Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

Alfie D

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 Beattie does not strike a repealed law an final. It address the issue of what happens when a law is repealed and replaced with a similar but enhanced law. The commonwealth has what it called a “saving clause” regarding repealed laws. It works like this: In essence a saving clause allows a “repealed law” to “continue” after repeal, if the provisions of the repealed law, or just some of them, are enacted into the new law, and as such, technically, the law might have been repealed, but that “repeal” was basically more in words than effectual action.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

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

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