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

terry brunson

Hello guys: I filed my brief in the mail today. it should reach the court by 12 noon to be filed in the clerk office. the docket is 339 MD 2018 the PAAG has 30 days form 10-03-18 to file a responds in opposition to my brief.

The PAAG think I am fighting ex post facto I am not and never have there are law firms fighting that, But no one but me is fighting the statutory construction of ACT 10 and 29.

The Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 is the violation that is in question. it says :
No law shall be revived, amended, or the
provisions thereof extended or conferred, by
reference to its title only, but so much
thereof as is revived, amended, extended or
conferred shall be re-enacted and published
at length

If you would notice not one lawyer will get on this site and go toe to toe with me on the issue that I am rising. I use to have one judge on my case – then I filed a King’s Bench to the PASC and was getting ready to jump to the high court when the court realized that I am a heavy hitter in the law question of former Megan’s Law expiration.

42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 is the freedom statue. The Pa. Assembly got greedy for D.C. money in 2012, and D.C. asked the Pa. Assembly to expire all Pa. Megan’s Law to get the compliance money. When other states went for the money they repealed their old Megan’s laws and wrote savings clauses to revert back to old law if SORNA did not work out. Pa. did not repeal they expired. There is a difference. I saw this way back in 2014 but I kept it to my self.

I am not law buff but I do know the Legislature process, and ACT 10 and ACT 29 are high jack laws. As they were being made they had no debate session and both HB 631 and HB 1952 never went to appropriations committee to see how they will be funded. That was a big flag. Subchapter “H” is SORNA but subchapter “I” is not AWA compliant because it is not funded by appropriations. Pa. Assembly thing that “I” will get money from “H” In the long run it will show up and you guys will hear that the Pa. Assembly is in trouble for stealing money from the AWA program thinking “I” is being paid for out of AWA money. It is but it is not in compliance with SORNA.

Really there are two SORNA’s “H” and “I” but only one of there is the real SORNA. that is “H” it was given in 12-20-12. “I” is an illegal amendment of “H” that is flying until challenged in court rightly.

The ex post facto game will not do the trick. Why, under DOE v. Smith states can violate ex post factor by saying public safety is more important. and the ex post facto retroactive new law has to be non punitive and less onerous in effect. ACT 10 and 29 is close to that.

But ACT 10 and 29 was put together in a hace and the Pa. Assembly did not check the title 1 laws to see if they could amend subchapter “H” with a continued registration law.

It is now impossible to fix ACT 10 and 29. They will trash it soon. The are Pa. Superior Court has cases ready to be heard on guess yes ex post facto. So many on Ex post facto. Bill Cosby’s lawyer has a good ex post facto argument. He attacks Subchapter “H” what they put Cosby under.