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

terry brunson

To All
On September 19 I filed clarification to petitioner’s issues because the PAAG filed a brief that had all ex post facto issues that were not in my brief. She was like filing a ex prate brief on issue I had no idea of what she was opposing in my brief.

I filed am application to inform the court that the PAAG is not clear on my issue and she is going in the wrong direction. She even thought this action I was filing was a PCRA application and was opposing PCRA that I filed. I never filed no PCRA I filed a Mandamus, then I filed application for summary judgement on grounds of Statutory construction challenge to ACT 10 and ACT 29.

The court sided with me. . . . .The court wants to start at ground zero. They are allowing me to add a point on the Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6 to my brief in amendment. They gave the PAAG breif a strike to refile on the opposition issue at hand before them and no old trick of law school smoke shadowing of side issues that she want the court to know on ex post facto issues not rised by petitioner, (ME).

I will re file a brief on the following:
1. Statutory Construction challenge of ACT 10 and ACT 29 by letting the court know that tile 1 of the Pa. Statutory Construction Act will not allow ACT 10 and ACT 29 to pass constitutional muter on point of ACT 10 and ACT 29 calls form a use of Expired former Megan’s Laws to enforce ACT 10 and ACT 29. See 42 Pa. C.S. 9799.52(2) look for the word (FORMER SEX OFFENSES).

2. The Pa. Constitution does not allow Megan’s Law provisions to be revived or amended to come back to life to be used in ACT 10 or ACT 29. See Pa. Constitution Article 3 Section 6. This backs up the Pa. tile 1 statutory Construction ACT of 1 Pa. 1971(a) and 1 Pa. 1922(1) and 1 Pa. 1928(b)(1) all of tile 1.

3. Equal protection rights of U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 on equal offenses from Texas and Pa. Being treated different on same Pa. equal offense only because offense happened in Texas. see Tommy Lee Jackson 143 A 3d 468. ACT 10 and ACT 29 are punishment to increase a 10 year offense to lifetime simple because equal offense occurred in Texas.

4. Under Weaver V Graham 450 U.S. 24 the PSP is Applying ACT 10 and ACT 29 to terry brunson’s 1999 conviction in a disadvantage way. Yes it is retroactive in application and gives a legal consequence greater than the original punishment. Here is where the PAAG will glean ex post facto. I am not raising ex post facto though, I am raising unfair advantage of a retroactive application of law on 18 Pa. C.S. 3126(a)(7) from 10 law application to lifetime application on out of state sex offender from Texas.

5. I want my name removed from PSP registry due to unfair substantive due process oppression of PSP on retroactive application of Act 10 and 29 being use to revive and amend expired Megan’s Law provision that were expired 12-20-12 long ago.