Reply To: SCOTUS Denies to Hear Muniz

#31991
Avatar
terry brunson

The PSP will take its instructions from the PAG office on MUNIZ – We have to give the SCOTUS its time to return the record of Muniz back to PASC pathanotary clerk so the PASC cab write an order to the PAG to instruct the PSP on Muniz decision.

I don’t think the PSP has a good faith to follow the MUNIZ decision. They wrote a Brief against it and the PSP want HB 1952. It puts people back under old Megan’s law requirements striped of all punitive element to make HB 1952 PASC friendly. The PSP are in bed with Freed and the Pa. Judaical committee who came up with HB 1952.

They need the PASC justices to go back to doing things like before. The only thing in the way is the PASC Muniz decision that was not made NON-PRECEDENT. Muniz is a law of the land mark case all can demand law protection under to get relief from.

The PASC spoke loud to vote MUNIZ in at a 5 to 1 vote. The whole court agreed that MUNIZ was the line case that the PASC is tire of Pa. Assembly adding new requirements – I heard it in the comments during the Reed oral argument. The Justices wanted the AG to answer a simple question on the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 Reputation rights of shaming by PA. website. The AG did not know the Pa. Constitution reference of Article 1 Section 1. That is like not knowing Genesis 1:1 – “In the Beginning God created the Word.”

The people at the guard of implementing Sex offender Laws are not Constitutionally sound one the right of Sex offenders.

The HB 1952 will meet its end by the hand of the MUNIZ decision in the end. That case will trouble all in Pa. court system to shut down all the attempts to make it seem as if Muniz never happen. That is going to be hard to do. The PSP and the PAG have put in HB 1952 a stay appeal. Stays are issued by court decisions on appeal not by statue laws. HB 1952 states clear that none of its requirements are meant to be Punitive. – when the results of the requirements are punitive in application of being applied retroactively only to Pre-SORNA people with offense dates after 22 April 1996 and Before 20 December 2012. Read the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 26 on Commonwealth sub agencies discriminating against a class group of people known as Pre-SORNA people. HB 1952 points out only one group in it prejudice application. Read it and you should see it……..

The Pa. registry violates reputation shaming – that is what got Reed off the registry. Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 . It is the rule that is going to kill the registry in about 5 more years. . . . . . . .