An encouraging win in Pennsylvania

Viewing 13 reply threads
  • Author
    • #72587 Reply
      Larry Neely
      Larry Neely

      By Larry . . . T.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police was just decided by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court is the intermediat
      [See the full post at: An encouraging win in Pennsylvania]

    • #72598 Reply

      Any time they have to admit it is punishment is going to help us in the long run!

    • #72604 Reply

      Will this affect other offenders residing in different states? I’ve already spent a lifetime fortune in legal fees abs cannot afford to contest my lifetime registered. This new lifetime requirement came up after I was released from all legal requirements before moving to this state.

    • #72612 Reply

      This is a great case and is another crack in the dam so to speak. The general reaction of the public, employment, even the prosepects of friends and romantic interests all gets altered and marred by a presence on the registry.
      It is no longer simply arguable as a civil requirement. It is punitive and in fact has been stated as “the least an offender deserves” by most in authority positions. The “its not punishment” argument doesn’t hold up anymore.

    • #72609 Reply

      I agree with ‘d’, in that this should help out in the overall long run of things. I also hope, ‘S’, that this will help you too. I cannot say for certain as to how it may or may not help me personally, yet, I do have a sense of renewed hope that there ‘May’, be Some Relief insofar as Conditions go. The General Assembly will for sure, try to figure out something else. They will not let go of this that easily. Believe that! as I see it; here’s what needs to happen, in order for such re-writing of the Laws should and could go: First; Politicians MUST become Transparent in what they Vote on and how they Vote WHEN, they do. Second; they MUST be held accountable to the Families of Registered Citizens inasmuch as they are to everyone else, ESPECIALLY when they Vote on Legislation that is ‘Directly Socially Assaultive’, on Us and Our Family Members. What do I mean by ‘Directly Socially Assaultive’? Simply this: Their Voting on things that continue to or much more; cause Us to be Socially Disadvantaged, Unemployable, Vulnerable to Vigilantes, and Endangering ALL Our Family Members related to Us by Irresponsible People ‘Just Because’ they’re related to Us. And by the way; The Internet MUST NOT, be used anymore by the General Public as a means of ‘Tracking’ Us for the purpose of Targeting Us. The state Police also; MUST be held accountable if and when one or more of their Officers happens to ‘let slip’, information about Us to someone who IS NOT, Law Enforcement. We know that does, AND CAN happen! The same should also apply to The General Assembly itself, AND Judges, D.A’s and A.D.A.’s, and ALL Court Officials! Because anybody, can tell anyone else, anything about ANY of Us, at any time, anyway now!

    • #72617 Reply

      Awesome news! I hope they don’t appeal, but if they do, then I pray the subordinate court’s ruling is upheld!

    • #72619 Reply
      Tim in WI

      Good explanation Larry

      The registries are the people’s property for which the law demands maintenance. In order to keep up the database there are hired agents and indentured servants. Essentially registrants are slaves to the property against there will and liberty. The idea was new only in that it involves an electronic database and internet broadcast, but there is nothing new about indentured servitude, nor the concept of formal plantation, and according to the 13th is only permitted under conditions of punishment as the result from a duly had felony conviction. This court relief here relied upon the precedent set in the DOE 03 cases and applied the Kennedy Mendoza\ Martinez non dispositive analysis and found Sub1 incongruous with the balance struck via ratification of Article 1 sec. 9,10. Clearly the intent of regime no longer justifies the means. The presumption of congressional deference no longer standing a basic test of intermediate scrutiny. But truthfully it never really did according to the minority in DOE.

      What irks me most from the DOE03 opinion is the farce of striking a new balance was achieved by first promoting online personal attack, and second voiding the common & accepted understanding of what constitutes plain punishment, slavery by ignoring electronic domains as property. Those who’d argue “slavery” a misinterpretation vastly underestimate the effect of the database machine’s INSATIABLE need for data- burden. Free men are paid or otherwise compensated to maintain machine property precisely because of the burden in itself. This is precisely how Mr. Zuckerberg makes his Facebook property viable. He capitalizes on users willingness to provide free input and users receive compensation via the platforms bells, whistles etc. capability. Folks find something of value in an equitable relationship between FB & Self- symbiosis, however parasitic or codependent the relationship may be in realty. 5B $USD ain’t no chump change! Has our government punished FB? or regulated its use of database, by regulating the firms gleaning it for profitable data at the expense of citizen privacy(sovereignty rights)? Exploitation on mass.
      Ironically, FB TOS immunizations from offender input did the registrant a favor although I acknowledge many registrants complain of it bitterly. Obviously there was something benevolent in public safety, especially when it comes to protecting the people from government agencies where appropriate.

      Until the people come to terms with the true nature of the electronic database infrastructure individual liberty and traditional notions of sovereignty will continue to be eviscerated by its uses. We can look forward to facial recognition.

    • #72653 Reply

      Ok I’m in my mid 60s. Will I ever see relief?

    • #72699 Reply

      I’m trying to follow this but im confused. Does this apply to ALL non SVP offenders or just the ones put on the list after they completed their old legal obligations?

    • #72762 Reply

      Jonathan, the ruling in this case only applies to T.S. However, it can be used in cases where the non-SVP registrant’s crime was committed when there was no registry.

    • #72786 Reply

      Perry, since you posted that comment a registered citizen in Omaha, NE was murdered in cold blood by a vigilante who used the state’s public S.O.R. web site to identify him and tell exactly where he lives. Once a vigilante has your street address, it’s just a matter of plugging that address into Google Maps selecting “Get directions”, and entering your own address as the starting point for the route. With Google Street View, the vigilante is provided with a nice, clear photo of the front of your house. Thanks to how Google Maps interfaces with smartphones, the phone will give you turn-by-turn voice direction to navigate your way to the address.

      This murder just proved Judge Matsch right when he ruled the Colorado S.O.R. unconstitutional on 8th Amendment grounds due to the fact it opens registrants and their families up to violent vigilantism at the hands of the public. This case out of Colorado has been languishing for at least two years now at the 10th Circuit. The arguments have been made for quite some time now, but no ruling has been issued. I honestly don’t know what on Earth the court is waiting for.

      Way too much personal information is compelled from persons forced to register and disseminated in an unmonitored, uncontrolled, unlimited manner to the entirety of the WORLD’S INTERNET-CAPABLE POPULATION, and in all honesty outstrips the stated purpose of informing those who have a “need to know”. Like Larry, I defy the pro-registry crowd to show me anywhere in the U.S. Constitution there is an enumerated right citizens have to know who is living around them and what their personal backgrounds are. This is an INVENTED RIGHT “victim” groups screamed bloody murder for that never should have been given the time of day by either court or legislator. Politicians and elected judges are gutless cowards who will cow-tow to the loudest, persistent voices in the name of protecting position and re-electability. They have no backbone to stand up against the tyranny of the majority, which is a DUTY AND OBLIGATION of our government.

      Any law that puts life, limb, and property of those who have served their time and paid the due penalty for their crimes should not be allowed to stand for an instant.

    • #72779 Reply

      Darn…got excited. Lol. I’m only 2 years into a 25 year registration

    • #73314 Reply
      Terry Brunson

      The T.S. V PSP case is only a win for those that pre-date the Megan’s Law -1 era

      If you have a situation like that – you can do an applied challenge – win and if there is a stay wait for the higher court to rule on T.S. v. PSP. If they uphold the T.S. decision of the lower appeals court. Them T.S. v. PSP case becomes a precedent case for an applied challenge if you have a registration that pre-dates Megan’s law -1.

      If you don’t file in court you may be removed by the PSP when they get around to it.

      There is also the Steinman V. Blocker, No. 255 MD 2018 case that is for those whose offense goes back to Megan’s Law -1 and you can show that ACT 10 and ACT 29 is greater in punishment than the Megan’s Law -1 punishment.

      This is also an applied challenge case. It will only affect those in this area.
      This case was won in November 15, 2019

      Cases like these are Not reported. You have to be in the court to see their win. On a docket search or know how to see the daily court docket opinions.

    • #75791 Reply
      Terry Brunson

      The case 339 MD 2018 in Pa. Commonwealth Court is back on the docket for summary Relief under Rule 1532(b)

      The PSP has filed their opposition brief Monday 24, 2020

      I will file a reply brief within 14 days then the court will have 45 days to decide who is making the best law fight and rule in a decision. The facts are in and the fight is set for me. I move forward in faith and dependence on fate.

Viewing 13 reply threads
Reply To: An encouraging win in Pennsylvania
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">