Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

#37409

terry brunson

ACT 10 can be shown to be ex post facto in effect. For a small infraction – it yields new felony charges. The Commonwealth cannot answer this with logic. The interest of public safety pushes them to be stuck on stupid to keep thinking that the Pa. courts are going to keep accepting SCOTUS case Smith v. Doe as the standard. Smith v. Doe is the floor and not the ceiling case. State Supreme courts are not as quick to take Smith v. Doe as the standard of Sexual offender registry laws are CIVIL in nature.

State Constitution rights are greater in that the highest court of the state can set the standard instead of being reminded that the SCOTUS has a case that says sexual offender registries are CIVIL[.]
Listen to me the Pa. Constitution has greater rights on defining CIVIL remedies of a law in form and effect.

In form ACT 10 looks CIVIL in nature. . . . but in ACT 10’s effect is where the highest state court must vote to resolve the ACT 10 deal. For a small infraction of ACT 10 – a great effect happens that is criminal in nature YOU GO TO JAIL. That not a CIVIL effect of law.

Civil efects of law give fines and money damages – – NOT JAIL TIME.

in the SCOTUS case Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798) yes this is still good law year 1798 said

“A Law that has vested right (as MUNIZ decision does) if a new law comes along to undermine the vested right (which ACT 10 does) it is unjust and oppressive to apply a new law over the vested right of protection. It is the effect area of the new law that will determine the ex post facto cliam. The effect of the new law and not just the form will determine the court’s judgement on ex post facto results of a new law.”

ACT 10 takes away and impairs a vested right of MUNIZ – decision. The effect of ACT 10 if violated would be? JAIL. That is punishment – Punitive – in effect. ACT 10 looks CIVIL in the form – but in the Effect – its nature is criminal to punish. This is why ACT 10 will meet MUNIZ at the PASC. It is only the PASC that can change the ACT 10 law.

The PAG and PSP has come up with a plan to stop a court from deciding on these issues by “voluntary cessation of conduct” If they take you off the registry there is no need to go to court. That is why the PSP and PAG don’t want “judicial determination” to be gotten. I Have been the one saying this for the longest in here that judicial determination is the key. We had a MUNIZ judicial determination that was to apply to all RSO’s automatically. The PA Assembly blocked that with a Muniz fix called ACT 10.

Hest the fight we are in right now…….. Do any one understand me?

We The Commonwealth Judges in Harrisburg do – and I am not a lawyer but they are listening to the arguments I make in objection in my Mandamus that the PSP and PAG think is a pain in their ass.

They wish terry brunson would just take what they gave him He is off the registry not once but twice.

See if I take their deal I will be a sell out to every Pre-SORNA RSO in the commonwealth. My fight is your fight. and when I get to the PASC my win win be your win. ACT 10 will go away and the PA Assembly is going to have to think up another Sex offender registry idea to block us from relief due.