Reply To: SCOTUS Denies to Hear Muniz


Hi Paul,
I wish you could have listened to the conference call. If you had of, you would have heard Lea Bickerton and Robert Cicchinelli both say the WORSE thing we could do is go to court. They even threw cold water on the idea of filing a class action or even filing for a restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of 1952 while it is being challenged in Court.
Lea also reinforced the idea that 1952 has no effect on those who are Pre-Sorna and their time is done. First, you have to be Pre-Sorna, and next your time has to have been completed to have to worry from 1952.

Lea also threw cold water on the idea that PSP will not review cases. It will take time, yet we do not know how much. Furthermore, she said she doubts PSP would leaving people hanging when 1952 becomes active who has not had their review done. Probably, in her opinion, they will send a letter that basically says “Hey we haven’t done your review yet. 1952 is becoming active, keep doing what you have been doing until you hear back from us.
When dealing with legal issues it is very important we do not allow our emotions cloud our decisions. I also learned something new on the call. I thought the way that they were going to get 1952 to affect Pre-Sorna people was to state that 1952 is Megan’s Law 2 revived. I was wrong. Lea and Robert said that 1952 will be a new law. Megan’s Law 2 is just the template they are using. The way they are going to get 1952 to affect Pre-Sorna people who have not finished their time, (Like me and Terry), is by claiming it is not punishment.
To sum up, the PSP will have people in your situation REMOVED BEFORE ANY legal action would be completed. This is what Lea and Robert determined.
They also said that the reason why PSP is moving slowly is that they know 1952 will reduce the amount of work they will have to do aka 1952 will take away Muniz relief from some of those that would have received relief that was due it if PA did nothing after the Muniz decision.
Also, Lea also claimed that Pa would have a strong argument against a PCRA because the 60 days you have to file for one has expired in her interpretation.