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

terry brunson

to all
I received in the mail from the Commonwealth Court Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion on case 463 MD 2017 and it reads Relief granted in part and denied in part.

It looks different in the denied in part than the order.

The mission for the Mandamus was to get off of the registry. . . . . Not just to get a declaration from the Court that the PSP under Muniz may not enforce SORNA’s registration requirements on T.P.B. as a result of his 1999 conviction . That was granted BUT to decline to order the PSP to remove all reference to T.P.B. from the Megan’s Law website related publications and documents to me is a loss of time and effort.

I seen an appeal on ground of error in the conclusion of this court’s seeing that SORNA-1 subchapter “H”was amended to make SORNA-2 subchapter “I” to continue SORNA in application in a retroactive way.

SORNA as a whole law was not declared unconstitutional – only the retroactive application, but that is the part that the Pa. Assembly is amending by ACT 10 to reclaim all effected by Muniz- decision after April 1996 before December 2012. ACT 10 is still SORNA the court cannot see this as I showed it.

I want to put in a notice of appeal next week under case 463 MD 2017. I have 30 days form 27 June not encluding week ends.

I can only attack what was ruled on and I cannot bring in new points. I will attack that SORNA-1’s amendment is still SORNA[.]

By the statutory construction ACT of 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and 1928(b) and 1922(1) SORNA amendment is disallowed to create that AMENDMENT called ACT 10. It is still SORNA[.]