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

terry brunson

@ All
I may be always saying something that is not well understood. Talking about the Statutory Construction ACT of Pennsylvania.

I want to say the fight clear as not to confuse anyone.

1. SORNA has never been deemed unconstitutional as a whole meaning (42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41) expressly expired former Megan’s Laws. see Commonwealth v. Derhammer PASC decided 11-22-17

2. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says that the former Megan’s Laws ended by SORNA 12-20-12. All former Megan’s Law before 12-20-12 are satisfied as complete. No longer exist to be used in future.

3. 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(2) addresses lenity. Penal statutes shall strictly construed in favor of the accused, no ambiguity should exist in what Section 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is saying very clear (All former Megan’s Laws expired 12-20-12 as expressed in penal code statute)

4. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) is the nail that kills ACT 10 and ACT 29.
it is absurd to think that the Pa. Assembly is saying strictly that former Megan’s Law will be retroactively applied that have been expired. That is what ACT 10 and ACT 29 are saying in Absurdity at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75(a)(b). look for the words “former Megan’s Laws” in 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75(a)(b).

ACT 10 and 29 can be challenged on constructional muster without saying anything about retroactive punitive points. The way the ACT 10 and 29 was constructed will show that a thing like it cannot be done.

How can pre-SORNA people be held to former Megan’s Laws that no longer exist to be applied to ACT 10 and 29’s scheme.

It is the position that terry brunson’s former Megan’s Law offense was expired 12-20-12 and satisfied never to be applied to amendments to SORNA – as ACT 10 and ACT 29 are.

HB 631 page 55 line 22 as signed on 02-21-18 and ACT 29 of 06-12-18 says expressly: Subchapter “I” ACT 10 42 Pa. 9799.52 thru 9799.75 is an amendment to subchapter “H” SORNA which all is SORNA [.]