I would add to chuck’s comment – The Pa. Assembly has the stickin’ thinkin’ that the PASC will return to ruling on sexual offender appeals as like the past under civil collateral consequence with no punitive element to make HB 1952 punishment to pass muster of the PASC.
BUT HERE IS WHERE THEY ARE GOING WRONG – Even though Commonwealth v. Reed is not the lead case -but it is the best case we have to attack HB 1952 on two win points the PASC already have given Reed.
1. Reputation shaming of the PSP wed site -PASC ruled that as punitive (Assembly wants a phone in report to cover that)
2. Lack of due process to be even put on HB 1952 (the Assembly has no answer to this yet) they cannot prove by facts that sexual offenders are a danger to the Pa. public. They just use public safety as a smoke screen claiming irrebuttable presumptions to protect the public.
In Commonwealth v. J.B. about Juvenile sexual offenders in 2014 – said clearly that a punitive element is not needed to show ex post facto unconstitutional claims to the PASC. The PASC today will go by the date of the offence relating to the new law. New Law like HB 1952 can only be applied from the date it is made law on people forward that date – not retroactive to cover people who have an offense way before that new law. If a person has an offense date of 2007 and a new law is made in 2018. The new law will only be applied to people 2018 and on forward . THIS IS THE REAL MEANING OF EX POST FACTO. but today the Pa. Assembly want to use HB 1952 to attack Muniz protection from offenses back to April 1996 up to 20 December 2012. and SORNA will catch every one else. SORNA people will not be effected by HB 1952 new law only Pre-SORNA people. Today the PASC has got the ex post facto rule correct and the Pa. Assemble wants to me one last muster push to see if HB 1952 will muster pass their definition. The Pa. Assembly think that they can strip all the punitive stuff off ML 2 and because it had no savings clause they made it new law and now want it to be applied retroactive to Pre-SORNA people. \\
Let me list the cases where the PASC got Ex post facto definition right:
1. Commonwealth v. Nieman
2. Commonwealth v. Butler
3. Commonwealth v. Muniz
4. Commonwealth v. Reed
all these are PASC cases to build argument on to get to the right meaning of Ex post Facto.
Out the gate HB 1952 will meet a challenge to even to be put on it – The PSP is going to be the fall guy – they cannot see the issues coming. The lower court judges in the common pleas courts of Pa. are confused on how to rule to keep challenges down and avoid a PASC front runner case. I will be in the race to the PASC. I know the weak spot to hit not. And I don’t need lawyer help to get there – just encouragement to go forward. You don’t need a band of people- just a few that will not let the tricky of the legal maze stop you. Most are stopped at- I DON’T HAVE MONEY FOR A LAWYER. lOOK UP WHAT pro-se mean