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

terry brunson

@ Mark

The Court that I am dealing with is in Harrisburg, PA. No oral arguments will be needed because this is an applied challenge on a conclusion of law not a fight over facts. The Pa. Assembly wrote 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to mean what is the question? 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(2) sets the defining of what 42 Pa. C.S. means. There should be no ambiguity in what “SHALL EXPIRE” mean.

1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) tells us that the Pa. Assembly must not set penal codes in front of people to be in an absurd result as having double talk. Expired former Megan’s Law are in reality expired like the penal code says or they are not.

It is an absurd result to write a law that says the former Megan’s Laws shall expire and then years later write in ACT 10 and ACT 29 that a former Megan’s Law can be used to have a pre- SORNA person register with the PSP. This is the question the PSP has to answer 5 September 2018 in a breif and I have no idea what they can say other than lie or say something that will make no legal sense to the court.