To all that understand – – – –
It seems as if PSP removed Terry Brunson from registry on 9 February 2018 under SORNA – but replaced Terry Brunson under ACT 10 applications without an advance notice or a hearing on 21 February 2018.
PSP just by its own operation and classification re-called Terry Brunson to its registry data base under ACT 10 status in – a violation of Pa. Constitution and holding case Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 96 Sct. 893 47 L Ed. 2d 18 (1976).
Suit may be brought against the Commonwealth is such manner in such court and in such cases as the legislature may by law as directed – Before a new law is put on a person, advance notice and a hearing must be given first.
This non-hearing of the Commonwealth on ACT 10 applications of Law to Terry Brunson opens a procedural and substantive due process challenge NOW, under the Pa. Constitution law to bring suit upon the Commonwealth.
A hearing is to come before the entitled push of ACT 10 on Terry Brunson. Here is the required Law in Pennsylvania under the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 on hearing right to “REPUTATION LIBERT INSTEREST” should afford:
1. Right to be heard on scrutiny of facts before the Commonwealth can use ACT 10 to be applied to Terry Brunson fact based analysis to confront witnesses, and testimony on how the Commonwealth’s interest on public safety. The burden is on the Commonwealth to show the proofs of such in protection of their interest of public safety to apply ACT 10 over the equal protection rights of terry brunson.
2. ACT 10 violates liberty of T.P.B.’s REPUTATION RIGHT. It is substantively unfair to put T.P.B. picture on website and personal information to have public gain access. The effect of such results is a shaming practice. The equal protection of law should protect T.P.B. under the Pa. Constitution as a substantive right. Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1. Placing T.P.B. on public web site is a violation of Pa. Constitution on liberty interest of REPUTATION.
3. ACT 10 make a up front CIVIL mark – by Holding case Smith v. Doe to show courts of the Legislature’s intent was to create a civil, non-punitive regime in ACT 10. But petitioner will grill the court to ask itself. . . . .
QUESTION: Is it CIVIL to face Felony charge on small infraction of ACT 10 to face Jail time?
Act 10 wants to waive as CIVIL in Law position, but in the end result of its application it results in criminal effects of JAIL.
4. ACT 10 is applied to T.P.B. in a retroactive way in violation of PA. Constitution Article 1 Section 17. ACT 10 quantum leaps in application backwards to encompass PRE-SORNA SO’s in an ex post facto way. In case holding of Weaver v. Gram 450 U.S. 24, the SCOTUS gave a prong test on defining retroactive on new law application on aged offences that occurrence is way before the new law’s enactment.
TEST – Was the offence event occurrence before the ACT 10 enactment into Law?
Commonwealth points that ACT 10 was written to be remedial; civil; and non punitive – BUT CLEARLY this is a play on words to hold ACT 10 in a position that it does not rightly deserve.
The commonwealth has long held the view of the Smith v. Doe case before its courts to persuade judges to stick with the precedent. Then the Commonwealth would add that punitive element must be present as a flood standard to judge on ACT 10.
The truth is in the effect and result of ACT 10 – not the re- classification of measurement of non-punitive element.
The Pa. commonwealth has precedent case lawn in Commonwealth v. Craven 572 Pa. 431,436, 817 A2d, 451, 454 (2003; in reiteration all T.P.B. has to show is how ACT 10 violates clearly and plain his Pa. Constitution rights on notice of hearing in (procedural and substantive) due process deprivation of law without opportunity to be heard by a hearing.
That alone is shown in PA. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 on due-process and reputation shaming on being on a PSP website without right to have a hearing. It is like T.P.B. has been tarred and feathered without a hearing. He has been placed on ACT 10 in violation of both procedural and substantive due process deprivation of liberties without a hearing, and substantively been shamed by picture on PSP site and personal information in the interest of public safety in violation of reputation liberty rights.
Also in the Commonwealth v. J.B. PASC case under due process on liberty rights a statute cannot restriction (REPUTATION of liberty INTEREST without a evidence hearing ).
terry brunson is on his way to the PASC on ACT appeal