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

#43621
Avatar
terry brunson

Terry bruson has filed in the PASC at two dockets as 336 MT 2018 and 335 MT 2018 to make permission for allowance to PASC by King’s Bench by R.A.P. Rule 3309 and Pa. Code Rule 1113 to make allowance of appeal on ACT 10 and ACT 29 challenge.

PASC has to give permission on acceptance of my appeals. I ask for all to pray for much grace to be accepted to stand before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to challenge ACT 10 and ACT 29 as ex post facto in retroactive application being applied in a disadvantage way to all sex offenders with an offence before 12-20-12.

The Statutory Construction ACT of Pennsylvania 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) disallows former expired Megan’s Laws that were expired to be used to quantum from a past date to be used in subchapter “I” ACT 10 and ACT 29 to call 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52 and 9799.75(a)(b) to revive former Megan’s Law provisions that were expired by SORNA 42 Pa. C,S. 9799.41 to attach to SORNA in a separte way to say “H” and “I” are not the same. The Statutory Construction ACT 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1922(1) and 1928(b)(1) are to mean that Pa law on constructions of amendments disallows an amendment cannot bring back a former expired Law that no longer exist to be used in SORNA amended. The former Megan’s Laws are not AWA complaint and the funding from Washington D.C. is for SORNA not expired former Megan’s Laws. To bring them back is impossible by the statutory construction ACT.

SORNA never was deemed unconstitutional as a whole law – just the application in retroactive operations. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are amendments to SORNA to recapture pre- SORNA people – you can find this in HB 631 page 55 line 22 of HB 631 as signed into law on 02-21-18 stating expressly: “Subchapter “I” ACT 10 9799.51 through 9799.75 is AMENDING Subchapter “H” SORNA. (which is still SORNA nonetheless.)”

The Commonwealth V. Derhammar case J-60 -2017 decided 11-22-17 speaks the clearest on the use of former Megan’s Laws that expired that ACT 10 and ACT 29 tries to revive by amending SORNA to make Muniz and Butler decisions invalid as a fix of the SORNA problem.

Many in this forum must understand that this is the true fight. It’s not the punitive element on civil collateral consequence where to put attention. That is the Doe V. Smith challenge that the Commonwealth is making. The Commonwealth thinks that it can make a retroactive law and apply it to pre-SORNA to protect the Pa. public over the rights of Pa. sex offenders as long as they make the law less onerous in punishment than was in place when the offense date came into being compared to now and then. Th Commonwealth feels that they can do what they are doing and the PASC will go along with them (SO THEY SAY AND THINK)

Well Weaver V. Graham 450 U.S. 24 (1981) of the U.S. Supreme Court says differently.

Muniz is the case that will keep hitting the Commonwealth in the face – It is the base case to latch to as a pre-SORNA sex offender. Until Muniz is over turned – it will be the win case for all sex offense before 12-20-12 .

In my case I have delivered to Brian and Chuck my promise to get to the PASC on a judicial determination mandamus. I got an in part win on my mandamus that fell short of ordering PSP to remove me again. I fell that the Commonwealth Court failed to render a full part grant because they feel that the PASC has not heard case case on ACT 10 or ACT 29 to deem it unconstitutional yet.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 stand until challenged at the PASC. I am now taking the steps to get closer to that goal.

I also thank Dave for his encouragements to be exact on my pleadings as a pro se person (my own Lawyer) to the court so as to not be denied to hurt the chances for others to fight better with I with a lawyer.

I am in a wait now until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepts my appeal and the fight there will begin with briefs and oral arguments.