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

#46839
Avatar
terry brunson

@ Mark

I am doing the best that God has given to me. I don’t say I am a Lawyer, but I know no better lawyer than me.
The PAAG I have is a second rate lawyer she made a big mistake by telling the court that I am filling a PCRA. The court was getting ready to dismissed by PCRA being more than a year. I would have had to appeal to correct that mistake of her misleading the court.

So I filed on SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 A special motion of re-clarification to the court to dime her out on thinking that my case is a PCRA. My case not only is a mandamus and summary judgement on applied challenge of ACT 10 and 29 trying to use expired Megan’s Law to hold pre-SORNA people to ACT 10 and 29.

The court is turning to me for a brief on Pa. Constitution Article 3 section 6 talking about reviving old law by amendments. The PAAG opposed my brief with an argument on ex post facto, I was and am talking about Statutory construction of ACT 10 and 29 that is was invalid of the Pa. Assembly to amend subchapter “H” with subchapter “I” in that subchapter “I” is calling for use of former Megan’s Laws that subchapter “H” said expressly had expired for use.

It is simple – “I” and “H” are still SORNA. SORNA is the only sex offender Law in the Commonwealth. There is no SORNA 1 and SORNA 2 like they did with Megan’s Law 1 2 &3 .

SORNA is the one law amended in an unvalid way. IACT 10 and 29 need former Megan’s Law provisions to be enforceable. but the problem is SORNA leave standing good law that says expressly that all former Megan’s Laws are expired at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41.

This 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 part of SORNA must be interrupted by the court to mean something. It says clearly all former Megan’s Laws expired bu ACT 10 and ACT 29 need the Former Megan’s law to hold pre-SORNA people. it is a big mess that the y are in in trying to fix this. The PSP is not the problem, it is the AG, DA’s and PAAG that will not give up telling the court the lie that ACT 10 and 29 are not punishment. and is civil and lee restrictive than Megan’s Law was. You will see how the Court will rule when I tell them what they already know. Judge Jane Bower of the Superior court is on our side. She gave a dissenting opinion on Commonwealth v. Fernandez et al 19 on September 5, 2018 1888 Eda 2015

Her words to her fellow Judges was I qoute her words
“Revived former Megan’s Laws are in a judicial fait. It appears that ACT 10 and 29 calls for application of former Megan’s Laws that were eliminated to be revived in use. Derhammer at 726 questioned whether Megan’s law’s survived in vestigial application to be inculcated into ACT 10 and 29’s scheme, scope, and application. It is questionable to make allowance of statutes that no longer exist in framework to be applied. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41”

If you look on my docket sheet at 339 MD 2018 you will see where the court was getting ready to show me down, on September 18, 2018 the following

From the Commonwealth court panel they said:
“It’s appearing that petitioner’s Application for Summary Relief is fully briefed,
the Chief Clerk shall submit the matter to a panel of the judges for disposition on the
papers.”

“It’s further appearing that petitioner’s May 9, 2018, “** Notice to Defend**
[Pa. R.C.P. No.] 1081.1 Request Expired Former Megan’s Laws After 04-19-96 &
Before 12-20-12 Be Ordered Inapplicable To Apply to Act 10 Registration
Requirements” seeks the same relief that petitioner seeks in his Application.”

The statement that tipped me was “Expired Former Megan’s Laws After 04-19-96 &
Before 12-20-12 be ordered inapplicable to apply to Act 10 Registration
Requirements” Those were my words that I titled the application, but they laid it a side and wanted to here more on the Rule 1532 Special and Summary Relief Re-emphasized for clarity to the court. They striked the PAAG breif and ask if I would amend my brief on new look at expired former Megan’s Law application to my case.

I don’s know what they saw but it got me excited to write more. . . . . . . . .