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

Terry Brunson

The Torsileri case is not the case that is the kill on the registry. It is the LaCombe case that is the ball buster.

Tosileri is about Subchapter “H'” that is not a Muniz attack case. That is Post SORNA-1 with SORNA-2 Subchapter “H” on the PA Assembly findings. The data on irrebuttable presumption data on having to protect the public from sex offenders.

The case we need is the Pre- SORNA case on the MUNIZ / Butler cases.

Torsilieri is a post SORNA fight. If they cannot show an increase in punishment – SORNA-1 stands because the data facts are not law conclusions. We find that in Weaver v. Graham’s case. It is not the data it is the law’s effect on the increase of punishment. The putative element.

Torsileri’s case was a dispute of facts – on the PA Assembly’s say so on who’s facts are correct – the PA Assembly has already given irrebuttable presumption facts that public safety demands sex offender registration due to recidivism of sex offenders demands so. Sex offenders will re-offend give them time to show it. However; the facts show that is not the true case. Time has shown that sex offenders are the fewest of criminals that re-offend. The PASC doesn’t trust facts they need law conclusions – Facts can be manipulated to find the right experts to make up the facts.

The PA Assembly has spoken clearly on the 9799.11 and 9799.51

They wrote it into the unconstitutional law. The real deal is the Lawmakers have the bully platform to tell the PSP whose facts are the loudest. It is the facts of the ones large and in charge.

The PASC has Myopia on this point because the lawyers for Torsileri are trying