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

terry brunson

King’s Bench request is the fastest way to get to the PASC on an issue of public importance.

Under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) it gives Pro se filers in court rooms to write a legal argument as a non-learner attorney. The rule of “drastic sanctions” against pro se – is when pro se pleading is based on non sense.

The matters in Pa. on Sex offender registration requirement are of a public importance. The PASC issued the Muniz -decision, and the PA. lower courts are not on board to understand how to apply Muniz.

The Superior Court of Appeals in Derhammer case has a twisted idea of how to apply Muniz-decision, and even Derhammer had to appeal to the PASC to get the Superior Appeal court off his back on 11-22-17 see Commonwealth v. Derhammer 11-22-17 in light of Muniz.

I don’t think it is remiss to use the King’s Bench to get as fast as I can before the PASC.

How you file in court or use your words is individualized – the high court will take time to understand what is trying to be said. They will ask for a statement of jurisdiction, and questions of what is it you want they to review.

It is a shot in the dark to use the King’s Bench but it does not have the result to stop others from going forward in ACT 10 and ACT 29 issues.

The King’s Bench is a right to each to apply and it will not hurt the legal process of others. The King’s Bench in the PASC is set up for matter such as these that are going on in Pa. on sex offender issues.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 are amendments to SORNA. – yet still SORNA non the less.

SORNA has not been deemed unconstitutional as a whole law – The PASC only deemed part of SORNA unconstitutional on ex post facto application in retroactive way.

ACT 10 and ACT 29 reverts this application to say the PSP can apply ACT 10 and ACT 29 in retroactive way as long as they take away the punitive elements.

The PA assemblies thinks that they can just re-write Civil – collateral element over the effects of using ACT 10 and ACT 29 in retroactive way today no matter what the PASC said in Muniz- decision.

Some lower court are seeing the error, that the PSP has a appeal right during the appeal things stay as they have them until the PASC says differently.

It will take the PASC to get to the bottom of ACT 10 and ACT 29 applications.

It is not a waste of time or effort going through appeal by the King’s Bench – it is a straight shot to the court that can change this matter right away.

It is a logical step to try the King’s Bench. I am not a lawyer but I know the fight- and I have to try every possible avenue to get the high court to see what is really going on.

My issue is not waive-able due to the illegal construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29 of SORNA.

SORNA expired the former Megan’s law sections that apply to T.P.B. 12-20-12

ACT 10 and ACT 29 of the SORNA amendment wants to use expired Megan’s Law application that no longer apply to people who’s offense before 12-20-12 has gone away. It’s as simple as that.

No matter how many words I use to carry this message to the high court – it will come down to this in reality.

All Former Megan’s Law applications were expired 12-20-12 at the enactment of SORNA and cannot be used to apply ACT 10 or ACT 29 of the amendment on people who’s offense is after 1996 April and before 2012 December.

The law is written in 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 “All former Megan’s Law’s shall EXPIRE”

yOU CANNOT WRITE INTO act 10 AND act 29 that which has expired. My 1999 conviction from Texas is gone never to return to be applied to ACT 10 or ACT 29 or SORNA. Which all are of the same SORNA law and this is what the courts must see.

In my non lawyer way that is how the law reads to me. It is the Pa Assembly that cause this in a hunt for AWA money in 2006 when Washington D.C. asked the Pa. Assembly to expired all former Megan’s Laws. They did not figure Muniz -decision would ever come to get them in a legal jam like they are in now.