Roughly two weeks ago the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed the state’s current sex offender registration law to be punishment and ultimately barred by both the state and federal constitutions when applied retroactively.
That decision may now end up under review from the highest court in the country.
Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed said Friday his office would ask the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, which was handed down on July 19. Full Article
Found Muniz docket sheet showing Freed filed a Application to Stay Remand on aug 9th https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=47+MAP+2016
Here are the rules AJ maybe you can interpret it for us.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/210/chapter25/s2572.html
I have found no docket for the hearing PSP mentioned on the 14 sept. I think he was referring to a meeting of some sort left a message for him to clarify.
As I wrote this earlier for my husband,
“There is no stay. They didnt get the stay approved because if they did then we wouldn’t have had 5 cases that used Muniz to make a decision. Last week on the 16th 17th and 18th the Muniz decision was a deciding factor and those court cases. As of yesterday Gilbert and Reed won their case because of the Muniz decision. PSP is just blowing smoke and not giving you guys straight answers. They’re delaying the process and hope that the US appeal court hears the case. If the Muniz decision was stayed then Muniz wouldn’t have been released from the registry. Take a look he’s not there.”
His name is Jose Muniz, he is not the Megans Law website anymore. He was removed the day of the decision. Again take a look!
If they stayed the decision, he would be on the list, its that simple!
From an article:
Union County (Pa.) District Attorney Pete Johnson said the new law should be respected.
“The Supreme Court ruling is our highest court ruling,” Johnson said. “We have to follow it. The people who got pulled into the registration under those old circumstances are going to be off the registry itself.”
Johnson said some individuals who had to register for 10 years would have been forced onto the lifetime list, but the new law will now take them off the list.
“The Supreme Court said you are going backwards if you apply that and that can’t be done,” Johnson said. “They ruled that was punishing people without due process.”
Everyone needs to see this MOTION TO ENFORCE PLEA AGREEMENT, overturned by the Superior Court.
The courts are talking to all of us and we are all sitting here not paying attention. PRO SE PEOPLE!
File a motion to enforce plea agreement if you took one.
Attach your criminal docket that the PSP used to place you on SORNA.
Attach the Muniz Decision Supreme Court Case, The Reed Case, The Gilbert, this case and all recent court decisions using the MUNIZ Decision and set yourselves free from SORNA.
The courts are not waiting people, they are honoring the law.
The only ones waiting are you and my husband!
My husband will be filing pro se to enforce his plea agreement.
His Plea Agreement was in 2006. His conviction was 2006.
Today in the Superior Court level, they overturned the Common Pleas Court Order and vacated an order and remanded back to lower court, in this case this man was not even required to register with RAPE, IDSI, KIDNAPPING, etc. He will be off the registry people!! The PSP are not going to help us. The courts are going to help us!
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/judgment%20order%20-%20vacated-remanded%20-%2010322271522995966.pdf#search=%22sorna 2017%22
Husband wanted me to post this, he has set up a bookmark that when he hits it brings him right to the PA Supreme Court, “Sorna Muniz 2017”. Hit this link and see the July 19 2017 Muniz Ruling and the other cases that applied it to there recent rulings. It will lead you to everything you need to know as soon as new case is decided applying Muniz it will show up in this link.
https://wwwsecure.pacourts.us/sitesearch.aspx?q=sorna+Muniz+2017
RULES OF US SUPREME COURT for filing an appeal:
1. The Supreme Court of the United States has authority to review by writ of certiorari federal court decisions.
2. The Supreme Court also has authority to review by writ of certiorari the decisions of the highest state courts.
3. A petition for certiorari seeks Supreme Court review not as a matter of right but as a matter of judicial discretion.
4. Who can petition for certiorari?
Any party to a civil or criminal case can file a petition for review of the case by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari. The party filing the petition is called the petitioner.
5. When does a petition for certiorari have to be filed?
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the highest state court or of a federal court of appeals in a civil or criminal case has to be filed within 90 days after entry of the judgment. Four of the nine justices must vote to grant the petition for certiorari. (90 days from the Muniz Decision – July 19, 2017)
6. What should the petition for certiorari contain?
The petition for certiorari begins with the questions presented for review. The petition includes a list of all parties in the case and a brief statement of the facts of the case, along with summary of the lower courts’ proceedings. The petition also includes a statement as to why the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case. All statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions involved in the case must be included in the petition. Finally, the petition gives the reasons for granting review.
7. What is a brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari?
The party opposing the certiorari petition (known as the respondent) has 30 days after receiving the petition to file a brief in opposition. The respondent presents any reasons the Supreme Court should not review the case.
8. What are the types of cases in which certiorari is typically granted?
The Supreme Court will generally grant certiorari in the following instances when:
a. A federal court of appeals has rendered a judgment that conflicts with the decision of another federal court of appeals on the same question
b. A federal court of appeals has decided a federal question in a manner that conflicts with a decision of the highest state court
c. The highest court in a state has decided a federal question in a manner that conflicts with the decision of the highest court in another state or with a decision of a federal court of appeals
d. A state court or a federal court of appeals has decided a federal question in a way that conflicts with a prior decision of the Supreme Court
9. What are the grounds for denying the petition for certiorari?
The Supreme Court will deny certiorari if it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. For example, the Supreme Court only has certiorari jurisdiction over a decision of a state’s highest court if the decision is a final judgment. The Supreme Court would deny certiorari if the decision sought to be reviewed was not a final judgment on the merits.
10. When will the Supreme Court dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted?
If after granting certiorari the Supreme Court concludes that the case does not present a substantial federal question for decision, it will dismiss certiorari as improvidently granted. Certiorari will also be dismissed if the petitioner lacks standing (a sufficient personal interest in the outcome of the case) to raise the issue presented in the petition for certiorari.
Also, if the judgment was not final or was not rendered by the highest state court, the writ will be dismissed. Generally, the Supreme Court does not issue an opinion when it dismisses a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
AFTER READING ALL OF THE ABOVE,
“THE MUNIZ CASE HAVING A STATE CONSTITUTION VIOLATION IN IT, AND USING ONLY THE FEDERAL EX POST FACTO RULE TO HELP DECIDE, BUT NOT MAKE THE DECISION ON THE PA STATE CONSTITUTION VIOLATION.”
“THE US SUPREME COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER TAKING THIS CASE DUE TO IT BEING A STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION, ONLY GOOD TO THE REGISTER SEX OFFENDERS INSIDE THE STATE OF PA, PRIOR TO SORNA 2012. THE PA SUPREME COURT ONLY DECIDED FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN THE STATE OF PA AND THE MUNIZ DECISION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE STATE OF PA. THIS MAY BE THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR THE REASON WHY THE US SUPREME COURT “DOESNT” GRANT APPEAL DUE TO THE LACK OF AUTHORITY OF THE MUNIZ DECISION IS THE OTHER 49 STATES.”
“THE MUNIZ DECISION WILL NOT AND CANNOT HELP ANYONE ON OR AFTER DECEMBER 20, 2012. AND CANT BE APPLIED TO ANY REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER IN ANY OTHER STATE IN THE USA. THEREFORE, MAKING IT A PA STATE DECISION WHICH MAY NOT HAVE THE US SUPREME COURT NOT HERE THIS CASE, UNLESS OTHER STATES USE THE MUNIZ DECISION TO DECIDE EX POST FACTO VIOLATIONS IN THE FUTURE, THEN THOSE STATE AG’S COULD APPEAL THERE OWN STATE DECISION, BASED OF MUNIZ NOT BEING THERE OWN STATE DECISION AND THEN THE US SUPREME COURT MAY HERE AN APPEAL. PA SUPREME COURT WAS SMART IN WRITING THERE DECISION, THEY PROTECTED THEMSELVES AGAINST THERE DECISION BEING OVERTURNED, IN AN APPEAL. THAT IS WHY THE US SUPREME COURT MAY, STAY OUT OF IT.”
“THE MUNIZ DECISION CANT BE USED TO HELP ANY STATE DECIDE ON RETROACTIVE LAWS FOR THE REGISTRY, IT CAN ONLY BE USED TO HELP SWAY THE COURTS IN OTHER STATES DECISIONS, BUT CANT BE THE DECIDING FACTOR.”
“SINCE MUNIZ CANT BE APPLIED TO ANY ON OR AFTER DEC 20 2012, OR ANY ONE OUTSIDE THE STATE OF PA. THE US SUPREME COURT WILL STAY OUT OF THIS FIGHT, DUE TO PA SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL WHY IS WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. AND THEY KNOW AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE US SUPREME COURT CANT OVERTURN THE PA STATE CONSTITUTION RULING OF MUNIZ IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND KNOWING IT CANT BE APPLIED TO ANY OUTSIDE THE STATE OF PA, WILL HAVE WEIGHT ON DENYING THE APPEAL.”
Looks like Muniz filled for an Answer to Freed’s Application for Stay of Remand
Appellant Muniz, Jose M. on the 23rd of Aug.
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=47+MAP+2016
The PA Supreme Court just issued a Stay in its ruling on Muniz.
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2017, upon review of the Commonwealth’s Application for Stay of Remand of Record Pending United States Supreme Court Review Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2572(c)” and Appellant’s Answer thereto, remand of the record in this case is hereby STAYED. The record shall be remanded on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 unless the Prothonotary receives notice prior to that date that the Commonwealth has filed a jurisdictional statement or petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Pa.R.A.P. 2572(c).
Everyone needs to remember one thing, the US Supreme Court did not “stay” the Michigan Decision pending an appeal. They havent even agreed to hear the appeal. My husband believes that even the “stay” may only be good until PA Files the Appeal, then it would be up to the US Supreme Court to grant or deny a “stay”. And in Michigan the US Supreme Court said no to the “stay” decision. My husband believes that PA is only pushing forward until they get told its over. The US Supreme Court may not agree to hear Michigan before Oct 17. They come back Oct 2 2017. And if the US Supreme Court says no to Michigan, then PA may not file appeal! Alot going on!
The beauty of this is that the State is attempting to snare otherwise non-violent, law abiding citizens into becoming this class of hated and despised sex offender, it’s not just about so’s wanting to get off a registry. These are people who have a legitimate complaint about being added to and punished longer on a registry: ” Roughly 2,000 people who had previously been convicted but not required to register were added to the state registry. This is not a group of the worst of the worst to be snubbed by the US Supreme court. This is the new backlash against SO laws– an ever expanding and all consuming monster. Are these people a threat to society must be asked, and I think this group works well for us–take it to the SCOTUS, idiot
An estimated 4,500 more people saw their registration requirements increase and many were required to register for life, according to the Associated Press.
“We’ve had clients where they’ve had previous registrations of 10 years or less than lifetime registrations and then having to come back and being told ‘you are now either lifetime or you are a 15-year registrant, 25-year registrant, something else,’” Cumberland County Chief Public Defender Michael Halkias said. ‘There’s been a lot of frustration from clients that it’s unfair that they now have these longer registration periods.’”
Looks like PCN will have the hearing in Harrisburg tomorrow on TV Please watch!
PCN Schedule
https://pcntv.com/schedule/?d=1
Free stream at 10am
https://pcntv.com/channel-2/
Freed sat in his chair and lied right threw his teeth. They will keep passing un constitutional laws until they run out of money they have no guilt over wasting tax payer money and causing mass hysteria for votes. I hope they do take case and force these potato heads to comply with the constitution. Notice they are willing to sign a bill with no testimony from other side disgraceful.
My husband wanted me to tell you all one thing.
No one is getting of the registry unless you were 10 years prior to the SORNA enactment or were never on it. Thats not what the MUNIZ DECISION is about. It is about added punishment.
If you were IDSI or the other lifetime registration crimes, all you will have to do is register 1 time a year, and only report the car, the home, the school, and the job and only one time per year, NOT 4 times a year. and any changes with in the 48 hr or 10 days required prior to SORNA.
The Muniz Decision, was won stating that SORNA is added punishment to a past crime and sentence.
Megans Law 3 was in place prior to Sorna, DA Freed, The PSP, and the Commonwealth made a very important point.
Make two websites, one for Sorna Requirements and One for Pre Sorna Megan’s Law.
This is perfectly stated because that means they are working to release the ones who should not be on SORNA, who never registered before. And release the 10 year registrants off it for good, if they have reached there 10 years and the lifetime pre sorna, get to just register one time per year and not the added SORNA Requirements, NO MORE INTERNET IDENTIFIER requirements for all PRE SORNA.
That alone is huge, freedom of speech is also given back to all of you and my husband!
We all are looking for own possible solution. My husband is okay with going back to the whatever, as long it is off SORNA. I hope for the best for you, but why do care if you are on some second site? As long as you are off SORNA, wasnt that the battle of Muniz? The register laws will soon be gone for good. Praise God for this little victory, admitting they are trying to come up with the best solution or fix means people are off the registry. And so you know, they cant make Megan’s Law 2, active, it was deemed unconstitutional also. Just saying!
ML 3 was deemed un constitutional, not 2. ML 3 was started 2004 I was sentenced 2003 there were no SO’s on the web site I think they had SVP’s up when I had to start reg in 2005 they had web site. I get your point on not being on SORNA but all they need is another way in to exploit things all over again.
We need treatment providers and attorneys to testify that reg doesn’t protect kids and to urge them to work on prevention All this effort to keep reg could be put to help potential victims from being hurt and get people the help they need before something happens. People deemed dangerous by professionals and the court are a different story and even that should afford people to show they have been rehabilitated and given a chance to be re heard every 5yrs or so. They will use this so called emergency to sneak by more unconstitutional laws that will take years and more tax payers dollars to strike down all over again. I hope that any SO in PA that is aware of whats going on starts talking on here so we can team up and start doing something about this and anyone else that can help, no one will do it for us. First we can contact all the legislators on this comity and ask them to hold a hearing with input from all sides before they draft more unconstitutional crap. Second we can contact people that can testify or file briefs to send in. Third we can start a class action to shut website down until due relief is afforded if it takes time burden should be on them not us.
Paul you are correct.
ML3 is unconstitutional.
My husband took a plea in 2006 to IDSI.
He was sentenced in 2006.
He was released on parole before Sorna in Feb 2012.
He was registered under ML3.
Then came SORNA.
Now came Muniz.
And now there is no ML3 to go back to.
This is something DA Freed knows.
Everyone who was ML3 has no crime code, registration requirements to go back too!
That seems like why he needs to get something in place because my husband by Muniz Decision sets him free from registration because he was sentenced to ML3.
Am I correct?
I was able to obtain a copy of the broadcast of Pennsylvania’s Judiciary meeting and upload it to my YouTube Page. I highly encourage everyone that visits this page to spend the hour and watch. This shows to what extremes “our” elected officials and Law Enforcement will go to assert the misnomer concerning RCs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrfn9nzpWo&feature=youtu.be
How in the world does anyone consider being on the registry not punishment? If you don’t comply to all of the stipulations, you are subject to more punishment, … jail time, probation.. etc.
The state did this to themselves by not putting an obviously questionable (unconstitunial) law on the books. Why was this not put through the PA Supreme Court before it ever became law?
It would’ve saved everyone involved a whole lot of hassle and anger.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE US SUPREME COURT CAN OVERTURN THE STATE CONSTITIONAL RULING OF THE MUNIZ DECISION OF JULY 19 2017, RETROACTIVELY APPLIED IS UNCONSTITIONAL PA STATE CONSTITUTIONAL EX POST FACTO?
Here’s some further comfort for those PA RCs awaiting relief based on the Muniz decision:
“Appeals [to the United States Supreme Court] from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.” When reviewing judgments of state courts, the United States Supreme Court only reviews questions of federal law. The Court will decline to hear a case if an adequate and independent state ground supports the judgment of the state court. The Court reasons that, if a state ground independently supports the judgment, a decision by the Court on federal law grounds will have no effect on the outcome of the case and will amount to an advisory opinion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule)
—–
Based on this, I’m skeptical SCOTUS will accept a Muniz petition because, “a state ground independently supports the judgment,” and, “a decision by [SCOTUS] on federal law grounds will have no effect on the outcome of the case.” This is certainly the situation with Muniz. Even if SCOTUS says PASC erred in declaring SORNA-PA violates the US Constitution, any decision SCOTUS would make, “will have no effect,” due to PASC ruling that SORNA-PA violates the PA Constitution.
Thank you Jim for that you tube link, listening to the introduction of DA Free by the legislative branch >>Rep Ron Marsico (legislative) introduced “my GOOD FRIEND DA Freed” (Executive) to the podium. So much for the system of checks and balances to prevents one branch from gaining too much power. Some thing seems a bit too bias here.
Supreme Court of Ohio Sex Offender Laws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2w9DMhc8g
http://www.pdaa.org/testimony-of-dave-freed-cumberland-county-district-attorney-communications-chair-pennsylvania-district-attorneys-association-before-the-house-judiciary-committee-informational-meeting-on-the-retroact/
Here is the transcript of David Freed’s testimony to the Pa. legislature on a “fix” for Muniz.
Could I get some opinions on exactly what underhanded and wormy “fix” he is recommending? Especially when he states that unless the legislature fixes it- up to 10,000 people that were unconstitutionally affected by Sorna, could be off the registry…
How can those that were affected (pre 2012 cases) who won in our Supreme Court and should be off the registry, be retroactively affected AGAIN by a new law enacted in light of Muniz?!! That would put everybody again unconstitutionally and retroactively back on or staying on the registry.
Am I missing something?
AJ?
@Jim
He is posturing since he was nominated earlier this month for US Atty. He knows he cannot get a new law passed by the PA legislature that will be retroactively applied to anyone who was impacted by Muniz. Retroactive is retroactive. His pandering to the legislature on camera will, in his mind, make him look good for the confirmation process in a tough on crime stance.
You are not missing a thing. He needs to go find a side of beef and work on it like Rocky does.
I just did a docket search on the SCOTUS site (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx?Search=&type=Docket), and find none for (“our”) Muniz. There are only 44 results, so it wasn’t too hard to pick through them all. (Some warden named William Muniz had a lot filed against him!) I wonder where this petition is which Freed mentioned in testimony as already filed. Very curious, to say the least.