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

terry brunson

update on King’s bench 122 MM 2018 terry brunson

The PSP has no answer to give to little old me on what I am saying about how absurd in result it is to expire former Megan’s law provisions in SORNA 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.41 and then in ACT 10 and ACT 29 call for the use of an expired former Megan’s Law provision to apply to a person who’s form Megan’s law provisions has expired. 1 Pa. C.S. 1971(a) say that that cannot be done. 1 Pa. C.S. 1928(b)(1) gives a express definition that former Megan’s law provision 42 Pa. C.S. 979941 does report expiration of former Megan’s law provisions.

1 Pa. C.S. 1922(1) provides that an ABSURD result to have a statutory scheme which expired still be applied by ACT 10 and ACT 29 use expired law that no longer exist – I can see why they cannot give an answer to the PASC.

They don’s have one to give. Any of you can check the docket at 122 MM 2018 it is a sealed King’s Bench application that I filed directly to the PASC on ACT 10 and ACT 29 saying that the PSP wants to have expired law be used that good law SORNA 9799.41 expired 12-20-12.

It is like bringing my dead grandmother back from the dead to give me a beating for spilling milk on the floor back in 1966 when I was 6 years old. She died in 1986 and now you want her to get up out of a dead stupor in 2018 and discipline me? come on which law school did these people go to?

I am not a lawyer and I am not trying to be a know it all – but I am just showing the court what Pa. law says and the PSP and the Pa Assembly is out of line with good Pa. law on statutory construction of ACT 10 and ACT 29.

You don’t have to bring up punitive ex post facto and the unconstitutional arguments – that is what the PSP want to hear. They have an answer for that ACT 10 is Civil and they ignore the construction of ACT 10. That would be waived if not challenged right away.

I saw this when I filed in 339 MD 2018 and thy gave no answer to what I was saying like they argued something I was not talking to the court about. The Commonwealth court took it as a non answer to my Mandamus and vacated their order to let me attack ACT 10 and ACT 29 in the Commonwealth court, but the King’s Bench application is about to rob the Commonwealth Court of it jurisdiction over my case.

The PAG use to call me on the phone and make exparte communications. I filed to the court abourt her doing that. She did not thinking that I knew that law. I did 8 years in Texas prison law Library’s that had the best legal minds in this country as my friend. Other lifer inmates that were at the SCOTUS fighting and winning.

Pa. is much more constitutional than Texas. Texas is not a Commonwealth it is a republic that does not see itself as a state but another country within the USA. Texas has never bought into SORNA at all. They have Texas sex offender laws that are old law new law in scheme – Texas has no one law fits all. That is Pennsylvania’s problem. The One law fits all. will kill the whole scheme.

Pennsylvania has been trying to get Megan’s law right since 1996 and the PASC has not yet affirmed Megan’s Law or SORNA or AWA with constitutional muster that passes acceptance. Muniz and Derhammar are the two that we must thank for this present death of Pre-SORNA application of Law.

Derhammar is in jail but he has fought the best fight to get the PASC to decided 11-22-17 that Former Megan’s Laws are dead in application to ACT 10 and ACT 29. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are good law for Post SORNA offenses.

Bu to quantum leap backwards and resurrect expired law to make a law today work is a thing that is absurd in result. Can any one reading this understand what I am saying. Well I pray that the PASC will went they unseal the King’s Bench application of 122 MM 2018 I filed 3 July 2018