Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

#30975
Avatar
terry brunson

@Brian – The PSP understands HB 1952 as I been telling all on this site- “Judaical Determination” from a court is going to me required. I have no idea how Muniz can be that. The Pa. assemble think that taking punitive off and putting people back to where they were is the MUNIZ fix. In your case you will be removed without such – but thhos stuck on to do their bit will have to file a Mandamus to get off if Ten year are not up or life time under Megan’s Law 2 or 3.

I been trying to show how they understand the HB 1952. The understand it as I am explaining it. Case by Case Judicial determination is how it reads in the bill.

You have to go to court. They cannot return to ML 3 or 2 because those laws were expired. They have no savings clause – so they wrote a new law taking all the punitive stuff off and thinking that will satisfy the PASC who use to let this slide and ignore the retroactive application (Ex Post Facto)

The PASC use to ignore under old law – but today – Muniz is their creation and they passed Muniz 5 to 1 and that means they all agreed that Muniz is the law against retroactive applications Ex Post Facto.

The PSP and AG and DA’s of Pa. don’t feel comfortable with that. Hence the reason for HB 1952 which is the creation of DA Freed who sold this too the Pa. Judicial Committee which introduced the bill to the Pa. House which voted it 188-0 It is not on the senate floor at a 3rd consideration waiting Pa. senate vote and Governor’s signature to make HB 1952 law.

The law enforcement community love this bill but they are not lawyers. They are in a race to pass this bill before Muniz returns on remand – To see if they can go toe to toe with the PASC on a compromise to see that the law took all the Punitive stuff out. They think Muniz passed because of the punitive element. Not so. . . Muniz passed because the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 17 says no Ex Post Facto law by retroactive application can be allowed in Pa.

HB1952 is such a law. It will have a 2018 law enactment date to be applied to Pre- SORNA people who have a date offense way before 2018. PSP wants to apply the HB 1952 law regardless of it being ex Post Facto.

I argue this in my Brief.

The PSP knows what Judicial determination means in relation to HB 1952. You can call M L section and ask them. . . What they say is what it will be- The PSP wants Muniz decision to be his own judicial determination and all others have to go get their own judicial determination form a court. It is written in the bill on page 109… I will post what it say here: HB 1952 Dec 4, 2017 says quote “An individual who committed an offense set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55 on or after April 22, 1996, but before December 20, 2012, and whose period of registration as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.55 has not expired.
(ii) An individual who, before or after the effective date of this paragraph:
(A) Commits an offense subject to 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H; but
(B) because of a judicial determination on or after the effective date of this section of the invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to registration as a sexual offender.

Do you see the words on or after the effective date of this section of the invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to registration as a sexual offender because of a judicial determination. As Megan’s Law Section when you call them they will tell you the real deal. . . what it means – They want you to go to court