Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

@ All
Under ACT 10 people are denied Notice and hearing right to be heard on why they are not connected with ACT 10 the Pa. Assembly just wrote a law and pushed it on a group that that Court PASC says is punitive called MUNIZ and the PA Assembly did not like it that result. So Hence ACT 10 –

ACT 10 violates Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 under due process 1 (NO) procedural outline on notice and (NO) Hearing right to redress grievance to facts that the government to too possessed with an irrebutable presumption that all SO’s are a danger to Pa. public . This is the Government’s position on their interest for ACT 10. The only reasonable explanation they give is recidivism (they have to be watch may do it again) But the Government has no fact base to measure this to explain it. so they just keep finding themselves in front of the PASC to explain this that they can’t explain. (recidivism)

That brings us to lesson two on due process . we hit procedure. (notice and heating)

Substantive due process deals with the fairness of the law ACT 10.

Under strict scrutiny the Government has no rational bases for ACT 10. The burden to show their reason to make this law is not rational. It is too restrictive to a limited class and robs them of equal protections of their right to Liberty and reputation under Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1

In substantive due process ACT 10 is not fair to one class. it spot out a group of people called Pre- SORNA people. It targets them in the Law as people who from April 1996 to 20 December 2012. That is the substantive challenge.

Not fair to highlight a class
and restrict their liberty Strict scrutiny of ACT 10 would show the unfairness. To highlight some unfair things
1. Restricts Travel 21 day in advance notice to travel what if plans change? you cannot inform in 21 days – what would be the PSP result? (JAIL) for a small inability see the unfairness? You get a Felony charge for a small this of changing plans and miss a 21 day deal in a ACT 10 law.
2. Restricts liberty on character REPUTATION . You are rebuilding your life and ACT 10 is in the way it keeps before the public that you are in a class that the Government restrict you to. The end result is to shame. That is substantively unfair.
3. Application of ACT 10 is retroactive in EX POST FACTO definition. it is a 2018 law that is to move from start of the law forward in time. ACT 10 looks backwards in time to grab people who had law deals in contract of punishment and not the ACT 10 will come pull them in a new law deal.

Can any one understand this? AS being fair? it violates substantive due process on fairness YOU GETTING IT YET?
There is a top case of LAW that protects against this
Matthew v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 96 Sct. 893 (1976) you should read this case. It is about welfare food stamps being taken from a woman in NY. The Government just took her stamps without procedure or substantive due process and she won on no notice, no hearing, and unfair application of law. and the ACT 10 is just like that.

I will stoop here – – – If you want to know more on Due Process- – – -It is ok to ask