Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

To deal with the New Pa. ACT 10 the challenge has to go all the way up to the PASC in Harrisburg.

Please take my word for it. I saw the road ahead and I used the Mandamus – The PAG and PSP got nerious and took me off in hopes of settling me down from filing in court. But I know that a Judical determination is the only thing that will keep Pre- SORNA people off the registry for good.

ACT 10 says so to at page 10 lines 8-11 of the law :
because of a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION on or after
the effective date of this section of the invalidity of
42 PA.C.S. CH. 97 SUBCH. H, is not SUBJECT to
registration as a A sexual offender.

The words on and after are the key – I am still in court fighting for my judicial determination – Any one can log into Pa. commonwealth court dock and see 463 MD 2017 T.P.B. v PSP and you will see that the PSP and PAG took me of the registry thinking that is all I wanted.

They did what is called “VOLUNTARY CESSATION” that is when they take me off the registry without a judicial determination.
But But But that may look good on the surface But But But the real deal is that I loose rights to appeal the original Mandamus on all grounds.

I don’t want that – I need the court to give a order taking me off in judicial determination so I can appeal to the higher court to get to the PASC. When the PSP took me off they can say to the Commonwealth court that there is no more controversy on T.P.B v PSP because they took me off – but they have intention to put me back on – The PSP sent me a letter that said just that. They will tell the court that my case is Moot in their answer- — – –

In Pa Commonwealth they is an EXCEPTION TO MOOTNESS DOCTRINE.

The PSP did not hide their intentions well to say we will let terry brunson off only to put terry brunson back on when ACT 10 law kicks in – in the future. That is “CAPABLE OF REPETITION”

Which says that they will go back to doing what I mandamus-ed for in the first place. The only thing is I mandamus-ed under MUNIZ- which PASC said is punitive. If I fall for the banana in the tail pipe and not object . . . I have to Mandamus again , But this time Muniz will not help me. Because ACT 10 is viewed as CIVIL with no Punitive elements that violate my rights. ( I will debate that in my brief to say ACT 10 is punitive at the end result more than a collateral civil consequence)

But the PAG’s real objective is to Keep T.P.B. v. PSP case from getting a review as a court case to help others in my situation as a precedent case of law under Muniz-decision.

That gives room to the EXCEPTION OF MOOTNESS in the Commonwealth of Pa.

The PAG lady keep calling me and asking me to get a lawyer. She don’r understand whay I just won’t stop fighting. I am off the registry you would think I should be happy – – – But they told on themselves through the PSP letter sent to me telling me that them taking me off will be short lived. There is a future possibility that I will be put back on. Without judicial determination I would loose “vested rights” that a judicial determination would give me to appeal.

If the PSP change their letter – and send me another without the possibility of ACT 10 putting me back on that would kill my evidence that they do plan on putting me back on They I would have to wait until they do that to file in court another mandamus that would be less convincing. I would loose the MUNIZ-decision and pick up Reed.