There were two stays in the MUNIZ decison . . .
1. On the state issue and the PASC gave 90 days to the Pa. legislatures to come up with a illustrative fix to set some kind of order to give pre SORNA people relief. That stay was from July 19, 2017 until October 19, 2017 under State rights of Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 , 11, 9, and 17 . . . . . . . and the comidy of MUNIZ by precedence of rights under equal protection of PASC Law decision. . . . . . . The PASC was kind to stay its own decision on Muniz to give the state law makers a chance to get Megan’s Law right with the pre-SORNA people.
After 19 Oct 2017 – Pre-SORNA people can file a mandamus under state rights ONLY State Pa. Constitution rights only. . . . If you put Federal claim in the Mandamus about the U.S. Constitution. . . . . You are adding two claims of Stae and Federal. . . . . That would be denied … because the federal claim would need a SCOTUS remand on the federal issue……… But if you stay with the Pa. Constitutional claim under MUNIZ your mandamus would continues to go forward under state rights alone………
On September 17, 2017 Freed files a stay request with the PASC to take MUNIZ decisiom to the SCOTUS under Peption of Writ of Cert. That stay has no effect on the stay of 90 days the PASC gave PA, PSP, and Legislatures to fix Megan’s law.. There is a state claim and a federal claim. The Federal claim needs a remand from the SCOTUS the State Claim needs no SCOTUS remand – – – – – – – I know this sounds crazy – But Judges understatnd it clear and if you file a mandamus under Pa. claim rights only although MUNIZ is not final on the fereral cliam the state claim is allowed to go forward. . . . WOW
I just got the news that the SCOTUC is giving Freed a really short time to respond as 16 November 2016
That is called a fast tract and it is a sign that the SCOTUS wants to get MUNIZ out the way fast – and I call that the SCOTUS will deny Freed Cert to fight MUNIZ in Washington D.C. at their court house .