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

terry brunson

@ Brain

Got your e-mail Your Lawyer is the balm. . . He has the right cases Derhammer is the winner for you. And 9799.41 on the expiration of former Megan’s Laws. Former Megan’s Laws are not AWA compliant at all, that is why they had to be expired to get SORNA. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not like a SORNA 2 as Megan’s Law 1 and Megan’s Law 2 and Megan’s Law 3. SORNA is SORNA and ACT 10 and ACT 29 are Amendments of SORNA.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not allowed to be constructed to cause an ABUSRD result as a penal statue. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says expressly this: In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:

(1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.

It is abusrd to make a statues like ACT 10 and ACT 29 say that former Megan’s Laws that have expired by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) expressly says that an expired law is expired and cannot come back to life to be used with an ABSURD result. Subchapter “I” calls for the use of a former Megan’s Law after April 1996 and before December 2012 – that is absurd in result.

Just this point says that subchapter “I” should have never been made at all. The people in Harrisburg never stop to check ACT 10 and ACT 29 closely.

To make ACT 10 and ACT 29 work, they must make a whole new SORNA with a savings clause, but that is too late. 9799.41 is here and you cannot go backwards now to undo the absurd result of subchapter “I”