Update on 463 MD 2017 mandamus – – – The PSP had a lawyer on record as Ms. Joanna Reynolds, of the Law Firm: PA State Police Office Of Chief Counsel. That was the only Lawyer on record when I serviced my Mandamus… I followed PA rule 400 on mail service with a certificate of service to Ms. Joanna Reynolds, of the Law Firm: PA State Police Office Of Chief Counsel.
On December 21, 2014 Ms. , Nicole Jeanne Boland, of the Law Firm: Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
made an appearance and filed objection to my Mandamus summary brief – on grounds that I did not service her a copy of the Mandamus – She is the new lawyer on the case – and I had no idea who she was – – – So I read Pa. Rule 401(b)(2) and Pa. Rule 1028 rule for Preliminary Objections.
Which says a Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or the person of the defendant, improper venue or improper form or service of a writ of summons or a complaint;.
That is what she filed – I have 20 days to respond to that and I have with the solution in the Rule 1028
Which says a party may file an amended pleading as of course within twenty days after service of a copy of preliminary objections. If a party has filed an amended pleading as of course, the preliminary objections to the original pleading shall be deemed moot.
(2) The court shall determine promptly all preliminary objections. If an issue of fact is raised, the court shall consider evidence by depositions or otherwise.
In my case the record will show the evidence that there was but one lawyer on record to service and I did that – –
Preliminary objections raising an issue under subdivision under subdivision (a)(2) may be determined from facts of record so that further evidence is not required.
Rule 239.5 requires every court to promulgate Local Rule 1028(c) describing the local court procedure governing preliminary objections.
(d) If the preliminary objections are overruled, the objecting party shall have the right to plead over within twenty days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court shall fix.
(e) If the filing of an amendment, an amended pleading or a new pleading is allowed or required, it shall be filed within twenty days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court shall fix.
(f) Objections to any amended pleading shall be made by filing new preliminary objections.
Bottom line is time delay in tact – blocking the merits of the Mandamus. . . I knew this was coming. . . When I first started out I looked at the chain of administration flow and PSP falls under control of two controllers – for authority the govern’s office Executive and for judicial – Attorney General – But Pa. Constitution Article 1 Section 11 says when suit is made against the common wealth – Law dictates who to name in suit. . .
It is the PSP that controls SORNA not the Attorney General office – the AG can direct the PSP but the PSP are the respondents in a suit. The AG wants to join in – I think they are on a mission to stop justice or make it hard to file in court yourself without knowing all the rules of how to get a suit in a commonwealth appeals court without a lawyer, (Pro Se)
Normally appeals courts are used to review record decisions of lower courts under them. In my Case there is no record just the PSP SORNA application and classification of unfairness to retroactivly apply SORNA to me when I was under Megan’s Law 3 – Which SORNA expired. . .. Not repealed. . . Expired there is a difference… Repeal law has saving clause to revert back to if new law don’t fit some. . . . . But a Expired law is as if the law never happened. This is the problem that HB 1952 is going to have when it is challenged by people when it becomes law.
It is a retroactive law that cannot be applied to pre- SORNA people – The want to revert back to where you were but that Megan’s Law 1 2 3 was expired by SORNA. People were put under SORNA without legal right. It is Ex Post Facto