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


terry brunson

@ snoopy

My case is in a special part of the Supreme Court of Pennsyvania called the King’s Bench. Me not being a lawyer seems to be giving the PSP and the PAG hell.

They cannot figure out how I would know what the king’s Bench was to make a direct appeal from a Commonwealth court to the PASC. That is not a normal move. There is to be a Superior court of appeals stop that I use the knig’s bench to bypass.

Not many know about the king’s bench in the Supreme court of Pennsylvania. a pro se person like me knowing this is a black eye to the PSP and the PAG. I won a Mandamus in part victory but it came up against ACT 10 and ACT 29 not yet being put before the PASC. The fastest way to get it there is by the King’s Bench.

Look it up and you will read about it. I have a MT docket at the king’s Bench. it is 335 MT 2018 and 336 MT 2018. One is an appeal and the other is an ACT 10 challenge.

The Supreme Court King’s Bench is not a 100% thing. There is still a application for appeal allowance. They have to agree to take on my case.

When I get the permission to appeal approved I will be given a public docket and you will be able to see it. I am head of Polzer now. He did not do a kings bench. Derhammer just won in the PASC on former Megan’s Law not allowed to be used under SORNA.

What the PASC must get before them is ACT 10 and ACT 29 based not on ex post facto and punitive, That will take care of it self. The big fight is the Statutory Construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

You may not know what I mean, but ACT 10 and ACT 29 are still SORNA. Sorna by Muniz was not deemed unconstitutional as a whole. Only the retroactive application was. So it short. ACT 10 being apart of SORNA makes the amendment unconstitutional because law in pa is not constructed on Amendment to a unconstitutional law in part. A half truth is still a whole lie. A half unconstitutional law like SORNA is unconstitutional in to amend. See 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) ; and 1928(b)

The king’s bench must be informed that Muniz did not declare SORNA unconstitutional itself, it only said its punitive thus barring retro application.

This is huge because had SORNA been deemed unconstitutional. Then Megan’s LAw 2 would have automatically went back into effect. Since ML 3 was deemed unconstitutional.

And had that happened then a new law like ACT10 and ACT 29 29 could be done.

HOWEVER; 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 expired former M.L statues, the statutory construction ACT does not allow something like ACT 10 or ACT 29 it is just that simple . That is what I am telling the king’s bench in the PASC