Hey I have good news- As of January 2, 2017 I was given a vacated judgement – however it was not to refile. . . . .
It was to service the AG and and PSP by certified mail by 22 January.
There is a special rule that the court applied for me because the claims that i am making are clear. The case don’t have to be closed.
Here is the rule:
Rule 1532 (b) Summary Relief.
(b) Summary relief. At any time after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original jurisdiction matter the court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant thereto is clear.
Subdivision (b) authorizes immediate disposition of a petition for review, similar to the type of relief envisioned by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure regarding judgment on the pleadings and peremptory and summary judgment. However, such relief may be requested before the pleadings are closed where the right of the applicant is clear.
My right is clear as can be – I wish all could see my brief for summary Judgement. . .
I will follow rule Pa. R.A.P. 1514 (c)
(c) Service. A copy of the petition for review shall be served by the petitioner in person or by certified mail on the government unit that made the determination sought to be reviewed.
In matters involving the Commonwealth, the petitioner shall similarly serve a copy upon the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Where there is more than one respondent, the petitioner shall separately serve each one.
I do not have to refile because the case 463 MD 2017 has new life to proceed with service correctly. . . .
In my Muniz Reed and Gilbert fight I tell how HB 1952 is not a fix and it is not the right solution to correct the Megan’s Law problem before the Pa. officials.
I don’t know how I got in position to speak for all Pa. RSO’s without a lawyer, But I think all should follow my case because it may be used to get a judicial determination that HB 1952 calls for to be cleared from being on the Old Megan’s Law rules.
Megan’s Laws were expired by SORNA – There is no reverts to put people back on. Only off the registry[.]
My case argues this clear. . . . . If you were blind you could see it.
The Commonwealth Court see it. They gave an order for the AG and PSP to write briefs to oppose my brief. Ask Chuck for the link to my case. The order looks like this word for word:
January 2, 2018 Order Filed 01/03/2018 Per Curiam
Order – Upon consideration of “respondent’s preliminary objection due to lack of proper service &
Comment: application for relief from the Court’s order setting a briefing schedule for summary judgment,” and
petitioner’s “proof of service to respondents” filed this date, which the Court will treat as an answer to the
preliminary objection, the preliminary objection is sustained.
This Court’s order of December 18, 2017 is vacated.
Petitioner shall, no later than January 22, 2018, serve respondent with the petition for review as set forth in
Pa.R.A.P. 1514(c) and file a proof of service of same with this Court.
This Court shall treat petitioner’s “petition for summary judgment” as an application for summary relief
pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b). Petitioner shall, no later than January 22, 2018, serve respondent with a
copy of the third amended brief in support of summary judgment and file proof of service of the same with
this Court. Failure to make service and file proofs of service as directed in this
order will result in a dismissal of this action.
Respondent’s brief in opposition to the arguments made in petitioner’s third amended brief in support of
summary judgment and in the brief in support of the application for clarification (4 copies) shall be filed
and served within 30 days of service of petitioner’s third amended brief.