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

#46293
Avatar
terry brunson

@ Chuck

Act 10 being a new statute because it has words in it that the old statute didn’t. That would make your expired argument moot, because it is an entirely different statute.

Chuck look at what ACT 10 and ACT 29 need to trigger application to a Pre-SORNA person. IT NEEDS FORMER MEGAN’S LAW. (After April 1996 before December 2012)

Here is the New law call in scope:
See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.54(a)(4) call of applicability to
a former law of this Commonwealth. What former law do you think that mean? I will tell you: Megan’s Law 1, 2, 3.

In order for ACT 10 and ACT 29 to be enforced on a Pre-SORNA person # 1 requirement is to have a former Megan’s Law that would require you to register under ACT 10 and ACT 29. Do you understand this?

QUESTION? What happen to all former Megan’s Laws on 12-20-12 that could be applied to ACT 10 and ACT 29?

Read 42 Pa. 9799.41 to find the right answer – they expired 12-20-12

How are you going to unexpire expired former Megan’s Laws the ACT 10 and ACT 29 need to apply it?

The Court has to make this clear to the PAAG, and all others in pasting the muster of 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. C.S. 1922, and 1 Pa. C.S. 1928. Nieman made former Megan’s law unconstitutional. Derhammer decision of 11-22-17 made former Megan’s Law provisions expired as the 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says.

Act 10 and ACT 29 makes a call for former Megan’s Laws that have be expired. B rule of nuc pro tunc now for then if former megan’s laws expired 12-20-12 we can challenge now for then to be set free from ACT 10′ and ACT 29’s call to be under that to the courts.

you said you would argue that the intent is the same and thus the statutes are the same.

The intent is in an absurd result that 1 Pa. C.S. § 1928(b)(2)

Rule of strict and liberal construction.
(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 provision that was constructed to mean what it means on the word (EXPIRED) IN SPEAKING OF FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS,

then

1 Pa. C.S. § 1922 (1) on 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.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 are in direct fight with this rule.

they are absurd – ACT 10 and ACT 29 makes a call to use expired former Megan’s Law to be applied within their call when those former Megan’s Laws no longer exist. Do you see the absurd call chuck?

Next ACT 10 and ACT 29 has an impossibility of execution that is unreasonable. It is impossible to unexpire expired law.

It is also unreasonable to think that it can be done by just a re-write of an old statue and think it does not have to line up with strict and liberal construction rules that the Same Pa. Assembly wants to make sound crazy in application today under ACT 10 and ACT 29 application to Pre-SORNA people.

Chuck it is simple as this – What does 42 Pa. C. S 9799.41 say? ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE

Chuck – What does expire mean? You answer it now and the court may have the same answer that you give now. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are dead laws that cannot be set to Per-SORNA people with expired former Megan’s Law offense that not longer exist.

No expost facto or civil consequence arguments cannot over come this ACT 10 and ACT 29 fight. The PAAG and others have to explain to the court to show that ACT 10 and ACT 29 call to use expired former megan’s law is in intend a result that has absurd results, impossible of execution and is unreasonable.

See 1 Pa. C.S. § 1922 (1) on 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.