ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Mtgs: June 15/16 Los Angeles (Conference), July 14 Phone [details]

2018 ACSOL Conference – Sign Up Now 

National

PA: Legislature to address Pa’s sex offender registration laws

A bill introduced this week in Harrisburg attempts to fix flaws in the state’s sex-offender registration system identified in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in July and could affect more than 10,000 registrants. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Chris F

    We need more information to know what they are changing.

    It’s a shame they don’t use this opportunity to examine data and expert opinion and come up with a real solution instead of just trying to cut back enough to pass a judge’s scrutiny.

    • Paul 2

      This will just cost tax payers more $ in the end. The USA is in a cycle that can only be broke by a revolution, a huge war, or disaster. These politicians are truly more sick then the 2% of us they use to push their sick ideas.

      • Alec

        It’s not just the politicians, really. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game” as the saying goes. The problem is that the US has spent the last 30 years dumbing itself down, breaking down its ability to have meaningful political conversations about anything all the while giving greater and greater reward to those who scream more and more loudly.

        Americans used to be taught that defending the ideals of the Constitution were more important than any single life. We now live in a world that would happily kill 10,000 suspected offenders (without proof, charge, trial or conviction) if it would “save one child’s life.” That tradeoff builds a world with no future.

        As you say, at this point the only (likely) solution is war, revolution or disaster. The social inertia is just too great.

  2. who removes from list

    Here is what my husband said will happen: they are changing, anyone convicted or sentenced after 2006 and BEFORE DEC 20 2012, SORNA Enactment date, who registration requirements are not done under old ML 2 and ML 3 will be placed back onto the same exact wording of the ML 2 and 3 with the HOUSE BILL 1952 Name. With some changes for notification, but notification is public safety purposes and always has been. If you have to register for 10 years under ML2 or ML3 you will be off the registry at 10 years, and have to register at one time per year. If you were on for lifetime prior to SORNA, you will be lifetime one time per year for the rest of your life, with the option for 25 years petition for GOOD BEHAVIOR and only if a Judge Agrees. Also, you will only have to register the requirements from ML 2 or ML3, residence, employment, school, cars, any and all of them. NO MORE INTERNET IDENTIFIERS for anyone prior to SORNA Enactment.

    This is the legal fix for the Muniz Decision, SORNA was only deemed punishment when applied retroactive to PRE SORNA. So they honored the Muniz Decision by placing you on the PAST MEGANS LAW requirements prior to SORNA.

    It sucks, but it is smart!

    • Brian

      So I am pre SORNA 10yr registration, my registration would have been done in 2013 the year after this sht storm went into affect, that would mean I would de done with ml 1 2 3 4 so on, no more registration, no more anything just?

      • Who removes from list

        For now. Yes, Brian. Until they come with another scheme to grab you back on. Just sit tight. You are off if the bill comes into affect.

        • Paul 2

          I do not think that will happen because they would have to show that the new law considers the same risk to the public as it did when the crime was committed, the 10yr reg is based off risk to the public so they would have to show somehow your time on reg should be increased, that will be impossible to do because things are swinging the other way showing less risk. If they decided to give someone a 10yr reg in 2004 for a CP charge and a person life reg in 2004 for AIA charge that was based off risk to the public because they say it is not punishment so for them to increase someones time ex post facto they can’t because they can’t show an increased risk to the public. So once you are off you’re off unless you f up.

      • Paul 2

        Yep as long as they don’t change it and it passes.

      • CR

        Brian, as you can see from the other responses, you can never be certain that relief from a duty to register will be permanent. Some future registration law can sweep you back in. Moving to another state won’t necessarily help either, as every state has the same ability to pass regulatory laws that force you to register again.

        If you get off the registry and you have a way to emigrate to another country permanently while you are off, you may want to consider that. It may be the only way you can be sure you won’t be swept back up by a future registration law.

        That’s exactly what I’m going to do if I ever get off the registry. I’ll leave the US, and I’ll never come back.

        • Paul 2

          I hear you bro. Id rather spend my days helping to fight these dirt bag smoke and mirror politicians. Take my country back from them and rub their nose in it. I am hoping anyone that does get off kicks into high gear and keeps fighting. I don’t look at these gov f heads as part of our country they are the ones that need to leave. We may have messed up but I can bet you more of us would stand and fight for our constitution and country then any of these f tards that are destroying it. We know what loss of freedom really is.

        • Sam

          Before then just make sure not to ever go to WI, NY, or Florida. If you’re in one of the states that deregisters you. Couldn’t you just move out of the country first?

        • CR

          The plan is to move to Mexico. My spouse is a Mexican citizen, but we can’t move to Mexico right now because I’m on the registry. I need to be off the registry before we attempt that.

    • Paul 2

      Where do you get 2006 from?

      • terry brunson

        It should by after April 1996 but before !9 December 2012 to attack pre-SORNA people.

    • terry brunson

      ML 2 and ML 3 were expired by SORNA on 20 Dec 2012 – – – – – – – – – – – There were not “saving clause” marks with the ML -2 because it was deemed unconstitutional by Williams II and ML 3 was deemed unconstitutional by Neiman ans SORNA was deemed punitive due to retroactive application to Pre-Sorna people. . .. .. Then there was ACT 19 of 14 March 2014 which was applied to transients and out of state sex offenders as a loop hole fix it too was applied retroactively and can be challenged by MUNIZ decision of 19 July 2017 PASC.

      Now we are looking at HB 1952 which is not law yet, but when it becomes law it wi ll not be able to pass a constitutional muster at a court bar in a Common Pleas level -Commonwealth court level – a Pa. Superior appeals court level – or at the PASC level. . . . YOU ALL WILL SEE. . . . Megan’s law SORNA is still in the state of PA but it just can’t be applied to Pre-SORNA people.

      Pre-SORNA people are in a special class today in PA. The Pa. Judicial people are trying to do anything to stop an exodus of 18,500 RSO’s from leaving the registry without know where they will be at?

      Good luck to all that have to be a pawn in all this – – -HB 1952 has a provision in it that if one gets “JUDICIAL DETERMINATION” on on after it becomes law – Pa. chapter 42 subsection H will not apply because of that judicial determination.

    • Terry Brunson

      Hey – Taking Pre-SORNA people back to ML 2 and ML 3 is easy in a bill vote – However the real deal is at the enactment of SORNA 20 December 2012 all ML’s were “EXPIRED” with no saving clause votes to revert people back. When a law is expired – instead of repealed – – The Old law takes a New law to replace the Old law rules they want to go back to.

      The problem is that a new law would have a date future of the offense the new law cover. . . . . To apply the new law to people whoes offense pre- dates the new law would be a practice called – Ex Post Facto . . . . . This is a violation of the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 17. . . . . .

      The new law of HB 1952 is trying to fix a thing that cannot be fixed in just rewriting old law rules and applying them to the class of people they want to attack. . . . . . The HB 1952 will most likely become law at the governor’s signature no doubt – BUT THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW WILL FIND ITSELF IN FRONT OF THE COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO BE CHALLENGED – right away.

      The Muniz case that the HB 1952 is trying to fix will be the case that destroys the new HB 1952 law on Retroactive applications of a Ex Post Facto law in attempts to keep the Results of letting 10,000 RSO’s off the registry. The goal of HB 1952 has noting to do with public safety issues – it is a political knee jerk to stop a exodus of 10,000 RSO’s from being removed from the PSP sex offenders registry. AND THAT’S A FACT – JACK

      • Paul 2

        Terry don’t you find it odd that no lawyers are saying anything about the new bill or anything about how people are going to get relief? No lawyers on this site or any other even Aaron Marcus hasn’t said much. Its almost like they are waiting for the legislature to pass the bill and Muniz to get denied cert, I am hoping, before they say anything. Also why would SORNA not be deemed unconstitutional under Muniz?

        • TS

          @Paul 2

          Silence is golden is the old song and it is a good strategy too in waiting to speak. Let the chips fall as they may then see what can be said & done after they’ve fallen.

          “He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.”
          ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

        • Terry Brunson

          Because – if you commit an offence after 20 December 2012 YOU ARE UNDER SORNA RULES OF LAW[.]

        • AJ

          …if said offense was committed in PA. Since PASC has ruled SORNA to be punitive, it cannot be applied to out-of-state offenses.

      • Paul 2

        Is there a right or law that says if a person is removed from an unconstitutional law they can not be put on to a new law after the fact because if Muniz is denied everyone pre SORNA will not be under SORNA anymore. If a person has a court order the person removed from SORNA before the new law takes effect then can they make that person reg under new law?

    • Krmitchell

      It seems like all the effort made with the revision of sorna all seems to only revolve the notification aspect of the law. But what about the notification segment? Once the implementation of sorna took place in December of 2012 it made certain laws that were once expungeable no longer will be erased off of Records. If the ex post facto claws means that you’re not allowed to add on additional punishment, then how is is able to be done?

      • Paul 2

        No clue what you’re asking. Expunge able is for convictions, are asking about old laws being dead?

  3. who removes from list

    Paul 2
    December 6, 2017
    I had the pleasure to speak with Aaron Marcus about the current situations He was nice enough to say that he believes the Two or more 10yr offenses is the same language as in ML3 and that the A.S. ruling would apply so anyone that had more then one 10yr offense should go back to 10yr not life unless you were convicted had time to reform and convicted again then they would combine to make life. He said PSP most likely will take people off the reg with more then one 10yr.

    He also said he hasn’t had time too comb over the proposed bill yet but has already seen there may be a problem how they are classifying people as SVPs going forward.

    He also said he still believes that Freed’s SCOTUS cert will be denied and may be sometime in Jan He also said that it looks like they are trying to get this bill pushed threw fast and the senate may not even take any testimony and it could get passed before we hear anything about the Muniz cert.

    I told him we appreciate what he is doing and hope he has time for another phone conference on these matters.

  4. who removes from list

    READ UNDER STATEWIDE – HOUSE judiciary PASSED MEGANS LAW FIX!!!

    http://www.politicspa.com/12-6-politicspa-playbook/85649/

    • AlexO

      Can you paste the information here? The site requires an account to access.

  5. Who removes from list

    Located this for my husband. Article from Capitalwire.com.

    Capitolwire: House Judiciary panel passes Megan’s Law fix.
    By Robert Swift
    Staff Writer
    Capitolwire
    HARRISBURG (Dec. 5) – The House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a legislative fix to Megan’s Law for sexual assault offenders in response to a recent state Supreme Court ruling.
    This legislation, House Bill 1952, sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, is a response to the court’s ruling last July that dealt with Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry.
    The court said a 2012 law – the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act – that expanded and toughened reporting rules under Megan’s Law can’t be applied retroactively to sexual offenders who committed crimes before that date. The court ruled in favor of Jose Muniz, convicted of two counts of indecent assault of a 12-year-old girl.
    The 2012 law extended the time period that offenders had to register and report from 10 years to life in some cases.
    Marsico said his bill aims to make sure sex offenders still have to register. It would require sex offenders who haven’t finished their period of registration to stay registered with the Pennsylvania State Police under the version of Megan’s Law in place when they were convicted.
    The committee also unanimously approved legislation to set new timetables for submitting and testing evidence in rape kits, a subject of recent audits by state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale.
    House Bill 1821 sponsored by Rep. Brandon Neuman, D-Washington, would set deadlines for health care facilities and law enforcement agencies to handle evidence in sexual assault cases.
    It would require a health care facility to contact local law enforcement within twelve hours after collecting evidence. If law enforcement doesn’t take possession within 72 hours, the facility would be required to notify the state Health Department using a special phone number.
    Enacting the law will help apprehend serial rapists, said Neuman.
    The bill’s provisions include recommendations from DePasquale’s audits to reduce a backlog of untested rape kits.
    A third bill approved unanimously by the committee would make it an offense to allow minors under age 18 access to cough syrups and other cold medicine containing the ingredient dextromethorphan (DXM). This is an ingredient sold in many cough medicines over the counter.
    “We will be protecting children from accessing dextromethorphan to get high,” said Rep. Tarah Toohil, R-Luzerne, the sponsor of House Bill 1951.
    Toohil’s bill would require merchants to check the ID of someone who appears under age 25 and is attempting to purchase a product containing DXM. It would create a summary offense if someone knowingly sells a DXM product to a minor or if someone misrepresents their age to obtain DXM.
    Sales related to a valid prescription would be exempt.
    Abusing DXM can leave one feeling confused, dizzy, having feelings of euphoria, slurred speech and a rapid heartbeat, added Toohil.

    • Michael

      “It would require sex offenders who haven’t finished their period of registration to stay registered with the Pennsylvania State Police under the version of Megan’s Law in place when they were convicted.”

      So, it’s like I have been saying. Anyone that had completed or was near completing their registration requirement — that is anyone not required to register for life pre-SORNA — will not be effected by any new legislation.

      Could there actually be 10,000 people that were caught up in SORNA that would be effected by the law?

      ….

  6. G4Change

    Does anyone know once this is passed, how it will affect someone convicted of a misdemeanor in California back in 1999 who moves to PA say in 2018?
    Specifically, does the original ML 10 year requirement start at the date of conviction? Or does the 10 years start when you move to PA even though the offense happened nearly 20 years ago? (I hope this makes sense)

    • Paul 2

      Looks like the time from where you are convicted applies to someone from out of state. If you have life reg it will stay life not sure if out of state people will get option after 25 yrs They give credit for time on reg from where you come from. The 10yr is for crimes committed in PA that were moved up to life from SORNA Because you are not a resident of PA now the new law would apply to your case if you came here. I would go by what your state has you on now.

      • Brian

        I have a question, I moved to pa in 99 my conviction was in 97in another state , I wasn’t required to register till 02 when they closed the loophole for out of state offenders, they told me I only had to register for 10 years which I should have been done in 2013, so does the new fix still apply to me seeing that I have been in pa for 18 years, been on the reg for 15 years, once the sht show began they gave me 25 years in 2012.

        • Michael

          You *should* be done based on pre-SORNA registration requirements.

          My case is from PA in 99. I moved to and registered in SC for 17 years. I moved back to PA in July and I received a letter from PSP that said I was not required to register here. So, I’ve never registered in PA.

          ….

      • Travis

        I have a question can someone please help. On september 6th I was released from jail and granted a pccr from Megan’s law my crime occurred in 2009 and I was not supposed to register. In 2012 I was added to Megan’s law through the Adam Walsh act or sorna whatever one. I’m on probation and was being detained for waiting for charges for failure to register and email that I didn’t report, and my ex’s cell phone that was in my name. Because of the pccr the DA declines to prosecute. My question is if something comes up with this new bill or I have to register again can they go back and press charges for failure to report even though I was granted a pccr from a judge and it was sorna I was on???

        • Paul 2

          Whats a pccr? If they didn’t prosecute its because they can’t for some reason. The new law won’t change that.

        • Travis

          Post conviction collateral release

        • Who removes from list

          Your answer is No, if and when you are placed on House Bill 1952. They have agreed with Muniz Decision and therefore anything including charges would need to be removed from your record immediately. You are not to registered under SORNA. That is why you are not sitting in jail right now waiting for Prosacution of failure to registers. Your County admitted they cant prosecute you on failure to register under SORNA. You will be fine.

          What county are you in because Cumberland County is holding people hostage and wont dismiss anyone failure to register charges under SORNA. They cant prosecute, but they wont dismiss the case either.

          What county?

        • Travis

          To be clear I was never facing charges they were deciding wether to press charges or not before the Muniz case was decided. I was in jail in Washington County Bc that’s where I am on probation.

        • Paul 2

          Travis I believe if they were waiting to see outcome of Muniz that would mean if they pass this new law it would not effect you because the old law is gone and the new law wasn’t in effect when you didn’t report the email and phone. So I dent see anyway they can convict you unless Muniz is reversed.

    • Michael

      They could apply the new law to anyone moving to the state after it goes into effect. However, that does not mean that any time on another registry would not be credited.

      ….

      • AJ

        “They could apply the new law to anyone moving to the state after it goes into effect.”
        —–
        The Privileges and Immunities (aka Comity) Clause in Article IV, Section 2, of the US Constitution (or if looking to the 14th, the Privileges *or* Immunities Clause) would probably disagree.

        • Michael

          That clause forbids a state from unjustly depriving citizens from other states of any rights derived from state citizenship solely on the basis of nonresidence [e.g. land ownership]. I don’t think that clause applies, otherwise it would have been used countless times all across the country as reason for someone not being required to register. The equal protection clauses of both the U.S. and PA Constitutions are more suited, as it was in Tommy Lee Jackson v. Commonwealth.

          Every state has legislation that requires anyone moving to the state that is convicted of a crime requiring registration to register. Some states have legislation that require a person to register if the person was required to register in the state they were moving from, even if their conviction would not require them to register in the state they moved to.

          So, can they apply the new law to anyone moving to PA after the law goes into effect? Absolutely. Does that mean a person can not challenge the requirement in court and prevail? Absolutely not.

          ….

        • Rob

          I fall into the pre 2012 where I would not have been required to register, but moved to another state as soon as I got out. The state I moved to would not have required reg for the M2 IA had it not been for PA requiring me to. I will be trying to get removed from reg since it was PA that required it and was wrong in doing so.

          I’m would think that if I were to move back to PA they would not require me to register because I’m registered here because it’s PA that required me to register not this state.

  7. i can't wait to die

    what about people moving into the state that was convicted 15, 20 years ago?

    like in my state when first convicted it was maybe 5 years then 10 then 20 then 25 …..

    would they say do your time under your state law or do your time according to what it was when first convicted? or?

    • Mike S

      Brian and “Die”,

      Page 62-63 of the bill would lead me to believe that you would get credit for being on another state’s registry. (See Below)

      (4) An individual who was convicted of an offense
      similar to an offense set forth in section 9799.55 under the
      laws of the United States or one of its territories or
      possessions, another state, the District of Columbia, the
      Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a foreign nation or under a
      former law of this Commonwealth or who was court martialed
      for a similar offense and who, as of the effective date of
      this section, has not completed registration requirements.
      The period of registration shall be as set forth in section
      9799.56(b)(4) (relating to registration procedures and
      applicability) less any credit for time spent on a sexual
      offender registry of the United States or one of its
      territories or possessions, another state, the District of
      Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rice, a foreign nation
      or with the Pennsylvania State Police prior to the effective
      date of this section.

    • Michael

      “would they say do your time under your state law or do your time according to what it was when first convicted?”

      The Commonwealth court in Tommy lee Jackson v. Commonwealth said no. They have to use whatever law is effect in PA at the time a person moved here, even if the state they moved from required lifetime registration for everyone, like SC does.

      ….

  8. Mike S

    I just got out of a meeting with my local State rep to discuss House Bill 1952. We have several mutual friends and I do believe that I was getting the an unedited evaluation of the future of HB 1952.

    He made it very clear that this bill is being “fast tracked” and that the general directive from the ranking members of the House are to “not f*&k with it”. He believes that it will be “pick up off the table” first thing Monday for a vote that will be unanimous. It will then require two more votes which will take place on December 12 and 13. After that it will make a pitstop in the Senate and will be on Wolf’s desk.

    The PA Congress enters recess next week (or have NV or “No Vote” days). SO, Look for the Senate to pass HB 1952 on January 2nd and it to hit Wolf’s desk shortly after.

    If all this works outs and is true, I think it best for Muniz to file for another 30 day extension (Defense is allowed 2 30 day extensions). So don’t be despondent if you see that next week, I think it would be a good thing.

    I am pushing for the passing of this Bill and I hope that all of the PA contributors to the PA Strings will also find relief?

  9. Mike S

    I just thought that I would post the PA Megan’s law numbers from the last 2 years. The Commonwealth is required to post a new report by the end of the year. I am suspecting that the number of Tier 3s should go down and the Tier 1s should go up based on a couple of cases from last year.

    Found it strange the the registry increased by ~1000 citizens on one year and the number of SVPs almost doubled. With the new law on the horizons and the State’s inability to play games with the 2 offenses = tier 3 or lifetime, and have a tier 2 that was a lots of the old 10 year……I think the SOAB will be recommending A LOT of SVPs and if you don’t have the cash to get a private eval or a qualified lawyer, the State will supplement the statutory requirements of Ml with a BS SVP determination.

    12/20/2016

    SVPs—-1,067
    Tier 1 —-3,635
    Tier 2 —-2,898
    Tier 3 —-12,034

    Total —— 20,488
    ____________________

    8/28/2017

    SVPs—— 2,056
    Tier 1 —–4,207
    Tier 2 —–3,575
    Tier 3 —–11,577

    Total ——21,472

    • Paul 2

      Thanks for the info bro. Keep us updated if you hear anything. Just curious if Muniz doesnt get an extension and freed gets his cert denied wouldn’t that bee better because then PSP would have to act before the bill gets passed and they can’t use Muniz as a excuse anymore even though they should be using it as an excuse now? Is your thinking there is a chance it will get granted? Also what if Muniz gets reversed then what happens to the new law.

      • Mike s

        First. This law will most likely be past before SCOTUS even decides if it is going to grant cert.

        Lets say law passes

        SCOTUS grants cert, there are two outcomes. Pa SORNA is ex post facto or not.

        Is Ex Post Facto – Pa has already rectified the law and this is a null issue.

        Is not ex post facto – this one is very troubling. PA could pass another law, for shits and giggles lets call this law SORNA, that could reach back to everyone from 1996 and put them back into tiers.

        Paul, we want this law to pass and SCOTUS to deny Cert. if I were a betting man, I would say we are better than 70% on the good side.

        • Paul 2

          We will know soon. I have to update thinking of wearing a tux for my last pic

        • AJ

          Yes, go out in style! 🙂 For my 90-day (everyone is 90 days in my State) recurring “class pictures” I always wear the same old glasses from years back and the same shirt. I keep them packed away until the next time rolls around, then out they come. I figure that way they should last me–unless my eyes get too bad for those glasses.

  10. Who removes from list

    In Muniz, he argued this, “if I was sentenced in 2007 I would of been on Megans Law 3.”

    Due to Pre-Sorna Megan’s Law Rules and Requirements being a civil regulatory requirement and House Bill 1952 matching the old requirements, even though it adds a few details, in time credit, and notification, it still isnt as Punishing as SORNA is.

    This House Bill 1952 will pass.

    My husband, even though a lifetime offender based off his charge, was deemed a non violent offender by SOAB in 2006 is okay with this new House Bill 1952.

    One time per year for rest of his life, sounds alot better that 4 times a year, teir 3 for the rest of his life.

    He knows he will only have to go one time per year and could possibly call in by phone. Doesnt sound to bad compared to the more Strict requirement of Good Ol’ SORNA.

    And 25 years, option for petition off, is perfect, but we all know by then there will be another civil non intended SORNA 2 on its way through the books. So, lifetime it is.

    And no more internet identifiers for Pre-Sorna.

    So, as my husband says, he wishes they get rid of the registry forever, but at least we are winning small cases and the word punitive has been stated in the courts.

    Be patient and trust in God!

  11. Who removes from list

    When they wrote HOUSE BILL 1952 the Commonwealth literally agreed with Muniz and fixed the problem. SCOTUS will wait and wait and wait till this law passes by Wolf and denie cert because they fixed the issue of Muniz.

  12. Who removes from list

    What happens if the House Bill 1952 is passed and Pre Sorna have 90 days to register under the new law. And my husband or anyone goes down to the PSP to register under it on Day One.

    Then a couple months go by and SCOTUS GRANTS CERT. Then they over turn Muniz, in someway?

    The House Bill 1952 was designed to fix Muniz and my husband or others would be on it already.

    Can they force him to register under SORNA again?

    Or does the state constitutional ruling still stand of Muniz?

    • CR

      Not sure I understand the question…

      How could the State Supreme Court ruling in Muniz stand if SCOTUS grants cert and overturns it?

      • Michael

        Obviously it wouldn’t. It’s not germane anyway because they won’t grant cert.

        ….

  13. Joe

    And what about shaming? I’m not seeing that addressed. The part about it being public on the internet. That part can still be fought.

  14. Brian

    From what I read is people who were close to being done with the old law will be done like in my case I was to be off in 2013, but my understanding is people that have any major time past 12-20-2012 will have to complete the rest of their registration, once Muniz is 100%law people will have to file mandamus and being the writing says case by case meaning they have to file suite meaning each individual person on ml/SORNA because they know SO’s don’t have money to get lawyers they will be stuck unless they come into money somehow, their not letting people go voluntarily from what I hear you have to file suite once Muniz is final if SB 1952 and Muniz are playing out together. If HB 1952 doesn’t make it off the floor which I have heard a couple thoughts on the matter, they think it won’t make it off the floor and some think it will, but if it does it will be challenged most likely and will loose under constitutionality.
    My friend said this.
    On the surface HB 1952 looks bad but when you read through it – I have to give a hand to the writer of this bill. It is a Muniz fix bill that says that, but it is a trick bill that doesn’t give Muniz protections to all like the Muniz decision does. I would stick with Muniz and wait for the Muniz decision to remand.

    HB 1952 only helps a few get off the registry when Muniz opens the door for all to get off. It is a bill that is a good collage try to act like the law makers of Pa. are trying to look out for public safety. But HB 1952 will not pass a constitution muster if challenged in commonwealth courts. . . . . The court levels are Common pleas court, Commonwealth court, Superior court – then the PASC. Any low level court will use Muniz to defeat HB 1952 if it becomes law and someone challenges it. It will be found unconstitutional on Pa. Constitution Article 1 Sections 1, 9, 11, 17, and 26. and the cases in precedence that would knock the law out would be Muniz – Neiman, Reed, and Woodruff and the law is done. . . . I can see the concern that the politicians have if this law fails and Muniz takes the precedence position AND FROM THE LOOKS OF IT -Muniz will – It is a gamble law to fix muniz if RSO’s don’t challenge HB 1952 when it becomes law.

    • Paul 2

      Where does it say case by case?
      What parts of section I, of continued registration won’t pass muster?
      Wouldn’t PSP have to remove anyone that had their time on reg increased by SORNA without having to file a writ? I think they said they would look at each case and remove the ones due relief.

      • terry brunson

        At the end of the HB 1952 it says :
        An individual who, before or after the
        effective date of this paragraph:
        (A) Commits an offense subject to 42 Pa.C.S.
        Subch. H; but
        (B) because of a judicial determination on or
        after the effective date of this section of the
        invalidity of 42 Pa.C.S. Subch. H, is not subject to
        registration as a sexual offender.

        Paul do you see the words Judaical determination? That means case by case going to a judge and getting a determination order from the court. . .Why can’t you understanding that this is case by case – – – – – If HB 1952 is passed as law you going to have to get a judicial determination after the effective date of HB 1952 which is 42 Pa. C.S. Subch H – You get the judicial determination from the court – and you will NOT BE SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER . The judical determination is done in Pa. case by case filed in a court – – Do you get this? If not I cannot make it no more clearer that it is written right in the HB 1952 I did not make these words up. . The came out the bill 1952

        • terry brunson

          A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION IS A CASE BY CASE LOOK AT YOUR CASE UNDER HB 1952 RULES

      • Michael

        Muniz prevents the state from applying SORNA requirements retroactively, it does not allow “all to get off” the registry. Anyone required to register for life pre-SORNA would not find relief under Muniz. That is not to say that they can’t apply something that resembles Meghans law I, II or III retroactively. So personally, I don’t know how anyone who was still required to register pre-SORNA and had yet to finish a period of registration or had to register for life gets around the new law. Unless they challenge based upon the irrebutable presumption doctrine precedent set back in 2014 [See In the Interest of J.B., 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3468 (Pa. 2014)] which was also raised in Commonwealth v. Muniz, Commonwealth v. Gilbert, and Commonwealth v. Reed. That doctrine states that the Commonwealth cannot presume that a conviction for an enumerated offense means a person is likely to sexually recidivise.

        I also think relying on the fact that the PASC found SORNA to be unconstitutional somehow also suggests that the registration laws in general are also unconstitutional is futile. SCOTUS has allowed these laws to stand, and to apply retroactively. Unless it changes it’s decision, these laws will remain Constitutional. The only way I see to have the laws reduced or repealed is a change in the PA legislature, which is controlled currently by the Rightists, who are the biggest SOR proponents.

        ….

  15. Brian

    HB 1952 make it seem like one has to file to get something that should come automatic. Results of Muniz should be applied to all Pre-SORNA RSO’s before date 20 December 2012

    HB 1952 says at the end of the bill that it is targeting people with the dates of offenses after April 1996 but before 19 Dec 2012 That is a pre- Sorna attack. Muniz fought hard to help all pre-SORNA people to get off as soon as Muniz is remand back to PASC from SCOTUS on Freed denial of Cert.

    HB 1952 seems to the PSP to be a saving law. It is the re-write of ML -2 which Commomwealth v. Nieman shut down in its entirety. . . PA though the AWA was so strong because courts were turning their eye to the Ex Post Facto elements of the Law. The PASC woke up to the game and changed the rules. . . . . . . when the PASC gives a vote of 5 to one no vote which MUNIZ was – they intend to see that all get the benifit of their decision in the Commonwealth by court order – and not no Muniz fix that helps only some.

    Muniz by itself will make the PSP remove 18,500 RSO’s off the registry. They don’t like that. So they done the HB 1952 as damage control to slow the exodus of the registry. They say it clearly in the bill – if anyone is willing to get a judicial determination or a court’s order – they will be off the registry with no questions that is people like you and I. not Pre-SORNA people that tens passed and now HB 1952 will give them guys only a freedom card off. that is about 4500, what about all the MUNIZ decisions the PSP MUST let OFF? They now got to file a judicial determination? What the What Da? Does that sound like a fire fix? Hell no. . . . . .

    Under Muniz there is no ML 1 2 3 od SORNA to hold you to – – – – This New law gets in the way by putting a new law it the way . . . to have to get judicial determination to get off what the PASC in Muniz says all should get with or only one court order from the PASC through the AG to the PSP to let all 18,500 RSO’s in this Commonwealth go free under Muniz the law of the commonwealth Now. . . . . without any judicial determination of a case by case filing and paying money to lawyers for Mandamus. . . . . THIS IS CRAZY… i HOPE WHO EVER READS THIS WOULD UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE TODAY

    • Paul 2

      Sorry Brian but you are not listing specifics in the new law so what you are saying is not making sense.

      The first thing is where in the new law does it say anything about case by case?

      What parts of section I, of continued registration won’t pass muster?

      Do you not see the part that says IA7 is now 10 yr not tier 3 life?

    • Michael

      @Brian

      “Results of Muniz should be applied to all Pre-SORNA RSO’s before date 20 December 2012.”

      It does. It just does not get anyone who would still be required to register under the old law off the registry.

      “HB 1952 says at the end of the bill that it is targeting people with the dates of offenses after April 1996 but before 19 Dec 2012 That is a pre- Sorna attack. Muniz fought hard to help all pre-SORNA people to get off as soon as Muniz is remand back to PASC from SCOTUS on Freed denial of Cert.”

      The bill does not target everyone convicted of a crime between 1996-2012. It only would apply to those who’s pre-SORNA registration requirement has not yet been completed, or lifetime registrants. And again, the Muniz decision only applies to the SORNA enhancements, not the entire law. Registration is still Constitutional.

      “HB 1952 seems to the PSP to be a saving law. It is the re-write of ML -2 which Commomwealth v. Nieman shut down in its entirety.”

      That is not correct either. In Commonwealth v. Nieman the court held that Act 152 [in its entirety] was unconstitutional, not the entire SOR law.

      ….

  16. Jon

    So what would this do to me? I have a conviction date of 2010 and pre sorna I was a non svp with 10 years reporting with only 1 x in person reporting. Now I am a non svp tier 2 with 25 years and 2 x a year reporting. With post Sorna i had to add in email addresses and such with my reporting, and since my conviction date was before dec 2012 i could do mail updates for my non in person updates. I get it that Muniz would give me the best win and I could technically be taken off because all prior Megan’s Law registries have all been expired… but would HB 1952 put me back to pre sorna? If it puts me back to pre sorna would I also need a court order to remove me at the end of my 10 years or would I just receive a letter saying I’m done? I’m just trying to figure out if this would help me some, make it worse for me or would it not do anything for me at all…

    • Mike s

      Jon,

      I am in a similar situation but I am T1 and going on 12 years of a 10 Year offense.

      My attorney advised me that I would be off the registry if HB 1952 passes as is.

      All RCs from 1996 – 2012 would be sentenced under the law at the tine they were convicted. This preserves all of the RCs that are on the registry for life.

      Anyone in the registry for a crime outlined as lifetime on HB 1952 would remain.

      All RCs on the registry that were convicted before 2007 (10 years before today) would have served their time and would be removed. That is basicly T1 and T2 with convictions prior to 2007.

      If this law does not pass and SCOTUS denies Cert, SORNA would be illegal to enforce, Ex Facto. (After the fact) and ALL RCs on the registry who were convicted before December 12 2012 would have to be removed.

      Im taking my attorney’s word in this one, I’m sure the PSP might try to play games but they have gone on the record as understanding what is at stake here and I am going to make damn sure that they understand what this new Bill means by and through my lawyer!

      • Paul 2

        Thanks Mike

        Wouldn’t someone that had an IA7 and a CP have to come off also

        IA7 was 10 made Life by SORNA

        CP plus IA7 made Life under ML3 But shot down by A.S.

        IA7 in new law is 10yr

        Two or more goes back to 10yr If they were not separate convictions separated by time to reform per A.S.

        Just saying this because some people designated life will also be removed if their 10yr is up

        • Mike s

          Yes Paul,

          Even though the writers of HB 1952 did not take the time to amend the “two convictions of a 10 year” to comply with AS, A.S. Applies to your case. Like I’ve said in the past, my layer represented A.S. And I hired him shortly after he won that case nice it closely married my case.

          Just got the alert tonight that HB 1952 has been removed from the table and is going to be voted on tomorrow for the first of the three votes in the House.

          See House Calendar

          http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/SessionCalendars/index.cfm?Chamber=H

    • Michael

      The SORNA enhancement[s] goes away with Muniz. Which means you’d be back to the old 10 year requirement, thus leaving you 2 years on the registry.

      I don’t see why you’d need to get a determination from a court.
      ….

  17. who removes from list

    If at a dismissal hearing for failure to register charges, the DA requests 30 days to file a brief from the day of hearing and asks the Judge for 30 days to file a brief to prove that Muniz does not apply to defendant .Then the Judge grants the DA the 30 days to try and prove that Muniz doesn’t apply to the defendant. So the failure to register charges should not be dismissed.

    After the Judge grants the 30 days, the DA does not file the brief because Muniz does apply to the defendant. And they knew that at the dismissal hearing, but only used that request to slow things down and delay the process and the dismissal.

    What happens if the DA failed to file the brief and used this as a delay tactic, does the defendants charges get dropped without a hearing because they failed to file the brief?

    Or does a hearing need to be requested and rescheduled?

    What should the defendant do in this case?

    Also the defendant, knows Muniz applies because he was convicted and sentenced back years before SORNA and he will be placed on House Bill 1952 if passed.

    Anyone, AJ, Paul 2?

    • Mike s

      Up to the judge. A decent lawyer would move for dismissal the second that the ADA tells the judge that the dog ate his brief. This is a perfect reason why you always get a defense attorney th3at practices in the county your are tried. If he is respected, judges will play ball. Remids me of a great tee shirt.

      Good lawyers know the law,
      Great lawyers know the judge.

      • Tim Moore

        So true, Mike, I remember although it was a decade and a half ago, at some hearing I was to have, my lawyer somehow managed to move my hearing in the nick of time to another courtroom. It happened that news cameras were setting up in the courtroom I was to enter. It wasn’t me or my case that brought them there, but if I had stayed, that would have changed, and I would found myself broadcast all over the county. That little switcheroo saved me and my family much grief. Lawyers have to know the law, but more importantly the players in the courtroom.

    • Paul 2

      They should have rescheduled the hearing for a new date when they were granted the 30days. The new date is when they should decide.

  18. Brian

    Paul
    Sorry about the whole misunderstanding, sense the law will take you back to 10 years it all depends on when your time was up, my time was up in 2013 but due to SORNA I went to 25 years, if HB 1952 passes I would be off the list, you are right with the some that were ten years then went to life, they will be off as long as their time doesn’t go past 2017, if your time does to say 2020 then your on till 2020, pre SORNA doesn’t automatically say you get off the registry unfortunately, I got that writing from a friend and I just thought it would shed some light for you but it did not have that effect, sorry Paul my mistake. So yes if your ten years is up then once and if they pass SB 1952 you and I and many others will get relief as long as your time was is up you should be good to go.

    • Paul 2

      No need My bad I was just trying to get some clarification on the part where it said case by case I can see anyone that is pre SORNA and their time is up should automatically be removed plus any time for PSP to pull their panties out of their but hurt a holes. They will drag out removing people using lac of resources and man power. I don’t see any situation where a writ should need to be filed unless they play the retard card and miss interpret the law, like two or more 10yr thing That would bite them in the ass if they pull that all over again.

  19. Adam

    Hey everyone,

    I feel pretty clear on this, but I would love any confirmation that anyone is able to give me.

    I was sentenced in 2011 but was not required to register until 12/20/12, as my offense was not a registerable offense until SORNA. So my understanding is that if HB 1952 is passed as is I would then come off the list.

    Am I thinking about this correctly? Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

    • terry brunson

      You are thinking correctly you would be back to your offense not being under SORNA

    • Paul 2

      Adam they should take you off Don’t see how they can make you reg under new law

    • Mike s

      Adam,

      I’m guessing that you have seen the new bill? Is your crime on it? If not, you are good. You actually could have gotten relief under Hainsworth before Muniz. I know a lot of people who were in your situation that got the call from their PO in dec of 2012 and went back to their sentencing court judge and were removed.

      In any case, If your crime is not listed in HB 1952 I don’t see how you would be listed.

      Tune in today at 11am for first vote on HB 1952. This bill needs to be voted on three times, so it will not be passed in 2017 since there are not enough voting days left in the year. If Muniz submits their response this week and do not ask for another 30 day extension, there could be a serious race between PA Legislation and SCOTUS to see who either passes a law or denies Cert.

      Link to watch PA House vote online.

      http://www.house.state.pa.us/Video/HouseVideo.cfm

      • Mike S

        The Bill did not get voted on during the Morning Session. The House will reconvene @ 2:45pm today where it looks like it will be the 24th bill voted on.

        Here is where things get VERY strange…..The Bill has moved from 1st Consideration to 2nd Consideration??? PA House rules require 3 “Yes” votes to move the bill to the Senate. Tomorrow is the last voting day of the year and now suddenly the Bill has had some sort of first round “yes” vote that was not done on the House Floor??

        This is exactly how SORNA went down in 2011. There was no victory laps in the House Floor or any mention of what everyone was voting. The Speaker said (I think it was HB70) and then, seconds later, Bill passes, next bill……Now there were a ton of victory laps in Press Releases and campaign nonsense.

        Don’t get me wrong, I want this bill to pass ASAP, just find it scary that there are no public hearings or anyone from the Defenders League of Phila or the Defense Attorneys of PA who were consulted. And we have seen that EVERY version of ML in PA has been whole or partly dismantled or struck down entirely. Food for thought!

        http://www.house.state.pa.us/Video/HouseVideo.cfm

        • Mike S

          HB 1952 has been amended. It is available online and the amendments are where you see “<–" in the right hand margin. I reviewed the entire document and it is mostly the following paragraph changed to the second paragraph (below)

          All of the chapters where "Credit" will be applied for time on the list has remained UNCHANGED. So far so good.

          This subchapter shall apply to individuals who were convicted of a sexually violent offense committed on or after April 22, 1996, but before December 20, 2012, whose period of registration with the Pennsylvania State Police, as described in section 9799.55 (relating to registration), has not expired.§ 9799.53.

          Changed to this

          (1) CONVICTED OF A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE COMMITTED ON OR AFTER APRIL 22, 1996, BUT BEFORE DECEMBER 20, 2012, WHOSE PERIOD OF REGISTRATION WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 9799.55 (RELATING TO REGISTRATION), HAS NOT EXPIRED; OR(2) REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE UNDER A FORMER SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION LAW OF THIS COMMONWEALTH ON OR AFTER APRIL 22, 1996, BUT BEFORE DECEMBER 20, 2012, WHOSE PERIOD OF REGISTRATION HAS NOT EXPIRED.

    • Michael

      Sounds about right to me. The only caveat would be if the new law included your offense, and then your got.

      ….

  20. Who Removes from list

    As today at 1045am my husband failure to register under SORNA, internet indentifier, in Cumberland County have been dismissed.

    The DA, did not file her brief on why Muniz did not apply to my husband because the DA knew Muniz did apply, she has 30 days and time ran out yesterday!

    He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced in 2006 and had to register under Megans Law 3.

    My husband Motion to Enforce plea and habeas have been filed with the lower court also on Nov 13 2017.

    Right now, the fact that they dropped my husband’s failure to register charges PER MUNIZ proved to me and him that he is due relief from the lower court as well!

    There is no stay, if they dismissed his charges!

    • AJ (@mike r)

      @WRFL:
      Congratulations to you and your husband! It must feel good to have even a smidgen of vindication and a win versus the oppressive machine.

    • James

      Congratulations to you and your husband!

      Sometimes I sense that if we had a hundred thousand brave people clogging up the courts continually and constantly for a few years, (after all, each of has differing fact patterns) we might get somewhere.

      This is, of course contra the standard legal model of carefully chosen plaintiff’s and facts to build precedents…but I think we are getting close to critical mass…where we might even affect election results if we could band together in a coherent enough fassion.

      In any case, good on you both

      Best Wishes, James

  21. Who Removes from list

    My husband has read the House Bill 1952. He has also read the arguements of Muniz.

    Here is his thoughts,

    In Muniz it was argued that SORNA wasnt in place when he was would of been sentenced.

    In Muniz it was argued that if he was sentenced in 2007 he would of been under Megans Law 3.

    That means Muniz argued he agrees with his sentence.

    Under the PA Supreme Court ruling it says SORNA cant be applied to Muniz and to all other PRE SORNA.

    HOUSE BILL 1952, wasnt in place when Muniz was sentenced in 2007.

    Neither was it in place for all other PRE SORNA individuals and that means my husband would not of been sentenced to it.

    My husband says that this will be argued, how can you pass legislation to in response to a judgement of Muniz?

    Is this constitutional, SORNA is punishment applied to PRE SORNA, expost facto, adding punishment after sentencing.

    House Bill 1952 is adding punishment, correct?

    • Paul 2

      Not in their eyes. They have the same thing as ML3, plus you will be able to call in updates, and have a hearing after 25yr (way to long) to get off reg. I am hoping people challenge this law as still being punitive ex post facto, maybe having people on internet can be challenged. We need to get resources together to fight this.

    • Michael

      The bill does not enhance anyone’s registration requirements. Technically it reduces, or reverts, the current SORNA requirements. With the addition of the mechanism to get off the registry and “call in” registration, the courts won’t find issue with it.

      ….

  22. Chris

    Ok so regarding house bill 1952. I was sentenced back in 2003 and started registering in 2004 originally a 10 yr. Registration. Then on Dec. 2012 it was changed to lifetime. With house bill 1952 does it make me eligible to be taken off registry all together. This crap is out of control. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thank You.

    • Paul 2

      You will be done my dates are the same as yours I had an IA7 was 10 changed to life by SORNA Even if new law isn’t past soon if Freed’s petition on Muniz for review is denied cert PSP will have to take us off They already should have.

      • Mike S

        HB 1952 Passed the House of Representatives 188-0. It was in the first round votes at 8:30 this morning.

        This is the last day of the year for voting in the Senate, currently the bill is not on the Senate calendar for to perfunctory passthrough vote, but it would, not at all, surprise me if it gets added before the session that starts at 11am.

        Even though, on the surface, I should get relief from this bill it absolutely petrifies me that a less than reputable DA sends a novis ADA for oral arguments in the Commonwealth’s highest court on a subject that he says is paramount to the protection of the citizens on this Commonwealth….the ADA loses to an average county level defense attorney and then goes crying to a senator that he seems to have some sort of congenital relationship…… and now 90 days later, he has managed to get the law changed to circumvent the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and now look like some sort of hero to the people. F*&cking Sickening!!

        I’ve been on this list for 11 years 2 months. It has caused the end of my marriage, loss of employment, loss of the ability (at times) to see my son, two slashed tires, one broken windshield, the loss of countless “friends”, subjection to endless hours of ridicule in “treatment” (which is a WHOLE other thread), and a system that has no boundaries in reality and can use hearsay to justify just about anything.

        Nothing should really surprise me anymore, but everyday the people that make and enforce laws in this country manage to do just that, surprise me!! RC’s have spent 10s of thousands of dollars fighting this law and scumbags in elected positions get paid to cheat the law.

        Part of Muniz relied on the fact that during Smith V Doe that the “internet” was not as prevalent and that Article 1 Section 1 of the PA Constitution protects reputation (Much to the surprise of Ryan Dobo). Should be a good starting point for the next round of lawsuits.

        • Paul 2

          Looks to me like we have 90days to register with this new law, so if Freed’s writ for review is denied, then we should not even have to register. PSP will say we do, but my 10yrs is long past and if they want to take longer than 90days to figure that out thats their problem not mine.

        • Michael

          Relax dude! If in 2003/04 you were required to register 10 years, then you are done no matter which why way this thing ends up going. Stop sweating it.

          ….

        • Michael

          “Part of Muniz relied on the fact that … Article 1 Section 1 of the PA Constitution protects reputation (Much to the surprise of Ryan Dobo).”

          The irrebutable presumption doctrine. Personally I think that is key to getting this into the hands of sentencing courts which should be making the decision regarding who should be registering on a case-by-case basis. If a person’s reputation is a fundamental right, how could it be legal to force them to register — something not ordered by a court?

          Broad brush, or one-size-fits-all legislation doesn’t work as intended.

          ….

  23. Who Removes from list

    @Paul

    From yesterday:

    Who Removes from list
    December 12, 2017

    As today at 1045am (Dec 12 2017) my husband failure to register under SORNA, internet indentifier, in Cumberland County have been dismissed.

    The DA, did not file her brief on why Muniz did not apply to my husband because the DA knew Muniz did apply, she has 30 days and time ran out yesterday. (Dec 11 2017)

    He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced in 2006 and had to register under Megans Law 3.

    MUNIZ Decision was the reason why his charges were dropped.

  24. Who Removes from list

    Did House Bill 1952, just pass? Or get third vote?

  25. Brian

    So what I am understanding is that even though my 10 years was up years ago I have to register anyway now? So everyone was wrong about the way HB 1952 is playing out for pre SORNA people?

    • Paul 2

      Didn’t see the senate vote on the bill. Looks like Jan until anything else happens.

    • Mike S

      Brian,

      Where are you getting this info from?

      There has been no change to the language as it relates to credit for time on the registry and the breakdown of 10 year vs Life.

      If you are referring to the 90 days referenced by Paul, that is the timeline that the Commonwealth has established for people that are required to register to show up at the PSP for their formal F-U. That will include another round of fingerprinting and all the other BS they will collect.

      The Commonwealth is walking the line on how this “law” is nothing like SORNA and has put this “soft” timeline of 90 days to report. ALTHOUGH, they made it very clear in the bowels of the bill that if you are registering on the day that the law is signed, there is NOTHING in the bill that excuses you to be required to report within 90 days.

      The BIG question is if they are going to proactively remove people or are they going to play some BS game where they will sit back and wait for you to show up with a judge’s order? I fear the latter. In 110 pages they outlined every way they can throw you in jail but NOWHERE did it state the responsibilities of the PSP to accurately insure that the RCs that have done their time (and then some) are notified that their time on the hate list has been served.

      So, while the language looks good to get off the registry, I have very little faith in the lazy and unaccountable PSP.

      • Brian

        @Mike S
        I read a post on another rso website and added a comment in response to the posting.
        The post said this.
        House bill 1952 DOES NOT allow pre Sorna people to request to be left off. We will be retired to our SORNA sentences even though Muniz will be upheld. I have it on direct authority from the PSP that they will be ignoring Muniz once the bill passes.
        This is just something I read, honestly Mike I don’t know what or who to believe at this point because there are so many different views on the bill and different opinions as well.
        From what I was led to believe is that pre SORNA people who’s time was or is up will be removed. Now I hearing different.

        • Paul 2

          Not sure what is so confusing? The bill says righting it who will come off the reg people that had 10yrs before SORNA and their 10yrs is now up will not have to request anything they will come off asap and once people that still have time on their 10yrs left pre SORNA they will come off too.. The only request in the bill is after 25yrs for people with less than life. The bill tells you who is going to be taken off The only issue I found is PSP could play stupid but that will come back to bite them.

        • Mike s

          Brain, can you post a link to the site?

    • Michael

      “So what I am understanding is that even though my 10 years was up years ago I have to register anyway now?”

      Where are you getting that from? Muniz was found unconstitutional under PA’s Constitution for several reasons, not just the ex post facto reasons. Muniz is the law of the land in PA. It’s why the courts are citing it in cases since the Muniz decision. This new bill replaces Meghans Law IV, which was a SORNA law. They had to do that because a good portion of the law had SORNA requirements, which can no longer apply retroactively, and they can’t leave everyone in legal limbo. If you would have been done registering, sans SORNA, then how are they going to force you to keep registering without enhancing your registration requirement?

      ….

  26. Adam

    I was under the impression that this was going to need to be voted on again, but the information at the link below says it has passed “third consideration and final passage.” Does this mean the governors signature is all that is needed now?

    https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/898515

  27. Adam

    Also, I called the Megan’s Law office in Harrisburg today, and explained my situation and asked if I will be removed automatically or need to go before a judge. The lady told me that if the bill passes they will receive a list of people effected, and they will be reduced/removed automatically.

  28. Jon

    I read this on a a different sex offender website and was curious if anyone has seen this in the bill or seen or heard anything about this…

    The General Assembly is rumored to change the bill so that per Sorna people will be left off. Remember they don’t care one bit about Pre Sorna vs Sorna. In the end, they just want the registry to still be around. If the cost of keeping the registry another 25 years is letting pre Sorna go, they don’t want to do it, but they will do it in a heart beat and not even blink an eye. Half a loaf is WAY better than no loaf when you are HUNGRY!!

    NOW… That would be great for me, but my understanding is that 1952 is supposed to revert pre sorna people to what their actual sentence was… so in my case I would go back to 10 years registration instead of 25 years. Has anyone seen anything about this?

    • Michael

      “… but my understanding is that 1952 is supposed to revert pre sorna people to what their actual sentence was… so in my case I would go back to 10 years registration instead of 25 years. Has anyone seen anything about this?”

      The ass hat that wrote the law, and the PA legislature know that Muniz is settled law. If they thought otherwise, they would not have written a bill that removes SORNA. So yes, you would be correct in thinking that the SORNA enhancement[s] to your registration requirement is gone, and that you would then be required to complete a term of registration based on the old law. If that was 10 years, 10 years ago, then your done. The purpose of the law, according to Rep. Ron Marsico, is to keep people who have not completed a period of registration based on pre-SORNA law from getting off the list. I don’t know think the bill is necessary because Muniz does not remove anyone who had not completed a period of registration, it only removes the enhancements, including the additional time on the registry. So, anyone who had to register for life pre-SORNA stays on the list. Someone who was sentenced on December 1, 2012 and would have had to register 10 years would still be required to register until December 1, 2022.

      ….

  29. Michael

    Keep on top of that. You’re going to want that letter stating you are not required to register.

    ….

  30. Brian

    @Michael
    I keep hearing all different things, I am going to give the psp a call at some point for more clarification on this matter. I heard all pre SORNA people will get relief which is not true, I have heard people must petition the courts to be removed and then I heard no one is going to be removed. What I have heard a lot of is pre SORNA people who to date are done with their ten years are to be removed.
    What would be nice is to have something plain out stating that pre SORNA people are to be removed , those who have completed their time and then some. My time should have been up in 2013.

    • Paul 2

      Brian you need to look at what people have said about Muniz relief vs this new amendment If this bill didn’t pass then all pre SORNA people would have got relief No one knows what PSP is going to do.
      I have seen they think they have 18mo to take people that will revert back to 10yrs off reg.
      By what I have seen, they think a person that, lets say has an IA7, that was a 10yr reg in 2003, went to life reg in 2012, and now the new bill says back to 10yr reg, PSP thinks they have 18mo to identify them and remove them from reg.
      My idea is, if this an amendment then a person with an IA7 10yr would only have to update once a yr on their anniversary date.
      But I think for a person that has finished their 10yr reg, PSP thinks they can keep that person registering until they get around to removing them.
      So that person has three choices 1. ignore anything PSP request and not update any info. 2. File a writ to speed up removal 3. Keep doing what PSP tells you to do and hope they take you off sooner than later.
      For people that are life from ML 1 2 3 and didn’t have their time increased by SORNA they will only have to reg one time per yr Name, Full Home address, city and state where they work no street address, and Vehicle that is owned or registered in your name.

      Muniz is still in limbo, according to PSP and if it gets reversed we are all fukd.
      Most people are saying that it will get denied, so if it gets denied we can still challenge this new bill, Aaron Marcus said he sees some things with SVP that are not right and my guess is there are other things not right about this bill. People that have already had their cases decided based on Muniz and Butz will be the first to challenge this new bill. But if you had any change to your reg by SORNA then they have to fix it and they think this new bill does it.

      • Brian

        @Paul
        Hey just want to say thank you for the clarification, just need to hear the right answer is all. I am aware Muniz is still in limbo, we should hear something from Muniz on the 16th , I could be wrong and have been many times, one thing I have strong feelings on is that Muniz will not be denied, f already knows it, yes this bill 1952 is a fix supposedly but people have pointed out unconstitutional parts of the new bill, I would have to do some digging to find the posts with the parts that are unconstitutional though. Many other states as we know have won their battles, Snyder vs Doe just won October 2nd 2017 as we know, they are still trying to figure out how to rewrite the laws now I have a good feeling that Muniz will win, 5 Pa Supreme Court Justice agreed on SORNA being unconstitutional being applied retroactively as I’m sure you know that, I think once they arrive in front of SCOTUS they will see the unconstitutional parts of 1952, Or I hope Muniz lawyer is made aware of those parts of the bill. Seeing is that they made it this far I don’t think his lawyer is dumb. I feel confident in Muniz and there are lots of courts that are upholding Muniz, I don’t think these courts want to go back and undo what has been done not to say they would never do that. Paul the only way we will all know is when all is said and done. Thank you again Paul.

  31. Gary

    As of 8:00 PM EST, the House Legislative Information indicates:

    PN 2770 (Original Bill)
    Referred to JUDICIARY, Dec. 4, 2017
    Reported as committed, Dec. 5, 2017
    First consideration, Dec. 5, 2017
    Laid on the table, Dec. 5, 2017
    Removed from table, Dec. 11, 2017
    PN 2820 (Amended Bill)
    Second consideration, with amendments, Dec. 12, 2017
    Re-committed to APPROPRIATIONS, Dec. 12, 2017
    Re-reported as committed, Dec. 12, 2017
    (Remarks see House Journal Page ), Dec. 12, 2017
    Third consideration and final passage, Dec. 13, 2017 (188-0)

    A copy of the amended bill can be found at:

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1952&pn=2820

  32. Who Removes from list

    So on HOUSE BILL 1952 found an expost facto violation, added punishment from Megan 1 or 2 or 3, and even SORNA doesnt require this as a registered offender.

    Sex offenders or SVP must register this following info in 3 business days they snuck this in at the last minute,

    Page 70 Line 16 paragraph B) Offenders and sexually violent predators shall inform the Pennsylvania State Police within three business days of: (B) a list of places the individual eats, frequents and engages in leisure activities and any planned destinations, including those outside this Commonwealth;

    When did you ever have to tell anyone what gym you go too, where you eat, where you hangout, what you do for fun, when did you need to tell the PSP that you like collecting comics or sports cards or antigues or go to sports card shows, or antigue shows or flea markets, when did Megans 1 or 2 or 3 or SORNA request this info??

    Thats not from Megans Law 1 or 2 or 3 or SORNA!!

    My husband wasnt sentenced to HOUSE BILL 1952 requirement B) the fun places he hangs out or does for fun, to this in 2006. Thats a new added requirement outside what his sentence judge told him to do.

    House Bill 1952 has hidden tricks!!

    Sneaky sneaky sneaky!

    I can see the PSP calling my husbands gym, his moms house, he frequents at, calling Mcdonalds or Sheetz, or the Local Dump or the Turnpike headquarters, he frequentlt drives on that daily, he must tell the PSP when he enjoys a nice ride on the turn pike to relax.

    Just think he likes to hang out in our back yard, in his truck, in our woods, in his yard.

    If he has to register all these things, then how about his dinner table where we eat.

    Why not just register your daily routine, he takes a poop around 5am everyday. Thats fun for him. Pooping. Its relaxing.

    • Mike s

      That section is referring to homeless RCs. Read the paragraph above it.

    • Paul 2

      WRFL

      You are reading the part for transient people listing where they eat. If you are not transient then you don’t have to provide it.

      • Who Removes from list

        Thank God, because I thought my husband was going to tell them his 5am @hits is a fun and relaxing past time! As he drink his instant coffee for breakfast.

        Thank God, they wouldnt do a compliance check on our @hitter.

  33. Jon

    Here’s a stupid question… in looking at hb1952 i noticed it says an ammendment. Are they simply ammending (changing) the enhancememts and such for the parts that were ruled unconstitutional – and not creating a NEW law? If so that would explain why presorna would revert to their original sentences… i am learning a lot, but will admit there is still a lot i dont know – can they do that legally? Like if the law is ruled unconstitutional can they just go and fix it and take out the bad parts and have it be ok, or does the whole unconstitutional law get tossed?

    • David Kennerly, "In the long list of all of your problems, I'm the least of them"

      The courts are able to invalidate parts of a law so that the revised law, minus the unconstitutional bits, still stands.

    • Paul 2

      They are hoping this still gets them funding, But if you look at it they pretty much changed it all.

      We have to look at it this way these F tards took no testimony or input from the experts and opposition so they have most likely messed this new bill up, in the eyes of the PASC.

      The new bill tells us who the people are that are getting relief. We are at PSPs mercy to follow the rules.

      If Muniz pans out, then there are going to be other people challenging this law in order to get relief based on Muniz and others. We will see what PASC has to say about this.

      We need to support people like Aaron Marcus and others that are actively fighting this on our behalf.
      We also need to comment on news articles and outline to the public that the politicians are the ones that to this date have not listened to the experts, and that they are the ones that keep screwing things up and costing tax payers money and trampling on peoples rights, all in the name off votes.

      • Paul 2

        Here is a start to a crazy comparison to show how restarted the reg laws are.

        Any offense on reg = You’re a pedophile and a danger to the public
        1st offence DUI lowest BAC = You’re an alcoholic and a danger to the public

        How many people with a DUI reoffend?
        How many people on reg reoffend?

        Lets make a DUI reg so that it can be checked so people on reg can’t buy alcohol or be within 1000 ft of it.

        Lets take their drivers license for life. oh yah they can’t travel to another country for vacation or work because its shown that people drink when they go out of the country.

        I think we could make a really nice power point for the legislature based on this comparison and simply ask them How many of you have drank more than two drinks in an hr and drove a vehicle? Because the fact is driving drunk is a real danger to the public.

        SVP = a guy with 5 DUIs in past 10yrs
        CP RO = 90% of people in congress that have driven after2 drinks in an hr hmm?

        • Paul 2

          Only 1 percent get arrested.

          How big is the problem?
          In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
          Of the, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
          In 2015, nearly 1.1 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That’s one percent of the 111 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.
          Drugs other than alcohol (legal and illegal) are involved in about 16% of motor vehicle crashes.
          Marijuana use is increasing and 13% of nighttime, weekend drivers have marijuana in their system.
          Marijuana users were about 25% more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers with no evidence of marijuana use, however other factors – such as age and gender – may account for the increased crash risk among marijuana users.

      • Mike S

        My biggest issue with this new law is exactly what Paul has stated, law goes into effect as soon as Wolf signs it and RCs have their liberty at stake of they don’t go running to a PSP station to go through a process that is reserved for people being arrested. Not that I have to make this point to the audience on this site, but being fingerprinted for ML and being fingerprinted for a professional licence, FBI background check, or to be the lunch person at you kids school is NOT the same thing.

        I, for one, will not be waiting for PSP to get off their asses to get to my file. Currently there are ~2000 tier 1 RCs. The PSP should be reviewing their “Files” as these are the people that should be first to be removed. Its pretty simple because they went though all this BS last year because of A.S. Now they are claiming 18 months to review 20,000 records.

        I have instructed my attorney to call the second the bill gets signed and if they don’t take me off, file a $1m defamation suit in State and Federal courts.

        • Paul 2

          Hell yah sign me up too We should be able to get a class action to shut site down until they get their shit together

        • Paul 2

          I was thinking the same thing They already know who was A.S. “eligible” So if one of the charges was enhanced to a tier 3 from 10yr reg like me they had a way to keep us on for life even though A.S. applied so they already know who should be taken off. It only takes an hr to put someone on should be the same to take them off. Besides they have had plenty of time to prepare for this. I’m hoping someone can file to have an injunction put in to have site shut down until they fix this.

        • Jim

          Ok. I need some advice…

          I had a pending case ruled in Superior court in October of this year (in my favor) , relying on Muniz, stating Sorna does not apply to me.

          My attorney first sent Psp in July when Muniz came down-
          Psp sent a form letter in reply stating
          That they will apply Muniz to me in the future if it comes to pass…

          Then my Superior case was decided October of 17 – the three judge panel reversed my trial court and applied Muniz, stating that I should be removed.
          Again, my attorney sent the Superior judgement to Psp two weeks ago and heard nothing back…

          Last Friday, I received a Psp update (yearly) stating I must update within ten days.
          My attorney again has written them stating that there is no legal means by which they are making me update even though he has sent them my favorable Superior case and two other letters demanding I be taken off!

          Any advice??

          Some background-
          I was on probation for an m3 Invasion of privacy in 2012 when Sorna was enacted- so I was snagged and have been fighting it ever since. Hainesworth did not apply to me because there was no quid pro quo or dropping of registration charges at the time I pled guilty in 2010.

          Thanks in advance for any advice.

        • Paul 2

          Not sure of what you’re saying was your Muniz case a failure to comply from your M3?

        • Jim

          No. just saying that I won my case in Superior court based on Muniz in October, my lawyer has sent Psp the judgement… why the hell are these a$&holes not abiding my win in Super based on Muniz!!??

          I don’t appreciate the humiliating trip to Psp when I’ve won! He’ll, I should have never been put on in 2012.

        • Mike S

          Jim.

          I think you need a much more aggressive tact from your attorney. He/She needs to get someone on the phone over there, I suggest O.E. Rowles the one who probably signed your F-off letter, and tell them that you have a court order and that the next step is to sue in state court, naming O.EO Rowels and PSP.

          I say this as an RC, but have also heard that this approached worked from the Delaware County lawyer who mailed everyone a couple years back. Your lawyer needs to fight for YOU, not the next client that he might have that he has to be chummy with the PSP.

        • Jim

          Thanks for the reply.

          Following is the text of the letter he just sent Psp.

          “Sir/madam

          I have written to you about this before. I wrote first after the decision in Muniz. Then again after my client’s own case in Superior court. He MUST be removed from the list of Megan’s law offenders. He must not be receiving letters such as your December 6th letter telling him he must report.
          There is no lawful authority for him to do so. At this point his civil rights are being violated.

          Sincerely, Robert Mielnicki, esq.

          Above us the exact text of his latest letter to Psp. Wouldn’t you think that is worded strongly enough? Jesus!!

        • Michael

          The person to talk to is Brooke.

          ….

        • Michael

          Why hasn’t your attorney filed an Action in Mandamus to force the PSP to remove you? Clearly the only way the are going to do it is when ordered by the court.

          ….

        • Paul 2

          Mike what is your interpretation of how pre SORNA people, on SORNA right now, will “continue their registration”? I am thinking they will have to give everyone a letter with 90days, or will they just keep us coming in when our anniversary date comes up, because if it is the 90days then they should have to research each case and determine if the person has finished their 10yrs, or whatever their time should be, before they send out letters to comply with new law.

        • Mike S

          Paul, it is a great question that no one knows the answer. The bill clearly lays out who will need to register and for how long. It also clearly lays out who is currently registering and the expected timeframe to get off the registry. If your crime was a 10yr when you were convicted, anytime that you have spent on the registry counts towards that 10 years.

          Pretty simple. I was convicted of Possession of CP in 2006, been on the registry for 11 years 2 months, when this bill is signed, I am off. Sounds very easy right? Nope!!

          The writers of the bill gave the PSP all the power in the world to do what they want. PSP says it going to take 18 months because they only have a staff of 12 legal assistants.

          Let’s do the math!!

          12 x 8 = 96 (number of staff (12) times work hours in a day (8))
          20,000 (number of Rcs in PA)
          250 (number of working days in a year
          20,000/96 = 208 (number of RC’s divided by the number of daily Legal staff hours)
          5 months or 150 days (number of months since Muniz decision)
          208 – 150 = 58 (number of days to spend an hour on every case minus days you knew this was coming)

          MARCH 1st!!!!!! that is about the day that the PSP, giving everyone an hour (which is complete BS as all the data is right in front of them and it should take 5-10 minutes an RC (say 6 an hour))

          12 x 6 = 72
          72 x 5 = 360
          20000/360 = 55 (55 days to work through the entire database

          Not taking into account that there are 11k Tier 3s and 2k SVPs that are not coming off the registry for some time. Now we cut the 55 days number in half to ~28 days. Or about the same about of time it is going to take to get Wolf to sign the bill. AND, now that the numbers are really starting to burn me up. Over the xmas holiday every office brings in college labor, who can do the research on the list and get sign off from a “Legal Assistant”. (PSP stats come from the story below)

          Finally, the bill makes it clear that Mike S.’s math and @Paul’s math and @Jims math means nothing. You will be removed when they tell you that you are removed and they will keep your picture and all the other info about you in their little site until they are good and damn ready to take it off.

          http://www.dailyitem.com/news/local_news/legislature-moves-to-keep-sex-offenders-on-state-registry/article_ce133a1b-8c5b-5a1f-a129-673cb96650ec.html

        • New Person

          Could you not sue for damages while you remain on the registry when the only pre-requisite is 10 years and your conviction type?

          It is not your problem that they are understaffed. This is akin to holding you longer in jail after you have a set date of release. The State put you on the registry. You fulfilled your obligation. Any time after the 10 year date of release should be cause for a lawsuit for continued custody as well as defamation because you already have fulfilled the statutory pre-requisite. One day longer you are deemed a registrant is a known lie to the state.

          Remember, you didn’t complain or wait to be put on the registry. THe state did it with ease. It’s not your responsibility of their incompetence to process you out that very same date you are to be off the registry.

        • Paul 2

          Thanks Mike I am trying to figure out if PSP will be giving everyone the 90days or only people that have to register new. Because my thoughts are that if they are mailing out 90day letters then they should have to do the determination before they decide who to send the letters to. Also if Muniz is denied cert then we should not have to update under old SORNA. This would make them have to decide first who is not required to register before they send out a notice to register under new law.

        • Paul 2

          I am meeting with Reeds lawyer on Thursday or Friday to figure this out, by then I’m hoping we here whats up with the Muniz cert.

        • Michael

          Those who were required to register for life pre-SORNA had to register for life under SORNA. They *could* easily take them out of the equation making the process take less time.

          ….

  34. who removes from list

    House Bill 1952

    Is a revised version of Megan’s Law 3, with an added phone call in option for good behavior. Blah Blah.

    But Megan’s Law was never deemed unconstitutional for being punishment, only for the single subject rule.

    House Bill 1952 is written to address Muniz and give Muniz exactly what he argued, “If I was sentenced back in 2007, I would of been under Megan’s Law 3, so those guidelines is what I would be complying with.”

    House Bill 1952 says this, I agree with you Mr Muniz. I agree with you completely. I will give you what you wanted and place all the sex offenders back onto Megan’s Law 3 that were forced to be on SORNA. We will agree with you Mr. Muniz. We understand Mr Muniz that you will not have to register anymore. And we understand that others will not either. But Mr Muniz, what you argued is perfect, we still get to keep 10,000 so lifetime offenders on the registry and make them just come in once a year. So Mr Muniz, have a great day and enjoy your life. And be good, because the next time you commit a sex offense, buddy, you go onto SORNA. And wont get the honor of House Bill 1952.

    So with that said, this law will pass. This law will grab up anyone required to register under the Megan’s Law 3 and make you comply with what guidelines you were sentenced too before SORNA.

    And the Commonwealth sits back and goes, “Well, they wanted relief, we gave it to them. Hahahahaha!

    My husband will be on for life. One time a year for life. With an option for 25 years. But what he knows is this it beats 4 times a year and internet identifiers. And all the other stuff required by SORNA. My husband took a plea in 2006. He was okay with honoring his Megan’s Law 3 requirements, he doesnt agree with them but he did hold himself accountable for his Romeo and Juliet case involving a minor girl.

    His failure to register, internet identifiers, was a flook charge and thank God for Muniz, they are dismissed. Thank God for House Bill 1952. And he prays that the PA Supreme Court finds fault with it too. But for the time being, it is not SORNA!

    • Michael

      SORNA, as it was written, is unconstitutional so it can never be applied in PA again. It’s why the wrote the bill. So if Mr. Muniz committed another crime whatever law that is in effect would apply.

      ….

  35. Robert

    Hi
    Fist time posting.
    I just recently been following all this Magens law changes. After finding out i wont be able to go on 5 day/night trip to a Dominican Republic resort. Offered by the company my wife and I work for. Because im on the registry.
    Im not shore where i stand in all of this. Am I still going to be the registry? Because i moved here from MD in 2013. Or am I going to be off? because I was sentenced in MD on July of 06. To ten years on the registry. Days before president Bush even signed SORNA in.

    • Mike S

      Robert,

      As long as you were not convicted of any of the crimes below and anything similar in Maryland law, you should be off the registry. The first one is a bit tricky as there is case law that supports that you can have multiple “counts” of 10 year crimes as long as they were all at the same sentencing. i.e. 34 counts of Possession of CP or 1 charge of Indecent Assault and 9 counts of Possession of CP because she was underage and you took pictures.

      You need to be arrested, sentenced and than commit another SO and be arrested and convicted again. Mike

      (1) An individual with two or more convictions of any of the offenses set forth in subsection (a).
      18 Pa.C.S. § 3121 (relating to rape)
      18 Pa.C.S. § 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse)
      18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault)
      18 Pa.C.S. § 3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault)
      18 Pa.C.S. § 4302 (relating to incest) when the victim is under 12 years of age . ;

      • Robert

        I only have 1 charge. The other 3 where dropped. When I took the plea agreement.

        Would the drop charges have any effect on the out come?

        Thanks for the help

        • Michael

          They can’t make you register for crimes for which you were not convicted.

          ….

      • Michael

        You must be referring to the PASC’s decision in Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison. That decision was related to the state forcing someone convicted of several counts that require 10 year registration to register for life.

        “It is enough to note we hold that Section 9799.14, considered in the context of the statutory language as a whole, is susceptible to two reasonable constructions, and the statute, which sets forth a graduated (three-tier) scheme of registration, encompasses a recidivist philosophy. As such, the statute requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise subject to a fifteen- or twenty-five-year period of registration.”

        It also went on to state that, “In accordance with the Gehris Opinion in Support of Reversal (OISR), as supplemented by our analysis below, we hold the provision, considered in the context of the statutory language as a whole, is amenable to two reasonable constructions; and we further hold the statute, which sets forth a graduated scheme of registration, encompasses a recidivist philosophy.2 We therefore conclude the statute requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise triggering a ten-year period of registration.”

        “Fourth and finally, and returning to the subject of predicate ambiguity, we note there is some validity in the point made in the dissent below that it would be absurd and unreasonable if a single act, giving rise to a single prosecution yielding two convictions for overlapping predicate offenses, subjected an offender to lifetime registration. In conclusion, we hold the statute requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise triggering a ten-year period of registration. Accordingly, the award of mandamus relief is hereby affirmed.”

        Because you don’t register 10 years for each count, if he began registering in MD in 2006, with credit he would have been done in 2016.

        ….

    • Michael

      If you registered in MD and have been registering since 2006/2007 then you’d be off the registry with credit for time on the MD registry.

      ….

      • Jim

        I would like to ask for some general advice- looking forward…

        I had a pending case in Superior court based on being forced retroactively to register due to being in probation in 2012 for a guilty plea to a charge that was at the time, not a registerable offense. I won relief in October of 2017 based on Muniz.
        I waited the 30 day “appeal” period for the commonwealth and the trial court did not appeal.

        I called Psp Harrisburg on December 18 asking why I was still on the site- given that my attorney had sent them the decision from Superior court. Though they had the letter and decision from my attorney for two weeks prior to my call demanding I be taken off,
        They acted as if they were not going to do it until I called.
        Long story short, I was erased from the site on December 23rd.

        Now that have many, many questions moving forward.
        Can this happen again retroactively even though I should never have been put on in 2012?

        Since I was on the site illegally for a total of two years, will I be able to visit another state in the future and having to worry that I have what was at one time, a registerable offense in Pa?

        Can I get a passport now and travel out of country with that misdemeanor 3 on my record?

        Also, what about the DNA sample they took from me illegally in 2012 when I was forced to register? It seems to me that that should be wiped from their data bank as well… I pled guilty in 2010 to a misdemeanor 3, not a felony.

        I have many other questions as well. Does anyone know a central source for these types of questions post registering?

        If so, please let me know. Directly emailing is fine (jkit02@yahoo.com)

        I wish all on this site the best of luck in their struggles with this horrific and god forsaken law. Though I have been granted relief, I have no illusions that it cannot happen to me again in the future due to some vote pandering politician or DA.

        Thank you

        • Paul 2

          Wow dude good news If you can you should ask your lawyer if they can’t help maybe a call to Aaron Marcus at the Philly defenders office. I would think they would have to delete any DNA info on you.

        • Paul 2

          I am hoping you can find an attorney to sue PSP for their deliberate acts of keeping you on registry this is illegal and they are liable. Even one day.

  36. Brian

    Anyone hear any news on Muniz, he was supposed to be back the 16th I thing it was, I could be wrong though.

  37. who removes from list

    @ WALT JIM K

    My husband says congrads. His motion to enforce plea and removal of SORNA is in the lower court. He is waiting on his hearing. His Failure to Register Charges under Sorna for internet identifiers have been dismissed. So the arresting county of the charges admits they cant prosecute him on the failure to register per MUNIZ. With the dismissal of charges, the Muniz Decision and now your case and removal from the registry my husband and his attorney have all they would need to have the lower court do the right thing and grant his plea agreement and sentence requirements, due to no Megans Law 3, there would be no requirements for him.

    We are just watching the HOUSE BILL 1952, to pass through the Senate and Wolf before he is granted his lower court hearing.

    My husband wants to ask you, do you have to register under HOUSE BILL 1952 is passed?

    • Paul 2

      His offense was not registrable on ML pre SORNA so he shouldn’t be on new law.

    • Jim

      Who’s on the list – Paul- Mike. Etc.

      I’ve been fighting this illegal crap since 2012.
      I had no idea I was pleading guilty to a “sex” registration offense when I signed the plea to 3 M3 misdemeanors in 2011.

      I fought my way off the list in 2015 – and i was off for one year until the county DA with an axe to grind used Comm. v Farabaugh to put me back on in 2016… This DA will never stop trying to do it again to me, as my brother has an ongoing lawsuit against him since 2010.
      The only way he will stop is running o be voted out of office.
      This is the DA in charge of his assistant, Ryan Dobo, who made a fo of himself in front of the Pa. Supreme Court justices. (Clearfield county, Pa.)

      I’ll never make the mistake of being complacent and thinking no one can do this to me again!!!

      I lost my professional health care license because of the he guilty plea- then I had just opened a salvage food store in 2011 when I was first and d by my po that I must register.

      I’ve spent a lot of $ on lawyers since 2012. Money that should have gone into my business. The lawyers were mostly “on the take” and fairly willing to do the da’s bidding… I was lucky (Muniz). I think Muniz is something he can’t take away from me, no matter how badly he wants to? I hope.

      I still need to speak to someone knowledgeable in sex offender laws.
      I need to know if I can travel to other states on vacation- or if I should stay put in Pa. amongst other questions…
      If anyone can point me to a good source for “post” Megan’s law questions, I would greatly appreciate it.
      Good luck to all of you that have had your lives ruined to enrich a DA of polititian’s statistics. Eventually, someone is going to go off and put these unholy laws front and center. That is apparently what it is going to take for the public to join the conversation and rise up for change.

      • Michael

        What would make you think you can’t travel to other states? I have lived in two different states in the last 18 years and have not heard of any state that requires tourists to register as sex offenders. I think Nevada still requires felons to notify their presence when visiting, but that is not sex offender specific.

        ….

        • AJ

          @Michael:
          “I have lived in two different states in the last 18 years and have not heard of any state that requires tourists to register as sex offenders.”
          —–
          Are you kidding? The laws of every state I’ve looked at mandate registration. They do it in a slippery way by saying anyone convicted of blah, blah, blah is considered a resident for registration purposes after X days. If nothing else, I suggest you try a week or two of Florida tourism and see how that works for you.

      • Paul 2

        A question I have is if the state you are convicted in ends your registration and you decide to visit a new state or move there would you be subject to their reg laws I believe a person would because they are different laws. DOES ANYONE KNOW THE TRUE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION?

        • Michael

          You shouldn’t be, but unfortunately you may well be depending on the state, it’s requirements and it’s courts. Obviously in PA, you get credit statutorily, and there is also case precedence regarding credit for time on another registry and the equal protection clause. Obviously, PA and the PA courts can see it one way, but OH and NY can see it completely different ways. The problem there lies in Congress. First of all, before the passage of the Jacob Whetterling Act, Congress said laws like this were unconstitutional. Then, tada! They no longer were and the Jacob Whetterling Act was passed and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Not that the states were required to pass any SOR laws, but the problem is, Congress didn’t require uniformity so that if a person moved from one state to another, the requirement, if any, was the same in every state.

          ….

        • AJ

          Yes, you can be. Since it’s regulation, each state is free to define the regulation criteria as they see fit. Think of it this way: what’s the difference between someone who was never on the registry of their state and now is (due to retroactivity), and someone who’s off and moves to another state? Answer: No difference. Thanks to Smith, any state can retroactively “regulate” anyone ever convicted of a SO, regardless how much time has passed. If my memory serves me right, LA even forces registration after pardons!

        • CR

          I agree with you. I’ve made similar observations a number of times. I suspect some people simply don’t want to believe it, so they ignore the plain obvious fact that no relief from a duty to register can ever be considered final.

          Unless and until the SCOTUS explicitly reverses their holdings in Smith v Doe, we will never be safe from recapture under some future registration law.

          But that’s not all. At this time we are the ones primarily subject to retroactively imposed regulations that effectively annul our liberties and strip us of our freedom. Yet everyone in this country is at risk of similar treatment so long as government can retroactively impose putative regulatory laws that actually constitute punishment. The general public doesn’t get that. Yet.

      • Mike S.

        Jim,

        The way that I understand the requirements of having to register as an out of state RC, is that you need to be a RC. You are off the registry so you can travel domestically at will without notifying any SORN office. Below is an interesting link that outlines all of the states that require out of state registration, all but 3 state require it! That did not shock me at all. What did shock me was that PA was one of the 3 states that does not require out of state registration.

        My only concern would be if you were off of the registry in your home state but you were on another states registry, like Florida who never takes you off even if you are just saying hi to Mickey for a week. I could see some D-Bag cop running your licence at a traffic stop through NCIC and getting a hit on the Florida Registry and now your are looking at an F3.

        https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/WhenaSOComestoVisit-Rolfe.pdf

        • Jim

          Thanks Mike S.

          Exactly. That is what I worry over now…

          If I am in say- NY for a couple of weeks seeing family- and get pulled over, my license is ran and the “sex” offense comes up on my record from 2010.

          Or if I vacation in Florida for a week or two and the same thing happens…

          Does just having this offense on my record or the fact that some corrupt DA made me register for a couple of years in PA – going to give some DA in Florida, NY or wherever the grounds to say I should be registered in that state?

          That is my main concern going forward.

          And of course, being pulled for scrutiny if I fly somewhere in the future…

          Thanks again

        • Mike S

          Jim,

          I read the Florida, New Jersey and NY laws on registering as an out of state RC, and you have to be on the registry to be required to register in those states.

          I am expecting relief from HB 1952 or Muniz as I am on year 12 of my 10 year pre-SORNA, once removed from PA registry (and I have not registered in any other state) I am not concern one bit about traveling in the US AT ALL. I will still have a felony conviction but so do many people in this county. I will be putting the registry and everything that it required of me in my rearview and moving on.

          Mike

        • Sam

          The last I read the NY registry one it had said If the crime is registerable in NY you would have to register regardless if you werent on the registry in another state. But that’s if you’re in the state longer than a “visit” I believe.

          If you end up on NYs registry for life for level 2 or 3 by NY laws regardless if you move out of the state or country. But me writing this is like beating a dead horse since its been said so much already. I still don’t get how NY can get such sovereignty that it can push it’s jurisdiction internationally.

        • Paul 2

          Giddy up, brother. It’s funny how things we have thought we wouldn’t be able to do are now possibilities. Like a trek across the Appalachian trail, or a train or Harley ride across country, or starting a business without the threat of bad employees telling customers about you, so many things. How about a nice cruise, or take. your wife or girlfriend to Paris, or just better health and less stress. I hope that all of us that get the relief we are due can show real numbers and statistics in the future to provide even more proof that reg is a smoke and mirror farce perpetuated by politicians for political gain plain and simple.

        • Michael

          That is not correct. One of the states on that list is AZ. I checked their law and it requires only non-residents to register if they attend an educational institution or are employed in the state. PA law is the same, as I am sure it is everywhere.

          AZ Law:

          E. A person who has been convicted, adjudicated guilty except insane or adjudicated delinquent and who is required to register in the convicting or adjudicating state for an act that would constitute an offense specified in subsection A or C of this section and who is not a resident of this state shall be required to register pursuant to this section if the person is either:
          1. Employed full-time or part-time in this state, with or without compensation, for more than fourteen consecutive days or for an aggregate period of more than thirty days in a calendar year.
          2. Enrolled as a full-time or part-time student in any school in this state for more than fourteen consecutive days or for an aggregate period of more than thirty days in a calendar year. For the purposes of this paragraph, “school” means an educational institution of any description, public or private, wherever located in this state.

          I see nothing in AZ law that suggests tourists/visitors must register.

          ….

  38. Who Removes from list

    http://cumberlink.com/news/local/looking-ahead-new-da-could-bring-changes-to-criminal-justice/article_c5d50eb1-de54-5173-b98b-7de4f4f6ed6a.html

    Wow, New DA Ebert has a different outlook on the PA Supreme Court Decision. He would rather not chance the US Supreme Court!

    • Michael

      “He said that if proposed changes are made to the state law, he may withdraw the appeal, adding that a loss at the U.S. Supreme Court would set precedent for the entire country.”

      If the case set precedent for the entire country, then everyone should be hoping that SCOTUS grants cert. It’s ruling won’t effect the PASC’s decision regarding the PA Constitution.

      “Emotionally with victims and the public (the registry) sounds like a great idea, but how many people are really protected,” Ebert said. “We get plenty of arrests because people don’t register. It has a feel-good aspect to it, but I’m not sure it’s enhancing the public safety.”

      That’s refreshing. You don’t hear a lot of people in the law enforcement community admitting that the SOR laws don’t protect anyone, or enhance public safety. In a roundabout way, he’s saying the laws are punitive, although I am sure he wouldn’t admit it.

      ….

      • Paul 2

        Because he has some respect for the constitution and an ex judge. Not many like him anymore. Freed is a sell out and things will catch up to the puke watch one day we will see it in the news yellow bellies always mess up sooner or later. Like Muniz brief says there isn’t anything for the SCOTUS to do on this case if they accept it they will panic and with draw it ether way we have a huge pot to play cards with now because it shows more cases will go our way when they do hit SCOTUS AND PASC

        Can anyone post a case if they see one that was filled recently that got relief on Muniz my guess because PSP is pulling shit still their will be some coming by soon. I know a lot have gone by that were filed before the PSP called stay but there has to be some in the works post PSP called stay.

      • Paul 2

        Just realized they are pretty much admitting this is a delay tactic and are hoping it gets denied.

    • AJ

      Thanks for posting this, WRFL. The new DA speaks with the wisdom of a judge, instead of the rabidness of a politician. Hopefully he keeps that stance as the months wear on.

      I’m somewhat confused by his statement that a denial would make a national precedent. Just because it creates precedent, doesn’t mean it has to be followed outside the jurisdiction (here: PA). I get that it will carry more weight (a la Snyder does, post-denial), I wonder how much. I’m a little troubled that he doesn’t want it to establish precedent. That points to something in him, though I’m not sure what.

      No matter what, Cumberland County is freed of Freed!

  39. David

    “…. the state Supreme Court has found that Pennsylvania’s sex offender registration system is punitive, and therefore cannot be applied to defendants retroactively.” 
    ….  “But it is unclear how the Pennsylvania State Police, which administers the sex-offender registration program, will respond to the changes required by the Supreme Court opinion.”
    If PASC says it’s punishment, then PA State Police should have no jurisdiction to administer it because PA Dept. of Corrections would implement any “punishment”, not PA State Police. PA State Police could enforce it (i.e., arrest people for not following a law), but they are not Corrections and, therefore, should not be in the position of administering anything deemed “punishment”. In effect, PASP should have “no standing”.

    • Michael

      I don’t think PSP is sitting on their thumbs. They know they’ll have to remove people and no doubt Brooke and the others in the Megans Law Unit have been going through the files.

      ….

  40. Brian

    So my question is, if they withdraw their appeal to scotus how does that work then? If they say we’re not going to fight Muniz anymore then Muniz wins and only so’s in pa winn, not anyone else?

    • Paul 2

      Most everyone is saying SCOTUS will not take the case anyway. Only people in PA that were pre SORNA that had enhancement added to their registration will benefit if that happens. However I believe SCOTUS will have to clarify things eventually because the info smith was decided on was false and everyone knows it now. People in other states can use Muniz and others to show punishment.

    • Michael

      SCOTUS will deny cert. Not that it matters either way. The PA legislature is amending the law to abide by the decision by the PASC.

      ….

  41. Mike S

    UPDATE ON HB1952….

    The Senate judiciary committee got the bill this morning for their vote. The Senate will not meet and vote on any bills until January 22nd (unless called back by the Senate pro-temp)

    SCOTUS now has Muniz and is able to render a yay or nay vote as early as January 8th. (Conference is held every Friday and the decisions are announced the following Monday)

    It appears that the race is on. If SCOTUS denies before HB 1952, I hope that all that are able file something with the courts.

    • Paul 2

      Lets hope not sure why no attorneys or experts on this site or others haven’t offered any input on this just shows in reality we can only depend on others in the same situation.

    • Paul 2

      I was hoping someone would provide a generic pro say petition for PA trial courts for people who have done their 10yrs also include two or more 10yr.

      1 based on Muniz people with 10yr reg that was enhanced to tier 2 or 3 must go back to 10yr

      2 based on Lutz-Morrison and others two 10yr can’t combine to make life.

      3 order PSP to immediately remove person from reg obligation and site.

      4 order PSP that any new reg law can not be applied to person because of equal protection

      PSP doesn’t have to be listed

    • Michael

      No one should have been waiting for SCOTUS to deny cert. Anyone due relief should have filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Commonwealth court in Harrisburg.

      ….

      • Paul 2

        I haven’t seen one case filed after this so called stay. Why his that?

  42. Mike S

    UPDATE FROM SCOTUS

    Jan 03 2018 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2018.

    That means that 1/22/2018 we “Should” have a decision.

    SCOTUS can certainly table this case and let it sit for as long as they feel.

    1/22/2018 is the next meeting of the PA Senate where they will vote on HB 1952, BUT they need it to be voted on 3 times, should be interesting. If SCOTUS delays its vote based 1/22, I will lose all faith in SCOTUS as they would be working in conjunction “with” the PA Legislature.

    • Paul 2

      I thought senate only voted once?

    • AJ

      SCOTUS can redistribute as many times as it sees fit, so reading anything into that statement is baseless. (Masterpiece Cakeshops was relisted some 14 – 16 times in the 2016 OT, then accepted at the very end, and heard in the 2017 OT.)

      As far as SCOTUS working with PA’s (or any) Legislature, I suggest you check the mirror, your paranoia is showing. If nothing else, SCOTUS would never “stoop” to associating with a legislature, a state one at that! If SCOTUS is pulling any sort of move, it may be that they’re delaying a cert decision, and are “forcing” the legislature’s hand. Based on what the PA legislature does, SCOTUS may decide it then merits review. I doubt this is what’s happening, it’s merely the only conjecture I can contrive.

      • Michael

        SCOTUS won’t grant cert because their decision would apply nationally as it would have in the Michigan case had it been decided in it’s favor. Personally, I am not sure Neil Gorsuch would side with the former Cumberland DA. Kennedy would also be a toss up.

        ….

        • Michael

          Don’t think this made it into my edit regarding Gorsuch. He dissented in United States v. Nichols

          United States v. Nichols, 784 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2015) (dissented from denial of rehearing en banc)

          The panel had held that SORNA requires sex offenders to notify authorities if they plan to leave the country.

          Gorsuch: “Beyond this matter of statutory interpretation, though, lies a constitutional question that deserves more notice. If the separation of powers means anything, it must mean that the prosecutor isn’t allowed to define the crimes he gets to enforce. Yet, that’s precisely the arrangement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act purports to allow in this case and a great many more like it.”

          ….

        • Paul 2

          Michael, how is a DA defining the crimes? In what way? This I don’t get.

        • Michael

          I don’t understand the question.

        • Paul 2

          This part

          “If the separation of powers means anything, it must mean that the prosecutor isn’t allowed to define the crimes he gets to enforce. “

        • AJ

          That’s the Gorsuch I hope to see appear sometime soon. So far, he comes across to me as a know-it-all and more in the conservative, not libertarian/civil liberties, realm.

      • Paul 2

        I see your point I’m not thinking the rats are in the SCOTUS just in how PA timed this all out.

  43. Who Removes from list

    As you all know my husbands failure to register under SORNA charges were dismissed, internet identifiers.

    As you all may know he filed a motion to enforce his plea agreement in Oct 2017. Along with Habeas for Removal from Registry.

    Early February 2018 is his hearing in the lower court. They didnt deny his motion, so that is a good start!

    • Paul 2

      Awesome

      Did he have a 10yr reg agreement in his plea?

      • who removes from list

        He took a plea of guilt to one count of IDSI in 2006. Then he was assessed by the SOAB as a non violent sex offender. IDSI was a lifetime registrant conviction. The DA did not seek SVP Status. He was to only register ONE TIME PER YEAR, for LIFE and only be required to register his house, his car, his school, and his job.

        Like all of you he was forced onto SORNA in 2012.

        Then in 2016 he was charged with a failure to register, internet identifiers.

        Then in July 2017, Muniz Decision deemed it it unconstitutional to force PRE SORNA onto SORNA.

        Right before my husband trial for his failure to register, the MUNIZ Decision came out, and the JUDGE postponed the trial until all the Muniz drama was over.

        Then my husbands attorney filed two Motions, A Motion to Dismiss the Failure to Register Charge under SORNA in the arresting account. And A Motion to enforce Plea to his sentencing court. (TWO DIFFERENT COUNTIES)

        His Motion to dismiss was granted a hearing in Nov 2017. The DA asked for 30 days to file a brief, this was a delay tactic. They never filed the brief. They just dismissed the charges, per the MUNIZ Decision.

        As of today my husband lower court motion to enforce plea was granted a hearing in Febuary 2018.

        His arguement is this, at the time of his plea and due to Muniz Decision he is required to register under MEGANS LAW 3, since Megans Law 3 has expired and since there is nothing for my husband to register under, he is requesting order of the court to be removed from SORNA because it is unconstitutional to force him to register under SORNA. And yes, there will be discussion of no more registration, because Megans Law 3 does not exist, therefore there is nothing for my husband to register under.

        And at the hearing, my husbands attorney will be reminding the court, if HOUSE BILL 1952 passes, that my husband did not agree to SORNA or HOUSE BILL 1952 at the time of his plea agreement therefore he should not be forced onto HOUSE BILL 1952 either.

        • Paul 2

          He must have an Aggravated IA in order to make life reg. IA7 was 10yrs. I really hope this works for him, but I think that the new bill will apply because they are saying it isn’t punitive so it can be applied retroactive. Reg during a plea would only come in to play if it is show to be punitive such as an increase in time. The new law is the same as the one when he plead. Also the DA doesn’t decide if someone can or will be designated an SVP the sex offender assessment board, Certified evaluator and the trial judge did up until a few months ago. The new bill is trying to keep that the same but was ruled unconstitutional. ML3 was ruled unconstitutional so SORNA won’t apply but new bill might pick him up.

        • Who Removes from list

          He is okay with whatever happens because his charges were dimissed and he doesnt have to provide them anymore under House Bill 1952.

        • Paul 2

          Got you, makes sense. I am wondering if the SCOTUS might pick this up because no one has defined what PASC is calling punitive with SORNA in the Muniz case. Who’s to say they didn’t decide everything is punitive? Just because previous ML reg were ruled non punitive doesn’t mean that they changed their mind. PASC will have to define it or new bill will have to be challenged or SCOTUS will maybe rule on it. What David is saying could be right because the whole thing could be punishment.

  44. Mike s

    IDSI is Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Usually the plea down for Rape, which is lifetime.

    It will be very interesting to see, if you have the resources, how an appellate court will view your case??

    Basically it looks like you arguing that your husband is the victim of a “punishment sandwich”?

    2006 – ML3 which is civil and statutory, so you have no fight
    2012 – SORNA which is deemed punishment, you have a fight.
    2018 – HB1952 which is civil.

    Wow! I can’t begin to untangle that one and I fear that a Common Pleas Judge would be hard pressed to go out on a ledge and side with your husband knowing that his decision is certainly going to be headed for an appeal.

    Keep us up to date and start thinking about how to round up support. I asked my attorney how much the A.S. Case cost from start to finish and he said $25k. Just putting a number in your head to start thinking about.

    Good luck.

  45. Who Removes from list

    @ Mike Megans Law 3 is expired, deleted, doesnt exist anymore. SORNA deleted it and with out a saving card if someone like Muniz one, hence House Bill 1952 is getting passed to fix it.

    My husband know he will more than likely be back on House Bill 1952, but legally fixing a unconstitutional ruling with a new law? May be great in the eyes of our government in bed with the PSP. But will the PA Supreme Court agree? The PA Supreme Court ruling of Muniz was so well written that their INTENT was to remove anyone prior to SORNA knowing that Megans Law 1 2 or 3 doesnt exist. Think about that, our court was smart enough to know that all hell is breaking loose when they decided Muniz!

    • Mike s

      Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the fight and the law that you are asserting and nothing would make me happier than everyone Pre-SORNA to be removed from the list as all of OUR rights have been infringed.

      I just have little faith in the lower courts and how this Commonwealth knows that for $62 they can keep on filing appeals that ultimately end up stiflingly these worthwhile fights.

      Also a fear of mine is that the next round of laws that will follow that kind of court victory will be overblown as well.

      You and I both know that 188 PA house members that voted unanimously to pass HB 1952 did not read all ~180 pages of the bill and none of them read 65 pages of the Muniz decision. All they read was the Press Release and they know you NEVER vote against SO laws.

      If you get to the appellate level on your case, let me know…..I’m in for a grand!

      Mike

      • Paul 2

        Good point we have to pool our resources in a pinpoint manner to beat this thats why I’m hoping someone puts something together in PA

      • Paul 2

        If SCOTUS takes MUNIZ game is on. Was wondering would the punitive aspects of any reg laws come into play in Muniz? If so these frs might take the case. Muniz will have to be fortified.

        • CR

          SCOTUS didn’t grant cert to Snyder v Does. That was a case that came up through the federal court system. Muniz is a state court case that ended up at the PASC. The PASC ultimately based its decision on the Pennsylvania state constitution, not federal.

          Respondent’s (counsel for Muniz) brief in opposition to the PA Commonwealth’s petition for grant of certiorari is here:

          https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-575/24380/20171219133624328_Brief%20in%20Opposition%2017-575.pdf

          They make a very strong case for denying cert based principally on the fact that the PASC’s “decision rests upon adequate and independent state law grounds, …”.

          It is very unlikely that SCOTUS will grant cert to PA Commonwealth’s petition.

        • AJ

          @CR:
          Actually, PASC ruled on both state and federal constitutional grounds. They ruled upon the federal aspect, which would have solved the state issue as well, but then out of courtesy to Muniz, addressed his specific state claim as well. Their doing that spoke volumes to me, as they could just as easily have said, “since we’ve already ruled it violates the federal consitution, it automatically violates the state one, and no further review is warranted.”

          The route to SCOTUS is irrelevant. That said, I doubt SCOTUS will take on Muniz. I hope they do, though, because I see only one reason to do so: affirming. I don’t foresee them taking it on to overturn, because PASC’s already-issued opinion under the state constitution means SCOTUS’s overturning would be advisory only. SCOTUS itself has said it does not hear cases that will have only advisory outcomes.

        • CR

          You are right, AJ. I thought, incorrectly, that PASC had made their determination on state constitutional grounds, and then considered the federal constitution subsequently. But I just reread the opinion and found the opposite to be true. They decided based on the US constitution, and only afterwards considered the PA constitution.

          The rationale PASC gave for analyzing SORNA under the PA constitution, despite noting that it wasn’t required following a finding that SORNA violated the ex post facto prohibition of the US constitution, was to preserve their decision for Pennsylvania in the event that the case were appealed to SCOTUS and overturned.

          Since the PASC analysis under the PA constitution resulted in a decision that rests on adequate and independent state grounds, it will not be affected if SCOTUS grants cert and overturns it based on federal ex post facto analysis. I believe that Muniz is the law in PA, regardless of what SCOTUS does.

          Muniz only concerns the constitutionality of the PA SORNA act, its holding is applicable only in PA, and it sets no precedent outside of PA. Since PASC determined that SORNA violates the PA constitution, it doesn’t matter (in PA) whether or not SCOTUS agrees with PASC with respect to the US constitution.

          If SCOTUS were to grant cert merely to affirm, it would have no effect on the holding by the PASC, and it would not extend the holding beyond PA since it is specific to the PA SORNA act, which doesn’t exist outside of PA. An affirmation by SCOTUS would be an advisory opinion. Ergo, there is no reason for SCOTUS to grant cert in order to affirm.

          If SCOTUS were to grant cert to overturn, it would have no effect on the holding by the PASC based on the PA constitution. Overturning it would also be an advisory opinion. Ergo, there is no reason for SCOTUS to grant cert in order to overturn.

          Hopefully we’ll know by January 22 since the case is being distributed for conference on January 19th. It could also be relisted.

  46. David

    @Who Removes from list: 👍 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was very clear: it’s unconstitutional. Period.
    No matter what color lawmakers paint it, what shape they twist it into, or what name they call it, Unconstitutional is Unconstitutional!!

    • who removes from list

      FINAL DISPOSITION of my husband Failure to Register Charges have been filed, 2 counts failure to register charges both Felonies have been dismissed!

      Reason: The Muniz Decision is state law, and they can’t prosecute him for his internet identifiers because under Muniz he is not to disclosed any information, under the SORNA PA crime code to PSP because SORNA is unconstitutional applied to him!

      VICTORY NUMBER ONE!!

      Now he has a lower court hearing, his sentencing court from 2006, which the conviction of IDSI placed him under the EXPIRED MEGANS LAW 3 and then under SORNA Illegally, in Dec 2012.

      The hearing is in February 2018, using this dismissal and the Muniz Decision that he should be removed from SORNA.

      We will worry about HOUSE BILL 1952 and cross that bridge when we get there.

      ONE VICTORY AT A TIME!

  47. JC's wife

    Hi, I sent comments and suggested changes to House Bill 1952 that have been submitted to each Representative, Senator Greenleaf and the media outlets that have covered this Bill. You can check it out here:

    https://justincorliss.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/new-bill-to-register-offenders-may-be-rife-with-errors/

    There are a number of infirmities that anyone this Bill effects should be aware of and you should voice your concerns directly to the Representatives to recall the Bill, for changes or to have suggested changes made by the Senate before this becomes law.

    My husband, Justin Corliss filed pro se petition for allowance of appeal on SORNA that the Pa. Supreme Court granted, having identified SORNA as a punitive ex post facto law in 2013. Docket #: 399 MAL 2016

    • R M

      Thank you Justin and wife for standing up and fighting against these ridiculous laws, as others have also done. I am also continuing to voice my opinion audibly (to certain people) and in writing to my congressmen and reform advocates. Again, thank you.

      • JC's wife

        You’re welcome, R M. It’s been a long battle and let’s keep fighting!

        • Paul 2

          JC why is your start date on reg 10/20/2016 if you’re incarcerated?

        • JC's wife

          Paul 2, I was confused with your question. I asked Justin, he thought it was the day of his sentencing. And then I checked Megan’s Law website so now I know what you were talking about. He was falsely convicted twice, one in 1997 and in 2016 (2 cases). I know it’s hard to believe but I believe him and I know the details of all the stories. Jury knew not even 10% of the whole stories and he was falsely convicted again. The court, DA hate him so much because he is a fighter and sued everybody. They misrepresented the DNA evidence from 1997, and never had DNA expert testified. Our lawyer did absolutely nothing!

    • Brian

      JC’s Wife
      Wow I like what was written, I like all of the questions but I really like the question of why no public opinion was asked or invited to the conversation, their doing it like they did with SORNA, they specifically said it flew under the radar without a problem just like they want to do with HB 1952, it would be nice if it lit up the radar and PASC was able to do something about it before it causes havoc for many.

      • Paul 2

        I called all of them in the house judiciary about no in put from experts no reply. Now its in the senate judiciary hope they have a public hearing

      • JC's wife

        Brian, the PASC assumes all legislation is vetted correctly and constitutional and thus are not tasked with checking laws that are passed – until we challenge them in court. The objective is to fix the Bill before it becomes law. It is not a popular topic but the facts are on our side. The House Reps that are cosigning the Bill likely didn’t even read it, their staff do, and it’s difficult to find one that functionally understands the impact of the Bill as written. Contact your Representatives and Senators! – JC

        • Paul 2

          JC’s wife

          I hate to say this but after reading the info on your husbands case I think you should except that he is in denial Also, by the looks of things he will be locked up for a long time. You should move on with your life without this guy because I believe he is dangerous. Way too many coincidences. It’s not fair to you. I’m just being honest.

        • R M

          Paul 2, who are you to judge that someone is dangerous and that wife should move on with her life? I’m pretty sure JC’s wife knows him better than anyone and can decide for herself.

        • Paul 2

          I read the facts in the cases and made my opinion So maybe you should too before you play the white night card.

        • Knight to Queens Bishop 3

          May your White Knight show in up during a Night in White Satin

        • R M

          Ok God.

        • Sam

          You sure you didn’t just see her petition onlone and think that she was cute? (I’m just kidding)

          I read through it and the whole situation with JC is confusing and messy. It could probably make for a Daytime Emmy had it been just a script and not his life.

          I think that on her part as being a newlywed she actually shows a lot of trust in her husband and has the love to back it up. A lot of women would leave at the first sign of trouble like this not openly ask for help from the public.

          Anyway not really sure where I was going with this, I commend her dedication to her husband. But as for his case I think only he knows what really happened, whether it was actual or just spiteful people. I hope the best to JC and his wife.

        • Paul 2

          You caught me Sam. No I just know the power that SOs have over the women in their lives and how they brain wash them With my experience being an SO and learning quite a bit about it over the years I have the opinion that this women should move on people don’t catch that many cases over that long of a period time that haven’t offended plain and simple, that is one thing, but the dangerous thing about this is how this guy is still acting like he’s innocent, not good. I think what I said is important, to pretend otherwise is not doing anyone any favors.

        • NPS

          No. What you’re doing is projecting, and that is quite obvious with your “With my experience being an SO.” It’s not YOUR life. It’s not YOUR case.

          She made her choice to stand by him. Live and live and let live.

        • AJ

          No, what’s happening is someone who came to this site for support, education, and more…didn’t get it. Instead, she’s probably now feeling a little less hope, a little less willing to speak.

          @Paul 2, I’m normally onboard with things you say, but I think this was uncalled for. It certainly didn’t help someone who was seeking it. It merely judged her…and him.

        • David Kennerly, A Jumped-Up Pantry Boy Who Never Knew His Place

          I guess I missed the part where J.C.’s Wife started off her post with “Dear Abby…”

        • Paul 2

          Projecting or defending MY opinion is not YOUR business anyway Its more important to break the cycle than enforce dilution thinking

        • David Kennerly, A Jumped-Up Pantry Boy Who Never Knew His Place

          Paul 2: I see, so it’s not MY business that you are making someone else’s life YOUR business. I like that. As far as breaking cycles, sounds like someone’s been drinking the treatment Kool-Aide. Funny, I thought that it was already quite “dilute.”

        • Paul 2

          Thanks you made my point for me.

        • Then say nothing and don't judge

          @paul 2

          If you hate to say anything, then don’t say anything that exposes your judgement. JC wife did not ask for an opinion or judgement.

          “Judge not, that ye be not judged.

          For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

          And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

        • Paul 2

          I have notice there isn’t very much common sense coming out of California These Days lol Ye haw.

  48. Brian

    Would be nice for someone to tell the PASC what’s up but it wouldn’t mater anyhow because it doesn’t have to go through PASC to pass unfortunately.
    As of this point the bill helps me and not a lot of others because my time is long overdue, when I saw the Muniz decision go down I was like it’s finally over and then it was challenged, then all this back and forth stuff. Good things come to those who wait I believe.

  49. Brian

    5 days till conference, then Monday 22nd we will God willing we will have good news on Muniz, let’s focus on the issue at hand here y’all.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • 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 *