ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


PA: Legislature moves to keep 17,000 sex offenders on state registry

HARRISBURG — The state House on Tuesday voted unanimously on changes to the state’s sexual offender registry intended to correct problems the state Supreme Court identified as unconstitutional.

If left uncorrected, more than three-quarters of the more than 20,000 people now registering on the Megan’s Law list might need to be removed, according to data provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Full Article

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well here we go. Since HB 1952 has been redone all of a sudden it’s gonna take 18 months to figure out who comes off and who stays on. Now it took only a week or 2 if that for them to get everything together when we all had to deal with the sorna switch. Their benefit a week or two. Our benefit 18 months. Sounds like PSP is gonna drag their feet because the benefit is not in their hands.

“…reporting requirements are not punitive so they can be applied retroactively”

Isn’t that still ex post facto by a basic definition? Looks like it to me.

Here’s your budget shortfall money for the time being.

Someone get the Guvnuh on the line please…

The courts don’t use a “basic definition” of Ex Post Facto. The concept applies only to laws that are deemed punitive. It’s not clear yet whether any aspects of this new registration law impose punishment, but I think its likely that it’ll be tested in court. Hopefully as soon as it goes into effect.


Then I hope an injunction is requested, if possible, and granted to delay the law being enacted and is tested as you say

The laws must have a civil remedial purpose and pass review under the Mendoza-Martinez factors. Personally I don’t see what about the bill would make it an ex post facto law. The SORNA enhancements have been removed and registration requirements effectively revert back to pre-SORNA requirements, e.g., a person who had to register for 10 years pre-SORNA but had that time increased by the implementation of the SORNA tier system would go back to that 10 year requirement. If that person was convicted at least 10 years ago, then their period of registration is over. Lifetime registrants now have a mechanism to be removed from the registry after 25 years. There really isn’t anything punitive about the bill that I can tell.


I agree except for the way they are determining a person is an SVP (found to be unconstitutional) I think they think it is ok because they made the other stuff no punitive but they are wrong. Also who is to say 25yrs is not punitive They should have to make it anytime a person wants to challenge it. Definitely should be able to do it once a yr. Also the classification of failure to comply is cruel and unusual f2 and f1 for a civil protection rule is insane this can be proven punitive, when the true data showing reg has no effect on protecting the public.

Has anyone heard anything on Muniz cert? I don’t see anything on SCOTUS docket like any new extensions.

I don’t know anything about SVP determinations really.

As far as the 25 years go, I’d think by now that would have been decided by the court. The way I see it is, if lifetime registration is okay, why not 25 years?


You MAY apply for relief AFTER 25yrs. BUT THEY DONT HAVE TO GRANT IT … that’s the catch !!!!

Correct me if I am wrong but, a person would be petitioning the court, so they have a better chance of getting off the list than they would if the Rightists in the PA legislature were making that decision.

Part of the reason Muniz and others were successful was the PASC has recognized that reputation is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The irrebutable presumption doctrine is why they created the mechanism that allows a person to make that petition after 25 years.


I still dont understand how the “Court” plays a role in getting on the registry in 25 years? And what court? Sentencing court at the county level? Commonwealth Court at the appellant level? What is the process to get off the registry after 25 years, is the “victim” allowed to show up and rehash those claims? Is Jennifer Storm going to get an email alert at every 25 year hearing to show up with her normal 90% recidivism rate nonsense?

If I was a Tier 3 or lifetime Pre Sorna, I would be banging down the doors of the Senate to answers or iron clad process.

IF you are lifetime and you have not been CONVICTED of a crime that Yadda Yadda Yadda, you can fill out Form VC-3434 and be removed from the registry.

That is what you want in the law

They are trying to mitigate the punitive effects of people not having the ability to show they are not a danger to the public by giving people a chance after 25 yrs to show they are not a threat. My thing is a person should be allowed to show this at anytime they see fit. Life is not ok to them now because they added this with means they recognize it is a problem.

Once they open the door to 25 years, someone will find an attorney to challenge that in court. They’ll question why it’s 25 years and not 15 or 10.

Personally I think they [Congress, the states] brought on all the challenges because they took it out of the purview of the court, and left it to state legislatures to make all these decisions. If the court was able to make that decision, you’d find less people on the registry, and more people with the ability to get off of it.


The mass of litigation that will only exponential increase and overwhelm the courts on this will eventually sway things back that way to the courts but lets hope the judges can keep the shred of honor a duty that some still have for the constitution because the cops and politicians have none.

The mere fact that the registry is public on a website makes this punitive. As soon as the law affects your life in a negative way, financial, emotional, physical, etc. the law is punitive. Not to mention the fact that there is punishment for violation of this law written in the law itself and it is contained in the sentencing portion of the law. I realize that my statement and argument is disjointed, but it is added by mobile device and editing is a chore.
One other point worth mentioning is that this law also violates the 5th amendment regarding double Jeopardy in that being punitive it is a second sentence for a single crime. Just do some research about the ways it puts life and limb in jeopardy of those on the registry.

What is the Docket Number for Muniz at the SCOTUS Level. We wont hear any news on a grant or deny until at least January. The next conference date is January 5 2018 unless Marcus filed a brief and the Commonwealth want to response to it. And if Marcus asked for the extension it was because he knows HOUSE BILL 1952 benefits his client and would save everyone so much more money if Marcus delays and HOUSE BILL 1952 passes before SCOTUS denies or grants cert. Because if HOUSE BILL 1952 passes then my husband can almost guarantee the Commonwealth drops the Muniz Appeal. They already win with HOUSE BILL 1952 because he grabs every one prior to SORNA effected by the MUNIZ Decision and it keeps them on the registry knowing that HOUSE BILL 1952 will takes years to get argued and by then they get another law in place. HOUSE BILL 1952 is a saving face bill to protect the public. Everyone prior to SORNA will be placed onto it and the ones who are done there 10 years will have to wait 18 months like PSP has requested to locate the ones who need to come off it.

HOUSE BILL 1952 will be signed in January 2018.

Any one due relief from MUNIZ will be placed on the HOUSE BILL 1952 by March 2018.

LOL thats a lot of speculation for someone that dosent have the docket number. The info from Muniz was due yesterday would like to see if they asked for another extension. No one is placing me anywhere lol Marcus is not Muniz lawyer.

Pennsylvania, Petitioner
Jose M. Muniz

docket number is 17-575.

Response brief was due yesterday. There’s no indication on the docket yet whether a response was filed.

Read the response, I am good with everything they said. They stuck to the law and did not open the case up for any delay. January 2nd is the first day that the Justices can get a look at it. January 5th is a hope, but more of a stretch to get everything in order to deny.

the [Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s] decision here is directed at the aggregate effect of the challenged aspects of [SORNA

This is how they are saying the law was not ruled unconstitutional.

HB 1952 was written because the authors of the bill know SCOTUS is not going to grant cert. If the Petition for Writ of Certiorari had a chance, they would not be wasting their time, nor would they be rushing to get it passed.


No speculation. Just saw the games they played with husband before his case was dismissed per muniz

My husband just read the Brief to Deny Cert filed. WOW WOW AND WOW!

He said that they nailed it in every possible way.

By slowing bringing the Michigan Denied of Cert into the equation but not resting its reason solely on Michigan’s denial. The comparison was perfect. State by state issue!

Cert will be denied.

Now it is just a race of time for the ones with petitions in the lower court, House Bill 1952 or the deniel of cert.

However when cert is denied and House Bill 1952 is passed, what do we do?

It doesn’t matter ,, there going to pass a new law that is not so intrusive and apply it retroactively ,,, they just start the process over,,, all over again …. Pa. legislature are constitutional breakers ,, they don’t care at all about the rights of the citizens , they only see the millions of federal dollars they may lose if they don’t keep as many as possible on the sorna (megans) registry … Pa. legislature will PERSICUTE anyone for the right amount of money …..

It’ll not be applied retroactively to anyone who completed a period of registration, or anyone who *would have* if not for the SORNA enhancements. The purpose of the bill is to encapsulate offenders who had not completed a period of registration, including those who would have been required to register for life regardless of SORNA. If they attempted anything more it would no doubt fail because it would be seen as an additional punishment, and violate both the due process and equal protections clauses.


The brief was very well written and 100% factual, f was caught in many lies which don’t look good I front the justices.

How about this USSC decision : Doctrine of Vested Rights – McCullough vs. Virgina 172 u.s. 102(us1898)
It is not within the power of a legislature to take away the rights which have been once vested by a judgement…..

Thank you for that reference, as I’ve been wondering where it was. This is exactly what happened in KS, where the KSSC overruled itself in the same day! ( The dissent in the fourth case specifically assured the RCs who won in the previous three cases that they were not subject to the overruling of the cases later in the day.


Muniz will not be required to register or people in a similar situation as Muniz. i.e. convicted of a tier 1 crime and have spent 10 years on the registry , Vested Rights doesn’t apply.

How about someone granted relief based on Muniz? Where they given rights to stay off reg ?

Paul 2,

That is a very good question that has an answer based in the law but PA does not care about the law.

We have shared a dozen PASC and Superior Court rulings based on Muniz’s State ruling. SCOTUS does not have the ability to change State law based on a ruling from the PASC and the Appellate Courts of PA know this all too well and has ruled using Muniz as “The law of the land”.

If someone has a decision from the court and the Commonwealth did not challenge that decision to the Appellate level and the law changes, the Commonwealth CANNOT violate that Order.

BUT, the Commonwealth is establishing a NEW registry that is NOT punishment. So, since it is civil and no longer looks like SORNA, technically the Commonwealth can put these people right back on the registry.

In the case of Muniz, he will not have to register and I believe that all of the cases that we have seen that use Muniz as their guiding precedent wont have to register because they were 10 year RCs that time have expired.

Im guessing that Muniz gets rejected from SCOTUS and HB1952 gets passed. All Tier 1 and 2 RCs that did their 10 years get off the registry and all the Tier 1 and 2 are rolled back to 10 years. SORNA is dead in PA. I think the only fight left in PA will be for the elimination of ML all together?


Appellant No. 1502 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered August 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001928-1996
Appellant Jerry Puryear appeals from the order denying his petition to
enforce a guilty plea agreement. We vacate that order and remand in light
of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz,
164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), pet. for cert. filed, No. 17-575 (U.S., Oct. 13,
On May 8, 1997, at docket number CP-36-CR-0001928-1996,

Must read!

@Mike S
I respectfully disagree, I don’t think Muniz is going to be rejected based on what all of the other states were decided by SCOTUS, plus only 1% of certs make it through, Muniz lawyer has an amazing and sensible argument, Muniz is all about SORNA, even though he was pre sorna, he was as you know charged not to long after SORNA went into affect but as you also know he caught his charges pre SORNA , by placing SB 1952 in place of SORNA I would think is expost facto to the post SORNA registrants, Do you think their going to revert post SORNA people to the old ml, that’s another lawsuit waiting to happen in my opinion,I am not thinking this is how it’s going to work out but hey you could be right Mike but my intuition is saying something completely different,


Not sure we differ here. I think scotus denies cert and HB1952 becomes new Megan’s Law. Although it is a little funny that PA is calling it Adam Walsh Act on the code.

We all know any new law will be challenged. It just depends on what avenue will be used. We done contracts, Ex Post Facto, reputation, multiple bills on one bill, etc.

The new year is going to bring new challenges and I hope that, IF, we are granted relief that we continue the fight. I know that I don’t plan on walking away and believe that I can more not being on the registry? I had a good obi wan and yoda analogy, but it did not make the final cut.

@Mike s
Yes I completely misinterpreted what you had said that was my fault, so exactly I should say, SORNA WALSH AWA it’s all the same thing their just trying to make it something different or make it seam different.

@Brian, are you replying to this statement by Mike S : “Im guessing that Muniz gets rejected from SCOTUS”?

I think what Mike S means is that he is guessing that the Petition for Certiorari by the Commonwealth in the Muniz case will be denied. Meaning that the PA Supreme Court decision on Muniz will stand.

Seems like you are saying the same thing.

I have to say that the people upgraded by sorna from 10yrs. to life will get relief … That will get me off the registry , but I know others that weren’t on the ML registry at all until sorna and put on for life … Now if this new ML registry isn’t considered punitive will the upgraded lifers that had no prior registry requirerments be applied retroactively to the new ML ?? Im being told “yes” that the crimes that got them life requirerment can be reapplied due to the fact that the new ML isn’t punitive … the appeal process starts over again for those people … Even though im going to be off the registry im going to still fight these regisrtys until there are none !!!

This man committed his offenses prior to SORNA in 2011.

He plead guilty after in November 2017.

He is required to register under SORNA for life as tier 3.

So an offense before SORNA, Muniz doesnt apply too.

Only a conviction prior to SORNA now Muniz applies too.

Someone help my husband and I on this one, makes no sense.

Judges dont care either or this guy wasnt the brightest or had a dumb attorney.

They are using the ML rules that were in place and added quarterly reg to his plea deal. He plead guilty to it and agreed to the registration rules in his plea deal. If he agreed to it they can do it. Other people pre SORNA were not told it was part of their plea deal just that they would be subject to registration. If he went to trial they would have had to make the registration details part of the trial and the jury would have to rule on it.

I believe there lookin at the way the law was written ,,, sorna states that the law applies when you are convicted not when the crime was committed … that’s how they put me on the registry …. when the act of luring was done it wasn’t a megans violation ,,, but the prosecution kept asking and getting continuence until the law was passed then they when forward with the prosecution … BAM ! 2 yrs later im on the registry .. my attorney objected but was constantly over ruled by judge….

Yes I was I apologize for that I misunderstood,
I think He was saying that SCOTUS would deny Muniz as accept the cert. I understand now.

It’s good that everyone is talking to each other about this law. However ,you must now flood the Pa.senate and governor with e-mails,fax’s,telephone calls and letters.
Explain to them they took an oath to uphold your individual constitutional rights and they would be engaging in ultra vires conduct if they vote yes on Pa.House Bill 1952 of 2017.
You don’t want to whine as if they are your master. Instead,let them know you are theirs and 1952 is a violation of Pa. Constitution and flys in the face of Muniz precedent .
1-the legislative finding the s.o.have high recidivism rate is an outright lie. The actual rate found in ton’s of professional studies and actual factual Government statistics prove the rate for committing a 2nd sex crime is less then 3%.
2-Supply them that data if you have it.New York has compiled a lot of them . Dig,work and show them.
3-All pre-2012 m.l. in Pa.expired under sorna-42 Pa sec. 9799.41 and 1 PaCSA sec. 1971(A) and sec. 1928(B).
There does not exist any former 2012 m.l. in Pa.that house bill 1952 wants to retro actively impose.
4-That Muniz tells the senator and governor that no one can be put on the internet pg. 38-40 and that they told them that first in 2003 in com.v.williams,832A.2d at pg.980.yet H.B.1952 ignores this legal fact..
5-That by threat of punishment forcing you to provide and verify registration info at your own time and expense without compensation is involuntary servitude which can only be imposed when duly convicted of a crime USCA 13th and that means it is punishment.
6-The only punishment in effect date of crime can be imposed. See Muniz expost facto clause .
7-That the senators and governors oath mandates they protect you from being forced into contract,s against your will and how H.B.1952 demands you verify the info you serve the psp. is correct and ,that you agree to m.l. terms and re-enter the contract no less then once a year. It’s an unconscionable contract of adhesion.
8- That it’s obvious the house members did not read the Muniz precedent,nor H.B. 1952 and as your senator they have a sworn duty to stop H.B. 1952 in its track’s as it not only is the most unconstitutional law ever created, it id fiscally irresponsible and satanic.
9-Everyone must flood the Pa.senate and governor with the info.They return Jan.2,2018. There is no time to waste ! Remember the senator;s and governors secretary aid’s will first get the info and likely will not pass it on to the senator,nor governor just like how the judiciary committee did not allow any general public input when making H.B. 1952. So you must repeat your flooding demanding senators and governors personal response to you .

Henry the news media is the only thing that will be the ones to stop these laws but it will be the next time around after the PASC rules this new stuff bad law again. If were lucky.

Just a question. Doesn’t this case show that the new bill proposed retroactively applied to people ” Creates a significant risk of punishment the law cannot impose”? The fact that the person could be charged with a F1 or F2 for forgetting to register a change. Or a disaster keeping them from doing so.
Top of page 7.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x