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

#46733
Avatar
terry brunson

@ Snoopy

Case 339 MD 2018 is an applied challenge on a question of law interpretation of 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 which says that all former Megan’s Law provisions shall expire 12-20-12. The Court is being challenged to interpret that potion of the Law.

I have asked over and over again by different rules of the Court to R.C.P. 1028, and R.A.P. 1532(b), and Pa. code for summary relief, and Mandaus, to cover every base I can to make sure that the court understandts that this is a Statutory Construction issue under Law interpretation of expired former Megan’s Laws. I know that Pa. expired the former Megan’s Laws to become AWA compliant to get the money from Washing, But they did not realize that when they expired all former Megan’s Laws that they were freeing 17,000 sex offenders from from being under SORNA rules once SORNA retroactive application became unconstitutional.

For subchapter “H” could not be applied to Pre-SORNA peopple, that left no sex offender law to be applied to Pre-SORNA people, The Pa. Assembly had to rush HB 1952 and HB 631 to through to recapture 17,000 sex offenders that had no sex offender law applying to them.

Hence Subchapter “H” SORNA was amended into subchapter “I” should amendment is invalid under the statutory construction ACT title 1.

This is the constitutional muster challenge – It is not no ex post facto less onerous civil collateral consequence. It is that subchapter “I” calls for use of former Megan’s law offenses after April 1996 before 2012. The same time frame as MUNIZ – decision to make it seem as if Muniz decision never happen.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 are calling for laws to be used that goo SORNA law says was expired 12-20-12. if you read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) you will see the word former sex offender laws. What former sex offender laws? Megan’s Law 1 2 3? 42 Pa. C.S. says expressly them done expired. What form Laws could they be talking about?

This is what the court should have put to the challenge of the PSP and PAAG to answer in their brief. (THEY DID NOT REPLY TO THAT ISSUE AT ALL) They brought the reply that ACT 10 and ACT 29 are Civil and can be applied retroactive if the punishment element is limited to less onerous standers.

I am claiming that the Commonwealth interpretation of the law is wrong. Therefore, the only thing the panel of judges need to do is get a good understanding if the law (42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41).

Judges are bound by the U.S. Constitution Article 6 Clause 2 supremacy Clause – I will post it here:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Since the phrase all judges in every state is bound by the U.S. Constitution to interpret the law right, and not be shaded by Pa. Assembly’s out cry for public safety to over ride constitutional protection of rights for sex offenders,.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 are such state Laws that are notwithstanding in constitutional muster.

ACt 10 and 29 are invalid due to their absurd result and unreasonable execution which – 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired the form Megan’s Law provisions 12-20-12 and now 6 years later ACT 10 and 29 of 2018 wants to use expired law in application to re-capture sex offenders. . . I am not a judge but I see that that is absurd in result. The is Pa. law against that at (1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1)) i will post it here:

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 have intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable
d there is no need to hear oral arguments.

You expire Former Megan’s Laws to get AWA money to be compliant in 12-20-12
Now 6 years later you want to use expired former Megan’s Laws to re capture pre-SORNA people to ACT 10 and ACT 29? It this intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable?

This is what I put before the court in my brief, and the PSP or PAAG has not given reply ti this expired former Megan’s Law use to enforce ACT 10 and 29.

I see that the PASc will be the court to make the last word that is why I have 122 MM 2018 in the wind to rush the issue to the PASC. I may have been born at night, but I was not born last night. The judges of the Commonwealth court have tipped their hand to me in saying “My challenge is inappropriate for ACT 10 and 29 application.”

What that means remains to be argued at a higher court level. I don’t exspect good treatment in the lower courts . . . My eye is on the only court that matters. THE PASC court