Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

#37029
Avatar
terry brunson

@Chuck
Ha Ha Ha – I know her name – I called her shady lady because she don’t understand what I am trying to say to the Court. They asked here for answer in brief she comes back with a mootness claim like just to forget the money and that voluntary cessation is not always in good faith. A “judicial determination” is the goal for a court order to establish vested right to combat ACT 10.

ACT 10 is coming up next to fight – I am on the ready line to battle it – but why wait until I am put on it. . . . . a judicial determination now would keep me off. a voluntary cessation is a let down not fight.

Yes Muniz got me off due to punitive element of SORNA – but ACT 10 seems to the Pa. Assembly to not be punitive. In ACT 10 it says that a judicial determination will keep a pre SORNA person off the ACT 10 registry. Ms Nicole gave a brief about I should have filed Mandamus complaint before six months passed 20 December 2012. What?

She is saying shady lady sh_t – – – All I want to show is that Voluntary cessation does not bring automatic mootness.
In the Commonwealth there is exception to mootness. It is called CAPABLE OF REPETITION

Meaning – I will be put back on the registry. under ACT !0. The PSP letter said it. It showed to the court as EXHIBIT A. It said Please be advised that the PSP may be compelled to review your file in the future to determine whether you are required to register as a sexual Offender pursuant to new legislation law of ACT 10 in response to Muniz – decision.

It says two muniz got me off – and it says a Muniz fix will put me back on …. double talk.

Do you understand the shady lady talk I say it in fun But I know I should not though She just doing her job. Chuck thank you for being you – I always respect your words. You were the one that talked me towards Mandamus. Thank you – It is like you said. . . . . . .