PA Supreme Court sends Commonwealth v. Torsilieri back to local court

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    • #73619 Reply

      Originally published at; reprinted in full with permission. By Josiah . . . The PA Supreme Court (SCOPA) filed their opinions on Com. v. Ge
      [See the full post at: PA Supreme Court sends Commonwealth v. Torsilieri back to local court]

    • #73658 Reply

      I’m going to be paying strict attention to this one. It may help me someday down the road…If all goes well. As I see it now, The Current Legislative Assembly is as Corrupt as any other set of Elected Entities. Let us all remember too: This Is A Presidential Election Year, and you know Who’s At The Top of All This Corruption! I recall certain Allegations regarding this man before the Last Election, and he skated through, around, above and below ALL of them…and Still Got Elected! So you cannot tell me that Money wasn’t involved in paying off a lot of people, and by the way, it works for him because of Who He Always Has Been And Still Is!
      I need not mention names.

    • #73672 Reply

      Best argument I’ve heard in a long time. Very rejuvenating.
      Lets all put our hands together for this one.
      BTW, It’s all wording. Everyone knows what’s going on.
      Let’s not lie to ourselves.

    • #73690 Reply
      Tim in WI

      Again we see the same argument that SORNA is in effect punitive, and based upon an assumption of high recidivism. State lays claim the legitimacy as civil collateral claim per safety concerns. IMO this an untenable argument as no truly dispositive fact can be made from it in resolution.

      While no man can reasonably dispute a people’s right to maintain a database of duly convicted persons, one may reasonably dispute the plain human indenture in the promulgation of it’s maintenance. Free men are paid to maintain machines.
      That this particular machine is a database matters not as it is still a property from which you may not extricate yourself from the duty to maintain the insatiable appetite for data. The machine property is being used to work anti-liberty because that is its true underlying intent of plain indenture as per the 13th. NGOs are also using the database infrastructure to impose their will upon the people.

    • #73887 Reply
      King Alexander
      King Alexander

      This is a very interesting development. I look forward to the record made on remand. Below* is the text of Louisiana’s supposed legislative “findings and purpose” in the opening section of its statutory scheme for the “registration of sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators,” La. R.S. 15:540. The language, no doubt supplied by the Louisiana Attorney General with the backing of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association and the Louisiana Sheriffs Association, claims that the legislature “finds … high [recidivism] risk [and] paramount governmental interest …” The legislature also declares a “reduced expectation of privacy” in persons convicted, and attempts to help itself to the lowest standard of judicial review by declaring the governmental interest “paramount” (i.e., most compelling) and claiming that the statutes need only be “rationally related” to the claimed goals of protecting minors and the public. None of that is actually the legislature’s call– it is for the judiciary. The antidote to all of this is a well-made record of the true facts, and in Louisiana, federal litigation before a life-tenured Article III judge rather than the elected state judiciary.

      King Alexander

      [Title 15] §540. Findings; purpose

      A. The legislature finds that sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators often pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses, and crimes against victims who are minors even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators is of paramount governmental interest. The legislature further finds that local law enforcement officers’ efforts to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sex offenses and crimes against victims who are minors, are impaired by the lack of information available to law enforcement agencies about convicted sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators who live within the agency’s jurisdiction, and the penal and mental health components of our justice system are largely hidden from public view and that lack of information from either may result in failure of both systems to meet this paramount concern of public safety. Restrictive confidentiality and liability laws governing the release of information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators have reduced willingness to release information that could be appropriately released under the public disclosure laws, and have increased risks to public safety. Persons found to have committed a sex offense or a crime against a victim who is a minor have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public’s interest in public safety and in the effective operation of government. Release of information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to public agencies, and under limited circumstances to the general public, will further the governmental interests of public safety and public scrutiny of the criminal and mental health systems so long as the information released is rationally related to the furtherance of those goals.

      B. Therefore, this state’s policy is to assist local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities by requiring sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to register with state and local law enforcement agencies and to require the exchange of relevant information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators among state, local, and federal public agencies and officials and to authorize the release of necessary and relevant information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to members of the general public as provided in this Chapter.

      Acts 1992, No. 388, §1, eff. June 18, 1992; Acts 1997, No. 1147, §1, eff. July 14, 1997.”

    • #74998 Reply

      What they completely missing is the fact those of us who were Convicted and sentenced in Court, either before Megans law or those with 10 year registration requirements. Those all have had their due process violated by having to register for life. Its called Double Jeopardy, once sentenced, you cannot resentence someone for the crime they already been charged and sentenced.

Viewing 5 reply threads
Reply To: PA Supreme Court sends Commonwealth v. Torsilieri back to local court
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="">