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

#46238
Avatar
terry brunson

The PAG filed her opposition Brief on 5 Sept 2018

By court rule no less than 14 days shall pass before court gives attention to the issues in the opposition brief. That would be 25 Sept 2018 that the Court has to render a disposition of the case 339 MD 2018.

I think the Commonwealth court will do the right thing in this case 339 MD 2018 because the PASC court is watching under King’s Bench. 122 MM 2018.

My case 339 MD 2018 has a double jurisdiction on it. I did this to skip the middle appeal court called the Superior Court of Appeals. It would only be a delay to go to that court. On the issue that I am challenging it is a matter of public importance of weather 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 means what it was voted to say. ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE 12-20-12

Since this is true that the only reason it was done was because AWA was putting pressure on the Pa Assembly to expire the Former Meagan’s Laws or loose AWA compliance money. The Pa Assembly could have repealed the former Megan’s Laws and made a Savings Clause stating that if SORNA of 12-20-12 don’t work out, which it didn’t they could have brought back on line the old Megan’s Law and have old law and SORNA governing Pa sex offenders., But that is not what they did. They expired the Law. Expired law has no saving clause applications.

So in hind sight the PA Assemble things that it can just Amend subchapter “H” and make a subchapter “I” for continuation of registration. Not so. That violates the Statutory Construction ACT of tile 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1922, and 1928 .

“H” is the good law that says 42 Pa. C.S 9799.41 that all former Megan’s Law are expired. Once a law is expired it is dead, satisfied, and cannot be resurrected to be applied to nothing.

Then the Pa. Assembly makes “I” to say that if a person has a former Meagan’s Law after April 1996 before December 2012 they will have to continue to register though their offense was expired 12-20-12

Now this is as clear as I can make it. You be the judge. Is “I” trying to revive expired former Megan’s Law 1 , 2, 3, to say they have to register people who’s Former Megan’s Law has expired?

This is what I put before the Commonwealth court and the PASC be King’s Bench at 122 MM 2018

The PAG wanted to get me to argue with her about Civil, punitive, and crazy stuff. That is no longer the issue. The issue is. Read tile 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 and when it says that AL former Meagan’s Laws expired – did they expire?

If yes then 17,000 Pa. sex offenders will again be set free from the PSP registry and the MUNIZ decision will be right back at the top of the win list,. The stake are high. The Pa. Assembly has put itself it a jam that cannot be fixed by making new law to bring back old law that has expired.

A win in the Commonwealth court will not mean much because the PAG is going to appeal and ask for a stay, and challenge the court’s authority by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.23 (b) (2)

It is the PASC court that will make the change needed. Have to get to the PASC form us all to win on this issue that will why I did the King’s Bench to the PASC