Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court – Discussion Continued

terry brunson

I had no I deal the court commented on 463 MD 2017 in Commonwealth Court 26 June 2018 @ 12:00 A.M.

This win on SORNA is a round one win – When I filed Mandamus in October 13, 2017 I was not fighting ACT 10 or ACT 29.

These came up after the suit began. The Mootness claim of the PSP doing the voluntary cessation is DENIED. I now have a judicial determination to offer as proof on ACT 10 and ACT 29 case still pending. on case 339 MD 2018

The key in case 463 MD 2017 was to get a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. And to get rid of the PSP voluntary cessation BS. Mootness was not the claim of the court. my Mandamus was GRANTED that is all I needed.

Now I will take this to the next level to show that SORNA – has been declared by a court that T.P.B. is not under the retroactive part of SORNA by MUNIZ and I can show that ACT 10 says in the Law that if a person has a court win or judicial determination under Chapter 97 subchapter “H” which is SORNA and I have now – then ACT 10 will not apply in Subchapter “I” I now just have to get it before the court under ACT 10. I got it At 339 MD 2018 I want to take leave of court and add ACT 29 and refile the new Mandamus under an added fight of PSP and Pa. Assembly violating the Statue Construction act on having 2 Sex offender Laws now may three in operation at one time.

SORNA is the base law – ACT 10 an amendment of SORNA-1 which in tack is still SORNA same. My attack is to show that if chapter 97 subchapter “H” is not enforcable on me @ the retro application – How can “I” be for it is an amended part of SORNA. which is ACT 10.

Wish me luck in round two. The PSP can appeal to the next court if they like. By my eye is still to get to the PASC. I am not fighting this battle just for me. I have all you guys in my heart. Especially Churck and Brian, Dave, Mark, Keith, and Snoopy my friends.