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

terry brunson

@ Dave

You seem to to set set about something – I am not sure of what but the Fight is not among us to fight out – it is in the courts with with violation of rights.

We have no power to change – the power is in the filling in court. Most lawyers want dollar dollar bills that we don’t have.

And if we do have they file miss directed until we figure out that that lawyer is not helpping

I know my rights and I have to defend vested rights as I see them. Dave you are entitled to your own opinion – but you are not entitled to a right to cut people down.

We are already in a fight with the PSP we don’t need to fight each other due to a greater understanding on the issue. If you have a greater understanding share it please.

Other will accept it and add it to the fight. We are in the same boat, don’t turn it over for we all will be put in the water. . . . . . .

The issue is that 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired what the Pa. Assembly is trying to re-writ into ACT 10 and ACT 29.

Former Megan’s Law was expired and ACT 10 and ACT 29 is a re capture Law to correct that 42 Pa. C.S. 9788.41 has said.

To Expire a law is not the same as to repeal a law. With a repeal you can save portions of the old law by a savings clause that you want to keep.

But that is not what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 did. It expired applications of former Megan’s Law that they now need to enforce an amendment to SORNA. They need your form offense that they expired. It it is gone how can they bring it back?

It is ABSURD to accept that because 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says that the legislature did not intend absurd results to subject a statutory scheme which expired to be re-captured. That is ABSURD. See 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) for your self.