Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

Hello every one
I got my answer back from the PAG the shady lady lawyer filed 3 things about moot cases as if I never made a money claim. The court do not have to follow this shady lady’s pleading.

My position to the court is simple. The PAG office has a fix on being in the mix – I found a case that will make this a me and the court thing called Ex Parte filing.
Commonwealth v. Demora, 149 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2016), is a case the PAG shady lady lawyer sites as procedural control over sex offenders being removed from the PSP registry.

However Demora case held that the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) must be joined as an indispensable party in an action for removal from the sexual offender registry.

The panel in Demora case found that failure to join the PSP in such an action deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over a case. However, our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz undercuts the reasoning of Demora in two ways.

1. First, it implicitly OVERRULES Demora by removing Muniz from the sexual offender registry despite his failure to join the PSP in his removal action. I AM CALLING FOR THIS APPLICATION UNDER MUNIZ BEFORE to kick the PSP to the curb in my case – and just request to deal with the court and let them appeal to the PASC on this issue.

2. Second, it holds that registration is a criminal sanction, subject to ex post facto considerations, which abrogates holding in Demora.

The rationale behind Demora was based on prior cases holding that registration was ancillary to sentencing and not part of the criminal sentence. Thus, to avoid any confusion, MUNIZ should be now explicitly recognized to overrule Demora.

And the Psps should be kicked to the curb as being in my suit even though there is a rule in P.A.P rule 1514(c) that the PSP must to represented by the PAG. . . .

The PAG has filed mootness because they oredered the PSP to remove me from the regisrty as a Pre-SORNA RSO
, that sounds good and you would thing I would be happy – but ACT 10 is soon to come get old terry brunson. In the PSP letter to me it says that a future review of my file could put me back on registry under new legislation. That is the part of the letter that tells me that the PSP has intentions to block court judicial determination to say that by their voluntary cessation of the illegal conduct should call this case moot. They did what terry brunson was fighting for to be off the registry – – – – – BUT- – – terry brunson asked the court to hit the PSP with money punitive damages of $90.000 dollars for every day terry brunson had to waint for Freed’s bs on the Muniz Cert run that held me up. There was no stay on Muniz at the state level for which I filed. Only on the federal issue. I made no federal mention of PSP violation of federal rights.

The PSP is in going through the PAG to try to say that my case is done because they did let me off and the court is not now needed. But what about the money? and the CAPABLE OF REPETITION? ACT 10 is just that to put me back on. You let me off to put me back on to waive issues to appeal on. I got them bastards now……Capable of repetition is an exception to mootness and I can show that the PSP by their letter to me that they plan to reoccurence me to register in the future. The court need to be involded to stop them bastards by what ACT 10 calls a “judicial determination I been talking about from day one that I read HB 1952