Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

@ Chuck

Thank You for being supportive of a hard decision – filing the mandamus – I told you that the Commonwealth had something up their sleeve . . . and it is HB 1952 – it is the birth child of DA Freed. . . .
HB 1952 will have a mountain to climb = It has to pass the PA. Senate’s Review – and it has to denovo PASC decisions and pass the constitutional muster. And then it has to go the full Assembly floor to be debated and then the Governor’s desk. . . . . Muniz will be back to us in remand order by then . . . . . .

I know the PSP is not going to want to remove names to lessen their registry numbers. . . . . .
They filed a Amicus Curiae brief to the SCOTUS and gave their plan away in the brief……. to do a case by case removal. . . . Not making it automatic. You are so trusting to the PSP. . . . . I think . . They are not your friend

It will take a Mandamus to move the PSP – an early court order from a commonwealth court is just as good as a Remand order from the SCOTUS on Muniz to the PSP through the Pa. AG office. The Commonwealth Court mandamus is only a fee of 65.00 or so. . . . . .

The Muniz case is in effect right now on the state claims…. If you put in your mandamus anything about the U.S. Constitution – your mandamus will be bared by a Federal stay on Muniz because the federal question has not been settled in finality yet.
And about a “Saving Clause” rule on expired Pa. statues of – Megan’s Law 1 , 2, and 3 they were expired on 12 December 2012 at the SORNA date. . . . . . . Unconstitutional statues cannot be reverted back to. . . . There must be a legislature fix . . . . . The problem is that fix will have a date that is if applied to pre-SORNA people is Ex Post Facto – and we are right back at Muniz- – – – – – – Muniz cannot be fixed by new law to bring back old law –

Our PASC explained – “a repealing clause expressly repeals a prior statue from effective application of law – where the substitute for the prior statue is itself ineffective where the substitute for the prior statute provided in the repealing statute is unconstitutional and where it does not appear that the legislature would have enacted the repealing clause without providing a substitute for the act repealed [.]”

Simply put, an UNCONTITUTIONAL STATUE cannot repeal a former law and the prior statue remains unenforceable if expired. Accordingly, ML’s 1 -2 & 3 loss all their effectiveness as enforceable law on December 20, 2012 at the implementation of SORNA.

Expired Megan’s Laws had no counterpart “savings clause” provision of a legislature fix – SORNA expired all reverts back to old Megan’s Law’s – it is possible that when Muniz comes back to us in a remand order, you will be removed off the registry completely without any delays of waiting until 2020 or 2021 to get off. You will not revert back to the standards of an old Megan’s law. The law of your registration past is inoperative to revert back to. As a Per-SORNA person – there is no revert Megan’s law to revert back to, that is why the HB 1952 is being pressed now. The Commonwealth understands the cruch that they are in to remove 18,500 people off the registry.

YOU MAY BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN YOU THINK – I am arguing this in my brief to the Commonwealth Court and they are taking it and asking the PSP to tell them which Megan’s Law of the past to Terry Brunson being held to revert back to. . . . . The PSP has to give the Court an answer to this question. The Court brought this up not me. They did it on their own motion. I hope that you understand my fight is better than MUNIZ – He gets you back to 10 year – but my argument IF I WIN -will get you off the registry Now. . .Smile your friend terry brunson