Comments on: Dissecting Torsilieri – Why the Pennsylvania Trial Court Decision Matters to Us

By: Eugene V Debs

Eugene V Debs — Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:00:32 +0000

Pennsylvania advocacy YouTube update https://youtu.be/T9scawcs900

Important key I took away was that 6 people will rule on it since one passed away and in the event of a tie the lower court ruling will stand which Torilieri won.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Sun, 14 May 2023 17:19:36 +0000

Again, I just want to urge caution about getting excited over this case. The Pennsylvania superior court SPECIFICALLY vacated the trial court’s ruling that parts of the registry law are unconditional. It remanded the case right back to the trial court, solely so that the state could present additional contrary arguments that could have been presented at the trial court, but we’re not [moderator’s note: the case was remanded for further development of the record, as stated in the link below]. And that superior court wrote a long opinion including hints at how the state should argue it in the trial court. And as one of the dissenting judges on the superior court pointed out, even if the trial court rules exactly the same way after the state adds its new arguments, the case WILL come back before the superior court for a final decision. Considering that one of the “hints” that the superior court gave to the state attorneys to argue was that there is a purpose for the registry aside from punishment, I suspect that the superior court has no desire to rule the statute unconstitutional. Their overly long opinion remanding the case back to the trial court was aimed at helping the state argue the case [moderator’s note: the stated aim of remand, per the link below, was further development of the record].. When a judge tries to help a prosecutor, you know which way that judge leans. Worth reading and thinking deeply about.
https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-torsilieri-7

[moderator’s note: The trial court subsequently ruled the statute to be unconstitutional].

By: J genn

J genn — Sun, 14 May 2023 01:20:43 +0000

Everyone must remember that these cases set up to the federal level. But, we must look at each case with its correct p

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sat, 11 Feb 2023 21:26:43 +0000

I personally believe the registry nationwide should be abolished because it violates the founding documents our country was founded on that all men are created equal but determining on the kind of sex charge you have you are not treated equal and subject to violation of your rights of reputation in your community and in return violates due process and fair treatment so regardless of arguing it’s violating one’s right to due process shows that the registry should have not even been implemented in the first place. And reputation depending on state constitution but also regarding the financial racketeering scheme which violates case law under the constitution that the government cannot take a liberty turn it into a privilege and attach a fee to it which means they’re commuting fraud and treason against the public and violating their oaths to protect the constitution from both foreign and domestic enemies. With their logic applied they have perpetuated this stigma these politicians and lawmakers that they need to protect the community and keep people registered and what they’re doing is investigating prior charges that are already decided after you have completed your sentencing so alright if it is about protecting the community have you proven in a trial I am dangerous to the community? So what now with all these other types of charges with actual violence and assault with higher rates of recidivism are they not a threat to the community but they can argue and perpetuate a stigma that I am? Which violates the constitutional right to reputation but they don’t violate other charges and the lawyers can just keep profiting off them because they’re in and out of jail repeatedly but no registration system? They’ve devised this because 90-95 percent of people charged with a sex crime have never been in trouble and will never be in an issue agenda or plan with getting their foot in the door of you liberties and they can charge you with a level 6 felony if you don’t comply with their system and can charge you money yearly so they’re keeping you as collateral and as hostage on their system because they know they can’t profit off you again but they certainly know other charges people will keep going in and out of jail all the time and if there were restrictions like this for every other single charge the lawyers would be out of business because of their goals were to really protect the community why not perpetuate the scheme against all? They know they would have lawsuits nationwide so they decided to segregate a certain group of people through lies and intimidation. Just as John Kennedy stated it is infiltration of our ranks in this country and they’re the same people attacking the second amendment. Anyone who would give up essential liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. Benjamin Franklin. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. Protect all constitutional rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Abolish SORNA.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Tue, 25 Oct 2022 03:03:19 +0000

In reply to J A. We can only hope that their court sees something in the arguments to change their opinions. It's why this forum was created after all. The hope to change an unjust system.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Mon, 24 Oct 2022 01:07:04 +0000

In reply to Jacob.

In general, the trial court level is the first step. Most issues have to be raised in the trial court first, either by objection or petition. But a trial court decision has no effect over cases in other courts. As I pointed out in a different post, this decision has already been cited by litigants in other cases with no success. In fact, earlier in August Pennsylvania’s Superior Court in a case involving Thomas Benjamin Howard issued a ruling that the state’s registry law was constitutional. It is highly likely that when they remanded Torsilieri back to the trial court, they expected the judge to conform her ruling in the same way, that the law is constitutional because the Superior Court said it is. There is a strong likelihood that they will strike her ruling down as erroneous. We can hope that they have plans to fully address the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s law again because the issues were framed differently, but their most recent decision was that the law is constitutional because it’s merely regulatory.
Unfortunately, it’s like a football game. You don’t celebrate because you have the lead after one quarter. You have to wait until the game is over.

By: J A

J A — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 22:57:17 +0000

In reply to FAC Contributor #3. Tru dat!

By: J A

J A — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 22:51:35 +0000

In reply to Jacob. They filed an appeal but all they're doing is setting the Registry up for disaster as soon as it reaches the Supreme Court and they right their wrongs.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 13:11:27 +0000

In reply to Gerald. Are we saying that the state won an appeal, or just that they filed one?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 23 Oct 2022 13:02:20 +0000

In reply to Gerald. Are we wasting our time, then, challenging the constitutionality of the FL registry at the trial court level?