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

#45755
Avatar
terry brunson

@ Chuck

Marcus Esq lawyer is sending you down a bad road. His article is not expressing Commonwealth law well.

1. Read for yourself 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 It is still subchapter “H” ending ” ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE. this was written 12-20-12 to get the AWA compliance money. The Pa. Assembly did not realize that they open the floor gate to all pre- SORNA people when they did that one act 12-20-10.

2. What does this mean? To get the answer read 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1)
(b) Provisions subject to strict construction.–All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:
(1) Penal provisions.

42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is a PENAL CODE strictly to mean what it says[.] ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE.

3. Now ACT 10 and ACT 29 comes years later to say i.e. if you have a former megan’s law offense after April 1996 and before December 2012 you must register with the PSP. – this is an absurd result by 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1)

1 Pa. C.S. section 1922. Presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent.

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 unreasonable and absurd in result to expire a law and they years later unexpire the law to fix ACT 10 and ACT 29.

4. Read 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and understand what it is saying to you. § 1971. Implied repeal by later statute.

(a) Revision or exclusive system covering entire subject.–Whenever a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes upon a particular subject, or sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute, such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statutes upon the same subject.

What this means is Subchapter “H” is an amendment of SORNA, SORNA is the purported revision of all statutes for sex offenders in Pa. It covers matter of former statutes in saying they are expired. Subchapter “H” was not ruled as a whole unconstitutional just the application of retroactivity of SORNA. Now to correct this subchapter “I” shows up to purport new matters on a former Statute called Megan’s Law 1 2 3 and subchapter “I” uses expired former megan’s law out side the statutory construction of 1 Pa. C.S. 1928 ; 1922, and 1971(a) When SORNA as good law says at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 all former Megan’s Laws shall expire. The Pa. law is clear on what it is saying the PSP don’t want to accept it.

Sept 5, 2018 the PAG in case 339 MD 2018 must provide the Commonwealth court with a brief explaining this conclusion of law. I wonder what they will say in that brief?
Expired don’t really mean expired?

WOW. I know the PAS will be the top court to close it all out. I am ready with King’s Bench to appeal and so are they but they want to waste time and go to the Superior appeaals court firt I will object and set metter to 122 MM 2018 PASC Kings Bench for 60 day shut down of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

Do you understand any of what I am saying?