PA: Clarity on sex offenders: U.S. Supreme Court appeal needed for state ruling

Another case granted relief by Muniz, today on Oct 16 2017.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/25202817.pdf

Check out the def for arbitrary…Kind of nails it…Notice especially that last paragraph…The entire registry is arbitrary by the legal definition of the word..

arbitrary
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to arbitrary: arbitrarily, Arbitrary constant
Arbitrary
Irrational; capricious.
The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.
An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence.
In many instances, the term implies an element of bad faith, and it may be used synonymously with tyrannical or despotic.
The term arbitrary refers to the standard of review used by courts when reviewing a variety of decisions on appeal. For example, the arbitrary and capricious standard of review is the principle standard of review used by judicial courts hearing appeals that challenge decisions issued by administrative bodies.
At the federal level and in most states, administrative law is a body of law made by Executive Branch agencies that have been delegated power to promulgate rules, regulations, and orders, render decisions, and otherwise decide miscellaneous disputes. Non-elected officials in administrative agencies are delegated this authority in order to streamline the often lengthy and more deliberative process of legislative lawmaking that frequently grinds to a halt amid partisan gridlock. Although administrative agencies are generally designed to make lawmaking and regulation simpler, more direct, and less formal, they still must provide due process to affected parties. They must also comply with administrative procedures created by popularly elected state and federal legislatures.
One important right recognized in most administrative proceedings is the right of Judicial Review. Citizens aggrieved by the actions of an administrative body may typically ask a judicial court to review those actions for error. In establishing the standard by which judicial courts will review the actions of an administrative body, state and federal legislatures seek to provide agencies with enough freedom to do their work effectively and efficiently, while ensuring that individual rights are protected.
Congress tried to maintain this delicate balance in the administrative procedure act (APA). The APA limits the scope of a reviewing court’s authority to determining whether the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in exercising its discretion. 5 USCA § 701. In making this determination, the reviewing court will not find that the administrative body acted arbitrarily unless the agency failed to follow proper procedures or rendered a decision that is so clearly erroneous that it must be set aside to avoid doing an injustice to the parties.
Specifically, a reviewing court must determine whether the agency articulated a rational connection between the factual findings it made and the decision it rendered. The reviewing court must also examine the record to ensure that the agency decision was founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors. Although agencies are given wide latitude, reviewing courts must be careful not to rubber-stamp administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.
Typically, reviewing courts look at the whole record in making this determination, take into account the agency’s expertise on any particular matters, and accept any factual findings made by the agency. However, the reviewing court is free to determine how the law should apply to those facts. If the reviewing court concludes that the agency’s actions were so arbitrary as to be out-side any reasonable interpretation of the law, the court may overturn the agency’s decision or remand the case back to the agency for further proceedings in accordance with the court’s decision.
A reviewing court’s determination that an agency acted in an arbitrary manner will often depend on the technical requirements of the governing law. For example, courts are often asked to determine whether a federal agency has acted arbitrarily under the national environ-mental policy act (NEPA). Pub. L. 91-190, § 2, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, as amended, 42U.S.C.A. §§ 4321 et seq. In one case the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Transportation Department acted arbitrarily under NEPA, when it failed to prepare an environmental impact statement, failed to consider whether its regulations would have violated air quality limits, and failed to perform localized analyses for areas most likely to be affected by increased truck traffic. Public Citizen v. Department of Transportation, 316 F. 3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003).

yes, that case is extremely troubling…..I need to read the actual case.

man, that case is extremely troubling, if you have links to any other relevant case out of the 9th I would like to read them. I haven’t read that case yet, but from what I did read it sounds like our punishment issues are pretty much moot in lower courts unless I can convince them that my circumstances are different then those in that case. Very troubling….

They are strictly relying on the fact that the laws are narrowly tailored, and there are exception for different level of offenders…Man I can’t find this Henry case that they are relying on so much..Any help or link to it would be great………..Still reading, but so far I can refute every argument that they are making in this decision….

Henry, 228 P.3d at 907 (noting that the registration
and notification exceptions that apply depending on the
offender’s level of risk or age allow “the statutes to serve
more precisely their nonpunitive ends”). Therefore, as it did
in Smith, this factor weighs heavily in favor of a
determination that the registration scheme’s punitive effects
do not outweigh its regulatory purposes.

That arbitrary def. is exact. And the following is pretty much precedence, and in the 9th even…

“In one case the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Transportation Department acted arbitrarily under NEPA, when it failed to prepare an environmental impact statement, failed to consider whether its regulations would have violated air quality limits, and failed to perform localized analyses for areas most likely to be affected by increased truck traffic. Public Citizen v. Department of Transportation, 316 F. 3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003).”

It would be hard to see how it gets any better then that…
This is a relativity high standard of review for that reasonably low impact issue. Registration has to be held to a standard as high, or higher then what was stated there, especially when it’s a law directly affecting over a million people (registration), …..Arbitrary is a major issue and I knew for some reason when the CA supreme court stated it in that residency case that it was significant and applicable in countless different ways, such as this….This may end up being my strongest argument….I have four months to prepare, so keep it coming……Chris, where are you at, in Texas right? I wonder how much it would cost to fly you up here for this hearing. You and AJ, as well as many others, have been such an integral part of the creation of this motion, I would love to see all of us observing this..Maybe I can have my sister video record it on a phone or something, and I can post it….

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/Appellate.aspx

Nothing under 47 Map 2016

Muniz Paperwork dated back in Oct 6 2017.

Nothing new added to the docket.