Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court – Discussion Continued

terry brunson

@ Debo

The ex post facto issue will rise to the top of the argument on its own when it it presented to the court that the new ACT 10 and ACT 29 are amendments of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12. The amendments quatumed backwards to grab former Megan’s law element to that were expired to be used. The way the amendments of ACT 10 and ACT 29 get their enforcement is to reach back to to when former Megan’s Law – 3 was in effect. Former Megan’s Laws that were by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 and lists them one by one.

The statue construction ACT 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) clearly says that repealed laws that are expired by unconstitutionality which Megan’s Law 3 was in it entirety by Commonwealth Nieman and instead of making savings clause to see which part of the former parts of Megan’s Law 2 could be saved that are constitutional to go forward to support SORNA would give them a leg to stand on today to apply retro- active principles.

In saying if you ever did a Megan’s law offense of the pass – You have to go in the pass to get it to bring it forward to apply it to this new amendment of SORNA. They would say ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not SORNA at all. Well it is. MUNIZ – decision did not deem SORNA unconstitutional is it entirety just the retro-actiness of adding time to a former Megan’s law of the pass that you singed up for and agreed to as 10 years, but SORNA brings 15 – 25 – or lifetime in to put on you, and the increase of up date time yearly – semi yearly and quarterly. This is adding punishment that was not in former Meagan’s Laws.

Take for example 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) under Megan’s Law 2 this was a M-2 low crime not a registration requirement at all. Then in Megan’s Law 3 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) went to a M-1 10 years requirement – Then This was expired at 12-20-12 at SORNA and 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) was placed at teir 3 lifetime.

Now to reach back to you who had a 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) offense under Megan’s law 2 M-2 (no registration) or Megan’s Law 3 (10 years registration) – Then the Pa. Assembly expires former Megan’s Laws by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to come into compliance with A.W.A. to get the money – SORNA comes along and changes your 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) from time date it happen back under Megan’s law times to SORNA times as increase status of lifetime – you cannot see that this is an increase in punishment?

Something that was not under registration requirements under ML-2 then went to 10 years under ML-3 and under SORNA lifetime but the same 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7).

Who can see this? If you can the Judge can too.

And when they see it- they will act and call it what it is and Case law to show it would start with Weaver V. Graham Tommy Lee Jackson V. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Bangs Commonwealth v. Booth Commonwealth V. Derhammer Commonwealth v Green commonwealth v. Pennymaker
I cannot give them all who got relief But the King daddy case for you all is Commonwealth v. Muniz

Muniz is the top case that cracked the code on arguing the statue construction ACT of 1 Pa C.S. 1971(a) – 1928(B) and 1922 (I) and the judges saw the rest and they acted and saw that all this is ex post facto and gave relief and told the Pa. Assembly to fix it and they are trying but they are going in the wrong direction.

The PSP and Pa. Assembly are too into recapturing 17,000 OS that they are going beyond the limits and making the OS laws more restrictive. . . . Making it easier to get the point across to a judge.

They know it is ex post facto – they are hoping the Court will return to the good old way of looking the other way.

Pa. a is a Commonwealth where the courts mutter what is acceptable in law practice in this state.

States that are not commonwealths can use the people to referendum to over throw laws that they think are no good. In PA there is no should monster as a people vote on laws constitutional muster.

That is a fact Jack. I am not a Lawyer but I am in a law fight and I am only showing that If you want to get relief you have to do it pro se or get a lawyer. ACT 10 and ACT 29 opens the door to this by saying if you get a judicial determination on 42 Pa. Chapter 97 Subchapter ” H” that judical determination will cut you away from 42 Pa. Chapter 97 Subchapter ” I ” .

Debo I pray some one on this forum would hear me clear and act and stop the waiting. 18 month will soon turn into years waiting on the PSP to be your savior – they care noting about your rights. They look at you as being in the wrong.

The PSP wants you to only fight this from a surface legal concept of ex post fact at the lead as the only position you have and they will bring up Smith V. Doe of Alaska and show that the SCOTUS said it is ok to use retroactive punishments that don’t increase in oniriousness over rights. That was true of the pass it is not working no more. Change is here. Get in where you fit in – you cannot miss if you work with this. . . . What I am telling you.

Show it to your lawyer – or if you understand it fight for your rights Than you