ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: [details]

Other Events
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

General News

PA: Updates to Sex Offender Registration Law in Pa. Proposed

A member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives said his proposed legislation will adapt the Adam Walsh Act to prevent retroactive application of the law and still require sex offenders to continue registration as sex offenders to the Pennsylvania State Police. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Who removes from list

    They will approve this!

    My husbands attorney stated when they approve this he will be placed back to the civil regulatory Megans Law 3, named differently.

    His charge for failure would be dropped because he would not be legally bound to SORNA requirements and he would not of violation its crime code.

    Therefore he would be registered under a similar old law because all prior Megans Laws were deemed punishment. They were still civil regulartory and for public safety!

  2. mike r

    These politicians need to be held criminally liable when they try to circumvent a judicial order. They are no longer working in good faith and it is a ethical violation. Pro se complaints need to be filed claiming abuseof power under color of law. Petitions demanding action or show cause why such actions are lawful, and legally ethical acts.I really wish everyone would exercise their foundational constitutional rights to petition the courts for ongoing harms and redress.I really don’t know how the courts would react since all the arguments have merit and would therefore have to go through the entire judicial process. That would overwhelm the courts and throw the entire judicial system into chaos.

  3. mike r

    Believe me, starting the moment I filed my motion I will always have a pending petition of some kind in a court for some reason.I dont care if I trip over a sidewalk, or get any kind of ticket, or just don’t like my neighbor, as long as I can articulate a “rational basis” and its not malicious or meritless, then it will have to be heard and go through the entire judicial process. Fight em at their own game….Cost them as much as possible since it is free to file if you are not wealthy…

  4. mike r

    I noticed no one seems to be filing in state court using my motion as a templete, so after this semester during break I will be modifying my motion for a state challenge. I doubt if janice and team, or any org, will want to team up or assist me in anyway again, so PRO SE all the way….

    • America's Most Hated

      Can you file with federal district court to get the ball rolling to move up the line and change the laws nationwide?

      These laws are in place because of federal mandate.

      • Mike S

        Not sure that Ronny can have his cake and eat it too.

        While they believe that ML3 is bulletproof, the second that they extend the time in a tier based system, all bets are off. IF it was that simple PA could have just said, we will remove internet identifiers from the list of requirements and have a good time going through the courts for the next 3 years. At that time, we will remove some other SORNA requirement.

        While no one on the legislature will fight this, because the PASC has ruled, the course would be an injunction before it gets to Wolf’s desk.

  5. Brian

    They can’t apply this legally in any way that makes sense to me, so If were suposed to have been off in 2014 then this shouldn’t apply after they rule on Muniz anyhow and if they apply it to anyone currently registering that would be grounds fir a new lawsuit being it becomes retroactive exposfacto, nice fancy word for illegal.

  6. mike r

    Man these state legislatures can be in deep shi(*(&* if they don’t comply with the court order since now they are unambiguously aware that they are violating people’s constitutional liberties, under color of law, and are abusing their office and authorities. Slam dunk monetary damages; and prosecutable crimes that they are committing against registrants and their oaths of office….

  7. Who removes from list

    @mike r and mike s my husband doesnt think they are violating the law when designing a registry that completely matches the old law with the old punishments for violating its terms.

    Muniz was deemed punishment!

    The lawmakers are designing a law to match old Megans Law prior to Sorna that wasnt deemed punishment.

    Muniz said SORNA is punishment!

    Lawmakers are taking Pre SORNA off of SORNA and putting you and my husband back onto what you agreed too at your plea agreement or were found guilty of too under old requirements.

    Muniz said SORNA was punishment!

    In Muniz he argued he should of been sentenced to old Megans Law Requirements.

    Lawmakers are agreeing with Muniz and making the old megans law with the old requirements to match what was in place when Muniz would of been sentenced.

    What Lawmakers are doing is honoring Muniz. And giving you and my husband your relief you are due per Muniz. SORNA doesnt apply to you so they are getting you off of it as to exactly what Muniz argued.

    If it legal yes, is it hateful yes, is it illegal, nope. As long as they dont increase your requirements from Megans Law 3 requirements. Because no old Megans Law were deemed punishment, SORNA was deemed punishment.

    My husband doesnt agree but its legal.

    • robin Shrawder

      That’s what I have been saying all along ,, its the UPDATES that are illegal ,, not SORNA….. retroactive application is unconstitutional ….. Court ordered sentences must be satisfied ….

    • Paul 2

      Actually in a way they have said some things about registries that in general are punitive, like reputation and SVP designation without due process, being the other laws were not in place at the time of Muniz decision and now others coming down. I am thinking that even some of the things that were on previous versions if they are put into this new law could be considered retroactive punishment because it will have to be a new law. Reputation and the SVP thing will be something to look at with this new legislation applied to anyone pre SORNA, SVP, or for anyone They will have to put SVPs back to the tier of their offense and pre SORNA SVPs back to no reg, 10yrs, or life depending on their crime. I think that if they apply this new law to everyone then in order to justify putting their picture and info on the internet effecting their reputation they would or well have to have a jury or judge prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are such a danger to society that their reputation is trumped witch is going to be hard to prove. If you look at the fact that they said the legislature has to revamp the whole SVP thing because it causes punishment without due process then the same thing can be said for reputation this new law most likely if it contains the same stuff the old laws did can be shown to be punitive based on the rulings that have already came down off Muniz

  8. Who removes from list

    Also my husband wants you to know if you were supposed to off the registry your time has by adding up and time credit under Megans Law and SORNA counts towards your requirements. So if you are finished under old rules per 10 year registriants then you will be no longer required to register. If they make anyone who should be off it and put them on the new old looking Megans Law then that is illegal since they have completed there requirements. But if you were lifetime prior to SORNA you will be lifetime under the new old law.

  9. Paul 2

    They will revert anyone that still had life pre SORNA to the new laws less any enhancements made by SORNA, I’m sure they will try to sneak some things in that will have to go to court ML2 is what they should use because they only had SVPs on the internet Anyone that had their time increased by SORNA will get off if their time is up. SVPs will have to be put back to the time that was designated under the crime they committed at the time. I bet they will try to pull some crap and PSP will too

    • Mike S

      Thought this might be useful. Looks like that pesky US Constitution might get in the way of completely trying to crew us Pennsylvanians.

      Doctrine of Vested Rights Law and Legal Definition

      Doctrine of vested rights as applied in constitutional law protects a person, who won a legal decision, from a legislature seeking to overturn the decision. This was first announced in McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1898) wherein the court held “It is not within the power of a legislature to take away rights which have been once vested by a judgment. Legislation may act on subsequent proceedings, may abate actions pending, but when those actions have passed into judgment the power of the legislature to disturb the rights created thereby ceases.”

      The doctrine of vested rights also protects property owners and developers from changes in zoning when they have received a valid building permit and have completed substantial construction and made substantial expenditures in reliance on the permit. This doctrine allows the owner or developer to proceed in accordance with the prior zoning provision as they have vested rights to a validly issued permit.

    • Michael

      Anyone who was required to register for life pre-SORNA is not due any relief based on Muniz. Only those who’s period of registration was increased based upon SORNA requirements are. Anyone who completed a period of registration pre-SORNA would not be effected by any new legislation.

      Also, I would suspect that there would be challenges to any retroactive application of any new law based upon Article I of the PA Constitution. Arguments using reputation, including Reed, have been successful since 2012 for a number of reasons, not just retroactive application. Keep in mind that reputation is not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution, but it is under the PA Constitution.

      ….

  10. mike r

    I am finding really difficult to see how they are going to severe the new laws from the old. How do they apply out of state reg. how does IML work, what happens when visiting other states, ect.? These are all legitimate questions that I do not think they will be able to address without completely overhauling the entire scheme with nation wide standards. These individual municipalities and the hodgepodge of state and local laws, can not work. It will not work no matter what they do. There will be way to much confusion on what law applies to who, when, or where. Here you guys go with more suits. I am in CA and it’s coming down soon.

    • Paul 2

      We will see what PSP does when the Muniz appeal for review gets finished I believe we should hear something on the 16th of Nov its the dead line for a response I think. If they don’t take the case PSP has to do something ASAP They should not be able to wait to see what legislature does.

  11. Brian

    Severing the law would be a state by state thing one would think, Muniz could apply completely different in on state and not at all in others, that’s a tough question. Maybe you should ask a lawyer or research every states guidlines. We may be able to challenge the international part in the future depending on what the future holds, I’m sure there are going to be continuous challenges and lawsuits until we get our rights back and they start treating us like normal citizens..

    • Michael

      That case was not overturned based upon the decision in Muniz, but because his attorney, the Commonwealth nor the trial court informed Hart of any potential SORNA consequences.

      ….

      • Jim

        True.
        But when I pled to invasion of privacy in 2010, none of those entities mentioned Sorna,Megan’s law or any other registration issue…
        Then came December 2012. Probation dept. informed me. I’ve been fighting ever since.

        So technically, this county level judgement states that I should have been informed in 2010 when I pled? I tried that avenue and it didn’t work back then.

        • Michael

          Hart filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea 8 days after pleading nolo contendere because he wasn’t told about the registration requirement until the day AFTER his plea. At that time the SORNA requirements had been in effect for 4 years. In your case, SORNA didn’t effectively become law until December 20, 2012, which is why you were ensnared in the law.

          You should be due some relief if your conviction was pre-SORNA. Presumably you are waiting for PSP to act for lack of funds?

          ….

        • robin Shrawder

          Please remember that case was for the removal of a no contest plea ,, not the application of SORNA even though they did address those issues

    • mike r

      Now there is a real conundrum…How the hellll are they going to send it back to court for re-sentencing, or a new trial if he doesn’t agree to the terms of the plea (which I am sure he will not), There goes his rights to a speedy and fair trial.The reason we have the speedy trial right is so that you can cross examine witnesses while the incident is still fresh in their minds, show any extenuating or mitigating evidence that may now be lost because of the delay and this injustice, and I am sure I can come up with a few other issues…They have to throw it out……………Hope he has a good attorney that is competent enough to get this guy relief. even though what he did wasn’t right no one deserves this type of punishment or judicial fallacies….

  12. Who removes from list

    http://www.wfmz.com/news/berks/arthur-fick-sentenced-to-2-years-probation-for-indecent-assault/655941351

    Wow!

    Out of Reading Pa

    The Reading Eagle. November 13 2017

    They couldnt sentence this man to SORNA!!!!

    WHY?

    HIS OFFENSE WAS PRIOR TO SORNA!!!

    JUDGE DIDNT AGREE BUT SAID…

    MUNIZ IS THE LAW OF THE LAND NOW!!

    Former school bus driver gets probation for indecent assault

    WRITTEN BY DAVID MEKEEL

    Monday November 13, 2017 02:30 PM

    A former Oley Valley School District bus driver will spend two years on probation for the indecent assault of two young girls.Arthur Fick, 80, of the first block of Gauby Road, Alsace Township, received the sentence Monday from Berks County President Judge Paul M. Yatron after pleading no contest to the charges in June. He was also ordered not to have any contact with the victims in the case.

    Along with his sentence, prosecutors were asking that Fick also be required to register as a sexual offender. However, Yatron said the currently muddled laws in the state prevented him from including that as part of the sentence.

    Fick pleaded no contest to charges that he inappropriately touched two elementary school girls, one in 2001 and the other in 2008. Fick was each girl’s bus driver at the time of the assaults.

    TODAY’S SPONSOR:

    A no-contest plea means Fick conceded that prosecutors could prove he committed the crime but it is not an admission of guilt.
    Charges were filed against Fick in 2016.

    Fick’s sentencing had been delayed from September because of a question about whether he would have to register as a sexual offender. His attorney, Todd Mays, argued that a recent state Supreme Court ruling means defendants aren’t subject to reporting requirements in the state’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) if the crimes occurred before it went into effect in 2012.

    The previous statute, known as Megan’s Law III, expired at the end of 2012 as part of the new SORNA.

    Assistant District Attorney Colin Boyer argued that the state Supreme Court case, which is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, doesn’t apply to Fick.

    In the state Supreme Court case, the defendant was tried and convicted prior to SORNA taking effect, Boyer said. He then fled before his sentencing, and was only taken into custody and sentenced after 2012.

    Fick, Boyer said, was charged and entered his plea after 2012, and should be subject to SORNA even though the crime occurred before the new law.

    Yatron sided with Mays, although he made it clear it pained him to do so. He said the state Supreme Court decision is “the law of the commonwealth now,” and that he had to follow it.

    “The are no registration requirements I can impose on this defendant that would be lawful,” Yatron said.

    Boyer stood by the plea deal, despite knowing a registration requirement would not be part of it.

    Yatron said sexual assault cases of minors are troubling, and Fick’s case particularly so because of “the absolute chaotic turmoil the system has been thrown into” when it comes to the laws mandating registration requirements for sexual predators.

    Given the inability to require Fick to register, which he said he knew was part of the prosecution’s thinking in offering a plea deal, Yatron said he found it difficult to impose the sentence agreed to in the deal. But a desire to keep the victims from the further trauma of going through a trial allowed him to do so.

    Before the sentence was announced, the mother of one of the victims read a victim impact statement to the court.

    She called her daughter a blessing, a “perfect addition to our already perfect family.”

    She said she and her husband were often overprotective of their daughter, and that she will forever live with guilt over not protecting her from Fick.

    “The thing that will forever haunt me is I wish I would have done more,” she said.

    She spoke of the pain and torture her daughter will likely feel for the rest of her life, and said she will fight for her until she is whole again. She called Fick’s action’s sick and vile, saying there is no place in heaven for men like him.

    Almost as soon as Yatron handed down Fick’s sentence, the judge had cause to reconsider it.

    As Fick walked out of the courtroom with his wife, Jean, by his side, one of his victims and her mother claimed he spoke to them. According to their lawyer, Braden Lepisto, who was called to testify about the incident, Fick said, “Twenty minutes of lies.”

    Fick was called back in front of Yatron, who said he didn’t think he could accept Fick’s plea because of the comment. Fick denied making the comment.

    “It is deeply, deeply troubling,” Yatron said.

    However, after meeting with Boyer and Mays behind closed doors for more than 20 minutes, Yatron stood by the sentence.

    “Taking into account all of the circumstance, it will not alter the decision of the court,” he said.

    • Paul 2

      This shows the mess the greedy politicians made all for just one more vote. Only thing is they will be the ones that try to look like the savior from the mess they created. Cant wait to see the crazy stuff they will be presenting to the people of PA soon. This had to stop somewhere I can’t see why there can’t be law suits over this stuff. The only way to get control of it is some headlines reading SO’s are getting paid big $ for their constitutional rights being trampled on by spineless politicians with no regard for facts.

    • CR

      Well, fuck that supercilious judge. Notwithstanding, there is little hope that Fick won’t be required to register in the future once PA comes up with a new law that they think will pass constitutional muster. The PA SORNA law has been determined to constitute ex post facto punishment when applied to persons who’s offense predates the passage of the law, but SCOTUS decided in Smith v Doe that retroactive application of registration is not punishment.

      Even people who are eventually relieved of the duty to register can be recaptured at a later date, under some newly crafted law, provided that the new registration scheme is not deemed punishment by the courts.

      None of us will ever be truly free until we die.

      • Michael

        I don’t know. The challenges to the laws here in PA are not based upon the same arguments used in Doe. Furthermore, the challenges to the law were found to violate the Constitution of the Commonwealth based upon protections not found in the U.S. Constitution.

        Personally, I don’t see how the legislature now gets around the irrebutable presumption doctrine. In Muniz, the appellants argued that SORNA denied a person their right to reputation by presuming that a conviction for an enumerated offense means they are likely to sexually recidivise. How does that argument apply to retroactive application of ANY law if public safety is the basis for the law? if you already completed a period of registration based upon pre-SORNA requirements, then based upon the irrebutable presumption doctrine, the Commonwealth would need to prove that a person is a high risk to recidivise because they can no longer make the presumption that EVERY offender is.

        ….

    • Michael

      “As Fick walked out of the courtroom with his wife, Jean, by his side, one of his victims and her mother claimed he spoke to them. According to their lawyer, Braden Lepisto, who was called to testify about the incident, Fick said, ‘Twenty minutes of lies.’ … Fick was called back in front of Yatron, who said he didn’t think he could accept Fick’s plea because of the comment. Fick denied making the comment. … ‘It is deeply, deeply troubling,’ Yatron said.”

      What about “Twenty minutes of lies” could void his plea deal if he had already conceded that prosecutors could prove he committed the crime?

      ….

  13. Love_The_Bill_Of_Rights

    Both the judge and prosecutor are dead wrong. Sentences hand out punishment to deter crime. When someone commits a crime, they do so knowing what the punishment might be if they are caught. Changing that punishment after the fact no matter when someone is charged or sentenced is patently unfair and unconconstitutional. They know that. So much for keeping your personal feelings out of rulings.

    • Mike S

      Here is a case that is VERY interesting as it relates to Muniz.

      http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/26672230.pdf?cb=1

      This is another gamechanger as PSP has been removed from the whole equation.

      • Michael

        That’s interesting. That decision points out that, although Demora was based on prior cases holding that registration was ancillary to sentencing, Muniz held that registration is a criminal sanction, subject to ex post facto considerations under the Constitution of PA. If Muniz explicitly overrules Demora, then there is no way the Commonwealth could ever effectively pass legislation that applies retroactively.

        ….

        • Mike s

          Michael, to take it a step further, it also puts the Common Pleas Court Judge the sentenced you/us as the one who can have you removed from the site. It is a heck of a lot easier to get a good county lawyer to appear in front of a Judge and get an order than it is to go through mandamus at the Commonwealth level.

          It is a simple Motion to Enforce Plea agreement. Bet you $1500 will do the trick.

          • Paul 2

            Could you explain this being able to go in front of county judge please thanks.

          • Michael

            I was never told I had to register. My case was federal [1998] and AUSA said there were no federal reporting requirements. I moved to SC in 1999 and never registered here. When I moved back here in July, PSP said I didn’t have to register, although AFTER local police showed up saying I failed to register. I told them to get bent then called Joseph Ratasiewicz of Casamento & Ratasiewicz who handled the Tommy Lee Jackson v. Commenwealth case.

            At any rate. It should ALWAYS have been up to a judge or jury and there should be some kind of mechanism to getting removed from the list.

            When I lived in SC, GA was getting hammered with lawsuits that it eventually overhauled it’s registry and added a way to get off the list, among other things such as ending registry restrictions [after the brutal rape and murder of a 6-year-old boy], typically after 10 years. In NC in most cases it was 10 years and you automatically came off the list. Then they changed it requiring you go to appear before a judge to get off the list — I never heard of anyone being denied.

            ….

  14. who removes from list

    Here another case decided on November 14 2017.

    Case decided today!

    http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/26942683.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22

  15. mike r

    Ha, this crap bit em in the (&&^…Everyone in PA take note ( and jump on this ASAP before they try to create some legislative fix) that you can not be subjected to any sex offender laws before 2012 because they didn’t extend those laws so they are no longer on the books, kind of hard to sentence someone to something that no longer exist……HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    WHAT IDIOTS>>>>>>Oh I love it…Big Happy smile over that crap….

    “The previous statute, known as Megan’s Law III, expired at the end of 2012 as part of the new SORNA.”

  16. mike r

    Like how they always try to re litigate the case in every aspect when making decisions. Laying out the guy’s conduct in that case when it is completely irrelevant to the current issue is creating inherent biases and are inadvertently (or intentionally, which I know is why they do it) causing the court to be subjective which is totally against what the court is all about………Facts, evidence, and constitutional issues were what was being brought forth not any of his previous conduct…….

    • BM

      Mike did you ever read original Doe v Snyder 6th Circuit decision?

      It was corrected 4 days after to exclude comparing the residency restrictions to “punitive sundown laws”.

      Sundown towns, sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of non-white races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence. The term came from signs that were posted stating that “colored people” had to leave the town by sundown.

      Interesting to at least know their thoughts on this.

  17. BM

    Mike did you ever read original Doe v Snyder 6th Circuit decision?

    It was corrected 4 days after to exclude comparing the residency restrictions to “punitive sundown laws”.

    Sundown towns, sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of non-white races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence. The term came from signs that were posted stating that “colored people” had to leave the town by sundown.

    Interesting to at least know their thoughts on this.

    • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW

      Is the original opinion available anywhere?

      • BM

        Scotus – I was reviewing the opinion in PaceMonitor (I have an account) and it had a “correction”. I downloaded it and that is what was lined out of the original opinion. It was dated 9/29 and the opinion was dated 9/25. All that is up there is the corrected opinion.

    • CR

      Who authored the opinion? Do you have any conjecture about why the comparison of the registry to sundown towns was removed?

      • BM

        CR – I forget who authored it, but the clerk filed the revision stringing it per justic I would imagine.

        My thoughts are the comment may have been disliked by a judge? But a published opinion would include a dissent already, so there would be no compromise.. Take out or I’ll dissent type scenario. I’m not quite sure, but that statement was removed at a later date and is public record. Maybe the moral leper comment was enough? Or maybe they thought it overstepped and anticipated an issue or reason to grant cert by scotus?

    • CR

      Respondent’s brief is due today. Haven’t seen anything yet.

    • Michael

      “This case presents compelling reasons for this Honorable Court to grant review, particularly because Commonwealth v. Muniz is contrary to this Honorable Court’s precedent, thwarts Congressional intent, and endangers citizens of both Pennsylvania and our sister states.”

      I got a kick out of this paragraph, and not because they said the court was “honorable.”

      First of all, the court did not state that all sex offender registration laws enacted after their decision were constitutional and has since held that restricting social media access is unconstitutional.

      Lastly, Congressional intent is not gemane. States are not obligated to enact any law that mirrors one enacted by Congress [Prigg v. Pennsylvania, (1842), New York v. United States (1992)], nor are they obligated to enforce federal laws [Printz v. United States].

      ….

  18. Mike S

    OK, I read the PSP Amicus, had a beer and a walk around the block and am now ready to comment.

    It is the same BS that we see all the time….Protect the Children, yadda yadda yadda….. Doe v Smith, study from 2001 that all RCs are bad…… Study that only SOME RCs are bad but lest eff all of them.

    As expected, nowhere in this brief does it talk about that SORNA can continue as laid out but cannot be applied retroactively and has to be part of the sentencing phase of the crime. Im guessing the the 17000 Rcs that they claim are going to be running amuck in PA and around the country are people like me, on year 11 of a 10 year ML, and the 1000’s that were moved to 25 year and life from 10 year Mls.

    I trust that the Law Clerks of the Jurists of SCOTUS can see through the standard BS and that SOMEONE on the good guys side submits a response.

    ON a positive and kind of ironic note for those of you that watched the meeting that I posted to my youtube page from Freed and the PA judiciary board…..

    was the affirmation of the number of RCs that will be removed from the list and the fact that Megan’s Law Section Commander, Sgt. O.E. Rowles, Jr. sent an affidavit confirming this number. So, when it comes to enforcing the law that is Muniz, it will be as simple as going back to the database, highlighting the RCs that you identified and swore to and hitting DELETE!!

    ==================================================================
    In fact, the PSP has estimated that, and argued to
    the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Spann v.
    Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole &
    Pennsylvania State Police, 71 MAP 2016, that more
    than 17,000 sex offenders may be subject to removal

    under Muniz because of conviction(s) for predicate
    criminal acts that occurred prior to December 20, 2012
    (out of a total of approximately just under 21,500 total
    current registrants).2
    Possibly removing nearly 80% of
    the registrants in the Commonwealth is extremely
    problematic, particularly because most of these
    offenders were subject to registration, under previous
    sex offender statutes, when they were convicted
    (though not under PA SORNA, the most recent sex
    offender statute

    ==================================================================
    FOOTNOTE RELATING TO 17,000 RCs off the list
    2
    The Pennsylvania State Police, Megan’s Law Section
    Commander, Sgt. O.E. Rowles, Jr., verified this information by
    affidavit, in the submission to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

  19. bernies

    Here is the latest concerning the Reply Brief due to the US Supreme Court today:

    From the case docket……

    Nov 16 2017 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 18, 2017.

      • AJ

        Reading the brief, PSP may be playing with fire. They entirely hitch their wagon to SORNA-PA being a clone of AWA. OK, so what if SCOTUS takes the case and affirms? Umm…buh-bye AWA. Buh-bye IML. Buh-bye any RC law that is not based on individualized assessment.

        What I found laughable is that after saying they’re cloning AWA, in Footnote 3 they admit they go beyond AWA, because SORNA requires in-person notification that AWA doesn’t, including vehicle changes. In Footnote 5, they touch on a valid Constitutional issue, but overlook another two: Due Process and Double Jeopardy. If SORNA is punishment, it cannot be applied to *anyone* convicted outside PA, regardless of date of conviction, as that would be a Due Process and/or a Double Jeopardy violation.

        Something PSP doesn’t seem to understand is that SCOTUS will not allow an unconstitutional law to stand, regardless the result or effect. Also, SCOTUS has repeatedly stated it, “will not rewrite a . . . law to conform it to constitutional requirements,” (US v. Stevens, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-769, citing two previous cases). That which is deemed unconstitutional is struck. That the legislature has no suitable replacement in place is not the court’s concern or responsibility, and anything otherwise would be “legislating from the bench.”

        PSP seems to be saying, “no matter what, you have to let this law stand, or else a whole bunch of bad people will be roaming the streets of PA, *and* thousands more will move here and likewise roam.” PSP’s whining sounds little different than MI’s whining about losing grant money if Snyder was upheld. I find it pretty sad when a law enforcement agency thinks it suitable to ask a court to keep a law in place simply because if it’s declared unconstitutional it *may* cause problems for the State. Constitution and rights be damned! Thanks for completely steamrolling the *guaranteed* problems to RCs’ rights if such were to happen.

        The Government’s belief of all RCs are dangerous and need to be watched as closely as possible verges on a pathology. They are absolutely convinced that a boot heel on all RCs is the only method to prevent the most dangerous ones from *maybe* doing something again. Never mind decades of data showing otherwise; never mind repeated court decisions saying it’s not how our civilization is supposed to operate. They’re like a bunch of Chicken Littles running around screeching, “Frightening and high! Frightening and high!” They seem to have overlooked what SCOTUS said in Kebodeaux : “‘[t]here is evidence that recidivism rates among sex offenders are higher than the average for other types of criminals.’ But the opinion’s next sentence observed that ‘[t]here is conflicting evidence on the point’ and cited research supporting the opposite,” (https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2017/9/2017-supreme-court-review-2.pdf). Catch that? SCOTUS acknowledged in 2013 that “frightening and high” is not gospel (Kebodeaux: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-418).

        I found their amicus pretty amateurish. Hopefully PA itself can similarly disappoint. 🙂

        • CR

          It would be nice if Muniz were to get an amicus or two to support his side.

        • Michael

          I don’t understand why they are arguing the point about a majority of justices failing to articulate “an adequate and independent state law ground for relief.” Three justices found SORNA to be punitive under both the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, and that the state clause is broader and provides greater protection than the federal clause. Two Justices concurred in the result and reasoning of the lead opinion, but found there was no reason to render a decision under the Federal Constitution because the same result could be obtained under PA’s constitution exclusively. So, for those of you who were counting, five justices agreed that the law is punishment. Are they actually attempting to suggest that because 5 of the 6 justices hearing the case did not unanimously agree that the law violated the Federal Constitution, then SCOTUS must decide?

          ….

          • Paul 2

            I think they are trying to say that only 3 agreed on the PA side. Aaron Marcus from the Phill Defenders association agrees with you I spoke with him after the Freed anode he would appeal and he said he thinks their reasoning is wrong But he works with the judiciary comity and the DAs on this stuff. I am just hoping the SCOTUS leaves it to the political hacks in PA that created this mess and PSP gets put in their place they are out of control They are to enforce laws nothing else If you notice there are cases where the courts talk about PSP overstepping their so called input to these kind of matters. It’s going to take people to start winning some law suits to back these clowns off. My guess is they will start to feel some damage to their egos and start over stepping their boundaries like false arrests and try9ing to get people on false information to authorities so do not talk to these people if you have to go for an update do alll updates via mail and when you go to do your quarterly or whatever just say you have no changes and that is it. They will start trying to get people because their ass is hurt.

            • Michael

              Mundy recused herself, which left 6 justices. Only one justice dissented. So not one justice sided with the government.

              Not to be the broken record here, but I can’t see how they grant cert. Which would leave open a lot of questions regarding current and future legislation in PA. I just have a feeling the irrebutable presumption doctrine is going to be the thorn in the states side moving forward.

              ….

            • Paul 2

              Didn’t mean they sided with gov, some people are saying only 3 actually ruled that the PA constitution is violated, in addition to the federal. Two said only the federal, and one Saylor against both. So thats 3-3. for PA and 5-6 for federal.

              • Michael

                My understanding of it is this. Three Justices concluded that SORNA is punitive under the Federal Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. Those same three Justices also concluded that, although the same test is applied under Pennsylvania’s Ex Post Facto Clause, the state Ex Post Facto clause is broader and provides greater protection than the federal clause ensuring that retroactive application independently violates state law as well.

                ….

    • CR

      So Muniz’s lawyer requested additional time to file a response. I wonder if they have a strategy in mind, or if the attorney just wasn’t ready. Maybe they wanted to address claims made by the PSP in their amicus brief?

      He’s a county level public defender. It would imagine filing a brief with the Supreme Court could be a fairly daunting task.

      A lot of people hoping for a quick confirmation of Muniz might be disappointed in the delay. It probably won’t be the last one. I wonder if SCOTUS will ask the USSG for a brief, like they did with Snyder v Does.

      An eventual denial of cert would be the best thing for people in PA.

    • Mike s

      This was expected and a good move. The Muniz team knows that there are 3 parties on the other side of the table. Freed, PSP, and the DAs of PA. The Muniz team will be able to read all their Amicus briefs before submitting their response.

      Should be interesting to how Muniz frames their response.

  20. Paul 2

    Drag it out another 30days they are hoping the legislature can pass some BS ASAP PSP didn’t even bring up the people that had their time increased.

    • Mike S

      The extension was at the request of the Muniz team. It sucks that its another 30 days, but having more info on what the opposition is filing is smart. Plus, they can submit anytime before that 30 days. I would suspect that they will submit just after the 14 day deadline to get a looksey for any “interested parties” amicus briefs before they print their final version.

      • Paul 2

        Good to hear that. I thought it was more time for Freed’s stooge. Did you notice PSPs paperwork said Freed filed for review? He didn’t, it was in his stooges name. Im dumping some bitcoin and getting an attorney on this, thees f’ers are out of control. I can’t see any legal reason PSP can ignore people that have had their reg enhanced by SORNA. if this drags out much longer there is going to be a large group of people that have an above average lack of empathy that are tired of getting their buttons pushed, getting all kids of pulp fiction ideas. I will probably need double fill of my BP RX when we finally get to see the big plan from the PA legislature for a so called fix to the F up they created. If it wasn’t for Justices willing to stick their neck out to try and put some breaks on this debauchery from the politicians, could you image the shit they would pull? It would make the reg look like amateur hour.

        • Mike S

          Paul2,

          Ive had a lot of conversation with my attorney and a couple of neighbors who are attorneys but more white collar. What is your situation? I was convicted in 2006 of Possession of CP sentenced to 7 years probation and have docs for a 10 year ML. Unfortunately I had a violation so I was unable to use any of the Contract cases for Plea. Just curious to see how your situation matches to what the lawyers are reading tea leafs about

          • Paul 2

            I have, from 2003, a CP and a IA7 all in one plea deal, no time mentioned but my lawyer told me 10yrs on reg got a 9-23mo county no probation. While in jail parole told me that the two 10yr offenses combined to make life. Had a reg violation in 2011 had to sign up for SORNA while on WR for 9mo on the the reg charge. Right after I got out of WR I heard that ML3 was struck down for single subject rule, people that had ML reg charges were let out of jail and charges dismissed I asked my lawyer about getting the charges taken off my record but nothing came out of it. I then found out about the A.S. and other decisions that say that you have to have a conviction of a 10yr reg offense and then a separate charge and conviction of a 10yr reg offense after that in order for them to combine and make a life time reg. However when SORNA took effect they put me on to tier 3 for the IA7 making that life, so I thought there was nothing I could do until MUNIZ. So I believe A.S. case takes care of the two combining to make life enhancement and Muniz takes care of the other life enhancement. So I believe I should go back to 10yr reg witch is up now. I have looked on ML site and there are a lot of people in the same boat. I spoke with REEDs lawyer a few times but he doesn’t seem to be in any rush to do a writ for me He said it is what is needed right now.

            • Paul 2

              Hi all,

              One of the folks on our email list sent this along. This person as well as the man he mentions in the message can be counted on in terms of their take on all things legal concerning PA SO laws. The person who sent the message requested that this go out to the email list so that those who might be impacted by Butler have this information.

              Best,
              Theresa

              Message:

              On another note, I just received word from the guy at Somerset that helped me come home. He is excellent in the law and he told me the following, so I’d like to share with everyone.

              He said that Butler relies on Muniz almost in its entirety. Therefore, for SVP’s across the Commonwealth who are NOT on probation, parole or incarcerated should IMMEDIATELY file a State Habeas Corpus in the jurisdiction where you were placed on Megan’s Law. The Habe should explain the facts of Muniz and Butler and should ask the court to remove SVP status from you immediately. The Habe, for now, should ask the Court to CORRECTLY place you in the TIER where you would be if you were not an SVP. Along with the State Habe, you should file a Petition of Expungement from SVP status; which would force the PSP to immediately remove you from the website as an SVP. It would also remove the SVP status from any other record where it may be, such as on Criminal background checks, etc.

              If you are incarcerated OR on state or county Parole or Probation, you should do these same things in a PCRA (Post Conviction Relief Act) Petition.

    • CR

      Congratulations to your husband and to you for the victory!

      Now his case is remanded back to the trial court in light of Muniz?

      • Who removes from list

        Thats not my husbands case. That is the most recent case. And yes my husband has a hearing in his sentence court mid december.

    • Paul 2

      So this guy is going to be put on a new law for life by the looks of it. As long as the new law is the same as ML 2 thats what it looks like the court is saying. They also said his plea deal didn’t have anything in it about ML reg because there wasn’t one yet. so he can’t enforce a plea deal on ML reg.

      • Mike S

        The way that I read this is that Person has been granted his enforcement of plea deal and it has to go back to the Court of Common Pleas to be decided now that the Appellant court has rules.

        Since there is only one SO law of the land today, SORNA, and it cant be retroactive Person should get off the registry. That is what the Appellant Court and what SHOULD happen. What I suspect will happen is that the County Court of Common Pleas will drag this thing out until Muniz is decided. If Muniz is granted cert, the County court is able to delay enforcement of the plea deal based on new evidence.

        I dont know Lycoming County very well, but I suspect that the ADA get their way when it comes to “asking” the court to drags its feet.

        • CR

          “Since there is only one SO law of the land today, SORNA, and it cant be retroactive Person should get off the registry.”

          That was how I understood it too. And if so, that is a great victory for Person, and everyone else in his situation who can advance a similar action.

          Still, I don’t believe this means that Person, or any other person, removed from the registry on this or any basis can’t be recaptured in the future so long as a future law is deemed regulatory and not punitive.

          • Paul 2

            Looks like he should get off SORNA but they are saying if they apply a reg law like ML2 then he would be on that for life.

            I believe this shows they didn’t rule on plea deal

            3 At the time Person pled guilty, no statute in Pennsylvania required registration as a sex offender. Accordingly, it does not appear that non-registration was, or could have been, a condition of the plea agreement. Cf.

            I believe this shows he can be put on a new law the same as ML2

            Megan’s Law became effective prior to Person’s release from prison and requires Person to register as a sex offender for his lifetime. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.1(2) (requiring defendants convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse to register for life); Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962, 982 (Pa. 2003) (concluding registration, notification, and counseling requirements of Megan’s Law II do not constitute punishment). SORNA, however, enhanced the registration requirements, and retroactive application of these requirements to Person runs afoul of constitutional ex post facto prohibitions. See Muniz, 2017 WL 3173066, at *1.

            • Michael

              Whether or not he should have to register *should* be determined by conviction date. I know I’ve read that a few times in cases in PA Superior court since the Muniz ruling.

              ….

              • Paul 2

                I have seen that too. I’m confused by a few things.

                1. It seems they are giving relief to people that have had enhancements added by SORNA, that includes adding time that you have to register. I believe they can do this because SORNA is considered to be punishment so it can’t be applied retroactively.

                2. They are saying that ML2 did not constitute punishment so it could be applied retroactively. However it was taken off the books.

                3. If they make a new law that is the same as ML2 but increases time on the registration for some people could they put 10yr offenders on for life?

                4. Is adding time punishment, if the law is considered to not be punishment?

                5. If a guy committed his crime before any ML can they put him on a new law if it has been shown not to be punishment? I think there is something to do with being in jail or on parole at the time the law is put into effect.

                6. So this guy was on parole or in jail when ML 1 and 2 were in effect but he isn’t now so if they enact a new law can he be put on it?

                7. I think they will try to make a new law and apply it retroactively to pre SORNA people If it has the same stuff as ML2 it won’t be punishment so they can apply it retroactively. I just don’t know if adding time to someones reg is allowed?

                Hope someone can figure this out.

                • CR

                  Here’s what I think:

                  “1. It seems they are giving relief to people that have had enhancements added by SORNA, that includes adding time that you have to register. I believe they can do this because SORNA is considered to be punishment so it can’t be applied retroactively.”

                  That’s how I see it.

                  “2. They are saying that ML2 did not constitute punishment so it could be applied retroactively. However it was taken off the books.”

                  Right, so it can’t be applied to anyone.

                  “3. If they make a new law that is the same as ML2 but increases time on the registration for some people could they put 10yr offenders on for life?”

                  Yes, if it is deemed regulatory and non-punitive. No if it is deemed punitive. We won’t know if any new law is deemed punitive by the courts until after it has challenged.

                  “4. Is adding time punishment, if the law is considered to not be punishment?”

                  No, in that case, it’s simply regulatory.

                  “5. If a guy committed his crime before any ML can they put him on a new law if it has been shown not to be punishment? I think there is something to do with being in jail or on parole at the time the law is put into effect.”

                  If it is not deemed (recognized by the courts as) punishment (even though it may, in fact, be in effect), the ex post facto restrictions do not come into play. So, y es, they can do that.

                  “6. So this guy was on parole or in jail when ML 1 and 2 were in effect but he isn’t now so if they enact a new law can he be put on it?”

                  Yes, so long as it isn’t deemed punishment.

                  “7. I think they will try to make a new law and apply it retroactively to pre SORNA people If it has the same stuff as ML2 it won’t be punishment so they can apply it retroactively. I just don’t know if adding time to someones reg is allowed?”

                  Yes, that is what they’ll do. And they can add time if the law is deemed regulatory. They can make all of us register for the rest of our lives, if the registration scheme is not deemed punishment.

                  “Hope someone can figure this out.”

                  I figured it out years ago. None of us can ever be sure that we will not be required to register in the future, even if we are released from the duty to register today.

                  • Paul 2

                    Thanks for the reply. I still don’t see how cases like A.S. gave people relief then. ML2 and 3 said life reg for people convicted of two or more 10yr reg offenses The court put people from life reg to 10yrs because they said they had to commit a crime be sentenced then commit another crime in order to make a life reg. So this says to me regardless of a plea deal an increase in time on any reg is an issue because punishment didn’t come into play in the A.S. case.

                    So if the legislature decides they want to make all sex offenses a life time reg How can they apply it retroactively? assuming none of the new law is deemed punishment.

                    Also lets say they try and make a new law that is tailored to pass muster, as Freed likes to say, that tries to contain pre SORNA people. Would they not have to reduce the things the post SORNA people are now under? because they wouldn’t be able to treat one group different then another. The new law would have to be the same for everyone, they will be willing to let 10yr pre SORNA people that were made life by SORNA off the reg in order to maximize what they now have on others.

                • Michael

                  1. Or, those who were convicted for failing to register.

                  2. At the time it may not have been.

                  3. If you are saying that new crimes that carried a 10 year registration period would be life. Obviously they could. But that then opens the door to questions, such as what is different now that compelled the state to increase the registration requirement from 10 years to life?

                  I said this before, and I’ll say it again. Irrebutable presumption doctrine. Until 2012, that wasn’t something the legislature had to consider when writing these laws.

                  5. There was a reason why Megans Law III didn’t apply prior to December 12, 2012. I wasn’t living here then, so i can’t answer my question. That being said, I don’t know how they go back.

                  6. See #5

                  7. I don’t think they’ll apply any new law retroactively to those who completed a term of registration. It’s a game of wait and see.

                  ….

                  • CR

                    My thinking on the subject could be wrong, Michael. I’m just considering that SCOTUS said in Smith v Doe in 2003 that Alaska’s registration scheme wasn’t punishment.

                    Today’s registration schemes differ significantly from that of Alaska’s in Smith v Doe, and some courts, like the PA Supreme Court, are finding that various aspects of these modern registration schemes impose punishment, and therefore can’t be applied retroactively. But that doesn’t mean that a new law that modeled the original first generation registration laws like Alaska’s would meet the same fate, in light of Smith v Doe.

                    No matter what, as long as a law is deemed regulatory, not a criminal punitive law, it can be applied retroactively. This means that every victory over the registry today, ever victory that gets some of us off the registry, must be considered temporary. We can be swept back in at any time. We will never be truly free.

                    And anyway, a win on ex post facto grounds, while welcome, is not the end of the war. Smith v Doe must be explicitly reversed. And even that does not end it for people who commit offenses going forward. How do you defeat registration, per se?

            • Joe

              Even if they don’t remove people convicted before 2012 from the list, they still cant enforce any new list or make your information public. That was part of the ruling and freed and PSP have even said that. So either way it’s a win.

              • Michael

                “Even if they don’t remove people convicted before 2012 from the list, they still cant enforce any new list or make your information public.”

                They can, just not those who should be off the registry but are not because of SORNA.

                ….

                • CR

                  I say they can, so long as a new registration law doesn’t impose punishment. Smith v Doe.

            • CR

              If a registration law is punitive, they can’t apply it to him. If it is not deemed punitive, they can. That’s what it boils down to. And the bottom line is that requiring persons guilty of having committed sexual offenses to register with the state on a sexual offender register is FINE. That is, the simple requirement of registration, so long as it is conducted in a manner like that required by the state of Alaska in Smith v Doe, is not deemed punitive. Per SCOTUS.

              But my interpretation of this case differs from yours. I don’t think he can be forced to register under any current PA registration law. But I also think that PA will soon come up with a registration scheme that he will be forced to register under.

              • Michael

                I don’t think they will change it in a way that it ensnares everyone ever convicted of a crime that would require registration.

                ….

                • CR

                  Is that just optimism, or is there a reason why you think they will not try to recapture former registrants using a new law that avoids imposing requirements that are deemed to be punishment? Smith v Doe says they can do it. Why would they give up?

                  • Michael

                    For several reasons.

                    1. Megans Law I & II did not require everyone to register for life. In many cases registrants were able to get off the list after 10 years.

                    2. They would not have implemented the tier system in Megans Law III had they wanted to make everyone register for life.

                    3. PA courts in cases prior to Muniz have sided with defendants who challenged registration under Megans Law III on equal protection grounds based on Megans Law II registration requirements.

                    It makes no sense to suddenly update the law requiring everyone ever convicted of a “sex” crime to register. Why go back and have hundreds or thousands of people who fell off the list start registering again? How does is that in the interest of public safety? All those defendants could challenge the new requirement, and more than likely win.

                    ….

                    • Paul 2

                      Whats your take on someone convicted of two 10yr reg offenses in 2003, one was IA7 it got moved up to tier 3 life in 2012 SORNA? Do you think they will let people go back to the 10yr reg for IA7? Or do you think they will try to make it life under the new law? My thing is they would have to make the new law less punitive for post SORNA people if they want to capture pre SORNA people for a longer period of time, they will not be able to have two separate registries or one with less info for one group because the new law will have to delete the SORNA laws they have now. in other words in order to increase time for pre SORNA people they would have to make the new law with no punishments in it If they do that they would have to bring everyone into it because it would be retro active for everyone. So they have a choice to let the pre SORNA people off so they can keep the punitive aspects of SORNA for post SORNA people.

  21. CR

    Thanks for the clarification. And best of luck!

    • Mike S

      Paul,

      It is pretty clear that the Muniz decision gets you off ML, free and clear. How that is going to be done is going to be up to the PSP and if what they are telling the press regarding their understanding of Muniz is another question. We saw that the people under the AS and Lutz, I being one of them, were granted relief. But we also know that the PSP had no intention of removing anyone from ML without a judge’s signature, even though many got that signature and were removed.

      The good news that Muniz is a very strong case and PSP has gone out of their way to acknowledge their understanding in pursuit of using fear tactics to insight the legislature. To date we have seen one article that outlined a spattering of what the Judiciary Board President is planning on putting in a bill, but no bill has been presented.

      To answer your question, no one knows and I have spent enough time in groups with folks like you that I am starting to see a pattern. You are fearing the unknown and you are starting to feel the pain of something that has not happened yet. I’m not going to start throwing Defense Mechanisms and Coping Strategies jargon at you, but I think you know where I am heading?

      We need to keep it together and wait for the Bill to hit the website. Their Bill is going to need to be a couple 100 pages long and we know they are going to slide in language that none of us are going to like. We have some good law on our side and we might have a SCOTUS denied cert of Muniz on our side.

      Take a deep breath and enjoy the holidays until we get ahold of the Bill. Also know that there are a LOT of people in PA who are on our side who dont have RC after their names but J.D.

      • Paul 2

        LOL you’re right I’m sweating it for everyone not just me I have looked at the people in my area in the same boat as me there are a lot and I will be making sure they are aware of what is going on when we get more info. Thanks bro enjoy your holidays too. I hope when some of us feel the power again of freedom we can band together to fight for others still effected, I really think a national group is in order that is ran by SOs not sympathizers. No offense to what everyone is doing here and other places but I think efforts can be more laser focused to cause maximum damage to the political debauchery going on PA has a bill to list arsonist now and Ive seen stuff on a list and arm bands for autistic kids this is out of control we need to stomp this out ASAP, In my day a cop was brave they wouldn’t shoot a guy holding a knife to kill him they would talk him down or at worst back away and shoot his legs out now you have 20 cops surrounding a guy and they shoot him 30 times. They are only hurting them selves they are taking the honor out of the job.

    • CR

      Wow. That is one I’m going to save. That’s mainly because I’m going to have to read it a couple of more times to follow it completely! Talk about convoluted…

      And of the PA legislature’s endless attempts to inflict ever more oppressive punishment, and the DA’s attempt to prosecute in bad faith, I say this:

      Oh what tangled webs they weave
      when first they practice to immure

      It doesn’t rhyme, but you get the idea…

    • New Person

      Oh wow!

      The follow excerpt came from that pdf file:
      =============
      In this respect, Schnader itself concentrated on the specific “words” of the
      amendatory act. See Schnader, 312 Pa. at 194, 167 A. at 798 (“[E]very word of the
      amended statute, including that quoted from the original statute, is the language of the
      Legislature which passed the amended act in those words.”). It follows that words
      which do not appear in the amending statute are not “the language of the Legislature
      which passed the amended act,” and courts are not authorized to insert them by
      implication. Cf. Burke ex rel. Burke v. Independence Blue Cross, 628 Pa. 147, 159, 103
      A.3d 1267, 1274 (2014) (explaining that courts cannot, under the guise of statutory
      construction, insert words into a statute even when it is clear and undisputed that the
      General Assembly intended to include those words); Commonwealth v. Shafer, 414 Pa.
      613, 621, 202 A.2d 308, 312 (1964) (clarifying that it is improper for courts to supply
      omissions in legislative text, even where the omission resulted from inadvertence or
      lack of foresight by the Legislature).
      =============

      This attacks the actual words of the legislation! And they are beholden to that legislation! Wowzers, amazing!

      I say that’s amazing b/c that’s exactly the same tact I’m talking about with California’s immunity program called 1203.4 legislation. It specifically states that the only exceptions to this immunity are denoted below that actual statute. That means legislation can add new exemptions within 1203.4, not outside of it. Yet no where does it state a registrant must continue to register, but does state that 1203.4 will return a person back to his/her original state before the conviction… again, provided they do not fit into one of the exempt provisions.

      Yet all I get is mocked at for following the “words of the law”. But here in this case, it’s saying that legislation cannot insinuate laws that are not specifically stated within that legislation!

      How is it that in a PA court, every word matters in such a legislation, but no one in California is making the Ca Court adhere to every word? It’s like we’re not using our own constitution to keep Ca courts honest!

      I challenge anyone to read Ca’s 1203.4 legislation and tell me where it states that registrants must continue to register within said legislation. 1203.4 does state that a person is relieved of all penalties and disabilities, provided they are not exempted within said legislation. Note, it said all, not just criminal penalties and disabilities.

  22. who removes from list

    Looks like Thomas Reed, One of the Three with Muniz is off the registry!

    https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=10+WAP+2016

    Look Thomas Reed up on the Megan’s Law Website. It looks like his name is removed!

    The one you see is not the one who appealled!

  23. Who removes from list

    My husband’s habeas corpus has been filed with a motion to enforce plea agreement. Applying the Muniz Case, Reed, Gilbert, Shawn Christopher Williams, Person, etc.

    I will keep you up to date.

    Also his failure to register case sounds like it will be dismissed next week. Details will be provided next week.

  24. Who removes from list

    http://www.wfmz.com/news/berks/arthur-fick-sentenced-to-2-years-probation-for-indecent-assault/655941351

    My husband looked up Fick on Megans Law page and even though he was sentenced to NO SORNA requirements DUE TO MUNUZ. PSP has mandaded him to register!!!!

    Illegal much?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *