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

terry brunson

@ et al

The PSP’s Brief is in and I made a reply brief to their brief, my reply was that their brief says noting about what 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 means in clear plain talk. “ALL FORM MEGAN’S LAW PROVISIONS SHALL EXPIRE.’ Is this hard to understand?

1 Pa. C.S.A. 1903 says that a law should not be hard to understand. Its plain wording should be set for the every person to understand what it is saying.

My case hangs on this 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 being interrupted by the court to mean -WHAT?

The PSP in Subchapter “I” ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for use of former Megan’s Law provisions to be used to recapture pre-SORNA people that subchapter “H” cannot hold to register.

So if ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls for sex offenses after April 1996 before 2012 December. What former Laws do ACT 10 and ACT 29 need? There was only one law that could be spoken of – Megan’s Law 2 and 3.

So if you had a Megan’s Law 2 or Megan’s Law 3 offence provision, and ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls them to be subject you to registration – I am fighting for you.

If I win you too will will. I know the PSP will appeal. They have 4 lawyers on me. I am out thinking all of them with God’s help. They thinking I have a lawyer helping me. No I don’t have no lawyer helping me. Just me my self and I and God. This new lawyer is just out of law school. I been studying ex post facto sex offender law for 19 years. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are not in a position to get a win on ex post facto issue alone.

The Pa Assembly took ACT 10 and ACT 29 back to civil collateral consequence with no punitive issues so they think. There are restrictions in ACT 10 and ACT 29 that are punishment. but they are not to the point more onerous than pervious laws such as Megan’s Law 2 the law that got pass the PASC with no punishments.

Based on Doe v. Smith. There are lawyers fighting that I did not want to get into that. The statutory construction defect is more clear to win on.

SORNA is the purported law on Sex offenses in Pa. Subchapter “H” of 12-20-12

This was amended on 02-21-2018 into ACT 10 – Subchapter “I” from HB631

Then on 06-11-2018 ACT 10 subchapter “I” which was an amendment of subchapter “H” was reenacted to make subchapter “I’ all over again as ACT 29.

Now normally- to make new law right – you repeal old law. so you still would have one one one did I say one purported law on the sex offence registration. The old law should be set a side to make way for the new law.

You want to know where in Pa law it says this? in 1 Pa. C.S.A. 1971(a) I will put it here

§ 1971. Implied repeal by later statute.
(a) Revision or exclusive system covering entire subject.–Whenever a statute purports to be a revision of all statutes upon a particular subject, or sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for such former statute, such statute shall be construed to supply and therefore to repeal all former statutes upon the same subject.

So subchapter “H” SORNA of 12-20-12 should have been repealed and if the Pa. law makers wanted to keep some of subchapter “H” to carry over into the new law a savings clause should be made to revive or amend by the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 I will put it here too

Article 3 Section § 6. Revival and amendment of laws.
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.

That means re-write subchapter “H” SORNA word for word and add the subchapter “I’ new law stuff (which will still be retroactive ex post facto) then subchapter “I’ would have half a chance to look like good law constructed well.

But this is not what happen with ACT 10 and ACt 29.

ACT 10 was amended from SORNA subchapter “H” with no saving clauses to carry over into new law.

then ACT 10 subchapter “I’ was reenacted from an illegal amendment to make ACT 29 subchapter “I”

The defect in statutor construction is in ACT 10 was never put into law correctly making it void law when challenged and I am challing this in court and the court is hearing me.

I had one judge at first not I have a panel of Pa. judges looking at my case – and the PSP case to see who is wright.
I gave the Pa. Law they only give that they think I am talking about ex post facto. Well I am not. I am talking statutory construction of ACT 10 being amended improperly

Then that ACT 10 illegal to be done was reenacted as if ACT 10 was good law to make ACT 29.

I I were wrong any lawyer would get on here and correct me.

Then ACT 10 and ACT 29 in it call for use of former old Megan’s Laws by saying if you have a former sex offence under any former sex offender laws you have to register under ACT 10 or ACT now ACT 29 subchapter “I”

Making two purported sex offender laws in pa. where they should be only one purported law.

We have a sex law for -post SORNA after 12-20-12 and that is subchapter “H”
We have a sex law foe pre- SORNA before 12-20-12 as subchapter “I”

“I” would be good if they followed the law on putting it together. They that would leave just the clever fight on showing how it is punishment.