Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

Your comments is correct – before HB-631 or Act 10 I was let off early. . . . I am the only one off before Act 10 became Law. The PAG want me to stop filing in court by that letter the PSP sent me saying I could be put back on – – – That is my fight. That is their words – They think because they let me off early that I should be happy about that- I am fighting for all RSO’s and Pre-SORNA people. I have a big picture in view.

My case will break ACT 10 at the first challenge without lawyer helps. The PSP by VOLUNTARY CESSATION took me off with a open statement to put me back on this opened them to a new challenge on CAPABLE OE REPETITION which is an exception to mootness and opens a controversy to fight out in court.

The PAG thinks that letting me off the registry was the only thing I was after – They did that but with the condition that it will be short lived. That opens a new fight to take to the PASC I knew that from the beginning.

I am on a master march to the PASC on this issue to keep MUNIZ – Decision in tact.

If I am put back on – I fight on the back of Commonwealth v. Reed on due process violation of retroactive of ACT 10 application to me without a hearing before putting me back on this registry.

This ACT 10 looks good to the Pa. Assembly. . . But But But – That is if the challenge to the PASC takes it as civil. I PASC bet on that they take it as criminal because during Reed argument Three { PASC Justices } asked this question to the Commonwealth? “WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THOSE UNDER NEW LAW VIOLATE THE LAW? ” If the Commonwealth replies -JAIL- ACT 10 is criminal by PASC standard and will loose face to as being Punitive in nature. Right back at MUNIZ – Decision and to added REED.