I told you that the PSP would drag feet – The PAG lawyer in my Mandamus is also trying to drag feet . She filed a motion to extend her time to file a response to me brief – She told me on the phone that she is talking to PSP to see if
she could get them to take me off the registry without going to court.
I thought that was strange. . . But I will not oppose her motion to extend her time. She is only asking for 10 days. . . But I know what her plan is. She is trying to give HB 1952 time to get through the Senate. . . .with a vote into law. She don’t know that I am already ready for her. . . . .
This will play into my hands to be the first to challenge HB 1952.
I told Churck that filling the mandamus was my best move. The only draw back is time. I must be willing to taking this fight to the PASC. I have one court in my way – it is the Superior Court of Appeals.
They have secret court rules not published and if you miss a rule they hold you back 14 days at a time to correct mistakes. Their main function is to be the relief for the case over load of the PASC .
HB 1952 will not be that hard to kill. . . . The PAG and PSP lawyers will say that a punitive element is needed win a victory on HB 1952 – – – – Not so Commonwealth v. Reed case proved that wrong on procedure due process and factual evidence that PSP need to give on why they think sex offender registry helps the public –
The kicker question is IF ONE VIOLATED HB 1952 WHAT WILL BE THE RESULT? If the PSP say JAIL
There is the punitive element needed according to Commonwealth v J.B.
The PASC agreed with Reed and J.B. on the punitive element not being the issue any more. The PSP and PAG lawyer want to return to the civil collateral consequence rule – on ex post facto and retroactive application of law. I think the present PASC is not going to go along no more with that thinking.
If one violated HB 1952 when it becomes law – the consequence is punitive punishment of JAIL.
That is all is needed to make HB 1952 fail the PASC muster. A lower appeal court may see the same thing before it gets to the PASC. Either way the PASC will decided the out come.
Under HB 1952 – this is the only chance the PSP and PAG has to hold to say that the HB 1952 has no punitive elements that violates rights in adding more punishment to a pre- HB – 1952 RSO.
I say it do –
1. It will be applied retroactive in application
2. It will be in violation of applied and challenge due process rights to show that HB 1952 should apply to Pre-HB 1952 people. Pre-SORNA people should be allowed a hearing to rebut facts the PSP or PAG present.
3. HB 1952 puts pre- HB 1952 people on a website to shame and their reputation against the reputation protection rights of Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1.
4. HB 1952 DOES REACH THE LEVEL OF PUNITIVE PUNISHMENT in that it is a residual penalty from a crime you already did jail time for. A sex crime of the pass you paid for has you still paying more jail time for. THAT IS PUNITIVE. I got more if you want to know more on why HB 1952 will be defeated at an appeal challenge. I have the case law as well. If any one wants it. Ask Terry Brunson