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

terry brunson

@ Brian

You were the first person I talked to on this site – I always vision you as the one that got me started. Telling you how to get the victory was a miracle. You did the lawyer thing good. The first law I told you was not for you. He was letting the DA lead him, NOT GOOD. Glad you got rid of him Boy, that clown was getting ready to milk you of money at every step to go down a dead end path to nowhere

Yes Derhammer of 11-22-18 is the case that make all Megan’s Law application provisions go away. The PSP don’t see this to apply Derhammer automatically. You have to challenge them.

The best tool is the Mandamus, not a PCAR. Other say the Habeus Corpus –
The difference between the two writs is

1. A Mandamus makes an agency do what law tells it to do in relief – like Muniz says no expost facto bs,

2. The Habeus Corpus is a writ that attacks the collateral Consequence as punishment that need to stop. The Habeus Corpus to not as effective because it will fail at showing ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment steming from your conviction.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 went into law after your conviction. a Pre-SORNA person will be wasting time doing a Habeus Corpus.

Post SORNA people are the ones to file Habeus Corp writs.

Pre- SORNA people stick to the Mandamus. The Court voted MUNIZ make the PSP follow MUNIZ.

MUNIZ has nothing to say about collateral consequence. MUNIZ is about only question of law on retroactive application of SORNA being more onerous in punishment than when you were convicted. Esample. Under Megan’s Law 3 you got ten year registration, now under SORNA you get 15 years, 25 years of lifetime under enumerated offense that only gave 10 years under Megan’s Law rules which by the way EXPIRED 12-20-12 AT THE ENACTMENT OF sorna