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

terry brunson

@ et al

To all following my case – I want to clarify for those who are following my case. My case can be confusing to follow the way I am saying subchapter “H” and “I” and amendment and then reenactment of “I” with “I’ ACT 10 and ACT 29
I want to be concise:

Subchapter “I’ in ACT 10 as amendment to subchapter “H”
Subchapter “I” in ACT 29 is a reenactment of ACT 10 to re-support Subchapter “I”

All of this is fine to do BUT BUT BUT the problem area is that ACT 10 and ACT 29 call for the use of FORMER MEGAN’S LAWS THAT EXPIRED 12-20-12 at the enactment of SORNA

When ACT 10 was written, all the old former Megan’s law provisions had no saving clauses to be used in future laws in a re write. The Pa Assembly thought SORNA would be it forever. They never thought MUNIZ would come along to turn over the table on punitive retroactive application. Pre-SORNA people were set free from registration[.]

The Pa. assembly went into a frendze to not let 17,000 pre-SORNA people go free under MUNIZ, so they came up with ACT 10 subchapter “I” without without without the saving clause words to use any old megan’s law provisions in ACT 10 and ACT 29 as law.

and ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls use of former Megan’s Laws to revive them without saving clause they just think they can write old law to come back. 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.41 is the hurtle to jump over. ALL FORMER MEGAN’S LAW PROVISIONS IS EXPIRED 12-20-12[.]