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

#42892

terry brunson

The ACT 10 and ACT 29 are SORNA. The PASC has spoken in clear words that the PSP don’t want to read. They want to say that Civil application gives them right to apply ACT 10 and ACT 29 on everyone they want too.

The burden is on them to show that civil application is what the PASC allows in MUNIZ – decision of 19 July 2017. . . It is not the PASC words says retroactive application of SORNA application is puntive.

The PSP has to argue that there is a difference.

The will say they took away some punitive stuff. to make it Civil and less onerous than it was in the MUNIZ fight.

It is not about that at all. The real fight is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 violates the Statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. 1928(b) and 1 Pa. C.S. 199(1)

When 42 Pa. C.S. 9788.41 expiration to Former Megan’s Laws You and My former offense was in that expiration of former Megan’s Laws. If you had a offense after April 1996 before December 2012 You are entitled to relief from ACT 10 and ACT 29 – – – – Can anybody somebody see this all all? In my next round to the Commonwealth court I will show this clearly.

I have their words from my case 463 MD 2017 which says that I have a former 1999 conviction that violates the ex post facto clause of the U.S. and The Pea. Constitutions based on Muniz, and can remind them of this in the next case 339 MD 2018 form them to act on ACT 10 and ACT 29 knock out punch.