A member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives said his proposed legislation will adapt the Adam Walsh Act to prevent retroactive application of the law and still require sex offenders to continue registration as sex offenders to the Pennsylvania State Police. Full Article
Related posts
-
PA: Testimony on House Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law Residence Restrictions
Source: aclupa.org 9/12/23 Session: 2023-2024 Hearing: House Judiciary Committee | Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law residence restrictions... -
PA: Efficacy of sex offender residency rules questioned in Pa. House hearing
Source: pennlive.com 9/12/23 A bill that would restrict where certain sex offenders could live in Pennsylvania... -
PA: Megan’s Law hearing canceled
Source: altoonamirror.com 5/12/23 HOLLIDAYSBURG — Blair County Senior Judge Timothy M. Sullivan won’t be hearing arguments...
They will approve this!
My husbands attorney stated when they approve this he will be placed back to the civil regulatory Megans Law 3, named differently.
His charge for failure would be dropped because he would not be legally bound to SORNA requirements and he would not of violation its crime code.
Therefore he would be registered under a similar old law because all prior Megans Laws were deemed punishment. They were still civil regulartory and for public safety!
These politicians need to be held criminally liable when they try to circumvent a judicial order. They are no longer working in good faith and it is a ethical violation. Pro se complaints need to be filed claiming abuseof power under color of law. Petitions demanding action or show cause why such actions are lawful, and legally ethical acts.I really wish everyone would exercise their foundational constitutional rights to petition the courts for ongoing harms and redress.I really don’t know how the courts would react since all the arguments have merit and would therefore have to go through the entire judicial process. That would overwhelm the courts and throw the entire judicial system into chaos.
Believe me, starting the moment I filed my motion I will always have a pending petition of some kind in a court for some reason.I dont care if I trip over a sidewalk, or get any kind of ticket, or just don’t like my neighbor, as long as I can articulate a “rational basis” and its not malicious or meritless, then it will have to be heard and go through the entire judicial process. Fight em at their own game….Cost them as much as possible since it is free to file if you are not wealthy…
I noticed no one seems to be filing in state court using my motion as a templete, so after this semester during break I will be modifying my motion for a state challenge. I doubt if janice and team, or any org, will want to team up or assist me in anyway again, so PRO SE all the way….
They can’t apply this legally in any way that makes sense to me, so If were suposed to have been off in 2014 then this shouldn’t apply after they rule on Muniz anyhow and if they apply it to anyone currently registering that would be grounds fir a new lawsuit being it becomes retroactive exposfacto, nice fancy word for illegal.
Man these state legislatures can be in deep shi(*(&* if they don’t comply with the court order since now they are unambiguously aware that they are violating people’s constitutional liberties, under color of law, and are abusing their office and authorities. Slam dunk monetary damages; and prosecutable crimes that they are committing against registrants and their oaths of office….
@mike r and mike s my husband doesnt think they are violating the law when designing a registry that completely matches the old law with the old punishments for violating its terms.
Muniz was deemed punishment!
The lawmakers are designing a law to match old Megans Law prior to Sorna that wasnt deemed punishment.
Muniz said SORNA is punishment!
Lawmakers are taking Pre SORNA off of SORNA and putting you and my husband back onto what you agreed too at your plea agreement or were found guilty of too under old requirements.
Muniz said SORNA was punishment!
In Muniz he argued he should of been sentenced to old Megans Law Requirements.
Lawmakers are agreeing with Muniz and making the old megans law with the old requirements to match what was in place when Muniz would of been sentenced.
What Lawmakers are doing is honoring Muniz. And giving you and my husband your relief you are due per Muniz. SORNA doesnt apply to you so they are getting you off of it as to exactly what Muniz argued.
If it legal yes, is it hateful yes, is it illegal, nope. As long as they dont increase your requirements from Megans Law 3 requirements. Because no old Megans Law were deemed punishment, SORNA was deemed punishment.
My husband doesnt agree but its legal.
Also my husband wants you to know if you were supposed to off the registry your time has by adding up and time credit under Megans Law and SORNA counts towards your requirements. So if you are finished under old rules per 10 year registriants then you will be no longer required to register. If they make anyone who should be off it and put them on the new old looking Megans Law then that is illegal since they have completed there requirements. But if you were lifetime prior to SORNA you will be lifetime under the new old law.
They will revert anyone that still had life pre SORNA to the new laws less any enhancements made by SORNA, I’m sure they will try to sneak some things in that will have to go to court ML2 is what they should use because they only had SVPs on the internet Anyone that had their time increased by SORNA will get off if their time is up. SVPs will have to be put back to the time that was designated under the crime they committed at the time. I bet they will try to pull some crap and PSP will too
I am finding really difficult to see how they are going to severe the new laws from the old. How do they apply out of state reg. how does IML work, what happens when visiting other states, ect.? These are all legitimate questions that I do not think they will be able to address without completely overhauling the entire scheme with nation wide standards. These individual municipalities and the hodgepodge of state and local laws, can not work. It will not work no matter what they do. There will be way to much confusion on what law applies to who, when, or where. Here you guys go with more suits. I am in CA and it’s coming down soon.
Severing the law would be a state by state thing one would think, Muniz could apply completely different in on state and not at all in others, that’s a tough question. Maybe you should ask a lawyer or research every states guidlines. We may be able to challenge the international part in the future depending on what the future holds, I’m sure there are going to be continuous challenges and lawsuits until we get our rights back and they start treating us like normal citizens..
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/26790479.pdf
Another case from today!
http://www.wfmz.com/news/berks/arthur-fick-sentenced-to-2-years-probation-for-indecent-assault/655941351
Wow!
http://www.wfmz.com/news/berks/arthur-fick-sentenced-to-2-years-probation-for-indecent-assault/655941351
Wow!
Out of Reading Pa
The Reading Eagle. November 13 2017
They couldnt sentence this man to SORNA!!!!
WHY?
HIS OFFENSE WAS PRIOR TO SORNA!!!
JUDGE DIDNT AGREE BUT SAID…
MUNIZ IS THE LAW OF THE LAND NOW!!
Former school bus driver gets probation for indecent assault
WRITTEN BY DAVID MEKEEL
Monday November 13, 2017 02:30 PM
A former Oley Valley School District bus driver will spend two years on probation for the indecent assault of two young girls.Arthur Fick, 80, of the first block of Gauby Road, Alsace Township, received the sentence Monday from Berks County President Judge Paul M. Yatron after pleading no contest to the charges in June. He was also ordered not to have any contact with the victims in the case.
Along with his sentence, prosecutors were asking that Fick also be required to register as a sexual offender. However, Yatron said the currently muddled laws in the state prevented him from including that as part of the sentence.
Fick pleaded no contest to charges that he inappropriately touched two elementary school girls, one in 2001 and the other in 2008. Fick was each girl’s bus driver at the time of the assaults.
TODAY’S SPONSOR:
A no-contest plea means Fick conceded that prosecutors could prove he committed the crime but it is not an admission of guilt.
Charges were filed against Fick in 2016.
Fick’s sentencing had been delayed from September because of a question about whether he would have to register as a sexual offender. His attorney, Todd Mays, argued that a recent state Supreme Court ruling means defendants aren’t subject to reporting requirements in the state’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) if the crimes occurred before it went into effect in 2012.
The previous statute, known as Megan’s Law III, expired at the end of 2012 as part of the new SORNA.
Assistant District Attorney Colin Boyer argued that the state Supreme Court case, which is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, doesn’t apply to Fick.
In the state Supreme Court case, the defendant was tried and convicted prior to SORNA taking effect, Boyer said. He then fled before his sentencing, and was only taken into custody and sentenced after 2012.
Fick, Boyer said, was charged and entered his plea after 2012, and should be subject to SORNA even though the crime occurred before the new law.
Yatron sided with Mays, although he made it clear it pained him to do so. He said the state Supreme Court decision is “the law of the commonwealth now,” and that he had to follow it.
“The are no registration requirements I can impose on this defendant that would be lawful,” Yatron said.
Boyer stood by the plea deal, despite knowing a registration requirement would not be part of it.
Yatron said sexual assault cases of minors are troubling, and Fick’s case particularly so because of “the absolute chaotic turmoil the system has been thrown into” when it comes to the laws mandating registration requirements for sexual predators.
Given the inability to require Fick to register, which he said he knew was part of the prosecution’s thinking in offering a plea deal, Yatron said he found it difficult to impose the sentence agreed to in the deal. But a desire to keep the victims from the further trauma of going through a trial allowed him to do so.
Before the sentence was announced, the mother of one of the victims read a victim impact statement to the court.
She called her daughter a blessing, a “perfect addition to our already perfect family.”
She said she and her husband were often overprotective of their daughter, and that she will forever live with guilt over not protecting her from Fick.
“The thing that will forever haunt me is I wish I would have done more,” she said.
She spoke of the pain and torture her daughter will likely feel for the rest of her life, and said she will fight for her until she is whole again. She called Fick’s action’s sick and vile, saying there is no place in heaven for men like him.
Almost as soon as Yatron handed down Fick’s sentence, the judge had cause to reconsider it.
As Fick walked out of the courtroom with his wife, Jean, by his side, one of his victims and her mother claimed he spoke to them. According to their lawyer, Braden Lepisto, who was called to testify about the incident, Fick said, “Twenty minutes of lies.”
Fick was called back in front of Yatron, who said he didn’t think he could accept Fick’s plea because of the comment. Fick denied making the comment.
“It is deeply, deeply troubling,” Yatron said.
However, after meeting with Boyer and Mays behind closed doors for more than 20 minutes, Yatron stood by the sentence.
“Taking into account all of the circumstance, it will not alter the decision of the court,” he said.
Both the judge and prosecutor are dead wrong. Sentences hand out punishment to deter crime. When someone commits a crime, they do so knowing what the punishment might be if they are caught. Changing that punishment after the fact no matter when someone is charged or sentenced is patently unfair and unconconstitutional. They know that. So much for keeping your personal feelings out of rulings.
Here another case decided on November 14 2017.
Case decided today!
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/26942683.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22
Ha, this crap bit em in the (&&^…Everyone in PA take note ( and jump on this ASAP before they try to create some legislative fix) that you can not be subjected to any sex offender laws before 2012 because they didn’t extend those laws so they are no longer on the books, kind of hard to sentence someone to something that no longer exist……HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT IDIOTS>>>>>>Oh I love it…Big Happy smile over that crap….
“The previous statute, known as Megan’s Law III, expired at the end of 2012 as part of the new SORNA.”
Like how they always try to re litigate the case in every aspect when making decisions. Laying out the guy’s conduct in that case when it is completely irrelevant to the current issue is creating inherent biases and are inadvertently (or intentionally, which I know is why they do it) causing the court to be subjective which is totally against what the court is all about………Facts, evidence, and constitutional issues were what was being brought forth not any of his previous conduct…….
Mike did you ever read original Doe v Snyder 6th Circuit decision?
It was corrected 4 days after to exclude comparing the residency restrictions to “punitive sundown laws”.
Sundown towns, sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of non-white races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence. The term came from signs that were posted stating that “colored people” had to leave the town by sundown.
Interesting to at least know their thoughts on this.
PSP have submitted their Amicus Brief today on the Muniz case
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-575/20394/20171116114635386_Pennsylvania%20v.%20Jose%20Muniz_Amicus%20Brief_PA%20State%20Police.pdf
OK, I read the PSP Amicus, had a beer and a walk around the block and am now ready to comment.
It is the same BS that we see all the time….Protect the Children, yadda yadda yadda….. Doe v Smith, study from 2001 that all RCs are bad…… Study that only SOME RCs are bad but lest eff all of them.
As expected, nowhere in this brief does it talk about that SORNA can continue as laid out but cannot be applied retroactively and has to be part of the sentencing phase of the crime. Im guessing the the 17000 Rcs that they claim are going to be running amuck in PA and around the country are people like me, on year 11 of a 10 year ML, and the 1000’s that were moved to 25 year and life from 10 year Mls.
I trust that the Law Clerks of the Jurists of SCOTUS can see through the standard BS and that SOMEONE on the good guys side submits a response.
ON a positive and kind of ironic note for those of you that watched the meeting that I posted to my youtube page from Freed and the PA judiciary board…..
was the affirmation of the number of RCs that will be removed from the list and the fact that Megan’s Law Section Commander, Sgt. O.E. Rowles, Jr. sent an affidavit confirming this number. So, when it comes to enforcing the law that is Muniz, it will be as simple as going back to the database, highlighting the RCs that you identified and swore to and hitting DELETE!!
==================================================================
In fact, the PSP has estimated that, and argued to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Spann v.
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole &
Pennsylvania State Police, 71 MAP 2016, that more
than 17,000 sex offenders may be subject to removal
under Muniz because of conviction(s) for predicate
criminal acts that occurred prior to December 20, 2012
(out of a total of approximately just under 21,500 total
current registrants).2
Possibly removing nearly 80% of
the registrants in the Commonwealth is extremely
problematic, particularly because most of these
offenders were subject to registration, under previous
sex offender statutes, when they were convicted
(though not under PA SORNA, the most recent sex
offender statute
==================================================================
FOOTNOTE RELATING TO 17,000 RCs off the list
2
The Pennsylvania State Police, Megan’s Law Section
Commander, Sgt. O.E. Rowles, Jr., verified this information by
affidavit, in the submission to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Here is the latest concerning the Reply Brief due to the US Supreme Court today:
From the case docket……
Nov 16 2017 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 18, 2017.
Drag it out another 30days they are hoping the legislature can pass some BS ASAP PSP didn’t even bring up the people that had their time increased.
Motion to Enforce Plea Agreement granted!!
Thanks to Muniz!
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/memorandum%20%20vacatedremanded%20%2010332463727691731.pdf
Thanks for the clarification. And best of luck!