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

terry brunson

The PASC in language said the retroactive part of SORNA- 1 of 12-20-12 is “PUNITIVE” The PSP and the Pa. Assembly say that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are “CIVIL”

The burden is on them to show the civil application to the PASC when we get there. The burden is their baby, not ours. The PASC said application of SORNA is punitive . Not the whole law. The Pa. Assembly did an amendment of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 twice just to re-capture Pre-SORNA people.

ACT 10 and ACT29 are still SORNA[.]

1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) say clearly that if a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes which sets up a general exclusion system on matters of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statues upon the same subject.

That means ML 2 was the enforceable Law to repeal – bu the Pa. did not repeal they did something expressly different. They EXPIRED all former Megan’s Law statutes listed them at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 on date 12-20-12

1 Pa C.S. 1928(b) says Statutes expired should go in the favor of the accused of the Sex offender. meaning – all expired Megan’s Laws which have your offence in them after April 1996 before December 2012 which no longer exist can be used to hold you to ACT 10 or ACT 29 amendment of SORNA-1 of 12-20-12 which ACT 1`0 and ACT 29 are. Amendments of SORNA-1 yet still SORNA-1 can you see this?

Then 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) provided the legislature did not intend an absurd result. It is absurd that the PSP
asserts that statutory scheme of ACT 10 and ACT 29 can go back it time and un expire expired law that has pre-SORNA offense needed to put people under ACT 10 and ACT 29 as the former Megan’s Law no longer exists , it cannot be applicable[.]

Dose any one understand this? it may be too legal too understand. The court will understand it.