Terry I’m reading up on it. Well the fact that you will still be subject to any new law be something you will argue for the Moot argument? Your standing in a future time frame will be different. You could object to the claim by the state it is moot because of the letter they sent stating that you could be put back on to new laws Thats their own admission.
Court has explained that the burden on the party asking the court to dismiss a case on prudential mootness grounds is a “heavy one,” as the movant (usually the defendant) must “demonstrate that there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” There is a reasonable expectation the wrong will be repeated so they will not be able to argue for procedural mootness
exception to the mootness doctrine thus applies in the criminal context, when there is a “possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.”21 Even a “remote” possibility of such consequences is enough to save a criminal case from becoming moot.22
Looks like you got many ways to beat them on this moot thing.
I am only thinking of the common pleas writ so they do not have the option to say your review isn’t finished so you have to go on the new bill. I can not fathom how they will be able to tell you that you need to reg on a new bill if they can not prove your time has not expired first. The mere fact that they still have you on the reg is no way any proof that your time has not expired.