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

terry brunson

@ Chuck

Every lawyer I call talk about expost facto BS. That is the upfront substance they see. I am under the surface. The Commnwealth court understands me if they did not I would have been gone dismissed and thrown out the door.

If you would go to docket 339 MD 2018 and read that the court understands what I am saying vacated their own order, demanded a brief from the PSP PAAG lady and she only responded with ex post facto BS as if I am making a ex post facto challenge. I AM NOT.

I am making a applied challenge to the construction of the ACT 10 and 29 amentment. It was constructed outside the normal flow of how laws are amended.

The Pa. Assemb;y thinks ACT 10 and ACT 29 are SORNA-2 when it is only an amendment to SORNA subchapter “H”. Subchapter “H” is SORNA good law at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 that is not touched by the Muniz wipe out. That says expressly ALL FORM MEGAN’S LAWS SHALL EXPIRE 12-20-12.

What does that mean is the question I asked the court. Because subchapter “I” calls for use of (FORMER
FORMER FORMER } former Megan’s Laws to make its Scope see 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2)

[quote] 2) required to register with the Pennsylvania State Police under a FORMER sexual offender registration law of this Commonwealth on or after April 22, 1996, but before December 20, 2012, whose period of registration has not expired.

All former Megan’s Laws did expire (12-20-12) by 42 C.S. 9799.41 this is still good law remember. At 12-20-12 by nuc pro tunc all former megan’s Laws were done at that time and no one knew it. The focus to expire former Megan’s Laws was to get the AWA money but no one realized that they were also freeing 17,00 sex offenders form former Megan’s Law application if SORNA did not work out. No one thought Muniz decision would fly.

But it did and the Pa. Assembly in this election year has to do something so ACT 10 and ACT 29 comes to look like it is a collage try, and the courts will be blamed not the politicians.

What I am talking about no lawyer in Pa. can toch it. They are too looking at the oblivious not seeing the obscure.

The problem with ACT 10 and 29 is the actual construct of the Law.

Title one is the flow of construction of law.

1 Pa. 1971(a) say that you have to repeal SORNA not amend it for it to stay live to recall if a new law don’t work out. The pa. assembly not repeal SORNA subchapter “H” they amended it into subchapter “I” A repeal would have a SORNA 1 and a SORNA 2

This is not the case. The Pa Assembly amended the potion of SORNA that the PASC in the Muniz decision shoot down as retroactive application.

Then the Pa Assembly amended “H” into “I” which is still SORNA which amendment is daubed a Muniz fit when it is a Muniz under mind. “I” tries to correct “H” to allow retroactive application with reduced onerous results.

The Pa. Assembly thinks it can just take every body back to where they were before Muniz decision happened.

Only problem is – When you go to put people back to where they were before 12-20-12 SORNA like me.

42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired what Pa. Assembly wants to go back to. Former Megan’s Law provisions. That is want ACT 10 and 29 says at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799,52(2) go back to former Megan’s Laws. What happened to the former Megan’s Law chuck? Can you find them in google?

Where are the former Megan’s Laws ACT 10 and 29 wants to use in 42 Pa. C.S. 9899.52(2) to have pre- SORNA people register under? Please some body any body tell me lawyer Judge, PSP, PAAG, Pa. Assembly. any body give me the goods please. . . . . . . What 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 means is expressed atr 1 Pa. 1928 (b) (1) IT LOOKS LIKE THIS:

(b) All provisions of a statute of the classes hereafter enumerated shall be strictly construed:

(1) Penal provision

42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is a penal code to be strictly construed as such still is active good law status. and it says: All former Megan’s Law Shall Expire


1 Pa. C.S. 19229 (1) looks like this:

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.

THE KILLED OF THE act 10 AND act 29

The GENERAL ASSEMBLY made 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 to say strictly what it means in 12-20-12. They six years later amend “H” with “I” saying what was formerly expired under “H” is going to be used in “I” talking about former Megan’s Laws. so “I” at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) wants to apply what 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired. 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) calls this result absurd, impossible of execution AND unreasonable.

THE END. Where in any of what I just said to an ex post facto argument?