PA: Legislature to address Pa’s sex offender registration laws

A bill introduced this week in Harrisburg attempts to fix flaws in the state’s sex-offender registration system identified in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in July and could affect more than 10,000 registrants. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

325 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My husband doesnt see SCOTUS acting on Muniz on the 22nd. He believes they will sit and wait and see if HOUSE BILL 1952 passes and then they will deny CERT of WRIT. Which then who has to register under HOUSE BILL 1952 has 90 days to register under new bill. It is easy to SCOTUS to wait.

Paul 2
Would be nice to have the answer to that question for sure my man, they could be waiting for the right moment to strike like a rattle snake, all we can do is have educated guesswork for the moment,we may find out Monday though, we could only hope.
But I am really feeling confident about SCOTUS track record and this sexoffender deal, I mean they didn’t grant cert to any other states unless there was a split in which they did grant cert in that case.

Stupid question, does anyone know why when looking at the SCOTUS calendar Muniz doesn’t show, but when I enter the docket number in the case shows up?

@Brian, what calendar are you looking at (link)? Is it possible that the calendar you are looking at shows cases scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court? Those cases are ones for which a petition of certiorari was granted.

No cert decision has been made yet in Muniz. It is being distributed for conference for the first time this Friday. Cert could be granted, denied, or the case could be relisted for a future conference. It will only show up on the Supreme Court’s argument calendar if cert is granted. That is not likely to happen.

To make things easier for everyone, here is the link to the “Order List” for Monday.

SCOTUS posts this list at 9:30am (Eastern) on the Monday’s following the conference.

Anyone that goes to this page with a calendar handy will notice that a Grant of CERTIORARI often times is announced on the day of the conference, Friday 1/19/2018. On Monday, is when you see all the denials, orders on pending cases, and other housekeeping items.

Like everything with SCOTUS, there is nothing that is 100% true or false. That being said, take a look at the site below later on Friday for a possible list of Petitions that are grated CERTIORARI.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt

I was looking in the wrong place, are we missing a blog from pa?

Mike S
Sorry I meant that one of the PA blogs on this website is gone, the one that said PA Megan’s law is in limbo. Hope we get some good new tomorrow or Monday.

Pantry Boy
You welcome.

My husband just wanted to allow everyone to know that this is the new case decided today!

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/judgment%20order%20%20vacatedremanded%20%2010339503031862207.pdf#search=%22sorna Muniz 2017%22

Superior Court vacated Lower Courts Order that stated not to remove and Superior Court vacated the order and sent back to lower court in the light of Muniz to Remove this Man from SORNA!

How late will they wait to add anymore orders?
Thanks for the updates also most appropriated.

Monday January 22, 2018 A.M. 9:30 is the MUNIZ Cert denial list. . . . . Muniz case will be a denial win and DA Freed will have the end of the line finality on MUNIZ. The SCOTUS will issue a remand order returning jurisdiction to the PASC to order Muniz mandate to PAG who in turn must issue order to the PSP – and the PSP will act confused about which order to follow? Do they wait for HB 1952 to become law or follow the MUNIZ mandate?
.
When HB 1952 becomes law – the PSP will issue a 90 day enforcement notice to all they think are under HB 1952 requirements.

And that is when the case by case BS will start. These non-precedent cases only ordered to an individual will be required by HB 1952 page 111 as a judicial determination requirement to get off the registry for those that still have time left to be on the registry.

The challenge will begin – Muniz will play apart- but it will not be automatic.

Mandamus is the writ to file.

The challenge to the HB 1952 law will be for pre – SORNA people.

The attack will be under the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 Reputation shaming of being put on a website without due process of showing reason other than Pa. statute requires it. Must show proof of being a danger to Pa. public.
The next attack will be Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 17 (Ex Post Facto) on date of effect is applied in a retroactive way to Pre-SORNA people.
The last attack will be under Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 26 – The Commonwealth nor any political subdivision like the PSP and PAG shall not deny any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right. (The key is HB 1952 picks on a key group _pre-SORNA people in a discriminating way.)

The PSP is banking that with all the Punitive stuff off the HB 1952 that it will pass the muster needed at the PASC. The provision in the HB 1952 page 109 will kick in for pre-SORNA people to get a court order – they can claim Muniz – I don’t see why Muniz cannot be applied automatic . . . . . They want a case by case Judicial determination by a court.

This will flood the court docket – and that is their objective. Overload the court. But I think the PASC is ready for that BS….. They will put in the MUNIZ remand order that Muniz is the Judicial Determination that HB 1952 seeks to fix pre-SORNA issues. And that is to remove pre-SORNA people off the PSP registry.

“The attack will be under the Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 1 Reputation shaming of being put on a website without due process of showing reason other than Pa. statute requires it. Must show proof of being a danger to Pa. public.”

This is interesting. So could this be argued in California. Anyone pre-website could argue no due process?

Cert denied !!!!!!!!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012218zor_3314.pdf

CERT IS DENIED AS OF THIS MORNING, JANUARY 22 2018.

House Bill 1952 is trailing close behind and hopefully the Senate does not pass this bill!

My husband has a hearing to be removed from SORNA, and since Megans Law 3 was in place at the time of his sentence hearing in 2006. He like many will be removed from the registry, and we will wait to see what House Bill 1952 has in store for everyone.

Have a great day!

ANOTHER VICTORY, I am a Woman Against the Registry.

God Bless you all!

Cert DENIED!!!! YES there is light at the end of the tunnel. Now that it’s denied what happens now. Does PSP have to start making moves or do we have to wait for HB 1952 to be become law.

I think it would behoove every RC in PA to get a judgment releasing them from registering ASAP. Taking the example displayed in KS, where the KSSC overruled itself the *same day* regarding RCs (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/kansas_supreme_court_issues_three_opinions_then_overrules_them_on_the_same/), a judgment cannot be undone. I don’t know the mechanics of it, but a judge in one of the latter dissent explicitly wrote that the RCs who won in the earlier case were not affected by the overrule (see the last sentence of the URL’s fourth paragraph), as their judgment had been completed. This makes sense, or else every single time a judgment is issued, people would want to go back and be made whole retroactively. Anyway, something to think about–and something PSP, et al, are probably aware of and intentionally dragging their feet about.

1. Condescension isn’t always Person A directing it at Person B. Sometimes it’s Person A. Sometimes it’s Person B. Sometimes it’s both Person A and Person B. But, if everyone around you is condescending, it might not be everyone around you who is condescending.
2. “I believe I am not being condescending I have only responded to condescending posts directed at me.” Me either, and me too.
3. “[T]here seems to be a few in here that…seem to support people that clearly are dangerous to the community.” “Clearly” by whose standard?
4. “If you don’t like it, see if you can apply for a moderator position on here.” a.) Right back at you.
b.) Sounds like it’s already been filled: “I and others on here know who you are and will be called out.”