Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson


I called in and questioned the lady lawyer about “Vested Right doctrine under Muniz. She could not give a clear answer. I asked about the judicial determination of HB 1952 she said each case would require different steps.

I am not a lawyer but I know my rights. Muniz is a precedent law case to be applied under the due process of equal protection of law. HB 1952 to make some that Muniz helped to get off to be put right back on after taken off of SORAN to be put back on HB 1952 or HB 631.

This is not over yet – The PASC will be the final close- but a challenge must come forth to get there.

Judicial determination wording is in HB 1952 to to mean what?
MUNIZ? The HB 1952 is attacking MUNIZ by slitting it up.

If a people is done 10 years Muniz protects them. . . . . .

But if there is any time left – Muniz will be ignored and HB 1952 will kick in to call many with time left to register under the terms of HB 1952. What are you not understand about how the PSP is looking at this situation?

I am in court not – and I am not going to withdraw my mandamus as moot because I need a judicial determination. I paid $70.65 to file this. It I get an moot decision I will appeal to the Superior Court of PA. on my way to the PASC under “vested rights doctrine” Read up on that and you should under stand the true issues.

The online conference was a good thing but what you heard that 2 lawyers say go back and hear them clear.

Both said the new laws will be challenged – listen to it again . . . What were they talking about being challenged? If you have completed 10 years- – – – – – this is not you fight. . . . . . . . .

If you have not completed ten years – – a challenge can be made by mandamus in court to get what HB 1952 calls a “judicial determination”