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

terry brunson

@ Mark

The King’s Bench filing was a risk because the PASC is a court does not give right to be heard. They must accept your filing. About ex parte Communications, It is true that I am Pro Se and have no lawyer, but the new Lawyer doesn’t have a right to communicate with me about my case where the court has not ordered a sit down conference to work things out.

The PAAG that called me wanted free discovery on what I filed in the Brief. I filed my Brief, serviced it, and if he being a lawyer cannot understand what I am saying in the Brief, he should find a new profession.

The Court did not order that me and the PSP sit and talk in conference. He called to investigate what my filed argument is. If he can read, he should read the brief and it will tell him what I am telling the court.

Ex parte communication is when the lawyer takes it upon themselves without court instruction by an order and want to talk to me – if I had a lawyer it would be the same, have permission from the court to talk in conference. If the court don’t know you are talking it is ex parte. That is like me talking to the judge without the PSP knowing it. I write the judge in my case a personal letter asking why is my case taking so long to get to the hearing level. This is ex parte communication and it is illegal to do.

As of now it is the PSP that has to file a brief in opposition to my brief by 2 November 2018. The will try to ask for extension of time by I will oppose that as a delay of justice. They have 30 days to get in a brief.

They claim heavy case load for needing more time, more time request is normal for a good reason, need to find a witness, need to wait for a report, but in question of law issues there is no need to delay and ask for more time.

My issue is 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 says – All former Megan’s Law provision did EXPIRE 12-20-12

The question of Law is: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

The PSP should oppose that to tell that it don’t mean what it says.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 at 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) says that if a sex offender has a former Megan’s Law offense from April 1996 before December 2012 must register with the PSP. That is clear in what that law is saying, but it is ambiguous, and impossible to execute, absurd in result by normal law standard under Pa. statutory construction.

1 Pa. C.S. 1903(a) a word in statue mus say clear what is mean so every one can know what is the meaning of the Law

1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) says that the Pa. Assembly intention must be in law making clear, not with absurd result of make a law impossible to execute in an unreasonable way.

ACT 10 and 29 is is such a law.

If you read 42 Pa. C. S. 9799.52(2) you should see that is is asking sex offenders with a sex offense from after April 1996 before December 2012 to register with PSP. That sounds clear Right? Wrong.

Read 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 all former Megan’s Law Provisions shall expire 12-12-12.

So if I have a 1999 sex offense under Megan’s 3 and The PSP send me a letter saying a new law says that my Megan’s Law 3 provision is a need to register with the PSP. I would ask they how?

What former Megan’s Law offense you talking about? on 12-20-12 all former Megan’s Law 3 offense were expired.

You don’t see that the PSP and Pa. Assembly is calling in new law a action that is absurd in result, and impossible to execute, and it is unreasonable in that my 1999 former Megan’s law offense expired when SORNA was made law in 12-20-12.

now six years later you want me to register with the PSP?

Qustion of Law? What did $2 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 mean in clear talk that all former Megan’s Law provisions expire? Now ACT 10 and ACT 29 are calling me to register due to a Former Megan’s Law provision that is no longer in law effect. Do you see this or am I crazy?

The Pa. Constitution at Article 3 Section 6 says that no law shall be revived, amended or provision extended to be re-enacted like ACT 10 and 29 to call people with former megan’s law provision offense to register with the PSP.

1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) says if law is saying something crazy – the penal statue should be ignored as lenity in favor of the sex offender because the new law is calling the sex offender to register in a way that is crazy.

Expired law is done complete and ACT 10 and ACT 29 cannot change that.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CALL REVIVE DEAD LAW BACK INTO EFFECT – by amendment. You have to repeal then make a savings clause and enact a whole new Law.

Right now in Pa. there are TWO sex offender laws. 1. Subchapter “H” and 2. Subchapter “I”

But 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says that a two law system is not supportable by using new law not repealed, no savings clause given.

MUNIZ made part of SORNA illegal, SUBCHAPTER “H” not for pre-SORNA people

ACT 10 and ACT 29 steps in to attack MUNIZ decision and call for Former Megan’s Law provisions to be enforced again even though there is no repeal no savings clause – just an amendment of “H” to Make new law “I”

1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) says this is a no go. . . This is a statutory construction error.

Read 1 Pa. C.S.A 1971(a) and you can come to an understanding that the lawyers in this state are stupid.

1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) implies repeal, but the Pa. Assembly went beyond repeal of former Megan’s law provisions to EXPIRE them 12-20-12.

Subchaper “H” is the purported law in the Commonwealth for sex offenders, that is CALLED SORNA

all former Megan’s law provisions expired 12-20-12 so all pre-SORNA people have no law to be under, so one was made up called subchaprter “I” an illegal amendment of “H” this is not enacted law.

42 Pa. C.S. 9799.76(1) shows this: “PSP shall create registry under “I” to incorporate “H” though expressly former Meagan’s law provision have been expired “IN TOTO” .
Simple put, “I” in unconstitutional it calls for an act in law that makes no sense to normal thinking people.

How can you expire a provision and then call for it to come back by not an enactment, just an amendment.

Pa. Contruction of Law don’t suport that.

I have shown this in my brief the the Commonwealth Court. They don’t have to agree with me. The PSP don’t have to agree with me. I just make plain sense to see how the is to work, but people in the Pa. government not letting it be so because they hate the thought of sex offender going free in large numbers.