Pennsylvania and SORNA: Take two

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Avatar admin 1 week, 3 days ago.

  • Author
  • #54344 Reply

    By Aaron J. Marcus . . . Two years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shook up long-settled orthodoxy by ruling that the state’s sex offender registr
    [See the full post at: Pennsylvania and SORNA: Take two]

  • #54380 Reply

    Re- winding back to a time before electronic domestic surveillance which was the hidden ” something else afoot” in the run up to bartello (Alaska v Doe) which weighed ” the people’s use of electronic database for surveillance ” first. It was decided in that case that men’s right to good accurate reputation and privacy was outweighed by the need for knowledge about convictions of our neighbors and the right to post as registries do.

  • #54388 Reply

    Can anyone find the court docs to read for this case? If so, please advise.

  • #54399 Reply


    The strength is in the ” testimony” that same testimony can be had in FTR situations too.

  • #54664 Reply

    (Awaiting moderation)

Reply To: Pennsylvania and SORNA: Take two
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *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.
  • *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 links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:

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