Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

@ Jim B
You the plan to the “T” They gave me a letter from the PSP telling Muniz got me off the PSP registry – and in their own words reference the future legislature law to put me back on. I will use their EXHIBIT A letter to show that
the mootness doctrine of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – supports a judicial determination from a court in summary relief application by R.A.P. rule 1532(b) and can be granted at ANYTIME before the close of the case.

Just being removed from the registry was not the only issues in dispute in my mandamus application for relief .

WHEREFORE ALL PREMISIS CONSIDERED in exception to mootness I sited in my complaint the following:
1. Dispute of $1,000 a day issue where T.P.B. claims right to judicial determination on PS punitive action of making me wait through the Muniz Cert battle on Federal question when state question was seetled – I made no claim against PSP violating my Federal Constitution rights I made State claim only. The Pa. constitution gave me greater rights to claim and I did, and the PSP delay me by saying a question on federal Cert is the hold up to the court going forward on my state right claim. I want to be paid for having to wait through that $1,000 a day from the Oct 17, 2017 until Jan 22, 2018 that time it took for PSP delay waiting on Cert to get denied. My state case could have gone foward. There was no Muniz stay on state rights. The PSP used the Federal stay to hold up my state right claim by not acting under Muniz 90 days after 19 July 2017 till Oct 17 2017.
I filed on 13 Oct 2017 the PSP should have acted on my state rights then by law.

ThEN –

2. Voluntary cessation that looks to be in good faith, but will it is not – The PSP had motive behind promising to let me off the registry ASAP. The know a change in future by new legislation HB 1952 is coming – the PSP in the letter that they sent to me in para 2 (using their words not mine) “Please be advised Mr. terry brunson, the Pennsylvania State Police may be compelled to review your file [i n t h e f u t u r e] to determine whether you are required to register as a Sexual Offender pursuant to any [n e w l e g i s l a t i o n] in response to Muniz – i.e HB 1952”
Just because the PSP by Voluntary cessation took me off the registry, (Under Muniz) will in the future put me back on by a [Muniz hater law that targets me in prejudice] THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE that gives me entitlement to a “judicial determination” from a court order not just PSP doing the right thing – They got a hidden motive in taking me off the PSP registry to make it look like the court don’t now need to get involved to make a

terry brunson will be put on notice by the PSP when HB 1952 become law to register with the PSP again in the future as they put it in their letter to me.


3. Capable of repetition to avoid review of T.P.B. v PSP as a precedent case to guard vested rights of the future to site T.P.B. v. PSP by precedent under a “judicial determination” from this court in case 463 MD 2017 my case to help other in the same boast to get out. See Vested rights case McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1898)