I have a question. Let’s assume the Court agrees with you that ML 1-3 cannot be used today. Well, why can’t the Commonwealth say, “Well, that’s ok, because ACT 10 and ACT 29 are civil and thus exempt from Ex Post Facto concerns”? I mean you spend all this time arguing this and that are expired, but they do not need them. All they have to do is claim that ACT 10 and 29 are civil which they are claiming.
By them claiming, and you conceding by not arguing against, that ACT 10 and 29 are civil they do not need any of the previous ML versions.
What am I missing? How does ML 1-3 being expired or not expired help or hurt us? It seems to me as long as they have their civil argument, they are set. Thank you in advance for your response. I look forward to learning from you.