Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

#27539
Avatar
terry brunson

This is Terry Brunson

I think DA Freed has a never say die in the face of defeat attitude on PA ML – 4 SORNA

The PASC has dealt a death blow to SORNA and to get back at the PASC Freed has gone to the last resort to tell the SCOTUS to correct the PASC on MUNIZ decision.

I am quite sure Freed wants to play a game of delay with the SCOTUS calendar to delay things as long as he can.

That said, absent SCOTUS wanting to overturn longstanding procedure and precedent, the petition of Freed 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 in other of my post, and had to dig around to find it again, but I refer you to the Last Resort Rule you can go to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule).

Of specific interest in regards to Muniz are Brandeis’ Second Application of the Last Resort Rule at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule#Brandeis.27_Second_Application_of_the_.22Last_Resort_Rule.22) and the Adequate and Independent State Ground Doctrine at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_resort_rule#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.” See (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/288/case.html)
=====
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 Freed’s petition and give it an early thumbs-down.

I think all who see this post should use the delay time to look over the information I am giving here. . . . . . . . . . .

I am in wait of the PSP reply to my Pro Se Mandamus – I expect an object to my Mandamus due to a Stay. . . But they have not read Commonwealth Court internal rule Rule 2591(a) and 1701 (a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

You can file a Mandamus during a stay- you just have to take leave and ask permission to do so. . . .