ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

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

The state Supreme Court has thrown into question the registration of as many as 4,500 sex offenders statewide. The case giving rise to the ruling originated in Cumberland County, and officials there have 90 days to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They should file the appeal to gain clarity on two important questions: At what point are sex offenders unjustly punished and to what extent should communities be informed about potentially dangerous people in their midst? Full Editorial

Join the discussion

  1. Who removes from list

    My husbands attorney will be filing his writ of mandamus on the PA state constutional ruling to his lower court. He will be requesting court to place him back on Megans Law 3 which was his active registration requirement at time of sentence. He will be using the Commonwealth v Muniz and Commonwealth v Williams as case law to show the court how the recent case decisions are using the state ruling to decide. Since the federal ruling is stayed, the state ruling is still binding authority.

    • 9

      He can’t ask to be put back on ML 3 it was ruled unconstitutional because of the single subject rule. He would have to go on ML 2 with is what Freed and the House judiciary are working on doing reverting everyone pre SORNA back to ML 2 Remember the public hearing they just had and talked about it they said some people would have to come of the reg because their 10yrs will be up

    • terry brunson

      Hi Your Husband can do better – Tell he to ask his Lawyer to ask for injunction relief under state rights only – DA Freed asked for a stay on the federal cliam. . . It needs a remand from the SCOTUS court only onr the federal issue. . . . NOT THE PA SATE CLAIMS.. . . . .

      ABOUT REVERTING BACK TO MEGAN’S LAW 3 – 2, OR 1 – SORNA EXPIRED all former Megan’s Laws on the books 20 December 2017 . There is no Megan’s Law to revert back to – – – The Pa legislatures are trying hard to come up with a new Megan’s Law that would solve their problem of which Megan’s Law to go back to fix the old Megan’s Law which was expired when SORNA took effect.

      SORNA is Megan’s Law 4 which expired all other Megan’s Laws on Pa. books. To revert back to a old megan’s law would take a legal miracle – any new megan’s law would put a new date on that megan’s law only to be applied to people who break the law after the new megan’s Law date – meaning to apply a New Megan’s Law to a Pre-SORNA person would make it Restroactive in application -rIGHT BACK TO T muniz PROBLEM AND HERE WE GO AROUND AND AROUND………..

      • Who removes from list

        My husband knows this @terrybundson. He and his attorney were going to ask the court to place him back on ML3 knowing it doesnt exist. Then when the DA or the judge, said thats fine and before the order was before the court and having that under oath. Then his attorney was then going to bring up that the ML3 was deemed unconstitutional and therefore, after they were agreeing to relief and placement back on his original ML3, hid attorney would then make the arguement that my husband would not need to register anymore because ML3 doesnt exist.

      • Paul 2

        You are right in part They can retroactively apply a new law tailored like ML 2 if they think it will pass muster as David freed said against it being punishment and doesn’t include anything more than the original ML2 I don’t know if they can pass such a bill but David freed sure will try to talk them into it The whole thing you have to look at is the courts will come to a compromise on the punishment thing, Thats why people that were life and SVPs under ML1,2, and 3 will most likely still have to register somehow but it will not be the same as the people post SORNA.

        • JoeM

          So wouldn’t the more logical interpretation be that the ML 4 provision that eliminated all previous laws be null and void and anyone with an OFFENSE date (not conviction date) prior to the enactment of ML 4 would be subject to whatever ML was in effect at that time, if any? We also have to deal with the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that the mere existence of a registry, even a public one, does not mean that it is punishment. It is the “add ons” that have been found wanting recently. In this case the COMMONWEALTH has determined that the public registry is punishment and cannot be add-on after the fact.

  2. 9

    Here it is Docket for 17-575
    Title:Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jose M. Muniz
    Jose M. Muniz Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2017)

  3. who removes from list

    No. 17-575
    Title: Pennsylvania, Petitioner
    Jose M. Muniz
    Docketed: October 17, 2017
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
    Case Numbers: (a7 MAP 2016)
    Decision Date: July 19, 2017

    Oct 13 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2017)

  4. who removes from list

    If the Stay for Muniz is in effect, it is obviously only in effect for the Federal. All these cases have came out after the STAT OF SEPT 5 2017. SOME POWER HOUSE CASES TOO!

    We will see next week how many more cases come through decided using Muniz, during this stay. Muniz 2017%22 Muniz 2017%22 Muniz 2017%22 Muniz 2017%22 Muniz 2017%22

    • 9

      Tell that to the PSP I agree they can use it as President until it is overruled or denied. How does that help people on the reg now? Should everyone have to pay 5k to get off the reg?

      • Who removes from list

        Be Patient! Its not like we have tbe rest of our lives to fight it. Thank Muniz for fighting for us!



        • Michael

          They denied cert to Michigan, can’t see why they wouldn’t deny here also.


        • JoeM

          Even more so here as the decision appears to be based in significant part on Commonwealth law. We saw the arguments in other cases where the states try to argue around their own law and say that the evil Feds made them do it. But we also know that the AWA, etc is not mandatory, but merely required to get certain Federal funding.

        • AJ

          …and nearly every SORNA-compliant State has exceeded what is required.

  5. TXSO4life

    @Mike, there is good chance that your case might get consolidate with the idaho case once it reaches the appeal level ( and another amended petition in the 9th pertaining to neveda sorna ( and then another pending case in Tennessee (4th circuit?)….so many cases all at one.

  6. TXSO4life

    @mike, here’s the link to the henry case

  7. mike r

    Thanks TX, that Henry case appears to be a state appeals court decision and not a federal case coming out of the 9th circuit. If there was no federal case then the district court has an incredibly weak argument relying on a state of appeals ruling. It is completely weak anyways, all these cases are, including that Idaho and Nevada cases. Their all weak and ineffective, the bare minimum was done just to keep the lawyers from being disbarred for incompetence. They are all weak….To many plaintiffs, and argued terrifically, with very little evidence and rely almost completely on suppositions….

  8. Who removes from list

    My husband located this to confirm @aj.

    The reason why he believes the State Constitution Violation Ruling of Muniz his being used for relief is this.

    In Calder v Bull, it says this,

    “Second, the Supreme Court said it had no authority to decide if an act of a state legislature violated that state’s constitution. The Supreme Court decision says, “this court has no jurisdiction to determine that any law of any state Legislature, contrary to the Constitution of such state is void.”

    This is a huge case and he believes is the reason why SCOTUS, cant rule on the State Constitution Violation of Muniz.

    He believes that the STAY OF REMAND, has been only good for the Federal because all levels of the court system know this has been said by SCOTUS in this case and any case to follow all these years later using this.

    It has been decided that SORNA is a ex post facto violation, on both federal and state levels. Pa Supreme Court made sure that Muniz Decision will be law and binding on the state ruling. And they made sure they protected their decision from being overturned by SCOTUS.

    This is why Commonwealth V Williams, Oct 4 2017, decided to overturn his failure to registet under SORNA convictions

    • Jim

      Yes. AJ pointed Calder v Bull
      out a couple months ago.
      It is the reason for all of the
      Superior and Pa. Supreme Court cases recently that have gained relief from Muniz.

      The psp and powers that be are taking us for stupid chumps.

      I’ve sent it to my attorney
      For use in a writ,

      • Mike s

        His offense was Rape which was a lifetime registration offense since Megan’s Law 1. He does not have a vehicle for relief under Muniz.

        • Michael

          Anyone convicted of a crime requiring registration before the effective date of the statute would be entitled to relief. Question is, would his October 21, 1995 conviction for rape and indecent assault require lifetime registration, or did he receive the enhancement when SORNA went into effect?


        • Who removes from list


        • robin shrawder

          Ok , yes ,, thats what i thought ,,, so being jailed would be justified ,, his bail seems rather steep

        • Who removes from list

          Its not justified, he should not be under SORNA per Muniz. Its an illegal conviction for this guy and he needs to find an attorney thats not in bed with the DA.

      • Who removes from list

        Any one convicted of a sex crime prior to Dec 20 2017 is due relief from Muniz. The guy should not be required to register under SORNA. Dumb attorney or dumb guy!

        • robin shrawder

          Umm , maybe a dumb question but ,, if you were lifetime before sorna ,, wouldnt you still be lifetime after sorna ??? Isnt the retroactive UPGRADES that are the issues here ???

        • Who removes from list

          Even the requirements upgrade of sorna applied to pre sorna life times are affected too!!!

          Example one time year pre sorna. To 4 times a year after Sorna applied to them!!!

          Anyone convicted of sex crime prior to dec 20 2012 is affected!

      • I don’t have a lot of sympathy for you as a policy maker

        He remains lodged in the Venango County Jail on $100,000.00 monetary bail <<< a 100,000.00 bond for a failure to register??? Damn, a technical violation sure carry hefty bail. More like a capital offense.

        • leroy spann

          I just want everyone to know lest stop putting ideals in these people heads . I was remove from the megan law registry under the Muniz decision with no problem so why are people adding more to the situation just do what you have to do. I read a commit about a guy trying to be smart but to the guy made his little remark HA who’s laughing now because I’m off the website. thank you from Leroy Spann

        • leroy spann

          It doesn’t matter the ex facto is what it means they cannot heighten anyone sentence on anything. I understand they play head games with people that don’t know the law. It should be a law for DA that scare people into taking deals , they don’t really doesn’t know what they getting their self into by then your rights are gone. I’m not trying to be funny look what Bill Lawyer did to him they thought He was going to win He had Bill too waved all of his rights ,lost the case. I he can come back off of this one.

    • Paul 2

      Just a question, if its true that they have no authority to address the state side of the constitution in Muniz, why are all the orders for relief, sighting Muniz, saying it violates the US constitution? Is it because there is a 3 to 3 split on the State side of the Muniz ruling? Or, is it a 3 to 1 ruling in favor for the state constitution being violated by SORNA, because the two justices that ruled that SORNA violates the US constitution DID NOT rule on the PA constitutional question? That makes more sense its a 3-1 for PA and a 6-1 for US so both are violated by SORNA. I hope that is the case, but why do they only rule on the US and not PA? Is it because if the US is violated then the PA doesn’t have to be considered? So if the SCOTUS reverses on the US question then the cases after that should be able to still use Muniz and the courts will then say in the ruling that SORNA violates the PA constitution see MUNIZ, REED, and Gilberts I hope this is the case.

      • Paul 2

        Ment 5-1 for US AJ is right even if SCOTUS reverses they can only reverse on the 5-1 ruling on the US ruling. The 3-1 one ruling saying SORNA violates the PA constitution will still be able to provided relief. All this time I was thinking the two justices ruling that said it only violates the US constitution counted against it violating the PA constitution but that isn’t so, their ruling has no bearing on the PA violation. So if its true the SCOTUS can’t do anything about the 3-1 decision saying SORNA violates the PA constitution we are all good It would be better if the deny cert and we have both. Even better if they grant and affirm but I couldn’t bare the wait. This shows that there has to be some legal way to force PSP to act now because if this is true PSP or AG is knowing violating our rights and that s a law suit plane and simple.

  9. JJ

    So now that it looks like the petition for an appeal to SCOTUS has been submitted, I saw a date showing I think November 16th, 2017 to respond? What is the timeline like now? Does that mean that SCOTUS has until November 16th to decide if they will hear the case? If they don’t, the stay is lifted? If they do, it stays in effect until they make a ruling on it which is likely to be sometime in 2018?

    Lots of questions there, I’m sorry. I’m just trying to get an idea of what exactly we’re looking at now.

    • Mike s

      JJ, all of your questions are very good ones and here is what I understand to be the case.

      The Stay – I was pretty sure that PA had to petition SCOTUS to continue the Stay, federal, just like in Snyder? Since the PA Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction of the case? I am keeping an eye on the PASC docket to see if they issue something in the next couple of days.

      Here is a decent link to the SCOTUS process.

      As it stands now, I believe that Muniz is on the clock to do one of two things.

      1- He can file a response to PA’s cert petition countering whatever Freed is stating to be the errors of PASC. As well as bring up new issues.

      If Muniz brings up new issues this will extend the time as it gives Freed and PA time to repond.

      2- Muniz can withdraw their right to respond and let the case go directly to the justices who can judge the entire case based on merit, Law, and jurisdiction.

      After November 16th the case goes to the SCOTUS Judges (law clerks) and the decision to take up the case is now in their hands. There is no time limit on how long they have to make a decision but it sounds like 6 weeks is around the time that it takes. Keep in mind that this can go longer if new rulings or new issues are brought up.

      Our best outcome, for PA (sorry everyone else), is if Muniz and Marcus file a simple response to Freeds cert that answers their assertions and stays in the lanes of their argument and the briefs and lower court records go straight to the SCOTUS Jurists for committee and they deny quickly.

      Since Snyder is fresh and too of mind for the Court, I have to guess that they will make quick work of this case and grant the RCs of PA a Merry Christmas.

      If I were reading tea leaves with the 11+ years living this nightmare in PA, I’m guessing that PA will stretch this thing out with petition after petition and extention request after extension request until the legislature comes up with their newest plot to “save the children”.

      • JJ

        Mike, I greatly appreciate you taking time to respond.

        As always, it seems like with every step forward we get another step…. Back? Sideways? I don’t even know at this point. I too would not be surprised if PA drags this on as long as they can. It’s an unfortunate thing that it seems for most of us to get the relief we have been granted, we still need to pony up the funds to hire a lawyer and file the writ. Rather unfair that we’ve seen people be successful going that route, proving that it is what should happen, and yet they refuse to do it themselves.

        I keep telling myself that up until that Muniz case I had no clue that this was even a possibility, so waiting a bit more shouldn’t be an issue. It’s just that now that I know it “could” be, I wish it *would* be.

        • Jen

          Actually ive been following up on this and u can actually get the writ and file it yourself without a lawyer. If they deny the motion then my advice would be to seek legal counsel.

  10. AJ

    I am quite sure PA will play games with the SCOTUS calendar to delay things as long as they can. That said, absent SCOTUS wanting to overturn longstanding procedure and precedent, the petition will be denied. As we all know, Muniz is a two-pronged suit, involving violation of the PA and US constitutions. Calder v. Bull settles the first one, preventing SCOTUS from having jurisdiction. But what about the US constitutional issue? Here too, SCOTUS has established a system, and it doesn’t bode well for PA. I’ve mentioned it before, and had to dig around to find it again, but I refer you to the Last Resort Rule ( Of specific interest in regards to Muniz are Brandeis’ Second Application of the Last Resort Rule ( and the Adequate and Independent State Ground Doctrine ( It’s a bit much to go into here, but essentially these two items result in SCOTUS denying a case that will only yield “advisory opinions and unnecessary constitutional rulings,” and which doesn’t, “accord[] sufficient respect to the authority of state courts.”

    Or, as said in Ashwander v TN: “Appeals 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. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 211 U. S. 53.” (
    IMO, PA is either woefully uneducated on SCOTUS precedent and procedure, or is using the SCOTUS calendar as a delay tactic….or both. Or put simply, they are ignorant, malicious, or both.

    Hopefully SCOTUS’s clerks see the absolute futility of the petition and give it an early thumbs-down.

    • Paul 2

      AJ brother I see a line hear between ML registration and DAs prosecuting people for failure to comply while this so called stay in place. PSP is saying they are not removing anyone with because of the new stay. DAs Northampton county for example have dropped non compliance cases for people due relief. My main question is why has no one found any info on new writs to get off registration, is it because they think the stay will keep any writ from going thru? I spoke with Sam Stretton Reeds lawyer I told him my info and he said a writ of mandamus was what he recommends and to set up an appointment next week. I called and left message haven’t heard back from him yet I’m ready to move forward. Do you think this stay will allow PSP to keep people on even if a court says to take someone off? I haven’t seen any case yet filed after stay. I rely think there is some inside info and even the lawyers are in on it, including the moderators on some of these forums.

      • Paul 2

        MICHAEL DOUGLAS MCCUNE Why was this guy charged and found guilty, non jury, on SORNA failed to comply, Wouldn’t the laws in place pre SORNA for non compliance have to be applied to him? I see his start date is 2009 for some reason. I understand he is life for rape but his convictions are aggravated to F1s due to SORNA and second offense.

      • AJ

        @Paul 2:
        “Do you think this stay will allow PSP to keep people on even if a court says to take someone off?”
        I would bet PSP is operating under advice from the PA AG’s office, and short of a court order will follow that advice. But given a court order, I am confident PSP will comply. It’s one thing to defy the AG and perhaps get reprimanded or something administrative, it’s quite another to flout a court order and be found in contempt…and perhaps fined and jailed. Bureaucrats act when they must; the AG has (probably) said don’t move, so they don’t. When a court says move, they will.

        • Van Johann

          My offense was in 1991 and on February 16, 2018, five days before Act 10 was enacted, I received a court order stating I was not subject to SORNA that directed the PSP to remove me from the registry and notify the court of said removal. I have a contempt/injunctive relief hearing in eight days, February 1, 2021, because the PSP has continually ignored the order and I bet a dollar to a donut that the judge will rule that ‘HIS” court order did not satisfy the meaning of the word “expire” as it pertains to the “period of registration”. Any thoughts?

    • Paul 2

      AJ I was thinking, there were two justices, out of the 6-1, Muniz decision, that said they don’t think the PA constitution caries more protection, so their decisions said SORNA only violated ex post Federally not PA. So thats 2+ the one decent = 3 against 3 on the PA constitutionality. For federal its 6-1 Is this maybe PSP and Freeds thinking on this?

      • AJ

        @Paul 2:
        It doesn’t matter what the Justices thought or what Freed thinks. The Opinion issued says it’s punishment, regardless of how the PA and US Constitutions compare. Case closed…literally!

  11. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for you as a policy maker

    @Mike, a great article on the idaho registration challenge…

    • AJ

      It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the ID case now that SCOTUS has allowed Snyder to stand. It sounds as though ID not only mimics MI’s laws, but goes one onerous step further by having avoiding even trying to tier people. I forget the reference, but the KY SC (yes, KY!) mentioned that sort of thing as pointing towards punitive. I see it as a win for us either way: agree, and join the 6th in the truth, or deny and created a circuit split that may draw SCOTUS into the fray. (The AL case in the 11th will only help, regardless the outcome.)

  12. Paul 2

    Raines is charged by Aliquippa police with a felony charge of failure to comply with registration of sexual offender requirements.

    Docket sheet Keeps getting continued No arrest on sheet

    • Mike S

      I wish I lived close to Aliquippa, PA but I am outside of Philadelphia. If anyone is free next week and lives close, I would love to hear what happens, if it happens, at this prelim.

      Preliminary Hearing 10/23/2017 9:00 am

      • Mike S

        Also, what is more interesting is that Mr. Raines is an SVP and is not in jail? A Tier 3 SVP arrested for failing to register (F2) and no mid-five or six figure bail?? Before July 19th of this year, this RC would have had his liberty taken away and be looking at a kangaroo court process and a minimum of 3 years State time. I truly believe that PA is going to continue to arrest Rc’s and then backlog them until Muniz is decided or the Commonwealth comes up with some other sub for AWA.

        Lets say that PA has a backlog of 100 Failure to registers when the dust settles. Since the DA’s of PA are basically going to form the law, and they have very little (if any) idea of civil law, they will form the new law to encapsulate the 100 in backlog/limbo as violating the new law. And this whole process will start all over again!

        I fear that even if this blows up in PA’s face in the next 2 months before they get their new scheme in place, they will still prosecute and people will still go to prison based on weak representation.

        • Paul 2

          I’m Thinking the same thing they do not care about anything other than looking tough on SOs to the brainwashed hysterical public They will blow tax payer dollars with out a thought and make us spend our money to get whats right. tThen change it up again.

    • robin shrawder

      Once again , what was his requirerments under the meagns law pre-sorna ( 10 yrs. or lifetime ) ? If it was 10 yrs. of registery , he would still be required to complete his 10 yrs.. If convicted in 2009 then he must register till 2019 …. if lifetime then he still would be lifetime … We must understand its the UPGRADES ( retroactive aspect application ) that are the issue here … Sorna isnot going away ,, just the way it will be applied ,, RETROACTIVE application is unconstitutional both state and federal once classified punishment …

      • Paul 2

        What part don’t you understand they are charging him with F1 from the SORNA laws that does not apply to him The length of time is moot The law they are charging him was put on him retroactive SORNA was ruled to not apply So they can’t charge him with not comlying with SORNA.

        • Who removes from list

          They will charge you or him if you arent supposed to be on SORNA. But its up to the charged to get the good attorney, who isnt in bed with the Commonwealth. The PSP dont care who they charge. If they dont charge anyone then how do they keep game plan a secret. The PSP AND Ag are up to something. We will see it soon.

        • robin shrawder

          So what your saying is all pre-sorna requirements are aqquitted .. The muniz decision wipes out all pre-sorna sentences (requirements) ??? If these are part of there sentencing orders i believe they must be satified …. I think you are wrong ,, the issues are retroactive appication of the law… The muniz decision doesnt wipe clean former sentencing orders,, it attacks the way its applied ( upgraded ,, increased ) …. I must respectively disagree with your assesment of the decision…

        • Paul 2

          No the failure to comply laws are written in SORNA, they are using the Mandatory F1 charge for this guy, from SORNA, they can’t do that, the laws for failure to comply with SORNA don’t apply to him. They would have to charge him with something pre SORNA not sure if they can apply the failure to comply laws that were in effect pre SORNA because they have been taken off the books. If SORNA can be applied retroactively to this guy that includes the failure to comply law with in SORNA.

        • Paul 2

          Also I think you should read SORNA that is in effect right now The part about failure to comply and the different grading and guidelines That wording is all part of SORNA, so if SORNA was ruled that it can’t be applied to this guy, they can’t charge him with the failure to comply under the current SORNA laws which is what they are now doing. Do you see what I’m saying? Who said anything about wiping out sentences? They are charging him with laws from SORNA. If you read the old ML 2 law you will see that the charges for failure to comply are different, its possible they would have to use those, if at all, because they are currently not in effect. So if for this guy no laws for failure to comply apply to him, then they can’t convict him legally. ML 3 was struck down because of the single subject rule, so it defiantly can’t apply to him. They let a lot of people out of prison and dropped charges on people when they struck that law down. I don’t see how current failure to comply laws can apply to anyone Pre SORNA now. Does that make sense ?

  13. who removes from list

    My husband wanted me to help all of you to understand what the MUNIZ DECISION means and who is to get the relief, whether its today or after SCOTUS denies or grants, or agrees after the appeal is granted.

    Time line of Events:

    MUNIZ DECISION – July 19 2017. Please read summary of case and who it gives release too. This means anyone whether you were not required to register pre sorna, 10 year pre sorna (Megans 1, 2 , or 3), life time pre sorna (Megans 2 or 3), and anyone deemed SVP pre Sorna. This is a retroactive decision, of both ex post facto, state and federal two part ruling, separate rulings for each state and federal constitution.

    By Attorney Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini, SORNA/Megan’s Law Attorney, Harrisburg, PA

    In Commonwealth v. Muniz, ___ Pa. ____, ____ A.3d ___ (July 19, 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently determined in a majority decision that the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) or “Megan’s Law IV” registration requirements are “punishment.” Therefore, the registration provisions violate the ex post facto (“after the fact”) clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions. It cannot be applied retroactively. Any sentence or registration period that constitutes punishment, as the Court determined, cannot be applied to someone after they are already sentenced. So, if you were sentenced prior to December 20, 2012 OR the alleged offense occurred prior to December 20, 2012 this decision applies to you. This decision does not invalidate the current registration regime under SORNA for those convicted after December 20, 2012.

    **Then many case received relief with entire Muniz Decision both federal and state ruling of the Muniz Decision.

    ** UNTIL A STAY OF REMAND – PA Supreme Court Sept 5 2017 and as we all know that the stay of remand was only good for the federal ruling, ex post facto constitutional ruling. Many case were granted relief before the stay of remand using both rulings, however the state constitutional ruling was used to grant relief after this.

    ** THEN ON OCTOBER 4 2017, a huge decision came through after the STAY OF REMAND of Sept 5 2017 and before the Commonwealth filed its writ of cert to SCOTUS. Read the case, the state constitutional ruling is law and it explains why MUNIZ IS STILL LAW. Muniz 2017%22

    **EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND AND STOP WORRYING, THE STATE RULING IS LAW and yes all of RC’s due relief will need to file a writ of mandamus to the lower courts, on the conviction that placed you on PRE SORNA or what the PSP used to force you on SORNA.

    **DA Freed and the Commonwealth can’t place PRE SORNA’s on any registry they are trying to make up quick, that has anything other than, registering your vehicle, home, school, job. They cant make you register an internet identifier because NO PRE SORNA requirements ever sentenced you to this.

    **If the Commonwealth designs a NEW LAW to replace the SORNA requirements that Pre Sorna RC’s were forced to do, THE NEW CRIME CODE is different from the SORNA crime code, and all FAILURE TO REGISTERS WILL NEED TO BE overturned, dismissed, etc.

    **The guy from the recent Bradford PA failure to register, needs to get a good attorney. He is due relief from SORNA.

    Hope this helps!

    • Paul 2

      I can tell you this PSP is going to hold out until they reenact ML 2 for pre SORNA people And if anyone that has a life reg under ML 2 other than two 10yr offense that were combined to make life (struck down A.S.) They will be on reg for life and any failure to comply will be charged under ML 2 Bet

      • Who removes from list

        @Paul2, that sounds good but ML 2 or ML 3 didnt mandate internet identifiers, I would make the bet, but if you were, are, and soon to be arrest under SORNA crime codes, there is no way they can make ML2 or ML3 with the same crime code as SORNA, because the crime code of SORNA is what was deemed punishment, that thinking of your is not a logical thought. You can have ML 2 or ML3 match SORNA crime code because that would be SORNA again. You understand yet, like @AJ and I have been telling you about the research my husband does and speaking to his attorney on a regular. My husband has had 7 contiuences for his failure to register. He knows whats going on. You need to file a writ to mandamus or he or you will not be off the SORNA for a long time!

        • Paul 2

          I said they would use ML 2 that had no one but SVPs on the internet so how could you logically think I was saying they would keep things the same?


      So if me and my fiancé move to Pennsylvania I would not be subjected to registration as my conviction date is 1998? I’m in California.

      • AJ

        That’s something I’ve been speculating as well. Since it’s deemed punishment, SORNA-PA cannot be applied to anyone who was convicted outside PA, regardless of date of conviction. Were it to be applied, it would be a Double Jeopardy and/or Due Process violation. That’s the beauty of this ruling for those from outside PA who move there.

        As for your needing to register at all, it would depend on the crime and date on conviction. You’d need to consult PA’s RC laws to be sure.

      • Paul 2

        The law that David Freed was talking about at the public PA house judiciary comity meeting is ML 2 because ML 3 was struck down because of the single subject rule. ML 2 was in effect until 2004 or 05 They only had SVP pictures on the internet then from what I remember, That is why David freed was talking about a way to post a mug shot from a SOs arrest because if they revert pre SORNA people back to ML 2 they would only be able to make people reg 1 time per yr and provide address info. If your crime falls under a ML 2 10yr reg you would not have to register anymore if the 10yrs is up (if your out of state I believe they have to credit you for the time you reg in another state) If you fall under life time reg under ML 2 you would have to reg it would be a different reg and info than SORNA people They would have to find ML 2 un constitutional some how or some reason that they can’t re instate pre SORNA people on to ML 2. They also talked about new legislation to somehow capture pre SORNA people I don’t know how they can do that. I hope they can’t do anything at all to pre SORNA people but if they do I hope it is ML 2 because if they pass thru something new it will be something in between ML 2 and SORNA they will add as much as they can without making it punishment in their eye as David Freed likes to say pass muster, Then we will have to go thru everything all over again. So I would look into what the ML 2 law and what it says about out of state offenders. I think this is why they are using the delay tactics because they are going to try and pass some crazy new thing that keeps everyone on a reg or a secondary reg I’m hoping some kind of injection or class action can be done to stop them from making everyone go back to court.

        • AJ

          “(if your out of state I believe they have to credit you for the time you reg in another state)”
          Some States have text in their laws saying they don’t give credit for time registered in other States, but I suspect that could be successfully challenged as a Privileges and Immunities and/or an Equal Protection violation.

  14. Who removes from list


    My husband wants you to read this case. The Superior Court overturned this mans conviction for failure to register conviction on Oct 4 2017. After the Sept 5 2017 stay of remand. He was charged and convicted of Sorna Violations and his convictions were overturned 2 weeks ago. Why? Because he was never supposed to be charged for Sorna Violations, and they ovetturned his conviction for failure to register. He was Pre Sorna.

    What are you worried about, did you get arrested for a failure to register and you are pre sorna and unsure if it will be dismissed?

  15. Who removes from list

    This man who is charged, cant be charged, but the PSP doesnt care. They are being told to follow through for charging people. Then they continue there proceedings. They dont try and convict.

    Per this case they cant prosecute.

    My husband wants you to read this case. The Superior Court overturned this mans conviction for failure to register conviction on Oct 4 2017. After the Sept 5 2017 stay of remand. He was charged and convicted of Sorna Violations and his convictions were overturned 2 weeks ago. Why? Because he was never supposed to be charged for Sorna Violations, and they ovetturned his conviction for failure to register. He was Pre Sorna.

    • Paul 2

      Sorry that guy was charged long before the stay and filed his writ long before July 19th the supreme court ruled on it July 18th they over turned it because it was the day before Muniz decision was made so his appeal or writ was before not after,you should read it

      • Who removes from list

        It does matter @paul2, why are you against everyone on here. The case Commonwealth v Williams, was decided on Oct 4 2017, after the stay of remand on Sept 5 2017. He won using the state ruling violation. He didnt get his convictions overturned for the federal ruling of Muniz. In the Williams case it says, thus binding authority is limited to the pa constitutional ruling ex post facto clause. This case Commonwealth v Williams is why my husbands failure is getting dismissed.

        • Paul 2

          11 I’m not against anyone I am just making people aware of the facts in these matters when people post misleading information it only causes more problems I suggest you all read ML 2 and the SORNA laws as they are now watch the public meeting with David freed and you will see what I’m saying I spoke with the PSP they are the ones breaking the law I am making the calls and getting the information There is no case since the stay that has been granted relief but for some reason you keep saying there is. I hope there is one it will save us a lot of money. Do you really think PA is going to let all the pre SORNA people off the reg they are doing anything they can I am just letting people know what I think they are doing I don’t think its a good idea to tell people that they are part of the group of people that received relief that had there cases in the court before the stay because no one has shown me a case yet post stay. My opinion is they are going to drag this out until they pass a bill that captures everyone except pre SORNA people that have done their 10yr reg or are not people that can be reg under previous ML 1,2, or 3 You are saying to people everyone pre SORNA are going to get off reg I don’t think that will happen sorry. They will have to reg under a different version one that they think passes muster constitutional I’m not saying it will be but that won’t matter to them. I hope everyone gets off reg. I’m just trying to state what I think are the facts. For some reason they are trying to prosecute pre SORNA people for failure to comply with SORNA laws I was just pointing that out and some DAs are not doing anything., People are commenting on this stuff that haven’t even read the laws or looked into what the DAs, PSP and legislature are doing or saying. So don’t take it the wrong way. Don’t post a case that was in the court way before the stay and say it was after because we all want to see a case like that not a pretend one. Don’t make stuff up. Find a person that has filed an appeal or a writ after the stay or under REED or Gilberts So we can learn how they can get around the stay and get relief now instead of later or maybe not at all if some crazy laws get passed again get it

        • terry brunson

          I am Terry Brunson I filed a Writ of Mandamus against the PSP on 13 Oct 2017 – Cause 463 MD 2017…… You can find my case as active it is post stay. I file a clarification writ under Appeal rule 1702(a) case pro mission to proceed during stay on federal question.

          The PSP mas 30 days to reply to what I filed. . . I think their lawyers will ask for an extension to delay things which that is their right.

          I am a Pro Se filer meaning I have no lawyer I just read the Appeal books and I am filing ASAP.

          I think I will get relief in my case. The PA legislators were given 90’s to come up with a fix. . . As they were debating the matter they notice that they did not repeal ML 1, 2 , and 3 They Expired ML 1,2, and 3 and could not use the saving statue clause to bring old laws back.

          The ML 4 which is SORNA expired all other ML’s and they cannot revert peopl pre-SORNA back on to. They have to make a ML 5 which cannot mix SORNA rules Post and Pre together.

          That will be a hodge podge od SORNA which to pre-SORNA people in is a problem.

          You may not have a good understanding of the delima PA is in which regards to ML’s they have.

          They are putting all their trust in Freed’s Certiroia Writ to be herd by the SCOTUS. It was filed 13 Oct, 2017 – it will maybe take 9 Months to be over. . . . If Freed has nothing new to add to the Record of the PASC the SCOTUS will review the record of the PASC and if they think the Federal question of U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10 was not done right by the PASC (which I think they did right) the SCOTUS will open Muniz up for a conference to review the record that trouble Freed and the AG and the PA government.

          I have followed all the appeals on this issue from other states and the results were no favorable to government officials . . . The SCOTUS denied all of they. Can I list the States:
          1. Ohio denied
          2. Indiana denied
          3. Maryland denied
          4. Alaska denied
          5. Michigan denied
          6. Pennsylvania is up next with MUNIZ

          I cannot say what I the outcome will really be -however i can give my opinon

          Pennsylvania will be denied around about July or August of 2018 which is 8 months from now. . . . .when it happens I need you to apologize to me . . . . .Terry Brunson

        • Paul 2

          Hi Terry How are you figuring 8mo Cant SCOTUS decide not to hear the writ for review after Munizes extension ends in a few weeks?

        • Mike S


          I am in agreement with you. I suspect that SCOTUS will deny this cert and move on. It would seem like a waste of time to review a case that has the same pedigree are the Snyder case but is much much more rooted in States rights. SCOTUS only grants review to 2.8% of the cases that are submitted, not sure why after all the other state denials they would take up another one.

        • Jim

          Paul 2 and Terry Brunson:

          I was granted relief by Superior court on October 22,2017.

          I am waiting now for the 30 day appeal period to expire on November 22. If the DA in my case does not appeal- I assume my attorney will fax the superior court order to psp and demand I be removed…

          I am assuming that because my case had been in the system since mid 2016, that I can be granted relief no matter a “stay” ? I really am not sure though??

          Also, I expect or hope that if the DA in my case appeals to PASC, that the PASC will apply Muniz to my case as it was in the system well before Muniz.

          I will keep everyone apprised and I hope for the best for all of us. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

        • Paul 2

          @ Jim,
          Awesome bro, happy to hear it. Will be a nice Christmas for you. Can I get your attorneys info if you wouldn’t mind? Also what were your charges Did you have two 10yr reg charges?

  16. who removes from list

    Here is a copy and paste from an article that they cant sentence a man for his sex assault charges and sentence him to SORNA because his crimes were committed prior to SORNA December 20 2012. And they have nothing to sentence him too for the Megan’s Law. This is for @Paul2

    Ex-Oley Valley school bus driver’s sentencing delayed
    Saturday September 9, 2017 12:01 AM
    Written by David Mekeel
    The sentencing of a former Oley Valley School District bus driver was delayed after questions arose around state requirements about reporting as a sexual offender.

    Arthur Fick was in Berks County President Judge Paul M. Yatron’s courtroom Friday morning for sentencing on a charge of indecent assault, which he pled no contest to in June. But the hearing had to be deferred to Oct. 27 when it became unclear if Fick was mandated to report as a sexual offender, something the district attorney’s office believed was the case when they offered him a plea deal.


    The waters have become muddy due to a recent state Supreme Court ruling that says defendants aren’t subject to reporting requirements in the state’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) if the crimes occurred before it went into effect in 2012, which is the case with Fick.

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

    Fick’s attorney, Todd Mays, argued that means Fick isn’t subject to that statute either because he was charged and pled guilty after its expiration. That would mean there is no state statute requiring him to register.

    Colin Boyer, assistant district attorney, said that if that’s the case, then the district attorney’s office would want to rethink its plea offer.

    Yatron decided to delay the proceeding in order to get more clarity on the situation, lamenting the situation the state has created.

    “This is another brilliant move by our General Assembly,” he said sarcastically.

    Yatron said not having the ability to require a sexual offender to report is a “departure from our entire jurisprudence on the subject.”

    “This whole situation is troubling to me,” he said of being forced to delay the hearing. “But it can’t be escaped.”

    Fick, 80, of the first block of Gauby Road, Alsace Township, pled no contest to charges that he inappropriately touched two elementary school girls, one in 2001 and the other in 2008. A no contest plea means Fick conceded that prosecutors could prove he committed the crime but it is not an admission of guilt.

    Fick was charged with the assaults in March 2016, more than eight years after he was fired from the bus company following a parent’s complaint.

    The first incident came to light in December 2015 when authorities received a ChildLine report.

    In that report, a girl, who is now 17, said Fick inappropriately touched her more than once when he was her bus driver in 2008. She was an Oley Valley Elementary School student at the time.

    The girl’s mother reported the abuse in 2008 and Fick was fired by his employer, Quigley Bus Service, which was contracted by Oley Valley to provide transportation services.

    Authorities also discovered another girl said a similar incident happened to her in January 2001. The second victim, who is now 25 and lives out of state, reported she was indecently assaulted by Fick while she was in elementary school.

    That girl’s mother reported the abuse to school district officials at the time and the case was turned over to county children and youth services, which investigated. The outcome of the investigation was unclear.

    Prior to the decision to delay Friday, Boyer read a moving victim impact statement written by the young girl assaulted by Fick in 2008. In it, she said it’s hard to express what his actions have done to her, saying she now has social anxiety, depression, insomnia, post traumatic stress disorder and other issues.

    “I pretty much stay inside by myself most of the time,” her statement read.

    The victim said she only ventures out when accompanied by her parents or brothers, and has been forced to stop attending public school. She no longer cares about things, her statement said, and finds herself often crying and filled with shame.

    “I feel I will never be the same person I was,” her statement said.

    The victim went on to express regret about not telling someone about what Fick was doing to her earlier, but said she “was just a little girl” and didn’t fully understand what was happening. Someday, her statement said, she hopes to return to being the carefree child she once was.

    “I just want to be happy again,” her statement said.

    Contact David Mekeel: 610-371-5014 or

    • AJ

      The judge in this case should be removed from it for his obvious bias. Besides, if it’s regulatory, why should the judge care? It has nothing to do with his sentencing, as he has no input on it, what with it being a regulatory collateral consequence, and not punitive. I guess the State’s not keeping its story straight!

    • Paul 2

      Yes I posted this one awhile back But why are some people getting convicted also doesn’t make any sense.

      • Jim

        Just won my case in Superior court case this am…

        Judgement order /vacated

        Not available to read yet but apparently based on Muniz. So Muniz still applies as of October 23, 2017.

        • Mike s


          I’m not familiar with your case. Is this a failure to register or some other lawsuit to get you off registry?

        • Jim

          I was on probation in December 2012 for invasion of privacy.
          Never spoke of registering when I pled guilty in 2010…

          Had a six year affair with a married woman who’s husband did not like the pictures I sent him of us.

          I pled to 3 misdemeanor 3
          Invasion of privacy counts- then 1.5 years later, was forced to register December 2012.

          I fought my way off the registry in 2015 in Superior court- was off a year, then the DA of my county used a Pa. Supreme Court ruling (commonwealth v Farabaugh) to order to reregister AGAIN in early 2016.

          I filed this case in Superior court June of 2016 and it was decided this morning.

        • Janice Bellucci

          @Jim – In what state and county did you file your case?

        • Jim


          I had an existing Superior court court of Pa. filed in early 2016.

          The panel apparently reversed the trial court (Clearfield county) that forced me to register in early 2016 – using Muniz.

          Haven’t read it as it just came through but my attorney told me Muniz was applied.

          No remand to trial court- just a judgement order.

          I can attach and send it to you when it is published later today if necessary

        • Paul 2

          Jim, great news bro. Anyone on probation past SORNA gets relief too.

        • Who removes from list

          Anyone convicted prior to Sorna, is due relief. That means anyone whether they are on parole or probation, its the commission of the crime is due relief. Your crime could be committed in 2007. You can be charged in 2015 for that crime and convicted and sentenced after SORNA for that crime. Because your crime was committed in 2007 and convicted after SORNA, MUNIZ applies to you. This is from my husband attorney.

        • Frank

          Jim can I have your attorneys info please or anyone elses attorney who’s had success in PA

        • who removes from list

          My husband believes this is his case. Pennsylvania – The Muniz Ruling!

          My husband wants to know is this your case??

          This victory, they used the US CONSTITUTIONAL RULING of Muniz.

        • AJ

          Congratulations! Good news to hear. I’m guessing some of your fellow PA RCs would love it if it’s possible to post a sanitized copy of the Writ that was filed.

        • Paul 2

          Yes that would be valuable hope he does

  17. Who removes from list

    My husband wants to know is this your case??

    This victory, they used the US CONSTITUTIONAL RULING of Muniz.

    • Jim

      Yes- I don’t know why they used the US rather than the Pa. constitutional ruling?

      Any insight?

      • Who removes from list

        Because they cant overturn Muniz on the federal or the state?

        My husband wonders too.

      • Michael

        Perhaps it has to do with the appeal by the Cumberland County District Attorney. If SCOTUS grants cert, hears the case and voids the PA Supreme Court ruling in Muniz where the U.S. Constitution is concerned, then decisions by Judge Olsen, et al, are non-binding. It’s more than likely the reason ALL the recent Superior Court rulings citing Muniz are “NON-PRECEDENTIAL” decisions. They don’t want any of their recent orders to set a precedent. Perhaps its a way of covering their collective asses. If SCOTUS does not grant cert, then the court didn’t err in it’s orders.


        • Paul 2

          Were Reed and Gilberts decided non precedent? I have a bad feeling about this cert from Freed everyone is saying if they accept the writ that means they want to reverse. PSP seems pretty sure of themselves lately a 180 from how they were acting at the public house judiciary hearing where Freed lied his ass off.

        • AJ

          @Paul 2:
          To get a feeling for where SCOTUS may land, it may be worthwhile to compare the USSG amicus from Snyder with what you have in PA. How many of the items align? Could you see USSG making a like statement about PA’s SORNA as it did with MI’s SORA? My point is, SCOTUS may leverage off the USSG amicus to decide about Muniz. I think Muniz is even a tougher cert grant, because of Calder v Bull and Last Resort Rule. It would entail SCOTUS changing a ruling in place for over 200 years, among other things.

        • Michael

          I honestly don’t see the DOJ or USSG recommending SCOTUS grant cert because of the Snyder decision. Moreover, it won’t effect the PA Supreme Court ruling that the law is an ex post facto law under the PA Constitution. Justice Mundy, who didn’t agree with the ruling, believes it is “the law of the land.”

          Eventually SCOTUS will have to address the elephant in the room. It just won’t be because of Muniz.


        • AJ

          I agree with you completely. I think the only way it get SCOTUS review is via Circuit split. So unless all the Circuits fall in line behind Snyder, it will eventually get heard. Given their proven penchant for ruling based on want and not legal merit, my money is on either the 5th or the 11th as the source of a SCOTUS-reviewed case.

        • Michael

          Also note that Reed was reversed based upon the Muniz ruling.

          It’s settled law where the PA Constitution is concerned. In the August Spann decision, Justice Mundy concluded:

          “I agree that in light of this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz, ___ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 3173066 (Pa. July 19, 2017), the Commonwealth Court erred in rejecting Appellant’s argument that SORNA is an ex post facto law … However, if I were writing on a blank slate, I would conclude that SORNA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions … Although I disagree with Muniz’s conclusions, they are now the law of this Commonwealth. As such, they must be applied in a meaningful way. No sensible reading of Muniz would permit the Commonwealth Court’s contrary judgment to stand. I therefore join the Court’s order in this case, because it correctly applies Muniz and reverses the Commonwealth Court’s order in this regard.”

          Personally I don’t think the appeal by the Cumberland County DA carries a lot of weight. The lyrics to that classic Sesame Street song, “There’s a hole in the bucket” come to mind when thinking of his chances of overturning the PASC.



  18. who removes from list

    That is a logical reason behind it, but why would any court even waste there time in granting any relief per MUNIZ. They are the courts they don’t have time restraints on deciding anything per MUNIZ. They could sit on there rulings until US SUPREME COURT grants or denies? They don’t need to waste there time deciding. My husband believes that they are making the rulings, allowing us to know that Superior Court and all lower Courts, are honoring the decision of the PA Supreme Court because they unlike DA Freed except the loss and move on to the next case.

    • Paul 2

      The court has to rule on it, they don’t have a choice. I believe I’m correct about the PA constitutionality thing, that is why they said it violates the US constitution. Only 3 out of 6 justices ruled that PA constitution is violated by SORNA. 1 decent, and 2 said that, because it violates the US constitution the issue if it violates the PA constitution is moot. I believe this is going to be their angle, I hope that they do not grant cert on Muniz. Has anyone filled since the stay, or spoke to an attorney? What are they saying?

      • Who removes from list

        Husbands failure to register under Sorna gets dismissed soon. His dismissal hearing is around the corner. And his attorney will be filing a writ of mandamus this thursday to lower court. Using Commonwealth v Muniz. Commonwealth v Reed and Gilbert. Commonwealth v Williams. Commonwealth v Jim’s case from today. I will keep you posted. Also todays case for @Jim is after the so called US Supreme Court stay of federal. Explain this to me, was a stay granted since filing a writ of cert?

        • Paul 2

          I believe he said “I filed this case in Superior court June of 2016” So that makes it filed before the stay right?

        • Who removes from list

          It does not matter when you filed your appeal, writ, petition, etc. @paul2 why do you keep thinking that? Whether they filed at today or years before Muniz the stay, if there even stay, would keep Muniz from being applied to even past cases. The courts are honoring Muniz and applying it because it is law and they are abiding by it. It is binding authority for anyone if they filed before or after the stay. My husband filed his motion to dismiss before the stay, back in August and they scheduled a hearing next month to dismiss. Not sure why both the US and Pa rulings are good now, other than the SCOTUS didnt grant a new federal stay.

        • Jim

          This from another site in reference to a question I asked pertaining to Muniz/writ of mandamus/etc.

          “Jim, there is so much confusion over the Stay, and Im about to add to it.

          I just finished a conversation with a highly credible source who said that the Stay was not for the PASC’s decision, but instead was a Stay that applied to sending the Muniz case back to the lower court for remand.

          Therefore, if this is true, the Muniz ruling is precedential. I have one more source I need to speak with, but the present source is very credible.

          Having said that, the Commonwealth did file a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the appeal, or if they do, whether they reverse the PASC’s decision is what we will be waiting to hear. Nevertheless, if the above information is true then the Muniz case is currently a precedential case.”

          Again- the above from another site and this individual is very knowledgeable on these matters.

          anyone have input??

        • Paul 2

          Yes is a stay of the remand of the record while Freed try to get a writ of re view thru the SCOTUS He filed two days before the deadline. Now there is a new stay on the Muniz record. A stay on remand keeps the record from going to the lower court to be used, if SCOTUS denies hearing freed writ then the record will be sent down and enforced. The issue is we don’t see anyone that has filled for relief since the stay, and the PSP is using it as a reason not to remove people effected by this decision, And all the cases filed that received relief based on Muniz and Reed were filed before the stay and they all say the US constitution is what violated by SORNA, My hope is if somehow SCOTUS does reverse the PA violation will still grant relief because everyone is saying SCOTUS can’t reverse the 3-1 decision that SORNA is punishment and violates the PA constitution ex post facto for people pre SORNA

        • Jim

          I thought most of the cases seen in the last month or so were based on the state constitutional ruling of Muniz-

          Like this one…

        • Paul 2

          I didn’t read that one looks like they did base it on the fact that SORNA violates the PA constitution if Im reading it right. Awesome I wish we would see someone that filed in the last few months to see what they say.

        • Paul 2

          I am simply looking for a case that was filed after the stay I don’t think there will be because the court can only look at the US constitutionality right now until it goes away or they can use it. Please stop saying these cases are filed after the stay you are confusing things, You said your husband will be filing a writ of mandamus on Thursday that is the type of case I’m looking for. If you will notice that all the cases filed before the stay say SORNA violates the US constitution.

        • who removes from list

          Your wrong, Commonwealth v Williams, he won by the PA Constitutional Ruling Only. Look it up. It does not matter when you or my husband filed a motion. Whether it was in 2012, when you forced on SORNA or now. The decisions are being made after the stay of remand, meaning, that the courts are still honoring the law of Muniz. I am not sure how hard it is to see that the stay is not valid on the state constitutional ruling. Commonwealth v Williams. The decided date means that they decided it that day. Meaning if the decided date is after the stay of remand on Sept 5 2017, which is voided now that PA filed for writ of cert. I am not trying to confuse you or anyone. I am stating the facts. Any case that is decided after the stay, only shows the stay is good for the federal rule only, as of OCT 17 2017, as of now it does not look like there is a NO stay in place, thanks to @Jim case from yesterday where his was decided for US Constitution Ruling. You worry to much!

        • Paul 2

          Ok I see what you are saying If this is true the courts are not going by the stay then why are there not hundreds of cases in the court now to force the PSP to take us off? I would think lawyers would be jumping out of the wood work contacting us I talked with Reeds lawyer a few times and he was suppose to set up an appointment haven’t heard back yet.

  19. Who removes from list

    To @Jim, the question remains, ARE YOU OFF SORNA OR NOT? You have won a case and you have had an attorney. My husband read your decision. It says that per Muniz you cant be forced to be on SORNA. If that is the case your attorney should of marched down to the PSP today and had your name removed, so if my husband looks up your name, it wont be there right? Because if it is the ruling that you got is being violated by the PSP.

    If you were not removed today from the SORNA webpage, otherwise known as Megans Law website, explain why your attorney cant get you removed with your decision yesterday?????? It a coury decision and should be treated as a court order for the PSP to comply with!

    This will answer all of our questions, if you are removed, the stay is clearly BS and we are all getting played by the Commonwealth!

  20. who removes from list

    Here the only important cases, even though there have been many since Muniz on July 19 2017. Everyone is questioning the stay of remand. On Sept 5 2017, a stay of remand was granted, it voided on Oct 17 2017. If SCOTUS granted the Commonwealth of PA new stay of remand, no proof of this on the SCOTUS site. Moving forward, one the cases below is Muniz. The second case that use only PA CONSTITUTIONAL RULING, of Muniz. And the third is @Jims case using the US Constitutional Ruling. Its easy to see the writing on the wall.

    In Muniz, there were two seperate rulings inside one case, One Ruling out of the Muniz Case was the US Constitution violation, ex post facto, which truthfully has no merit, because we are protected by the Second Ruling of Muniz, PA Constitution Violation, ex post facto.

    This case Muniz 2017%22 and was decided on Oct 4 2017, after the Stay of Remand on the PA Supreme Court level, this said per the PA State Constitution Violation, Williams is due relief and overturned 2 convictions of failure to register because he should have never been forced to register under SORNA. Plain and simple, overturned his 8 to 17 year sentence for failure to register under SORNA. This case allows any cases of failure to register to be dismissed or dropped, with a real attorney who knows his law.

    Second Case is Muniz 2017%22, this is @JIM case from October 23 2017, after PA Filed for writ, and we all believe because for some reason we believe that PSP are honest people, and that there is a stay of remand on MUNIZ. If that is the case, this case was decided on the US Constitutional Ruling of Muniz, no where in the decision was the State Ruling even talked about.

    My husband and I are waiting on @Jim’s response to if he was released from SORNA today, with his decision or what the PSP is telling his attorney. And what his attorney is now doing the PSP to honor the decision made in his favor per MUNIZ, US Constitution.

    These two cases are huge, does not matter if they are precedented cases or not, MUNIZ is the Case that matters, it is the reason why these two people gain relief.

    @Jim are you still on the registry?

    • Paul 2

      They are probably appealing it some how His pic is still on the PSP site.

      • Mike s

        Wont remand order and remove from ML until 30 day appeal window is closed for State. That is my guess. It would give everyone an opportunity to see ADA Dobo make a fool of himself.

        • Who removes from list

          I remember him. He didnt know the PA Constitution. Ada Dobo. He wont appeal it.

        • Paul 2

          DOBO the curve ball Dumbo lol he was something else glad he was the one in front of PASC.

    • Jim

      @Who’s on the list.

      I am checking with my attorney and will post back here asap.

      If I had to guess- I’ll probably have to wait through the 30 day appeal period ( I hope not).

  21. Who removes from list

    Because not many RC have jobs that can pay $5000 or more for writ to mandamus. Thats why!

  22. MatthewLL

    Comment: It appears that the International Travel Notification Requirement in Pennsylvania for those convicted before 2012 would not have to register. This notification is a retroactive requirement of the legislation that the State Supreme Court just threw out. So, does this mean no international prior notice to the state and a 21 day waiting period is required for some offenders?

  23. Mike S

    I thought that this group might be interested in this Commonwealth Court Case. I’ve been following it for a little while since the Muniz decision allowed Huyett to move his case along. You will see that the Commonwealth Court stayed the entire case until Muniz makes its way through SCOTUS. I am guessing that any Petition for Mandamus relief will suffer the same delay.

    • Mike S

      Added to post. This is the order from the court on August to allow this case to move on based on Muniz %27Commonwealth%2bCourt%27%22

      • Paul 2

        Can someone explain what’s going on with the Muniz stay? If the SCOTUS can not do anything about the fact that the PASC ruled that SORNA violates the PA constitution and can not be applied retroactively to pre SORNA people, how are the courts granting stays because of the writ in the SCOTUS right now? If the issue is only the US constitution in the SCOTUS then they should not be able to grant a stay for people seeking relief based on the PA contusion ruling. Looks to me like the SCOTUS is able to kill the whole thing somehow. Why does no one know the answer to this question?

        • Mike S

          Paul, In business law class in college the professor started the semester by saying “What I am teaching you is 100% LAW, what happens in the real world when courts get involved has little to do with what happens in this classroom”.

          All the cases that are being decided are backlog and lawyers pushed the issue of Muniz and court clerks wrote opinions for release. Even if there is no stay, Judges can, without docketing it, backlog cases for months/years.

          As for the PSP and if you read the opinion above, they have no obligation to adhere to PA Supreme Court rulings until they are told to do so. “Just following orders”, I believe is the English translation of the German phase.

        • Paul 2

          I get that, but they do have an obligation not to get a class action rammed up their and the AG s asses.

        • AJ

          @Paul 2:
          I suspect Mike S was using that phrase tongue-in-cheek. It was repeatedly used by Nazis as defense of war crimes. It didn’t work.

  24. who removes from list

    My husband wanted to let you know, this article just came through. There is NO STAY, we are being lied too! Attorney, just told my husband there is NO STAY!

    FROM THE ARTICLE, Shawn Christopher Williams, was released from Prison, DA Northhampton County withdrew his charges, after this decision! Muniz 2017%22


    Among rulings this month in already pending cases:

    * The state Supreme Court struck down the registration requirements of Edmund L. Haenig, a former Bethlehem police officer who was sentenced in 1996 to 2 ½ to 12 years in prison in a Lehigh County sex case. At the time, the charges did not require him to register as a sex offender. But with SORNA’s enactment, Haenig, who lives in West Reading, was hit with a 15-year mandate.

    * The state Superior Court vacated the conviction of Shawn Christopher Williams, a 41-year-old Easton man who was serving 33 months to 10 years in state prison after being found guilty in 2016 of failing to register. Williams insisted he was under no such mandate when he was sentenced in 1998 for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl, for which he spent a decade incarcerated. His lawyer, James Brose, argued that forcing Williams to register years later was unconstitutional.

  25. who removes from list

    * The state Superior Court vacated the conviction of Shawn Christopher Williams, a 41-year-old Easton man who was serving 33 months to 10 years in state prison after being found guilty in 2016 of failing to register. Williams insisted he was under no such mandate when he was sentenced in 1998 for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl, for which he spent a decade incarcerated. His lawyer, James Brose, argued that forcing Williams to register years later was unconstitutional.

    Given the Superior Court’s ruling, prosecutors last week formally withdrew the failing-to-register charges, Brose said. As a result, Williams was released Oct. 20 from Dallas State Prison in Luzerne County after spending 20 months behind bars, according to Department of Corrections records.

      • robin shrawder

        Apparently DIDNT read mike s posts ,,, all my research says there IS a STAY

      • Who removes from list

        Docket Sheet: Shawn Christopher Williams

        Superior Court Decision: Shawn Christopher Williams Muniz 2017%22

        Proof there is NO STAY: NO stay was requested for the Williams Case, they just dropped the charges, no appeal!

        STAY GRANED FOR THIS CASE: asked for a STAY in that CASE pending the US Supreme Court decision on DA Freed filing of WRIT. The Stay was granted in the case for this case ONLY because it was requested.


        • Paul 2

          Don’t you think if anyone files a writ now all DAs will request a stay because of the SCOTUS case? We don’t have to call it a stay but the writ filed by Freed’s insubordinate goon has given the courts the ability to grant a stay on any relief given now. So I think it is now a waste of time to file a writ by the looks of things, wouldn’t you say? There being a stay on the Muniz record is what the state police are using as an excuse to keep from removing people from the list. I think you are more concerned about people that are charged with failure to comply right? I think that people that are not being charged or released now on failure to comply are ones that can show they would not be subject to registration if it were not for SORNA, if however a pre SORNA person that would still be subject to registration regardless of SORNA being enacted has failed to comply with registration I think they will have their cases delayed until the stay on Muniz is lifted because the prosecutors believe they will be able to convict them. Everyone is thinking that because they said SORNA is punishment it will take everyone off but I Think the relief from the fact that it is punishment can only be afforded to those that would not be otherwise subject to registration if SORNA had not been retroactively applied to pre SORNA people. So if SORNA had not been put into law and you would have been off the reg you can get relief but if you would have been on the reg anyway you’re toast. Two things to look at 1. You fail to comply 2. You have to register. No relief, (other than the things that are added to the reg by SORNA, internet id, more frequent reporting, longer sentence for failure to comply stuff like that,) on ether one if you would have still been on the registry anyway.

        • Paul 2

          Ex post facto
          It is bad to make people carry fruit longer than they were told they would have to if they break the law.

          Imagine two people are convicted in 2005, the law in place at the time when they decided to break it, says to person #1. you have to carry these two yellow bananas with you for life, if you put them down you will go back to jail. The law says to person #2 here are two green bananas these bananas are green because they only have to be carried for 10yrs, but if you put them down before 10yrs is up you go back to jail.

          6yrs later they change the law, person #1 is now given an orange to hold for life, and he keeps the same yellow bananas he was given before. #2 has to give his green bananas back and he is now given two yellow bananas and an orange, #2 is now told you have to carry these yellow bananas and the orange for life, if you put them down you go back to jail.

          5yrs later both #1 and #2 say screw this, I’m putting this fruit down. They get arrested, their cases are scheduled for court 1yr later. In the mean time, the court rules that the new law, that was past 5yrs earlier, is unconstitutional, and they have to put things back to the way they were before the new law was past. So, they take back person #1s orange, leaving him with his original yellow bananas, that he received 11yrs before. #2, they take back the yellow bananas and the orange and try to give him back two green bananas, but the court said no you can’t do that, because he has already carried his green bananas for 10yrs. so now he doesn’t need to carry anything anymore.
          Person #1 shows up to court, the courts says you have to go back to jail because you put down the yellow bananas that you always had. #1 says but it’s punishment. The court says it doesn’t matter, if it’s a punishment, you knew you’d have that punishment if you broke the law. #1 says, what about #2? The court says, when he broke the law it said he would only have to carry green bananas, not yellow, and an orange too. besides you should be happy we took your orange back, people that break the same law that you did, now have to carry 5 bananas, 3 oranges, and 10 tomatoes. We don’t feel bad for them because they knew what the PUNISHMENT would be before they broke the law.

          Punishment can’t be added after the fact. However, because more punishment is added after the fact, it doesn’t take away the original punishment that the person already knew would be given to them when they broke the law.

          The court did not say Muniz rights were violated by SORNA by anything other than that they are punishment so they can’t be applied to someone that didn’t know they would be subject to them later they didn’t say the punishment it self is unconstitutional big difference. For instance if in Reeds case they said that the SORNA laws did hurt his reputation then anyone on SORNA would get relief not just pre SORNA .

          There still is an issue of is there a law to put people back on to. This creates two sets of people that are pre SORNA
          1. People due relief do to enhanced punishments being added ex post facto.
          2. People that may not have a registration law to fall back on.
          People in category 1. Should have relief now.
          I believe that the PA legislature will pass a law to capture people in cat 2, and a their cases will have to be takin to the high courts.
          I don’t see how Muniz SCOTUS can fix PAs problem of not having any laws in place for pre SORNA people of its decision.
          They will pass a law that will prob not pass muster in an attempted to capture people in cat 2 cat 2 people will need a new case
          Cat 1 people they can’t touch.

        • Who removes from list

          @paul your thinking on the failures is perfect. If my husband was on the register before Sorna and he was. His case for failure to register involved an “internet indentifier” and before SORNA, no one had to provide there “internet identifier.” So, yes if he didnt register his home, car, job, or school that would be perfect logic. But he has been up to date on all that. His crime for failure he is charged with is back from 2012 at the transition of pre sorna to new sorna. Someone looked him up on google and saw he was a sex offender and made it a mission to be vigilanti and **ck his life up. My husband has had 9 contiuances for this failure because of proof and other reasons unknown to him or I. Then the Muniz Decision came out in July 2017. And another contiuence for his charges of failure. They offered plea after plea the entire time. Trying to give him a better deal. He didnt anything wrong so he wont take a plea. His motion to dismiss is in the courts. I will keep you posted on the outcome of his case and his writ of mandamus. He wanted to file the writ of mandamus because he wanted it in the courts, WHEN SCOTUS SAYS NO TO DA FREED AND THE COMMONWEALTH LIKE THEY DID IN MICHIGAN. He wants to have it in so he can get the order of court when the Commonwealth and Da Freed “fix the law” to “fit the needs of public safety” He does respect your logical thinking. But he also believes you give to much credit to the Commonwealth and Da Freed. He wanted me to tell you this, if the Northhampton County DA for Williams understands Muniz is Law and dismissed that man’s failure to register and they released him from prison. That case is huge because it will be presented at his dismissal hearing and his writ of mandamus hearing because its proof there is no stay and with a good attorney and God, he will win.

        • Paul 2

          I wish your husband luck I hope he is out on bail during all this delay. I wonder did your husband have to reg for life under previous version of ML? Other than two 10yr offenses combining to make life (struck down by A.S.) Because It may be that both groups of people ones that would be off registration if it weren’t for SORNA and ones convicted before SORNA will get off reg. I just want to try and see how they are treating both types. I like your husbands plan to have the writ in the courts early.

        • Paul 2

          So he never took the orange they wanted to make him carry, but kept his bananas, lol I see He has a case, because the internet ID is an add on, so he should be able to beat the case.

        • Who removes from list

          @paul2 he was lifetime non violent offender under ML3. By law their is no ML3 anymore, his writ makes the court very clear of this he is fighting to go back to an unexistant law, and by off Megans Law all together.

        • Paul 2

          I don’t see how SCOTUS Muniz can help PA fix their problem with having no law for Pre SORNA people to fall back on to. Unless they take the case and rule what parts are punishment. Could someone site a case, like your husbands, that they would have still been on the reg. if SORNA had never been passed in to law? Muniz would not have to reg because his 10yrs was up right? I don’t see how people that are life under the previous versions will be taken off reg when the Muniz stay is lifted. I believe PSP will most likely only need to remove people that would have been finished with their reg had they not had their time increased by SORNA ex post facto. I think they will still make Life people reg but take off the enhancements added by SORNA. As far as failure to comply I don’t see how you could get off on that if you would have still had to register. If the person committed the failure to comply under ML3 they would have already had their case dismissed. So if the failure to comply happened after SORNA became effective then if the person only failed to update internet IDs or something that falls under the SORNA enhancements they would have a case like your husband does. But someone that did not update their address would still have a problem, so having no law to fall back on doesn’t make a difference for failure to comply with address if you committed the crime post SORNA. It seems that there is a issue with the enhancements for people that would still have to reg. For this reason SCOTUS could get involved with a different case where the person would still have to reg but would not be subject to the enhancements of SORNA, if PSP does not fix problem with a secondary website. I think that SORNA less the enhancements do apply to pre SORNA people that would still have to register. I don’t see how Muniz case applies to that because he would have been off reg, They are looking at the enhancements to show punishment but the one for Muniz is the time on the reg the others would be moot. Is it possible that SCOTUS looks into the enhancements from SORNA and makes a ruling on Muniz? If they don’t the only action I see PSP having to take is to remove people who’s time would be up, and remove enhanced reg requirements for pre SORNA people.

  26. Who removes from list

    Williams won his appeal on Oct 4 2017. He was released on Oct 20 2017. Within the 30 day appeal for his case. The DA didnt file an appeal and he dropped the charges. And that proves there is no STAY.

    Commonwealth v Williams

    Overturned his failure to register his convictions!

    He has been released.

  27. Mike s

    I spoke with my attorney today, He represented A.S. In one of the cases that got the ball rolling against PA ML3 and AWA.

    With the notoriety he received from A.S. He has amassed a number of RC cases. He has also had one on one conversations with the highest levels of the PSP and is in contact with Aaron Marcus who both colaberated on the Muniz defense.

    His advice to be after we batted the conversation around a little bit was simple, “Wait”. I’m guessing he has read the cert by now or at least got the beats from Marcus. He made it clear that this petition is ridiculous and doesn’t rely on any real test the SCOTUS would take up. He also added the PSP knows what’s at risk and understands that if SCOTUS says no, people are coming off the site.

    I trust Tony and he has been a friend to me and our cause. Take it for what it worth but he doesn’t expect any Judge to move on any mandamus petition until SCOTUS has its say, regardless of Stay or No Stay.

    • AJ

      @Mike s:
      Thanks for relaying the thoughts from an actual attorney directly in the trenches on this specific situation. It sounds like all our laic opinions are pretty much spot on. 1. No way SCOTUS takes it. 2. PSP is in the delay game unless/until a court directs them otherwise. 3. The courts will let PA exercise their (futile) rights in appeal. 4. Patience, please.

      If you happen to have chance to bend his ear again, ask him what it would mean for people who move to PA, regardless of conviction date. From what I understand, SORNA will not apply to them. If PA tried to do so, it would be Double Jeopardy and Due Process violations. IOW, the only people who will be stuck under SORNA-PA are people convicted in/by PA on or after whenever in December 2012. This could well make PA a “RC haven” for many….and though the public will be terrified and seeking their torches and pitchforks, we all know that little or nothing will happen with an influx.

      • Paul 2

        I believe there is a strange thing that may come out of this out of state thing. If in fact a states registry laws can be shown to have things that are punishment in them, then a person moving into that state who committed or was convicted of a crime before said law was enacted would have grounds to show the laws are not applicable to them unless they still have old laws on the books that cover out of state offenders that pre date their offenses. I wonder if they can show some parts of PAs laws are the same as they were on prior ML versions and therefore actually never done away with, they would have to be ones that are considered to be regulatory and not punishment of course. If you look at past and new bills in PA they just cross out or keep parts of the old ones to make a new bill. I think an out of state person moving here would be subject to the same time on the reg as they were in their old state. I also believe they will find a way to keep pre SORNA people that are SVPs and subject to life reg under the original laws that were in place at the time they committed or were convicted, If people do get relief it will be those that received an increase in their time or didn’t have to register pre SORNA. I don’t see someone getting time taken off, but I may be wrong, because people are getting off on failure to comply but they may be people that can show they would have not been on registry if it weren’t for SORNA. Anyone have some input on this.

        • AJ

          @Paul 2:
          If in fact a states registry laws can be shown to have things that are punishment in them, then a person moving into that state who committed or was convicted of a crime before said law was enacted would have grounds to show the laws are not applicable to them unless they still have old laws on the books that cover out of state offenders that pre date their offenses.
          The enactment date wouldn’t matter for the out-of-state RC, because PA cannot impose the punishment, period. Imposing punishment for an out-of-state offense would be a Due Process and Double Jeopardy violation of the US Constitution.
          I think an out of state person moving here would be subject to the same time on the reg as they were in their old state.
          Some States require RCs to register the longer of the two terms. This is rather smart, really. Under a regulatory guise, it’s perfectly legal. Under a punitive guise, it’s a bit tougher, but forcing one to follow the convicting State’s term–even if longer–would survive judicial review, as it would be compliant with the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
          I also believe they will find a way to keep pre SORNA people that are SVPs and subject to life reg under the original laws that were in place at the time they committed or were convicted[.]
          They can easily achieve this; they just need to fall back to laws that match Smith. They can maybe get away with matching AWA, but that brings a risk if AWA gets struck by the courts, either partially or fully*. Smith is already settled case law (I know, nothing is ever fully settled) and therefore much less risky to follow.

          *Given how often the courts have raised concerns about lack of individualized risk assessments (i.e. offense- versus risk-based tiers), I think this portion of AWA and SORAs is particularly vulnerable to a legal challenge. It was an explicit concern in Snyder, Muniz, and Millard. I’m sure there are plenty more.

        • David Kennerly, Life Spent On A Shelf

          I would really like to find out if, when Registrants move to another state, those states are able to impose the same burdens on the Registrant that were imposed upon him by the state from which he moved. Since some states have explicitly inserted such clauses into their legal codes as a means of discouraging sex offenders from relocating to their state for its relatively more attactive laws, I would really like to know how that has played-out in practice. Are states able to successfully assert that authority?

          The practice of seeking out a more favorable legal climate is often referred to as “jurisdiction shopping.”

          I think that relocation to other states would be a good topic for a future phone conference.

        • AJ

          @David Kennerly:
          I suspect that, given it’s viewed as regulatory, the State can pretty much do what they wish with those they deem to be subject to regulation. I think a successful challenge could only be won by showing there’s no rational basis for it…especially if they’re using offense-based tiers. (How can my offense from, say, WY be worse than the like offense in PA?) It’s an interesting question, though. I’m guessing States would rely on the numerous cases where it’s been upheld that States may use regulation to discriminate against non-residents regarding hunting, fishing, etc ( However, that argument may well only hold up while one is a non-resident. I wonder if there may be an argument that they can only impose out-of-state (read: discriminatory) regulatory rules upon non-residents, but cannot once someone becomes a resident. (Of note is that many States declare RCs residents for registration purposes after just a few days…which could bite them in the butt if my thoughts are correct.)

        • AJ

          Check out Saenz v. Roe ( Though mostly cited for its (positive) right-to-travel implications, it could possibly be applied to disparate treatment of RCs by a State–including perhaps its mandating the longer term from one’s former State of residence. From Saenz:
          The “right to travel” discussed in our cases embraces at least three different components. It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.
          The beauty of this Opinion is that it deals with a regulatory scheme (i.e. civil, not criminal, law), and SCOTUS *still* said the 14th applies.
          We further held that a classification that had the effect of imposing a
          penalty on the exercise of the right to travel violated the Equal Protection Clause “unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest,” [Shapiro], at 634[.]
          The importance of this statement from Saenz cannot be overstated. To me, it strongly points to saying that if there are discriminatory RC laws in a State, that would certainly implicate my right to travel, and is subject to strict scrutiny.
          There may be a substantial reason for requiring the nonresident to pay more than the resident for a hunting license, see Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U. S. 371, 390–391 (1978), or to enroll in the state university, see Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441, 445 (1973), but our cases have not identified any acceptable reason for qualifying the protection afforded by the Clause for “the ‘citizen of State A who ventures into State B’ to settle there and establish a home.” [] Permissible justifications for discrimination between residents and nonresidents are simply inapplicable to a nonresident’s exercise of the right to move into another State and become a resident of that State.
          What is at issue in this case, then, is this third aspect of the right to travel—the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State. That right is protected not only by the new arrival’s status as a state citizen, but also by her status as a citizen of the United States.
          This directly addresses what I mentioned in my earlier post about discriminatory hunting licensing, etc. Apparently SCOTUS is ahead of me legally…who knew!?? 😀
          What I get out of this snippet is that 1) a State cannot impose rules that dissuade my migration to that State and, 2) once a resident, I cannot be treated differently for having migrated. In short, it would seem any imposition of harsher registration is Unconstitutional. That makes me wonder about, for example, MN’s Statute that does exactly this (; Subd. 1b. (b)(3)).
          [S]ince the right to travel embraces the citizen’s right to be treated equally in her new State of residence, the discriminatory classification is itself a penalty.
          This sums it up for me. Treating me differently than a native means I have never truly been allowed full migration. Instead, certain aspects of my former State are held against me, wholly at the will of my new State.

        • Paul 2

          Yes I would hope things start going towards an individual assessment. In PA, they already have to do that, since ML 1 was struck down for designation ofSVPs. They should use this same assessment, done for almost all people convicted, to decide where, if at all, someone is placed on a reg. They already have the opinion of professionals, so they should use it. As far as the public web site, it should be saved for the ones that actually pose a real danger to the public, and they should have the ability to be re assessed, by a professional, at anytime they want. Then the public and law enforcement would know who the real dangerous people are on the reg. Also they could still have mid level risk people reg their information, that would only be avail to law enforcement. If they had done this from the start, things would not be so screwed up now.

        • AJ

          This is what I understand happens in MN. Tier I is available only to LE. Tier II to LE and entities who work with vulnerable people (kids, seniors, etc.). Tier III is published. These tiers are also based off risk assessments, not offense. MN does not have residency or presence restrictions, to my knowledge. And what sort of recidivism and sex offense problem does MN have? From what I gather, nothing different than anywhere else in the country. To me, this *proves* the futility of residency and presence restrictions. *Proves* the futility of publishing everyone.

    • Paul 2

      I spoke with Aaron a few months ago and he also said he doesn’t think Freed can win. My question to Aaron is if the PA side of the coin is good then why is the PSP using this stay as an excuse to wait on removing people. If it is so obvious that the PA side will survive and most likely the US too then how can PSP get away with what they are doing now. If the crap hits the fan on this all the people saying wait are as much to blame as the politicians and I will get people together to do something about it. The AG and PSP are breaking the law and we need to do something about it now, if infant they no there is nothing the SCOTUS can do about the PA constitutionality.

      • AJ

        @Paul 2:
        They are not breaking the law until the case has reached its final conclusion. It’s still on appeal, so technically the law is not settled. Even though we “know” how SCOTUS has ruled in Calder v Bull and Last Resort cases, it is still on appeal and unsettled. Once the final gavel is struck, PA will have to act or face legal issues.

        • Paul 2

          I got you AJ but everyone is saying the PA ruling is not up for debate and no stay I was saying earlier that the whole record is stayed including the PA side of things and everyone said that wasn’t true. So I am correct in saying unless your case was filed before the stay they won’t grant relief until SCOTUS moves.

        • AJ

          Maybe someone in PA can call the AG and/or PASC and ask if there’s a stay and, if so, to what extent. I’d trust PASC over AG.

  28. Who removes from list

    @paul2 – your logic is off here yet again.

    My husband wants you to know Lifetime Pre Sorna Sex Offenders had to register AS A NON VIOLENT SEX OFFENDER, PER SEX OFFENDER ASSESSMENT BOARD, ONE TIME PER YEAR, HOUSE, CAR, JOB, SCHOOL. AND THAT WAS IT.


    When Muniz was decided, it was decided as BLUNT AS THIS, ANY INCREASE IN TIME AND OR REQUIREMENTS is in violation of ex post facto. It dont matter if you were not on Megans Law, 10 year registraint, or Lifetime Pre Sorna, if you were convicted prior to SORNA with the crime that placed you on SORNA, you are due relief.

    My husband like others are okay with the life time one time per year because he had a right in 25 years to petition off of Megans Law 3.

    It is just awesome that there is no Megans Law 3 anymore for him to go back too.

    @paul2 – why are you on SORNA, and why do you care do be devils advocate, are you a cop?

    • Paul 2

      Im pretty sure thats the same thing I said people life reg will not be subject to the enhancements from SORNA. If you think life reg or SVP will get off reg your logic is off. The only way a person pre SORNA gets off reg is if they had two 10yr reg offenses that they combined to make life, A.S. case stuck down this law a person has to commit a 10yr offense be convicted then commit another 10yr offense in order for it to combine to make life. My question to you is How would your husband have a NON Violent sentence and be subject to life under reg. ML3?

      • robin shrawder

        I must agree with paul ,, please read the coverage on the narsol web site when the supreme court made there decision 7-19-17 ….. To my understanding its the UPGRADES that are the issue ,, the UPGRADES applied retroactively that is unconstitutional …. The court orders must be satified ( if there was a court order to have the defendant covered under megans law reg..)

  29. Who Removes from list

    To leroy spann,

    My husband has his lower court hearing on wednesday Feb 7 2018. He already had his petition in the court prior to cert being denied. Did the lower court give you a hard time after the Superior Court or Supreme Court back in November agreed with you that you dont need to register under SORNA.

    What is my husbands hearing going to be like?

    It is a enforce a plea hearing and combined with a habeas hearing.

    Any input?

  30. james

    PA megan’s law question

    what do i need to do to have my megan’s registration reverted back to my original 10 year registration period. i was placed on lifetime status on dec 2017 when the new law went into effect. conviction date was sept 2010. five years probation and 10 year registration along with mental health meetings which i have completed. is this something ii can file for relief by myself or do i need an attorney. or just wait till my 10 year period is up?

    thanks for any input


    • Robin

      @ James

      It depends on crime committed date also. If it was committed while ML2 was in effect you would fall under those guide lines. If it was registrable under ML2 and it was 10 then you will revert back to the 10 yr requirement. But if it was not a crime required to register then you should be coming off .

    • Brian

      If you are pre SORNA, meaning your crime and charges were between 1996 and 12/20/2012 then you will be reverted back to your original 10 years once psp reviews your file, within the next 9 to 18 months is there mandated timeline, what were you charged with? unless you served time during your 10 years or picked up new sex offenses then you will eventually be reverted back to 10, but you said you went to lifetime in December of 2017, I don’t know why that would happen. You may want to contact an attorney or someone familiar with your case..

      • james

        thanks for your input. did not serve any jail time on the charge of IDSI of 13 year old minor only the 5 year probation. the incident occurred in 2003 and was sentenced in 2010.



  31. HB 631


    By Shaffer & Engle Law Offices, LLC on Sunday, March 4, 2018.

    Megan’s Law V was enacted into law on February 21, 2018

    By Attorney Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini

    Governor Wolf signed House Bill 631 into law, indexed as Act 10 of 2018. The registration and community notification provisions were made immediately effective. The intent of the law is to rectify SORNA in light of the PA Supremely Court decisions in Muniz (registration is punishment and cannot be applied ex post facto) and Butler (SVP determinations punishment). The Act, in essence, reverts acts that occurred between April 22, 1996 (Megan’s Law I) and December 20, 2012 (SORNA) to the prior registration provisions under Megan’s Law II. The Act is now a hybrid for registering offenders under the Tier System (SORNA) for acts that were committed on or after December 20, 2012 and pre-SORNA requirements that prescribes registration for some offenses at 10 years and others at life. Prior SVP registrants must still register under the hybrid.

    Notably, there is a provision from Megan’s Law III (declared void an initio in 2013) that permits one to petition the court after 25 years to be released from the registration requirements. Also, only SVP’s must attend counseling on a monthly basis. There is no quarterly reporting requirements for non-SVP’s. Only annual reporting for sexual offenders.

    Curiously, all the community notification requirements are still present. This includes internet notice of name, address, license plate, car make, model, year and color. It also includes GPS tracking. These are all items that the majority in Muniz railed against as “punishment.”

  32. terry brunson

    Is this site an active site to make comments on?

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 or other website issues 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 *