Here is a thought for you to consider that came to me when I read your post earlier today….
Let’s say that they agree that there really is NO ML 1,2,3 and SORNA for PRE-SORNA people…
In the process of that argument can’t they simply say – so what if that stuff is gone, the legislature passed this and we are arguing that it’s not ex-post facto so those sex offenders should still be able to be captured by Act 10, Act 29, or whatever else the legislature wants to pass because it’s not ex-post facto and it’s civil, blah blah blah…..
Is that actually a legitimate argument they could make legally?
That’s the only thing that could make sense with their argument.
When should the court actually decide then, or are there more delays and still more back and forth paperwork argument and stuff that has to be done first?