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

Terry Brunson

The Moore Case only removes from the PSP website

You still would have to register – you just will not show on the website. Please don’t misunderstand. The Moore site allows people under SORNA -2 subchapter “I” to get ghost. They would still have a registry and give information -but that information would not be posted on the webstie. In your case how Moore helps you is that on 23 October 2019 you would not have shown up on the website for them to scrutinized your information.

Your lawyer would make an applied challenge to section 9799.63 on the determination of information on the website. It would be an objection of due process of substantive fairness on having your information on their website to corner you and point you out. And it is a violation of the due process of procedural because you received no notice and a hearing to have applied the 9799.63 part of ACT 10 and ACT 29 on you to put you in a position to have your Reputation shamed by the desemination of information on the PSP website as saying you changed employment address without an update notation in time to match information report that would never have been applied to you to report such information.

The Weaver V. Ghram case set’s the standard that procedural due process be given you – meaning the PSP would have to tell you that you have 48 hours to register this employment address change or we are going to prosecute you for failure to register.

They did not give you this notice opportunity – they just came to you and jailed you making you have to post bail and ready yourself to fight in court technical infraction of failure to update in 48 hours.

The Moore case would have ghost you but you would have been on an invisible sex offender list that they would have a leg to stand on to prosecute you.

The Moore case helps you set up that dissemination of information objection to show that as of 23 October 2019 all information about employment updating is the fruits of the poisonous tree in that exposed facto punitive punishment violated the PA constitution under Muniz decision of July 17, 2017 under Article 1 Section 1 “REPUTATION” and the federal Constitution Article 1 Section 10 EX POST FACTO

The fruits of the poisonous tree suppress the present prosecution when you make an objection in court that the court loses subject matter jurisdiction on the present charge of failure to register due to their applying a punitive part of SORNA-2

The PSP would say that they would have applied the law any way just you would not have been on the website but still have to apply all the other parts of SORNA – 2

Not so – you applied objection is part of the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine. The PSP violated my due process both in substantive fairness and due process in procedural denial of showing that notice to get this technical violation update right in 48 hours so you could have corrected it.

They gave you no chance to fix the oversite in 48 hours. They went into a rush to justice mode to prosecute you. Their issue is that you would have had to give an update of information to them whether it was posted on the website or not.

They would be missing the issue of why you need to object. The court loses subject matter jurisdiction because a part of SORNA-2 under the Moore case set that part on the dissemination of information is Ex Post facto and that is now punitive in an application in substantive due process and procedural due process that violates your PA constitution rights and U.S. Constitutional rights and you want to object.

Please ask your lawyer what is the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine on illegal search and seture of information the PSP took from you in violation of the Ex post facto in the dissemination of information

The PSP will move to withdraw – until the statute of limitation date or the reverse of the Moore case at the PASC on this issue. If your lawyer is smart he will motion for dismissal with prejudice for a violation of your PA constitution and US. Constitution rights under Ex post-Facto application of a part of SORNA-2 that open the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine to suppress the PSP’s evidence against you.

Please you should be talking to your lawyer now not on the day you go to court they try to explain this – tell him NOW!

The Moor case will only help if your lawyer set the PSP rush to justice as a toy against them. You were to be a notice warming to correct your update oversite. The judge will agree with your lawyer if he crosses all the applied challenge application steps on making his objection of the PSP’s position to prosecute you.

They will also come to your lawyer with a deal. You sign and go home but you will have to give up rights to object under Moore, and appeal rights too. Your lawyer will bring this to you for you to make the decision. Freedom or object?
Fight or go home. You will have to ready yourself to make the decision.

At the preliminary the PSP will show evidence enough to go to trial – Your lawyer should be trying to show that their evidence falls short due to it was obtained by information from a record that shows the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is in question and your lawyer should show that dissemination of information of a sex offender’s information is a violation of the ex post facto law as of 23 October 2019 under Moore case.