- This topic has 12 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 months ago by Terry Brunson.
May 18, 2020 at 11:13 am #72587
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]
May 18, 2020 at 1:10 pm #72598
Any time they have to admit it is punishment is going to help us in the long run!
May 18, 2020 at 2:38 pm #72604
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.
May 18, 2020 at 7:06 pm #72612
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.
May 18, 2020 at 7:11 pm #72609
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!
May 18, 2020 at 7:26 pm #72617
Awesome news! I hope they don’t appeal, but if they do, then I pray the subordinate court’s ruling is upheld!
May 18, 2020 at 8:56 pm #72619
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.
May 19, 2020 at 9:11 pm #72653
Ok I’m in my mid 60s. Will I ever see relief?
May 21, 2020 at 5:53 am #72699
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?
May 22, 2020 at 9:49 am #72762
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.
May 22, 2020 at 7:32 pm #72786
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.
May 22, 2020 at 7:33 pm #72779
Darn…got excited. Lol. I’m only 2 years into a 25 year registration
June 10, 2020 at 6:32 am #73314
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.