Reply To: PA’s high court rules retroactive SORNA violates constitution

terry brunson

There’s no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court will give a hearing to Freed on review of MUNIZ case. The appeal potential out come is know by well studied Constitutional lawyers. . . . . . . . .

The MUNIZ case was a slam dunk 6-1 decision against SORNA Ex Post Facto violation. Freed wants review on what should the State law enforcers do to protect the public – this is his review question which has nothing to do with the law argument.

Freed is looking for guidance from the Supreme Court to help form a new avenue to violate SO’s rights further.

He don’t want to give up the fight – clearly MUNIZ decision will prevail in PA. the PSP and AG should get set to adjust to remove names form their registry and become more enforcing of SORNA that they have left. SORNA is not leaving the State of PA – those convicted of a sex crime after 20 December 2012 are still under SORNA rules.

MUNIZ does not have total claims to over tun SORNA just that it cannot by applied retroactive to those before 20 December 2012. They have to be removed from the registry as MUNIZ decision claims rights to. THANK YOU ALL FOR READING THIS – – – – – – –

The MUNIZ case was decided under both the federal and state Constitution for the express purpose of resolving the issue and precluding a SCOTUS appeal – The retroactivity of SORNA was rightly declared a violation of ex post facto and that decision is not subject to federal review under Pa. Article 1 Section 17 is the precedent Law.