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

terry brunson

The PSP has many lawyer on my case that were not on my case before. They want to stack lawyers to see if I will not service the new lawyers. I don’t think the PSP lawyers understand my case at all. Then keep gleaning a ex post facto issue. That is not my issue upfront.

My issue is three fold:

1. Statuetory Construction Defect of ACT 10 and ACT 29
The good part of SORNA says that former Megan’s Laws expired 12-20-12 at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41
1 Pa. C.S. 1903(a) says plain words in a statue mean expressly what they mean. So SHALL EXPIRE does not mean something other than expire.

1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says that a statue should not give an absurd result in impossibility of execution in unreasonableness in that ACT 10 and ACT 29 ask for the use of EXPIRED former Megan’s Law provisions to put pre- SORNA people on ACT 10 and 29 as if it is okay to use expired law that no longer exist.
You can find that at ACT 10 and 29 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2), and 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.75 look for the word use former Laws after April 1996 before December 2012 . What former Laws are they talking about? (Former Megan’s Laws)

1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) gives the expressed definition to what a statue means. Like 9799.41 means what it means. If it says all former Megan’s Law provisions are expired, they are. And if ambiguity in in there anywhere it is to the favor of the petitioner. 9799.41 has no ambiguity in what it saying, but ACT 10 and ACT 29 do in that ACT 10 and 29 calls for use of laws that no longer exist to be used.

1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says when a law purports to be the law of the Commonwealth and it is repealed or done away with, the new ported law cannot revive to purport enforcement of an old law that expired.

The Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 says that law that has been amended to revive old law is not possible without repeal savings clause help. When SORNA came into law effect 12-20-12 it did more than a repeal – it expired the former Megan’s Laws [.] never to come back.

2nd issue is on Unconscionable contract of adhesion. You all may be thinking what do that mean? That means that the PSP forces ACT 10 and ACT 29 on pre-SORNA people over the contract that they had with the court form registration requirements. If in 1999 the sex offender signed a plea form 10 years, now in 2018 the contract is what the PSP says it is. And if you don’t do it you will go to jail.

The will of the person is threatened. So you comply to keep from going to jail. ACT 10 and 29 calls for some to register for lifetime now, when they only had to do so for 10 years in 2003. They are crazy to think that ACT 10 and 29 is not punitive in effect. ACT 10 may seem civil in form, but it is its effect that the courts in Pa. are looking at. The challenge is on now. The briefs are in, ACT 10 and 29 are in effect punishment in that they determine legal consequence in an increase to many that had an enumerated offense that was ten years back in the day, now it has increased to lifetime with no regards to consequence effects to the fairness of rights under the Pa. and U.S. Constitutions.

That is what Weaver v. Graham case was all about. it was an ex post facto issue, but that shall be seen by the court any way as the other issue are being brought forth. I did add the ex post facto issue at the end of my brief to cover the grounds.