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

terry brunson

I am not making an ex post facto claim. That is the upfront surface OBVIOUS. I am under the surface at the subsurface OBSCRURE arguing actual construction of ACT 10 and 29.

I have presented from The original Mandamus complaint, The Brief, Show cause to the respondent, and Commonwealth court that my issue with ACT 10 and ACT 29 is “ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION” in that Act 10 and Act 29 at 42 Pa. C. S. 9799.52(2) calls for former expired megan’s laws that expired 12-20-12 TO BE USED IN APPLICATION TO PRE-SORNA PEOPLE who’s offense expired in application for such used to be infolded into Act 10 or 29. Expired former Megan’s Laws cannot be infolded into ACT 10 and ACT 29 in a reasonable way by statutory construction of law shown in tile 1. 1971(a), 1928(b)(1) and 1922(1)

Docket 339 MD 2018 has filed timely to respondent in service rules, if respondent has other attention demanding cases in her case load, that limits her understanding of what to reply to in opposition that is not my concern.

PAAG lady Ms Nicole Boland is doing the best job she can, but to say that all she can glean from my court papers is an ex post facto challenge on my part is a forest.
I am making an applied challenge to the construction of the ACT 10 and 29 amendments of subchapter “H” into subchapter “I”.

It was constructed outside the normal flow of how laws are amended.

The Pa. Assembly 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 says expressly ALL FORMER 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} 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. [Unquote]

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 to put Pennsylvania in compliance with AWA, but no one realized that they were also freeing 17,000 sex offenders form former Megan’s Law application if SORNA did not work out. No one thought Muniz decision would fly but it did.
The Pa. Assembly in this election year felt that they had to do something so ACT 10 and ACT 29 comes to give the old college try, and the courts will be blamed not the politicians.

What I am talking about no lawyer in Pa. can touch. They are looking too close to the obvious and missing the obscure when it comes to ACT 10 and 29 applications to Pre- SORNA people..

The problem with ACT 10 and 29 is the actual construct of the Law.
Title one is the flow of construction of law in this Commonwealth.

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 did not repeal SORNA subchapter “H”, they amended it into subchapter “I”
A repeal would have made SORNA into SORNA 2 We would have two SORNA LAWS. Pre- and Post.
This is not the case. The Pa Assembly amended the potion of SORNA that the PASC in the Muniz decision shot down as retroactive in 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. Subchapter “I” tries to correct subchapter “H” to allow retroactive application with reduced onerous results.

The Pa. Assembly thinks it can just take everybody back to where they were before SORNA and make Muniz decision go away.

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

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?