Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court


terry brunson

@ Chuck
My fight with the PSP is that Megan’s Law 3 was expired – And not repealed with a “Savings Clause” to revert people back. . . Also Nieman killed the whole Megan’s law 3 any way and deemed it unconstitutional.

Muniz is not a factor in my case. Reed is more of the case that is where I am at

Commonwealth v. Reed case is a case about expired Megan’s Laws – and applying SORNA to replace old Megan’s Laws.

Since Muniz – Reed was heard first on 19 July 2 hours before Muniz. Reed case was not challenged for Reviews to SCOTUS for Cert.

Muniz came through the PASC tow hours later. . . . . And the rest is history on ExPost Facto application of SORNA

Reed never mentioned that at all. (Ex Post Facto claim) However; Reed case is a hands down win and also Commonwealth Wooldful. . . . It was about SORNA expired old Megan’s Laws and cannot and PA. cannot revert back to old Megan’s Laws – Hence the HB 1952 new law Muniz fix. WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVE in application to pre SORNA people who they are targeting by putting the date 22 April 1996 – 19 December 2012 people.

The HB 1952 will help people who had ten years on old Megan’s Law and when SORNA came these people got 15 or 25 or life time change. HB 1952 corrects this. . That is good but it don’t help people that had life and SVP under old Megan’s law rules. HB 1952 hurts these people because it does nothing but tones down the quarterly update to yearly under life time

These people must challenge the HB 1952 change to get off by Judaical determination. You seem to think this is Muniz. It may be. . . . . But when HB 1952 become law you will see that life time people will be over looked at first when removal start happening.. Life time people that want off will have to file to get off case by case by judical determination – and that is not automatic under HB 1952. Muniz