Hello I just saw your post on appeals to a Federal Circuit Court – You are correct in your thinking BUT : FREED did not have too appeal through that court to get to the SCOTUS . Freed appeal to The SCOTUS is a Cert. Petition for a review of the PA SC decision on MUNIZ.
Muniz decision was based on retroactive application of SORNA and that it is classified as punishment NOW.
Freed wants to divide the argument into a Federal question on these points from the State question.
The federal question is under U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 Ex Post Facto
The state question is under PA. Constitution Article 1: Section 17
The PASC has spoken clearly on the state question in MUNIZ – It is law now in PA . . . . and for it to apply now. . . . takea a Application Writ of Clarification from the Commonwealth Court of appeals in Harrisburg, PA. on the State question which is in effect now as Law under MUNIZ – Meaning if you Mandamus the Court under state rights only you will prevail and get relief on State question only. . . . . . NOW. The only thing that held this up was a Stay which expired 17 October 2017 as a way to file for Mandamus relief under MUNIZ.
The Federal question – which Freed wants to review on is not in at the PASC He wants a clarification on does PA. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 17 give MUNIZ greater rights than the U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sec 10 on Ex Post Facto claims. THIS IS FREED’S FIGHT ON MUNIZ –
Now under USCA Rule 60 (b) a person could challenge Ex post Facto Claim on appeal. . . . But the problem would be- – – – The decision on the federal question is not final. . . . . under MUNIZ. . . . But The State question is. A claim under state rights can go form after the Stay deadline of 17 Oct 2017. When filed in a Commonwealth Appeal Court in PA under Mandamus against the PSP for not following MUNIZ on the state Claim.
In the State claim if you make no mention of the U.S. Constitution – and just claim state’s rights- – – – The Federal question will never meet you to be delayed waiting on the Freed Cert. decision on the Federal question. . . I pray you understand this. . . I am in the Commonwealth Court now doing a good fight. . . . I am under cause 463 MD 2017 waiting for a response from PSP lawyer Joanna Reynolds I think the Judge will ask me to write a brief. I will request an en bunk court for the whole court to address the issue does state rights give greater protection than Federal. . . .
The PSP will argue the U.S. Constitution Supremacy Clause of Article 6 Clause 2 which says 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. (Which I will then s to be upheld at the state level) PA. Const. Art. 1 Sec 17 and U.S. Const. Art 1 Sec 10 are not Contrary at all. . .
Only contrary issues in State Laws and constitutions are notwithstanding. . . . . . SORNA is a Contrary State Law copied from AWA federal. The PA Constitution and the U.S. Constitution stand equal on ex post facto claims not contrary. . . . The contrary law is SORNA that the State of PA formed from AWA Washington D.C. on 20 Dec 2012