Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

The PSP is not the bottom line authority – They are the enforcers of law. . . They are taking sides with the most recent law on the seen HB 1952 – To ignore Muniz is to invite a fight on Pa. Constitutional corrections entitled because of Muniz and Nieman cases.

The PSP ML section as a lawyer that I am in battle with in a mandamus summary judgement. I had to amend my brief 3 time to keep up with changes to Muniz cert appeal, and HB 1952 to add the arguments to the brief.

The PSP has 30 days after my filing to oppose what I am claiming Muniz and Nieman rights to be removed and not having to be sent back to where I use to be under old ML standard. . . I must be off. . . by Muniz and Nieman. . .

Not pushed under some new law called a fix to Muniz. The PSP can ignore the Muniz decision – But chuck did you say Muniz and Nieman will get you off? Why did you say that. . . I thought PSP is ignoring Muniz???????????

You are well respected by me- I am in a battle up front with the PSP in Court and I hear what the judges are saying and that will effect the out come of my case. . . It will be published and all will be able to read it – They may put NoN Precedent case on it to keep it quit – I am not spreading false information as you have claimed. . . . . .

You seem to have said it clear that HB 1952 provision on the “Judicial Determination” is Muniz. . . . . But you said the PSP ML Section told you that they are not going to Follow Muniz. . . . . Do you see how that double talk is confusing. I have loss any respect for what you say – I am done on trying to put anymore effort in help other to see or understand the outcome of Muniz Niaman and HB 1952 How can the judicial determination be Muniz and You are being told the PSS will not follow Muniz. . . Listen to your own words. They you said Muniz and Niaman gets you off you didi know that. . . . Come on are you really on the team or on the side line hating ?