Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson


This is terry to give you a bit of info on how the SCOTUS will deal with Muniz case. Chuck posted this before but I don’t know if you saw it – During a Certiorari Petition the record of the Lower court is review to see if there are any unlawful things that brought the court to its judgment.

Freed seems to think that the PASC used the federal U.S. Constitution to come to their Judgement in Muniz’s case as the adequate and independent cause of the out come on the federal grounds.

Freed is making the argument that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no state supreme court can make a judgement based on the U.S. Constitution without federal in put from the United States Supreme court ruling a state can claim federal rights without a review of the matters.

But in the Muniz case the PASC used it’s own state constitution Article 1 Section 17 on the Ex Post Facto claim and came to a conclusion that SORNA of 20 December 2012 is punishment to those who were under old ML’s to have to be under the rules of a new ML without due process of law. The PSP and the Law makers of PA just assumed it would be Okay to have one ML to fit every body. . . . .(BUT THE PROBLEM IS) wHEN A NEW LAW IS MADE the date of the new law is Ex Post in fact to the old law. Meaning people under the old law have a date that they got their punishment and to apply a new law would erase the agreements made under the old law. If the old law said 10 yers is the deal agreed on and the new law increases that with no care to due process to law and rights. THAT IS EX POST FACTO .

The PASC used it’s own State Constitution as the Adequate and Independent Ground to the conclusion of the Ex Post Facto application of SORNA in MUNIZ’s case. The PASC made its judgment on an independent state ground, and by way of an “advisory opinion” mentioned the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 Ex Post Facto is the same as the PA Constitution Article 1 Section 17.

Freed jumped on this to twist that the PASC judgment to seem that the U.S. Constitution was the only Adequate and Independent Grounds the PACS had. Not true it had its own PA Constitution.

Freed is woefully uneducated on “advisory opinion” of a court showing that the U. S. Constitution and the PA Constitution say the same thing. Freed don’t think that is so. He is malicious and ignorant on the fact that his Writ to the SCOTUS is heading towards the trust heep.

Freed know the SCOTUS is going to deny him a hearing. . . . . . He said it to the PA Judiciary Commitity. Freed is using the SCOTUS calendar as a delay tactic to prolong the inevitable to SORNA in PA.

Hopefully SCOTUS’s clerks will see the absolute futility of Freed’s petition and give it an early thumbs-down.