Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

This is Terry to give a better up of my case. I am saying to the Commonwealth court that Megan’s Law # is no longer enforceable law due too the expiration of it by SORNA. 20 December 2012 expired all Megan’s Law rules of 1,2,and 3 and to pre-SORNA people ML 4 which is SORNA.

I am telling the court that the PSP is holding me to an expired Law. I need Mandamus relief to make the PSP stop holding me to SORNA – And I am also telling the court that there is not reverts backwards to old ML’s. Sorna expired them.

ML’s were not repealed. . . laws. They were expired laws by a date of 20 Dec. 2012.

If they had repealed the law they could have had a “Savings Clause” revert backwards if the new law did not work out. They would not be trying to come up with HB 1952 of any new law – by savings clause they would revert backward to put megan’s Law back in effect. There was no repeal. There was expiration. Nothing to revert back to now. So they came up with new law new bill new vote – thinking that they can write rule of old megan’s Law and call it HB 1952 and if it is challenged they will say they took out all the punitive punishment stuff. They think Ex Post Facto means punishment. But it don’t. There was a punitive aspect in consideration but that is not why MUNIZ won his case.

Muniz won on Expost Facto claim of Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 17. There is not punitive requirement to show. Ex Post Facto has to do with date sensitivity. You make a new Law – it only applies to people on the date the law becomes effective forward. It cannot go backwards in dating at all. The Punitive element came in to show the unfairness of applying a new law in a retroactive way. SORNA applied greater punitive increases in punishment than was in place at the enactment of old Megan’s Laws – BUT THE WAS THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE OF sorna. iT RISED A 10 YEAR THING TO 15 , 25, OF LIFE. To one who only had ten years to start with.

Not unto SVP and Life Sorna Expired revert back to old law leaving no law to apply to hold them to rules of the old law. That is what I am telling the Court and they are listening to me. I should have been done when I make a mistake it servicing. They vacated an order, but what saved me was Pa. R.A.P. rule 1532(b) the clearness of my case. Read that rule matched against the rule that should have shut me down Pa. P.A.P. 1514(c) on service. They could have closed my case and made me start all over from start paying another file fee and everything. To whom it may concern please read both rule – one you need to close the case to start again (1514(c) for not servicing right) the other (1532(b) you don’t have to wait for case to close. you can just file service right and keep on going. I only missed 30 days of time. That is the time it take to get respondent’s reply to my brief which is February 5, 2018