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

terry brunson

The wheels of justice roll slow as she go. ACT 10 and ACT 29 will meet the grim reaper soon.

Not under the expost facto claim of being punitive verse civil, but under the way they were constructed and Amended under SORNA. SORNA can be amended and the PA. Assembly can re write Megan’s Law 2 but all who were under it cannot be called back to it – that would be double jeperty. If your Megan’s law former was expired – How does it come back to life to be used under ACT 10 and ACT 29?

Because the Pa. Assembly say so? I don’t think so. Former Megan’s Laws were expired 12-20-12 and on that date all former Megan’s Laws were satisfied and brought to an end. ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for their use now to be applied in scope and applicability to make Pre-SORNA people re-register with the PSP this is about to come to am end.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for people with a former Megan’s Law offense to re-register in an invalid way. It calls for people with former Megan’s Law offenses after April 1996 before 2012 all which by 42 Pa. C.S. has expired to be used in new ACT 10 and New ACT 29 amendment to SORNA.

Subchapter “I” is and Amendment of subchapter “H” and both are still SORNA. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says you cannot have two sex offender laws pro porting instructions at the same time. Only one is the true law not both. If it is subchapter “H” or subchapter “I” it was constructed in an invalid way. Read 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a0.

I I was wrong on this the courts would have never took my case under 339 MD 2018 or my Kings Bench at the PASC at docket 122 MM 2018 would have been throw out.

But I am still there and the Court is pressuring the PSP and the PAG to come on with the opposition brief. They say they need more time. More time to do or find what?

My case is not a case of fact finding it is a case of pure law conclusion. Does 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 mean what it says “All former Megan’s Laws shall EXPIRE. . . . . . ARE THESE WORD TO BE TAKEN SERIOUS.

They were used to bring the Pa. SORNA into compliance with AWA not realizing they were also freeing sex offenders with former Megan’s Law offenses. They just put every body under SORNA who were under Megan’s Law back in 12-20-12.

Now today SORNA was deemed unconstitutional in retroactive application and many Pre-SORNA people are due relief ever lifetime offenders. The DA Freed of Cumberland County was the first to see it. He tried hard to get the Pa. Assembly to re write Megan’s Law 2 that is why he appealed to the SCOTUS with a cert to buy time by the Pa. Assemble they did not re write ML2 because of Derhammer case so the amended subchapter “H” SORNA again and added subchapter “I” ACT 10 and ACT 29 which is not possible by the construction Act of Laws in Pa. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a)

In the end no one on this site seems to understand what I am trying to say. It is deeper than most understand. But the courts judge understand me. and they are not playing with the PSP or PAG’s they want answers by brief now. The PSP has none they are looking to the PAG and the PAG is looking back at the Pa. Assembly, and the Pa. Assembly wants to hold to 42 Pa. 9799.23(b)(2) that courts have no authority to get into sex offender issues.

That is BS Muniz and other cases so other wise.