I got the PAAG’s brief today. In it there is nothing speaking to the issues I file in my brief. I file about application of expired former Megan’s law to ACT 10 and 29. Act 10 and 29 calls for one to have a former offence after April 19996 before December 2012. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52.(2)
The PAAG makes it seem to the court that I want to talk about ex post facto application of ACT 10 and 29. I don’t. My brief is about 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 when SORNA good law says all former Megan’s laws did expire 12-20-12.
You cannot defend expired law. it is gone, done not there no more,. The PAAG has file her brief in Ex Parte argument meaning she and the court are taking beyond my issue. I am the petitioner I filed a brief with an issue on ACT 10 and 29 calling Pre-SORNA people to register under expired former megan’s laws by 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.
The PAAG brief should have said something about what I am talking about in my brief in pporsition, she said nothing about 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired former Megan’s law application ACT 10 and 29 calls pre-SORNA people to comply to.
Nieman V. Commonwealth made former Megan’s Law 3 unconstitutional, and Commonwealth v. Derhammer showed that former Megan’s law 2 did expire 12-20-12
so what former Megan’s law is ACT 10 and 29 calling pre-SORNA people to be held to under ACT 10 and 29′ provisions?
Since 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expressly expired former Megan’s Law provisions, the statutory construction Act of 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) does not allow the Pa. Assembly to use a revision to SORNA of 12-20-12 to cover matters that were repealed by a former statute in result of such former provision being construed to supply as repealed on the same subject matter that SORNA makes amendment in hopes to bring back the result of a former provision to be applied retroactively.
Muniz decision of 19 July 2017 wiped Sorna retroactive applications away under subchapterr “H” by 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) SORNA “H” is not applicable to Pre-SORNA people. So the Pa. Assembly put together Subchapter “I” as an amendment to “H” which is not applicable to Pre-SORNA people, don’t the Pa. Assembly realize that “H” which is not applicable to Pre- SORNA people is being amended into “I” to be applicable to Pre-SORNA people in retroactive way which “H” says cannot be done. If “H” cannot be applicable due to Muniz, and it is SORNA retroactive – and “I ” is an amendment of “H” then “I” and “H” are both SORNA undermining the results of Muniz decision that says no retroactive application to pre-SORNA people is allowed. If “H” says that and if “I ” is “H” amended, “I” cannot be applied in retroactive way neither.
You must read read this to see the logic. The Pa. Assembly has voted “I” as a continuation of “H”. If “H” is retroactive so is “I” and “I” is an amendment of “H” which cannot be done, so neither can “I” which is ACT 10 and 29 .
The ones that can do anything about this is the PASC this must get before that court before the PSP will act right. I have a King’s Bench directly to the PASC when appeals is made. If my brief is a loosing brief I will appeal to the PASC directly under King’s Bench rights by what is called a “supersedeas” injunction under R.A.P. Rule 1532 special relief to by pass the Superior Appeal Court and go directly to the PASC to save time.
If the PAAG brief loose they will appeal to the Superior Court to take as much time as they can waste on this issue. They will never be able to appeal to the SCOTUS because I am making sure that I use no federal law to support my claims only state law.
I am in a fight so deep that most many not know what I am talking about, but know this in the end all of us will win if I am successful. I have the PASC at my side on the Kings Bench sealed to be opened at my command if the Commonwealth court don’t do that right thing.
Some may say, “why not go to the King’s Bench now?” good question. The commonwealth court is my trail court, by King’s bench rules the PASC would be the appeal court if things are needed to be appealed from the trial court. The PASC is an appeal Court. They don’t do trails. That is why the Commonwealth court has to be given the opportunity to have the trail before a panel of judges, if they fail me I will open 122 MM 2018 which is ready to go you can see it at supreme court docket if you need to.
I am not playing with these so called lawyers, I did not sit is prison idle I was in the Law library 24 -7
Texas prisoners are allowed to do law library all day. I got 8 years of time in there.
I been setting up for this fight since 1999. also 20 years ago. I am ready to fight the battle. It was Muniz that got me going and I thank Chuck and Brian and Mark for being the starters mostly chuck he was the one that motivated me most to file mandamus while we wait on Muniz. Thank you chuck. I love you man…..
But the work is in, no other lawyer has seen the fight on expired former Megan’s Law as I do. I am the leading pro se defender on this issue. I just need to apply the King’s Bench to bring it to a head. The PASC may or may not see what I see but I will fight the good fight of legal begalness form now to now on.