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

#44240
Avatar
terry brunson

@ snoopy

The king’s Bench works like this- You first get a temporary docket to make application. Mine was 335 MT 2018. That is the application stage. The Pothonototary of the supreme court makes sure all the pleadings are in order and files a king’s bench to the court for allowance. It the court accepts the jurisdiction statement the case moves into the supreme court to go on the supreme court docket for reading and a new docket is assigned mine is 122 MM 2018.

At this stage I filed a a brief in the lower commonwealth court at docket 339 MD 2018 all that paper work work will be sent to the supreme court for them to read. They can accept that or ask for new briefs. The PASC will take over the case from the 339 MD 2018 commonwealth court and give a decision on ACT 10 and ACT 29 without going through years of appeals through the appeal court levels.

If I was paying a lawyer he would not want to do a king’s bench because he would be loosing money. Lawyers love to hide what they are doing. They want to take the longest route to force your to pay the money.

And besides most lawyer and in bed with the PAG and DA anyway.

I don’t trust lawyers. They don’t out right lie, but they don’t tell all the truth to us up front. We find out at the end and they want more money to go on to the next part of the case. If I had a lawyer doing a king’s Bench it would cost 5,000 for the Application. That would be docket 335 MT 2018

Then 10,000 for the PASC docket 122 MM 2018, 3,000 for oral argument before the PASC court. The PSP is going to Cert this case that is another 5,000 for the Cert to the SCOTUS. You add all that money up.

5,000 plus 10,000, plus 3,000 plus 5,000 equal what? 2 3, 0 0 0 dollars when you can pro se and go just paying the application court fees and postage and copies of the fillings. spending about $300 tops.

I use to think that the ACT 10 and ACT 29 issue was ex post facto and retroactive application but that is not so. It is the statutory construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29 that is the big problem. It would normally take a lawyer to figure that out, but I did it by seeing the wording between subchapter “H” and Subchapter “I” that subchapter “I” is an amendment of “H” and not a new law like SORNA 1 and SORNA 2 and SORNA 3

This is a normal construction flow of old law new law. With ACT 10 and ACT 29 this is not the case.

SORNA as a whole was never deemed unconstitutional by MUNIZ. only the retroactive part, making SORNA still the main sex offender law.

The Pa Assembly came up with the idea to amend SORNA and put back 17,000 Pre SORNA people with offense from the passed.

Only problem is – to get the AWA money back in 20 Dec 2012 all the former Megan’s Law provisions had to be expired. That is at 42 PA. C.S. 9799.41

When that was done SORNA became the whole law one law fix old and new offenses, and a 3 teir system classified every body in 1 2 or 3 but there were people who made a contract with the court is plea deal for 10 years, and they found themselves at 15 years and some lifetime.

This was crazy Muniz suited and won. Now it was not easy to put back the Megan’s Law provision expired 12-20-12 because no savings clause repeals were voted. The Pa Assembly thought SORNA would never meet a Muniz. They had no need for saving clause repeals on keeping old megan’s Laws in place. SORNA is a one law fits all.

When Muniz became final there was not old Megan’s Law for 17,000 offenders in Pa.

The Muniz – decision freed them they were old law people that the Pa. Assembly made go away.

Now in 2018 the Pa. Assemble wants to rewrite Megan’s Law 2 and put it in the law as ACT 10 and ACT 29 with no repeal rights to do so. The Pa. Assemble of 12-20-12 did not repeal Megan’s Law they expired it meaning killed it dead never to come back.

Now thy want it back. six years later. so they wrote it up and they know it is ex post facto, but they think that is ok public safety over rides the rights of a sex offender anyway, and they think we will take all punishment stuff off the ACT 10 and ACT 29 and make it different so sex offenders will not complain.

But But But it is written in title 1 of the statutory construction ACT says that expire law cannot come back to life like that.

in ACT 10 and ACT 29 it is written that a former Megan’s law is needed form April 1996 before December 2012. This is impossible.

All former Megan’s Laws were expired 12-20-12 and can never be made to fit the bill to assist ACT 10 and ACT 29.