29 is a new law. who cares what happened to Megan’s law 1 2 3 they are gone. THEY SAYS IN THEIR OPPOSITION BRIEF. Same question you asked me.

          The thing they are missing is 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 is still good law to say? former Megan’s Law provisions are expired. ACT 10 and ACt 29 makes a call to revive the former crime provision that expired you cannot see the issue?

          1 Pa. C.S.A. 1928(b)(1) was strictly constructed to give expression that a stature cannot give absurd, unreasonable, or inability to execute ACT 10 or ACT 29 to use expired law to amend or reenact law that has no repeals processes referenced to say that expired law is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 says is the former law to be used to recapture has not gone a through valid construction process. The reenactment in ACT 29 was done correctly, but it is a day late and dollar short in that the defect still remains at ACT 10 not ever being amended right to be mixed into subchapter “H” to be made into subchapter “I” to then be reenacted into ACT 29 Subchapter “I” the new purported law that never saw Subchapter “H” repealed to make way for subchapter “I’ to be amended ACT 10 to be reenacted into ACT 29 form the amendment of ACT 10 that was in defect by not following title 1 construction.

          • #48773
            Avatar
            Chuck

            Hi Terry,
            If I understand your argument, and please correct me if I am wrong. your argument is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are just dressed up re-enactments of previous ML versions. What if the Commonwealth argues, and the Court agrees, that ACT 10 and ACT 29 have NOTHING to do with previous ML versions. Wouldn’t this argument preclude your argument?

            I guess what I am asking is how would you argue if the Court said, “Mr. Terry, you are right. The Commonwealth cannot revive previous ML versions. However, Act 10 and 29 are NOT reenactments of previous ML versions, but are brand new laws modeled after previous ML versions. “?
            I guess the argument would be there is no registry for Pre-SORNA people then. However, this is where the Commonwealth would drag out its favorite argument, “Act 10 and ACT 29 are civil and thus can be applied retroactively to Pre-SORNA offenders.
            I guess the point I am trying to make is it seems to me you can’t avoid making the argument that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment because, without this argument, The Commonwealth has the “civil” trump card. The Commonwealth could just concede your point but still win because ACT 10 and ACT 29 are civil.
            What are your thoughts on this? I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

          • #48774
            Avatar
            Chuck

            Hi Terry,
            I would argue that Doe v Snyder (2003) is outdated because the internet has changed the world since then. This is why SCOTUS ruled the way they did in Packingham v North Carolina. They understood life has changed because of the internet.

    • #48741
      Avatar
      Chuck

      Hey guys,
      The registry is just a form of public shaming which was outlawed years ago. When we are going to stop shaming people and help them move on to be productive citizens in society.

    • #48750
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      To all following my case – I want to clarify for those who are following my case. My case can be confusing to follow the way I am saying subchapter “H” and “I” and amendment and then reenactment of “I” with “I’ ACT 10 and ACT 29
      I want to be concise:

      Subchapter “I’ in ACT 10 as amendment to subchapter “H”
      Subchapter “I” in ACT 29 is a reenactment of ACT 10 to re-support Subchapter “I”

      All of this is fine to do BUT BUT BUT the problem area is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 call for the use of FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS THAT EXPIRED 12-20-12 at the enactment of SORNA

      When ACT 10 was written, all the old former Megan’s law provisions had no saving clauses to be used in future laws in a re write. The Pa Assembly thought SORNA would be it forever. They never thought MUNIZ would come along to turn over the table on punitive retroactive application. Pre-SORNA people were set free from registration[.]

      The Pa. assembly went into a frendze to not let 17,000 pre-SORNA people go free under MUNIZ, so they came up with ACT 10 subchapter “I” without without without the saving clause words to use any old megan’s law provisions in ACT 10 and ACT 29 as law.

      and ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls use of former Megan’s Laws to revive them without saving clause they just think they can write old law to come back. 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 is the hurtle to jump over. ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAW PROVISIONS IS EXPIRED 12-20-12[.]

    • #48754
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ el al

      We will not know until the Court say the statutory construction was flawed in defect. I am just pointing it out. The Superior Appeals court is caught the tone now. No brief in the Superior Court is arguing statutory construction yet – My brief is the first – but it is in The commonwealth Court – I was trying to go around the Superior Court with a King’s Bench – it is not the king’s Bench fail, it was that the PASC picks and choose which cases they will hear.

      It is best that we do go through the Superior Appeals court Judge Mary Jane Bowes is not letting this ACT 10 and ACT 29 thing go no where near the PASC until it is briefed through the Superior Court on whether ACT 10 and ACT 29 can be made to be applied to anyone in Pa. They need lower court rulings on ACT 10 and ACt 29 positioning in saying if anyone has ever had a sex offence ever – they must register with the PSP, that means – go all the way back to the 1800’s to find any one who has ever had a sex offence in Pa. must register with PSP.

      This is crazy crazy. ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for use of expired Former Megan’s Law provision that subchapter “H” SORNA say expired. How can ACt 10 and ACT 29 of subchapter “H” in amendment say former law expired then call for expired law to be used in Subchapter “I” which is an amendment of subchapter “H” to make subchapter “I” ACT 10 and 29. Can any body on here see what I am saying? I keep asking this because I want to know.

      This is my position that even school gone lawyers are stumped at- How can this terry brunson just come out the prison law library and come up with this?

    • #48764
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      In My case – of a 1999 Texas offense that I was removed – and then put back on.

      as relating to ACT? QUESTION
      did I violate ACT 10 or ACt 29 to be under it?
      \
      Which part of ACT 10 or 29 did I violate to be put under it?

      I violated nothing of ACT 10 or ACT 29. ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for all former sex offenses after 1996 April – before December 2012. I HAD A FORMER MEGAN’S LAW OFFENSE.

      MINE WAS 1999 August – under Megan’s Law 3. But notice:

      SORNA subchapter “H’ 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 says former Megan’s Laws expired 12-20-12

      Megan’s Law 3 was deemed unconstitutional by Neiman
      Megan’s Law 2 was expired by subchapter “H” 9799.41 and Derhammer confirmed that 11-22-17 from the PASC.
      Commonwealth v. Sensenig foot note #1 says the new ACT 29 reenactment stuck ACT 10 amendment and reenacted new SORNA provisons ACT 29 on 06-12-18

      The Megan’s Law 3 requirement that the PSP wrote into ACT 10 or ACT 29 are calling me back on the registry for an expired former Megan’s law conviction from TEXAS from 1999.

      QUESTION again

      What does 9799.41 say happen to all former Megan’s Law provision? They EXPIRED. that MEANS MUST GO AWAY. MUST NO LONGER EXIST.

      For the 11 days in Feb 2018 I was off the registry under MUNIZ – There was no SORNA law to have me under. So that is why I was off the registry – then out of the blue sky fell ACT 10 then ACT 29 telling me I have to be registered by 22 May 2018 – for having a FORMER Megan’s Law offence that by subchapter “H” SORNA expired now ACT 10 and ACT 29 make a call for me to come register under ACT 10 and ACT 29 because in that law is a call that if I have a former Megan’s Law I have to register.

      QUESTION again ACT 10 and ACT 29 are calling me to register because of what? I had a former Megan’s Law offense that subchapter “I” expired for ACT 10 and ACT 29 to use to recapture me. Did I break ACT 10 or ACT 29 to be put on them? no the Pa. Assembly make an invalid amendment to subchapter “H” which had nothing to do with what “H” says happened to expired former Megan’s Law provisions that now subchapter “I” wants all under former Megan’s Law provision after April 1996 before December 2012 to register with the PSP due to ACT 10 and ACT 29 amendment and reenactment to subchapter “H” which became subchapter “I” to do something that soulnd so absurd and unreasonable to be executed total out of set with

      1 Pa. C.S.A. 1922(1) which says :
      § 1922. Presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent.
      (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

      1 Pa. C.S.A. 1928(b)(1)
      § 1928. Rule of strict and liberal construction.
      (b) Provisions subject to strict construction.–All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:
      (1) Penal provisions.

      And what does Penal provision 42 Pa, C.S.A. 9799.41 say in plain every day talk? “All former Megan’s Law Provisions shall expired 12-20-12

      this is in line with 1 Pa C.S.A. 1903
      § 1903. Words and phrases.
      (a) General rule.–Words and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage; but technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning or are defined in this part, shall be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition.

      So I did have a former Megan’s Law offense by all provisions of it expired 12-20-12 which made it in every day plain talk do what?

      EXPIRE

      WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

      The former expired law – it’s gone and no longer exist to be used against me in nothing. Is it now ok to make a new sex offender law to put me under ? If I violated ACT 10 or ACT 29 after its making date I can see being under it.

      But the Pa. Assembly is trying to make a way to write that former Megan’s Law offense that expired 12-20-12 are not expired at all and can be used to in new law ACT 10 and ACT 29 to allow former Megan’s Law provisions that were expired to become AWA compliant to get the money from the Feds are now OK to use to recapture megan’s law 2 and 3 sex offenders.

      The Pa Assembly went beyond a repeal to expire terry brunson’s 1999 conviction under Megan’s Law 3 and now they want to use the expired 1999 conviction from Texas in ACT 10 and ACt 29 to allow terry brunson to be recaptured into the registry system that He was removed from 9 February 2018 and put back on 21 Feb 2018.
      If yall cannot see this You need to go blind for real. . . You may have legal myopia and cannot see it.

    • #48766
      Avatar
      Mark

      @All

      I was catching up on Terry’d filings and my wife had a question.
      What happens to the records of the people who have been removed from the list? Is it possible to get them, like your medical records? If not WHY? Or what has to be done to get them?

      I know too many questions.

      • #48844
        Avatar
        Chuck

        Hi Mark,
        The way it was explained to me by PSP was this way: If you are talking about “our registry record” the only “copy” is a digital one that lives on the PSP ML website. When we are removed, it gets deleted. So, there is no “record” to give. If you wanted a copy of the terms of your registry length you could always get that from the Court that sentenced you to the registry.

    • #48888
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck

      Ok, that’s good to know but what about the copies at the local barracks?

      Every time I was there the made a copy and put it in my file there. What happens to them?

    • #48977
      Avatar
      Mark

      @All
      I was just looking at Terry’s Mandamus case and it looks like something is going to happen on Wed. Nov. 21. SP-480-2018 is the journal number but I can’t find anything out about it yet. Terry may know something. Round 1 may be coming to an end.

    • #48989
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      I have my hearing date as 21 November 2018 at a Commonwealth Panel

      I have presented a statutory contruction fight and the PSP cannot see it they on an ex post facto fight. They say that they cannot understand my brief they can only glean ex post facto.

      I put my best to show that the ACT 10 is a dead law and ACT 29 is not far behind ACT 10. How can ACt 29 reenact an invalid amendment like ACT 10, to make subchapter “I” to call for expired Law that subchapter “H” of SORNA says is good law at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41

      All former Megan’s Laws expired and ACt 29 or ACT 10 cannot revive them. The Pa Assembly think they can do it just by saying in a new law it is so – ACT 29 and ACT 10 need former megan’s law to work the way they want it to work.

    • #48988
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      No news is good news – terry brunson’s case is in a wait see on statutory construction defect of ACT 10 amendment of subchapter “H” to make subchapter “I” dated 02-21-18 and then to try to correct the defect Pa. Assembly reenacted ACT 10 into ACT 29 on 06-11-18 which still contains statutory construction defect by ACT 10 the amendment of the reenactment – put in simpler term Subchapter “I” has been amended from subchapter “H” SORNA

      Let me stop here to explain what is up with this process of ACT 10 of 02-21-18 being an amendment of SORNA subchapter “H”- to inculcate subchapter “I” continued registration by ACT 10.

      first, to amend SORNA subchapter “H” it has to be repealed in whole to because since 12-20-12 SORNA has been the purported law over sex offender registration.

      So let’s look at the Pennsylvania Constitution Article 3 Section 6 on Amendment and revive of a statute. It is posted below:

      Pa. Const . Art. 3 § 6. Revival and amendment of laws.
      No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof
      extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so
      much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall
      be re-enacted and published at length.

      This, what you just read above didn’t happen with HB 631 or HB 1952 when they were bills of law. These bills were not a word for word inculcation of Megan’s law 2 of the former Megan’s Law that the Pa Assembly wants to bring back to RECAPTURE sex offenders between Megan’s Law dates after April 1996 before December 2012.

      The Pa. Constitution says that just a title over the new wording of a portion of law they want to revive – amend – extent – or confrere – it shall be reenacted then published at length word for word. THIS DURING ACT 10 DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL. right here is the Statutory Construction defect.

      Can you see this? I don’t mean to be sounding too simple. ACT 10 is an invalid Amendment of Former Megan’s Laws to inculcated them into subchapter “H” as the new law subchapter “I” making it now include pre-SORNA people to continue to register under ACT 10 the amendment of SORNA.

      I challenge you to take this to a lawyer and let him read it and tell you if this is true or false. Me not being a lawyer you may say – terry brunson is crazy to go that deep into the construction of a law and tear it out. Well that is what I did do. I told Brian and Chuck that I was going for the heart of ACT 10 and I did. Its statutory construction not its Ex Post Facto aim, scope, or application.

      ACT 10 was to be a re-write of Megan’s Law 2 but if you read ACT 10 there are words and new concepts that were not in Megan;s Law 2. (This is a defect) and ACT 10 cannot be an amendment. The Constitution of Pennsylvania says it had to be an REENACTMENT did you see that above?

      An amendment would not work at all. The Pa law makers were listening to Freed and the Judaical committee rushing to recapture sex offender they did not want to let go free under MUNIZ – decision of July 19, 2017.

      They mad amendment and not a reenactment. When I filled my first Mandamus I saw it and I said something to the court and they told me is no law yet they may do it correctly. But they did not.

      ACT 10 was signed- 02-21-18 as an amendment to SORNA subchapter “H” to make subchapter “I” which is invalid by the Pa. Constitution. I just showed you.

      Are we all still on the same page? I hope.

      Some smart person read terry brunson new law suit mandamus at 339 MD 2018 docked in the Commonwealth Court and terry brunson King’s Bench 122 MT 2018 to the PASC and told the Pa. Assembly that a strange case is in the works by a pro se litigate T.P.B. v. PSP and it is not coming to attack ex post facto but statutory construction and He is right and correct on the law making process of ACT 10 and will erase it if we don’t reenact the amendment ACT 10 as the Pa. constitution says at Article 3 Section 6.

      So now then the Pa. Assembly voted to reenact the amendment of ACT 10 which was done wrong to make it right be the Pa. Constitution to bring to us ACT 29 on 06-11-18.
      which is the reenactment that ACT 10 should have been.

      The first Justice to see this mistake was Judge Maryy Jane Bowers of the Pa. Superior Appeals Court one court lower than the PASC and she wrote a decent opinion on Commonwealth v. Fernandez et 19 1888 EDA 2018 decided 09-05-18

      “Revived former Megan’s Laws are in a judicial fait. It appears that ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for application of former Megan’s Law provision that was eliminated to revive their use in ACT 10 and ACT 29 for use to recapture Pre-SORNA offenders. It is clear that Derhammer at 726 questioned whether Megan’s Law provisions survived in the vestigial application to be inculcated into ACT 10 and ACT 29 Subchapter “I” in scheme, scope, and application. It is questionable to make allowance of statutes that no longer exist in framework to be applied.”

      She is the only judge at a high court level that see the statutory construction problem that I been putting in the lower Commonwealth Court.\

      So the ACT 29 is the reenactment that was also rushed to correct the ACT 10’s attempt to amend SORNA to recapture after 1996 before 2012.

      This is a correction reenactment that still did not rewrite Megan’s Law 2 word for word. and published it in length as the Pa. Constitution says to do. Any one understanding this? Because lawyer don’t understand it yet. This has to be shown to them. They are stuck on trying to find punitive points of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      Just attack the construction and you make that Law go away on an applied challenge.

      ACT 10 ans ACT 29 have not yet been attacked on these grounds – I am the first – I want many others to follow me but you have to know the problem and understand it to convey it to the court or your lawyer.

      Then I have not yet told you of 1 Pa. C.S.A 1971(a) and 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1922(1) and 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1928(b)(1)

      The whole issue is:
      * SORNA never deemed unconstitutional in whole by MUNIZ
      * SORNA’s provision 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 says clearly that former Megan’s law provisions expired 12-20-12 Megan’s Law no longer exist
      * Pa. Assembly amended then reenacted a law that calls for use of former expired Megan’s Law after 1996 before 2012 to recapture pre-SORNA people
      * How can pre- SORNA people be held to ACT 10 and ACT 29’s call to use expired Megan’s Law when it was expired?
      * ACT 10 and ACT 29 makes a call to apply expired law in an absurd and unreasonable way to ask in a law to apply expired Megan’s law to recapture Megan’s law offenders after April 1996 before December 2012

      How is it possible to use new law expired to revive – amend – reenact – or be conferred without a fuse from lawyers and judges and sex offenders and the ACLU and the NAACP and the Federal government.

      Megan’s Law was expired because Megan’s law did not meet the AWA money standards – now somehow Pa. want to use former Megan’s Law that was not AWA compliant in Subchapter “I” of “H” to some how use AWA money to do what AWA money could not do in 2012?

      Megan’s Law expired because it was not money compliant in 2012 – so they will lie and say to the AWA people that will figured out a way 6 years later to mage Megan’s Law work with SORNA to keep 17,000 sex offenders from running free in Pa. It is stinkin’ thinkin’ that in is full progression.

      THE pA. aSSEMBLY members are stealing AWA money that AWA did not want to use to support Megan’s Law in 2012 but the Pa. law makers now somehow want to use in 2018 former Megan’s Law [provisions] that expired 12-20-12. They are liars and thieves and what they are doing is illegal and the federal people need to know this/

    • #49011
      Avatar
      snoopy

      @Terry

      So is the 21st you going up to do oral arguments, or just them going thru all of the briefs and paperwork? Is it open to the public? Any idea what time? I suppose more importantly, how quickly will they actually return with a decision – and is that decision a final decision (minus appeal to the PASC), or will they ask for more stuff or delays?

      Prayers and hope my friend, and please keep us updated!

    • #49012
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      I have my hearing date as 21 November 2018 at a Commonwealth Panel

      I have presented a statutory contruction fight and the PSP cannot see it they on an ex post facto fight. They say that they cannot understand my brief they can only glean ex post facto.

      I put my best to show that the ACT 10 is a dead law and ACT 29 is not far behind ACT 10. How can ACt 29 reenact an invalid amendment like ACT 10, to make subchapter “I” to call for expired Law that subchapter “H” of SORNA says is good law at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41

      All former Megan’s Laws expired and ACt 29 or ACT 10 cannot revive them. The Pa Assembly think they can do it just by saying in a new law it is so – ACT 29 and ACT 10 need former megan’s law to work the way they want it to work.

    • #49029
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Snoopy
      The hearing at the panel is a paper work drill. Their decision is at the commonwealth court level. The next court to appeal to is the Pa. Superior court in Harrisburg. That court has vowed to make sure no ACT 29 or ACT 10 cases that get pass them to go to the PASC meaning they want to make sure all the law is correct.

      That is how MUNIZ got by them. Derhammer got pass them, and Reed. The Superior court will do a good appeal review of the record. The PSP has been losing at this court level alot laterly on the ACT 10 and ACT 29 fight. The PSP will have to be the ones to appeal to the PASC.

      The superior court will vacate and remand cases back to the lower level to fight ACT 10 and ACT 29 out down in lower courts.

      No one has yet made a valid claim pass ex post facto – The ACT 10 and ACT 29 law seems to return law issues back to Megan’s Law II but the ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not word for word Megan’s Law II content. ACT 10 and ACT 29 adds words that were not in Megan’s Law II.

      The Appeals courts will caught it all. They will do a go job in up holding MUNIZ in the area of Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section on reputation liberty interest is a sex offender’s right to have protected. The cruel punishment issue is about to show up as well. On the restrictions of travel that 21 day advance thing in ACT 10 and ACT 29. There is much to see in the future.

      My issue is very simple but complex. Statutory construction

    • #49059
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ et al

      I have a question in my brief that ask the court –

      HOW IS EXPIRED LAW – unexpired?

      If you expire Megan’s Law offense provision to get AWA money – and not realize that you are also setting free those who were under Megan’s Law provisions.

      The way law works in Pennsylvania is that there is one purported law on a issue to keep down confusion. we see that in 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a)

      In order to adjust a law in revive, amendment, or reenactment – the purported law as to be repealed.

      With the old purported sex offender laws the Pa. Assembly went beyond repeal to expiration of old Megan’s Law provisions. What that means is Pa. Assembly voted on 12-20-12 that all form Megan’s Law Provisions expired by the new purported Law SORNA.

      SORNA was accepted and adopted as the Pa. sex offender law to cover all sex offender matters on registration.

      SORNA went too far on application of retroactive push on Pre-SORNA people who were under contract of pleas for 10 years. SORNA took that TEN year old law contract to 10 – or 25 of Life

      MUNIZ – decision says no you cannot do this. Pa. Const. Art. 1 Sec 17 ex post facto said no.

      Before ACT 10 and ACT 29 came those under SORNA by ex post facto retroactive application were taken off the registry because there was no law to be the purported Law for Pre-SORNA people.

      The MUNIZ decision freed Pre-SORNA people from their obligation to register – 17,000 of them.

      The PSP and the Pa. Judicial Committee put pressure on the Pa. HOUSE to come up with a New Law to recapture the 17,000 Pre-SORNA people – What should have happen was – to check to see if there was Pa. Constitution right to do this. Looking at the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 it says that last Megan’s Law that passed constitutional muster should be looked at to see if savings clause was written in the repeal of the old law.

      Guess what y’all, – the old Megan’s Laws were not repealed to have savings clauses – they were EXPIRED 12-20-12 under SORNA that is the law the Pa. Assembly wants to amend to revive old Megan’s Law provisions to revert 17,000 Pre-SORNA people back to comply with as a new law ACT 10. HB 631

      So they write this new law with all new words and ignore the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 on revive of old law provision to amended SORNA to add subchapter “I” to SORNA subchapter “H”

      The Pa. Constitution said that a word for word write of the old law is the only way to make the new law. ACT 10 has new words not in the old law Megan’s Law 2 or 3. ACT 10 had it’s own words.

      Plus – all Former Megan’s Law provisions were expired 12-20-12 and the re-write of the former Megan’s Law provisions is impossible. So ACT 10 has problems here that the Pa. Assembly saw by my case 463 MD 2017

      Which the Commonwealth court withheld me from filing ACT 10 claim in that case. My original Mandamus did not have an ACT 10 challenge.

      I won that case in part on SORNA don’t apply to me at all, but ACT 10 did.

      So I filed 339 MD 2018 to attack ACT 10 – I filed a Brief and as I was in court fight ACT 29 came along. This time I took leave of Court and I added ACT 29 to the ACT 10 fight.

      And The Pa. Assembly saw that ACT 10 was not a word for word amendment of Megan’s Law or SORNA subchapter ‘H” to make added subchapter “I”

      So on 06-11-18 ACT 29 reenacted the amendment ACT 10 which still had defect of adding expired Megan’s Law provisions in ACT 10 and now in ACT 29

      ACT 29 states in it that if a Pre-SORNA person has a sex offense after April 1996 before December 2012 they must register with the PSP
      .

      Wait Wait! SORNA of subchapter “H” which never saw a repeal or allow the way to be made to make ACT 10 or ACT 29.

      SORNA subchapter “H” is the purported law in Pa. on sex offenses. and SORNA subchapter “H” says at 42 Pa. C.S.A 9799.41 all Megan’s Laws SHALL expire 12-20-12
      so how can ACT 10 and 29 in subchapter “I” make Former Megan’s Law provisions revive by amendment of expired law that don’t exist?

      Subchapter “I” is calling for an impossible absurd execution of law under 1 Pa. C.S.A 1928(b)(1)

      The Pa Assembly may have cleaned up the reenactment ACT 29 of the Amendment ACT 10, BUT THE Use of expired Megan’s Law is still right there – How are they going to write a call to recapture offenders who were under provisions of Megan’s Law that expired 12-20-12.

      Just say “We made a new law?”

      OK then what is the old law that the new law repealed?

      SORNA? subchapter “H” ” No that is still the purported law on sex offenses today that never saw repeal. It was amended by ACT 10 . ACT 10 subchapter “I” is an amendment of of SORNA subchapter “H” and ACT 29 is a reenactment of ACT 10 the amendment of SORNA subchapter “H” – that makes two purported sex offender laws in Pa. that is impossible in Statutory construction 1 Pa. C.S.A 1917(a)

      § 1971. Implied repeal by later statute.

      (a) Revision or exclusive system covering entire subject.–Whenever a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes upon a particular subject, or sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute, such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statutes upon the same subject.

      Pa. went beyond repeal to expiration of the former Megan’s Laws – It is impossible to revive Megan’s Law provisions How you gonna do it?

      If you wan former laws to work with ACT 10 or ACT 29 you have to still have them in a savings clause – they re write that former law that was repealed in length word of word

      This is the part they missed.

      .

    • #49047
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Et Al

      It is the closing hours up to the hearing of the case T.P.B. V. PSP 21 Nov. 2018

      This case is going to make history in this state – The Commonwealth Court on it’s own opps to have a panel to look at my brief and the PSP’s brief.

      This is a positive sign that the court wants to get this issue before the court right.

      The PSP’s brief is not in a brief format that I have ever seen. I did object and ask the court to strike their brief for not being in correct format.

      It is a time to look favorable on the PSP hoping that they will understand that ACT 10 and ACT 29 holding to pre-SORNA people is not going to go far. . . . The Superior Court is trying its best to keep ACT 10 and ACT 29 issues away from the PASC by remad and vate rulings back to lower courts to get this right before it comes to them to go higher to the PASC.

      This is good sign on why my court is opted to to take my case to a panel.

      MUNIZ is still the case of all times that the PSP wants to go away. . . . . . .The PASC is looking down waiting for the Superior Court send them a good tight MUNIZ supported case that they can rule to say – Ex post Facto vioation is measured by the effect of the law and not the form of the law.

      PSP makes ACT 10 and ACT 29 in form collateral and civil in consequence but they have no idea to see that the PASC is looking at the effect more than the form of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

      When any case of MUNIZ relation get to the PASC – the court will slam the gavel to the disappointment to the PSP and they are going to have to start the review of their records all over again.

      MUNIZ had only one PASC Judice dislike that case Mundy all others were on board with MUNIZ. It is their history case that turned the PSP upside down.

      ACT 10 and ACT 29 were to be MUNIZ fix laws, but they make subchapter “I” make an impossible and absurd call for expired Megan’s Law provisions to cover past dates after April 1996 before December 2012 same date MUNIZ covers.

      Subchapter “I” is an amendment as ACT then an Reenactment as ACT 29 now it is a sitting duck in the water waiting to to shot at by the PASC court – ACT 10 and ACT 29 has a death date
      .
      That date will free all Pre- SORNA people fo’ Sho’ for ever

    • #49076
      Avatar
      snoopy

      @terry

      So I know how confident YOU are in your argument…

      What do you think the odds are of the panel ruling in your favor?

      Please post an update when you have it!

    • #49082
      Avatar
      Mark

      @ Terry

      Ok, so it is the eve of the first round. I have a question. It is my understanding that Muniz killed snora due to the ex-post facto application on registrants charges prior to 12/20/2012. Are the folks who were saddled with a lifetime registration prior to 12/20/2012 due to any relief? I do not believe so.
      Only the people who are affected in my opinion are folks who had their registration changed in some way. I think that the Butler decision is more important now as it changes the way every SVP has and will be handled from now on. Too bad that everyone who is listed has to file a challenge to have their SVP status overturned. Enough of my rambling. Good luck tomorrow!

      • #49091
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Mark

        The life time offenders under Megan’s Law 2 and 3 are the offenders that can challenge the life time frame time. The PSP thinks that life time means never expire. They are wrong.

        42 Pa. C.S.A. 9795.1 (ten year) and 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9795.2 (lifetime) expired 12-10-12

        Under SORNA 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799. 15 increased this to punishment by adding years to the old Megan’s Law offenses that 10 year deals came on. These 10 years went to 15 T-1 25 T-2 and Life T-3

        This part of SORNA was struck down as punishment by MUNIZ – decision July 19, 2017.

        And ACT 10 tries to rewrite the old Megan’s Law provisions –
        And ACT 29 tries to rewrite the old Megan’s Law provision under lifetime BUT

        They expired. My case is about this too. I was 10 years went to lifetime under SORNA and because life time has no expiration to the PSP their error of understanding they want to keep all lifetime people on the registry.

        My lifetime is more in line with the two or more convictions if you have 2 or more counts to the same offense.

        But Mark I am fighting for the freedom of all Pre-SORNA lifetime offenders. They will benifit most from my case win.

        I have no confidence. . . I speak the pure truth on questions of law that easy to understand for us every day people. But for the lawyers and the PSP and the Pa law makers they forget that this Commonwealth is a people Commonwealth.

        The people have the power – but the courts have to be the middle man to make the two understand that the law is too oppressive. People cannot make law in Pa. But people can fight unfair laws in substantive due process and procedural due process.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 wants to protect the public safety but to do so it has to break the
        substantive due process and procedural due process rights of a prejudiced group called sex offenders who have equal protections as well. We are on the rise we have wins . we are also getting help from the Superior Court who now understands what the PASC did in MUNIZ and they the Siperior Court wants to get this right.

        We have Derhammer to thank for that.

        Reed case on liberty interest and reputation interest is good law on shaming of internet. Only lifetime and SVP can be on the PSP website not 10 year people.

    • #49086
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry
      Best of luck my friend, will be nice to see another good case going to the PASC and win, they just want to push the buck for a buck because gread breads evil and the general assembly are evil people, they wanted to put every one under the same law like you said Terry and they expired lol other laws, but now they want to make illegal laws to put people under illegally. They want to call it civil but here is nothing civil about public shaming, violating out amendments. Let’s get the snow on the road my man. Good luck

    • #49090
      Avatar
      Dave C

      Hello All

      I follow this blog everyday and hope some day this nightmare will end for all of us. I am currently not on the web but still have to register because I am STILL UNDER REVIEW. My thoughts on this process are the PSP knew from the beginning that ACT 10 or ACT 29 would not survive challenges. Ohio went through the same process and the state lost. Once they lost Muniz; they wanted to keep everyone on the Registry for at least 5 more years. I will have completed my registration before Act 29 finally receives it finally decision. That was the game they wanted to play.

      Muniz would have released everyone immediately. Not so fast . They knew they could keep everyone for another 5 years just by creating some bogus rehashed law and then tie it up in the courts as long as they can.

      It the Game of SO; you win or you tie it up as long as you can.

      One last thing; Terry your the best. I love your passion. It shows what hard work and heart can accomplish. Thank you for all your work.

      • #49106
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        @ Dave C

        Hey – I am standing with you man. The PSP is a Bully agency that the Pa. Assembly uses but the the real bullies are the PAAG’s

        They don’t understand what they are doing. They think all we have to fight on ACT 10 and ACT 29 is ex post facto .

        I put in my brief a clear statutory construction defect fight and they said in their brief that I am not clear on what I am saying but they can only glean a ex post facto arguement. That is because they only know that from pre-SORNA days.

        MUNIZ has changed the playing field. It is the base case that all courts are using to set the mass on decision.\

        ACT 10 is a dead duck it was an amendment to Subchapter “H” to make subchapter “I” which was then reenacted in to subchapter “I” of subchapter “H” SORNA. it all is still SORNA to the courts. but the PSP want to look at this as a SORNA 1 “H” and a SORNA 2 “I” this is the kind of stuff in law that title one protects. Having two sets of laws. look at 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) hope you see it:

        § 1971. Implied repeal by later statute.

        (a) Revision or exclusive system covering entire subject.–Whenever a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes upon a particular subject, or sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute, such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statutes upon the same subject.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 violates Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6

        § 6. Revival and amendment of laws.
        No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof
        extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so
        much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall
        be re-enacted and published at length.

        This means that to make ACT 10 or ACT 29 to inculcate old Megan’s Law provisions the old law has to be written at length and published as a conferred re-enactment.

        If you want to know why this is impossible. . . . . Pass is the pass …. They can make a new law and re-write Megan’s Law 2 but they can never un expired the expiredness of an offense that was expired.

        If you did an offense on Aug 1999 and ACT 10 or ACT 29 wants to use this 1999 offense in ACT 10 or ACT 29 of 2018, You would have to unexpire the offense. It is like a pardon. You not not un pardon a pardon.

        A new 2018 offense must be committed. This is a collateral issue not a criminal record expunge issue. We will always have a conviction record, but the collateral consequence of that conviction offence can be erased as it was 12-20-12 when SORNA expired Megan’s Law provisions. see 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41

        You cannot not mesh subchapter “H” and “I” into a new law to re-capture because the date of the pass offense is in the pass – The start line for pass offense is April 1996 before December 2012 – – – – – – – – – – -They came to this because it is the line of when Megan’s Law came into law until SORNA. It is a good collage try – – – But it will fall apart as it is challenged in court.

    • #49125
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Et Al
      NO COURT ACTION WAS TAKEN
      on 339 MD 2018 today

      The Clerk filed my case for the panel to review – – – -Thanksgiving cut the court’s day short.

      339 MD 2018 is on docket to be heard at case by case run. 339 MD 2018 is not the only case before the panel. They have 30 days for a case to sit on a dock run. If they take too long and I see a new higher case by Pa. R.A.P Rule 1532(b) before the close I can file summary relief amendments but that would cause a delay for the other side to take time to answer my new issue. I don’t want no delays.

      We are already in a delay because the PAAG Nicole Boland she filed a PCRA brief thinking I was a PCRA ligate. I objected to that.

      Filed a re-clarification by Pa. R.A.P Rule 1532(b) Sept 19, 2018

      Court ordered new briefs on correct issue I could have objected but I want to see their fight, and It was the same old same old – ACt 10 and ACt 29 are not punishment not ex post facto – – – – No fight on statutory construction —– No fight on unconscionable contract – – – – – – – no fight on old Megan’s law reference to 9795.1 and 2 use in ACT 10 and ACT 29 — – – – — PsP used trooper Webb under irrebutable presumption doctrine as if Webb’s declaration can make 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 go away.

      There only fight is ex post facto. I was not close to that at all. The court will sua sponta ex post facto claims on its own . MUNIZ will force them to do that.

      We have to wait on the court docket to run its time cource

      • #49617
        Avatar
        Chuck

        Hi Terry,
        It seems to me the core of your argument is that you cannot re-enact a law that is no longer in force aka it has expired. This is all well and good. However, what do you say to the argument that Act 10 and 29 DOES NOT re-enact an expired law it merely creates a new law that is SIMILAR yet different to a law that has expired. I think you haven’t as of this writing have ever addressed this argument head-on. Merely saying the argument is wrong IS NOT a rebuttal to the argument in question.
        I believe this is the crux of their position. Acts 10 and 29 are merely similar to the expired laws in question and since they are similar they enjoy the same legal protection that was afforded to the expired law as being civil in nature. If the Courts agree with the Commonwealth that Acts 10 and 29 are similar to ML 1-3 but are different than them, I don’t see how we could counter that, do you?

        • #49712
          Avatar
          terry brunson

          Chuck the Pa. Assembly can re-write new law but there is limits to who it can be forced upon.

          If you pardon me 12-20-12 and expired the old law that I was under to put me under a new law that was found to be unfair because the new law is more intrusive than the old law expired
          Example. I agreed to 10 year registration under old law and new law increase that 10 years to 15 or 25 or life without any reason other than we changed the law.

          Some one like MUNIZ fight on a question of law. and He wins. All under the old law should return back to the old law standard – right?

          But what if you expired the old law instead of doing what the Pa. constitution says at Artlice 3 Section 6

          and the construction Act of law 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) there must be a savings clause to revert people back to old law. But the old law was expired – at 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41

          It simple talk the law says that =-

          Now that MUNIZ is before the PSP and Pa. Assembly they want to go back to old law practice on old law that is no longer there.

          you can make a new law but the people you want to apply it to are freed from old law by the SORNA law that says all former Megan’s laws are expired.

          So if I did a crime in 1999 under old Megan’s law and that 1999 provision was expired 12-20-12 and MUNIZ came in 2017 July and now they want to bring back old law – just to create a new law would not work because it will only apply to people from 02-21-18 or 06-11-18 like ACT 10 and ACT 29 from that date forward not backwards and forwards.

          all on the back side had their crime expired – how do you unexpire expired law?

          Make a new law? and just put you under it?

          Better read Derhammer 11-22-17

          Better read Butler
          Better Rear REED
          Better read MUNIZ

          expired law cannot be unexpired by just re-writing new law.

          The Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 says the re- publish of the old law has to be word for word. the law will be right but the application of the new law will be wrong.

          New law will only apply to a new breaking of the new law. But the new law is specifically to cover old law people that were pardoned from being under the old law. If you cannot see the impossibility in this you may not understand the law making process in Pa. There are rules to making and applying law in Pa.

    • #49462
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      Et Al

      This is Terry Brunson to tell all that want to attack ACT 29 – I have always use to tell people to file a Mandamus – But in ACt 29 is a call for the PSP to come to court to answer all request to be removed from the registry. Since that is in the Law a Mandamus is not going to be cognizable to fight a collateral Consequence unless you are out of state

      PCRA is not the filing either – collateral Consequence has nothing to do with a direct conviction – The correct filing is a Heabus Corpeas Writ to be set free from PSP oppression of ACT 29.

      My case is still on the docket and the Commonwealth Court Panel will get to the case when they get around to it

    • #49605
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Terry Brunson
      Upon consideration of petitioner’s motion to withdraw the “motion to strtike respondent’s federal interpolation of A.W.A. issues” (motion to strike), the motion to withdraw is granted. The Chief Clerk shall strike and remove from the docket the motion to strike.

      Are you going to appeal to the superior court now or straight to PASC? Hope all is well for you and you’re family, happy holidays everyone.

    • #49616
      Avatar
      Chuck

      Terry,
      I have a question for you. If they made the registry non-public where only law enforcement could access it would that alleviate all of your concerns over the registry? In other words, employers could not access it to make employment decisions and your neighbors or potential romantic partners could not harass or embarrass you with the fact you are a sex offender. If this was the case, I could not see how we could argue against it. Thoughts?

      • #49711
        Avatar
        terry brunson

        Chuck – You asked a good question – The base of your question is turning the registry over to law enforcement to only have access to it. That the same issue as your criminal history.

        The case Commonwealth v. Reed is a case won on the issue of the registry being a shaming tool [.] It violates the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 on REPUTATION liberty.

        Before the registry can be used to show case me – I have a right to substantive due process and procedural due process of two things that the PSP don’t give sex offender to protect their liberty reputation.

        1. A hearing
        2. Notice of what law violation is held against me.

        ACT 10 and ACT 29 has written in them a concept to strip the sex offender of a right to a hearing and notice of what holds them to the action to have to register personal information on a web site to publicize.

        It is a lie built into ACT 10 and ACT 29 to say that all sex offenders will re-offend in a irrbutible presumption of false studies that tell non factual stuff about sex offenders that the PSP presence to the courts that sex offenders are the only criminal class that can not be rehabilitated no matter how much help they get. This is a lie and no proof has been given to show the true light in an applied individual case by case presentation.

        That is why we sex offenders fight for Mandamus
        we fight in Heabeus Corpus, We fight in PCRA, we challenge the PSP to say – You people never stop adding restrictions to sex offenders. It is not just a non punitive thing to register. It is the never ending added restriction that keep being added to us.

        This is not the answer to your question but it is the nature of what you are asking.

        Every crime in the state has no call to register like sex offenders.

        Sex offenders are a class that is picked out to be picked on – And when the PSP and Pa. Assembly see another restriction they can add to a sex offender over the basic rights they keep doing a push.

        We are feud -up enough to push back.

        They are going too far and the courts are now seeing it. It is not about registering any more. It is about doing what ever they want to us with respecting out right to have a hearing to show we are not that. We have right to a notice to know why you say I can’t have opportunity to show I am not like you say.

        The Pa. sex offender laws tar and feather without a due process

        They give a one sided contract force you under it with a threat to comply or be jailed again for a crime you were already in jail for finished the time and not have still be threaten with more time if you don’t do as they say –

        They keep changing the rules and putting it into a one size fits all – in retroactive way when there are laws against retro-activeness that they don’t care to respect.

    • #49619
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Brian

      Check the dates. The motion is to fight something in the PSP brief. Terry explained that he did it to speed up the process. It was a “Never Mind” request.

    • #49630
      Avatar
      Brian

      @Mark
      I see, sometimes I overlook things or don’t understand lol.

      @Chuck
      I know you were asking Terry but I would like to post my opinion as well, I think one thing that could be argued is continued punishment or lifetime probation as well as due process, if our plea agreement or whatnot didn’t state we would be monitored for like that would violate due process in my opinion.

    • #49650
      Avatar
      chuck

      It is Offical!!!! The last time I am required to register is 7/13/2020. That is as long as my information doesn’t change between 7/13/2020 and 7/13/2021. They were confused on why I was calling in 588 days early. I told them my paperwork still said 2025. They said they are “done” with my file and the system now recognizes that my last “reporting date” is 7/13/2020 as long I don’t change my reportable info for a year after that date. They also told me that “sometime in 2019” all pre sorna people will be labeled by their term. For example, I will be a 10y because I was sentenced to 10 years of registration. I am just glad that worse case all I have to do is wait the 588 days and try like hell avoid moving, selling or buying vehicles, change jobs, or change school for 12 months.

    • #49666
      Avatar
      terry brunson

      @ Brain

      The motion to strike federal issues was in the PSP brief.

      They wanted to argue that AWA tells them that the PSP must force me to register

      I file motion to strike AWA issues that is a federal court issue not a state court issue

      I filed to strike AWA issues then they withdrew so I filed to withdraw but they only served me they never filed the with court but I did to beat them to the punch.

      My Brief is in and their brief is in and I filed a reply brief too their opposition

    • #49668
      Avatar
      Mark

      @Chuck
      YEA!!!!! finally good news.

    • #49673
      Avatar
      Brian

      Wow chuck that’s