Any questions about the expiration of former Megan’s Law?
read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 all former provisions of Megan’s law shall expire
1 Pa. C.S 1971(a) Cannot bring back expired law provisions
1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) it is absurd in result to think that expired law can still be applied that no longer exist to be used.
1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) this gives expressed definition of what it means to apply 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to make expired Megan’s Law provision go away never to come back.
ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not new law. They are Amendments of a law calling for what title one says cannot be done.
Use former Megan’s laws to make ACT 10 and ACT 29 work on Old Megan’s Law people. It is just not possible. The PSP is only doing it until the law is challenged and put before the PASC and me and Polizer are almost there. Polizer is in a 60 day hold to get a lawyer to to oral arguments before the PASC they have a rule that you must be a lawyer to talk to the PASC.
My case will not need oral argument I am making an applied challenge to law not effects of the law.
Effects of the law you have to get the PASC to see your argument. It Law challenge the law is read and if it don’t make sense to the PASC it will be deemed what they say to the PSP and the Pa. Assembly.
in my case they will Kill ACT 10 and ACT 29 and tell the PA assembly to come up with something in line with the Pa. constitution of law on construction within the statutory limits set by law. Meaning the Pa. Assembly has to resurrect dead law Mostly Megan’s Law 2 But But But Commonwealth v Derhammaer has case of 11:22-17 settled this. The ACT 10 and ACT 29 makers ignored Derhammer, but the PASC will not.
Derhammer is the real hero on Crushing ACT 10 and ACT 29 right now he is getting set free from his jail cell on to face ACT 10 and ACT 29. His fight did not have ACT 10 or ACT 29 in it.
Derhammer was still in jail when ACT 10 and ACT 29 came to us, but he was fighting that Megan’s Law 2 is history never to trouble us again and the PASC agreed with Derhammer. You can look at Commonwealth v Derhammer J-60-2017 DECIDED 11-22-17