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

terry brunson

Update on Commonwealth Court case 339 MD 2018 on ACT 10 challenge

Leave court court has been given me to amend my mandamus in this court.

I have applied for a King’s Bench in the PASC but until that court grants allowance I have to obey the call of the Commonwealth Court.

They are asking me for my amendment to my Mandamus to add ACT 29 to the ACT 10.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 is provision of Subchapter “I”

Subchapter “I” is an amendment to “H” making “I” SORNA like “H”. In order for “I” to be enforceable a “Former Megan’s Law” must be added to it. That is an impossibility because all former Megan’s Laws before 12-20-12 have been expired by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.

Subchapter “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 (a)(b) calls for one to have this BUT if all former Megan’s Laws were expired what Megan’s law is there to apply in subchapter “I” ?

It’s absurd in result to apply an expired former Megan’s law which no longer exist . All former Megan’s Laws were expired by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41. The Pennsylvania statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) will not support sure absurd result in a law scheme to allow expired laws to which no longer are valid to be used to be an element to give application to new law call to use old law that was expired.

42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which is a penal statue strictly defined to expire former Megan’s Laws which are no longer operational by 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) to give former Megan’s Law provisions like 42 Pa. C.S. 9795.1 and 9795.2 before December 2012 application in new law such as subchater “I”.

42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which did expire the offence I had under Megan’s Law 3 which automatically reverted back to Megan’s Law 2 because Megan’s Law 3 was deemed unconstitutional by Commonwealth v. Nieman and then Megan’s Law 2 was expired by SORNA 12-20-12; cite at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 in subchapter “H” and then the Pa. Assembly amended “H” to make “I” which “I” calls for absurd call for former Megan’s Laws before December 2012 to be used to compel pre-SORNA persons to obey “I” because you have an expired former Megan’s Law that cannot be used. The “I” provision is at Subchapter “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 (a)(b) calling for the use of former Megan’s Law application. Based on the following – case law precedent – Commonwealth v. Derhammer; Commonwealth v. McCullough, Commonwealth v. Person (No. CP-41-CR-2173-2015) ; Commonwealth v. Muniz it is impossible to apply subchapter “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 (a)(b) calling for the use of former Megan’s Law application to bring a pre-SORNA person under ACT 10 or ACT 29 provisions [.]

There is no need to ague ex post Facto or ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment. That is secondary to the primary of the impossibility of constructing subchapter “I” to be applied. A former Megan’s law before 12-20-12 is needed. If the former Megan’s Laws are gone, WHERE WILL THE PSP GET THE FORMER LAW APPLICATION FROM?

I am trying my God given best to show this to all. I pray someone with goos understanding will connect the dots and file to get free. . . . . . . . . . I am close and getting closer. . . . . . . . to being just that. FREE