Reply To: SCOTUS Denies to Hear Muniz


HI Paul,
I would like to say you and Fred have turned me around on my thinking about the local chapters. I saw it as a distraction but now I see if done properly it would be a benefit. You have local people that build up knowledge about the local regulations. Let’s face it each state is very different. For example, in Ny, if you are s tier one, the general public cannot gain information about you. I know this becuase I am dual registered in Pa and NY, becuase I spent 1 year in NYand once you are registered in NY, you cannot “move out” your requirements. I gues years ago, they had people that were “registery shopping”. For example, NY gave them 20 years but if they moved to Delaware (as an example) they would only have 10 years. So, they would move to Delaware for the 10 years, and once the 10 years was done, they would move back to NY and claim their time was done. So even when I am removed from Pa, I still have 14-16 years left in Ny. They gave me 20 years in NY but 10 in Pa becuase 20 is their lowest in NY. They even tried to raise my tier and give me life. I had to go to court and fight it. St least becuase of my income level, they had to give me a free lawyer.
So Thank you for giving me a perspective I didn’t have.
I am glad you guys thought about s list of questions for tonight adhead of time. I would like to add: If the state says, “ We can take you off becuase of Muniz and then a few months later out you back on due to HB1952 what legal recourse does the sex offender community have?
Does it come down to whether HB1952 is civil or not?
I would agree the State could say: “Ok, Sorna is punitive”. We are going to build a new registry that is not puntitive”. However, they cannot act like Muniz doesn’t exist while they go through the process with HB1952. Also there has to be finality in the process. They should not be able to say “Oh we can ignore Muniz becuase we made a new set of rules”.
That is my major concern: That they can basically restart the clock by waving their magic wand and declaring HB1952 civil and thus exempted from ex post facto status. This is the question we need answered. What can we do if they waive their magic wand?