And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. John 8:32
Hall of Shame Nominee: Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. Dauphin County CCP
… one Nation, under God, with Liberty and JUSTICE for All.
Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. serves as a judge in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, PA. Clark has earned his nomination into this PACOURTINJUSTICE Hall of Shame for despicable conduct in the matters of Commonwealth v. (Claudia A.) Montelione; No. 2008 CV 0008765, which led to fabricated criminal charges brought in Dauphin County against Claudia and false criminal charges brought in DCCCP as Commonwealth v. Wrona.
Clark drafted, signed and entered into the record a “MEMORANDUM” allegedly documenting the step-by-step progression of the “state’s” case against Claudia. This document is a collection of distortions, falsehoods, fabrications and remarks intended to convey prejudicial value for the appellate court; Fraud on the Court. Clark fails to address the fact that Claudia attempted, from the beginning, to “challenge jurisdiction” in Dauphin County court. Her efforts were thwarted by the ‘court’ in concert with BCP; clearly a “criminal conspiracy”.
Claudia received heavy-handed treatment at the hands of Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., satisfying the fundamental criteria for “domestic terrorism”.
Clark’s MEMORANDUM shall be parsed bit by bit, exposing egregious misrepresentations of “LAW” as well as misrepresentations of fact. The misrepresentation of law constitutes, at the very “least”, a “Fraud on the Court” (by the court), criminal misconduct that deprives the litigant of “due process and equal protection of Law”.
But for the tyranny and oppression visited on Claudia from the bench and from the Office of Attorney General (BCP), some of Clark’s references would be amusing. When viewed in the context of a public servant “trustee” under the Public Trust, we witness a conspiracy to deny a public citizen her civil and Constitutional rights not limited to “due process”.
Clark emphasizes that Claudia filed motions that failed to comply with “local” rules of court. He disregards (ignores) the fact that BCP (Kathryn H. Silcox, Esq.) violated Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure to bring the matter before DCCCP (Clark). Silcox deprived Claudia of “due process”; Clark sustained the misconduct of BCP (Atty. Gen.).
It would be journalistic negligence to fail to remind readers that any statute or rule of court that impinges on a Constitutional right is, a priori, UN-constitutional. U.S. Const., Article VI, second clause … the Supremacy Clause … holds judges accountable to the U.S. Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding.”
Most of us understand this clause to mean that when a man or woman appears in a courtroom wearing a black robe and acting under the “presumption” of being a “judge”, then they have “accepted” the contractual offer of a public servant and “Trustee” under the Public Trust which burdens them with the fiduciary responsibility (legal “duty”) to act at all times in conformance with the Supremacy Clause.
Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. not only disregarded his fiduciary responsibility, he Trashed the Constitution and Trampled on the Constitutional rights of Claudia A. Montelione, among others.
Further, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article I, enumerates the “Declaration of Rights” in Pennsylvania, rights which BCP and DCCCP arbitrarily violate, trashing the Constitutions and trampling on “due process”. Clark and Silcox violated more than one dozen of the Inherent Rights of Mankind vis-a-vis Claudia Montelione.
Article V, § 9 allegedly preserves the “Right of Appeal“. Clark misrepresents Law in claiming his Orders to be “not appealable”. The concept of an appellate court is that the lower court, when accused of reversible error or wrongdoing, SHALL NOT have authority to determine whether or not a matter is appealable.
The egregious conduct of Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., judge in DCCCP, constitutes criminal misconduct, a.k.a. “domestic terrorism”. Each of the Crimes is subject to review.
Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. deserves to be immediately suspended from all judicial duties and deserves to be indicted for IMPEACHMENT from office.
REVIEW of Clark’s MEMORANDUM ( Partial )
Clark begins the MEMORANDUM with a curable error, citing Pa.R.C.P. § 1925(a) in error when he intended to cite Pa.R.A.P. § 1925(a), the appellate rules. This rule demands a brief statement in the form of an opinion that conveys the reasons for the order or ruling or other matters complained of (on appeal). Clark limits his MEMORANDUM to his orders dated March 4 and March 28, 2008.
Clark begins with an egregious error by stating that interlocutory orders are not appealable under Rules of Procedure and well-established case law. He neglects to cite the “Rules” or any reliable case law that supports his false assertion.
Pa. R.A.P. Rule 311 — Interlocutory Appeals as of Right. is in conflict with the ‘judge’ as is the PA Constitution, Art.V, § 9. “Judge” Clark committed the 1st of several “fraud on the court” assertions. Rule 301 is in conflict with the Supremacy Clause and the Constitution of Pa. Would anyone care to challenge that assertion? Mr. Clark ??
Under Pa.R.A.P., an appellant has 30 days under Pa. Rules to file a Notice of Appeal.
We note, for the benefit of DCCCP that Claudia challenged the “jurisdiction” of DCCCP for the hearing dated March 4, 2008. Failure to establish jurisdiction (by the moving party) renders all ensuing orders void ab initio. Clark’s March 4, “order” required compliance within 10 days, denying a defendant the 30 days window to file Notice of Appeal. By impinging on this Right of Appeal [by 20 days] Clark (the Court) renders all ensuing scheduling orders to be also void ab initio under settled law. Ergo, the “hearing” on March 28, 2008, is a nullity.
Clark’s March 4, 2008, Order of Court is legally unenforceable. But I am sure that judge Clark knows this.
*** Clark next misrepresents the Requisites for an Appealable Order regarding “non-appealable orders”, Pa. R.A. P. Rule 301(c). Failure to file a judgment or other order makes that action “unenforceable”. The court cannot in providing “honest services”, hold a party in contempt for failure to comply with a “non-appealable” order. Criminal prosecution on such grounds is “tyranny” and oppression.
Clark proceeds to misrepresent fact and law when he opines “the Orders which the appellant seeks to appeal are in the nature of statutory enforcement of a subpoena issued by the Atty. Gen. … and the ultimate issuance of a Bench Warrant for the appellants failure to appear …”.
What a piece of bovine feces.
Claudia attempted to appeal on grounds of “lack of jurisdiction in DCCCP”. Appeals on jurisdictional grounds NEVER expire.
The only bona fide Notice of Appeal applies to Clark’s order dated March 4, 2008. Until the appeal of that order is decided in the appellate court, all other orders are void, nullities. DCCCP (Clark) and the Atty. Gen. (BCP) arranged to quash that appeal in violation of Constitutional law.
Is that “trashing the Constitution?”
Clark’s analysis digresses in effort to submit irrelevant interpretations of fact with prejudicial value for the appellate court.
The discussion of administrative subpoenas avoids the issue of unlawful forages by BCP into the business practices of Claudia A. Montelione, Notary Public and owner of The Penny Pincher Press.
BCP served a subpoena on Claudia without a ‘consumer complaint’. Claudia exercised her constitutional right to demand a copy of the consumer complaint, promising compliance with BCP upon receipt of the consumer complaint. Claudia was NEVER served with notice as to whether BCP was investigating her Notary Public services or services provided as The Penny Pincher Press.
BCP responded by telling Claudia that she was not entitled to see the consumer complaint and/or that BCP has authority to investigate without a consumer complaint. We believe this to be UNTRUE!
Clark’s discussion on Page 3 of the Memorandum regarding Claudia’s “motions” prior to the March 4, 2008 hearing is nothing more than “obfuscation” by a public servant “trustee” who does not want the issue of Constitutional rights to be uncovered, lest he be found in “criminal” violation of his fiduciary responsibility and his Oath of Office.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 242, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 et al. BCP (Kathryn H. Silcox et al) are co-conspirators.
Clark goes on to state: “In response to Appellant’s various and rather novel “Verified Motions”, this court issued Non-Entertaining Orders, dated March 3, 2008, for each of the Defendants “Verified Motions”, specifically noting that the Appellant failed to comply with Dauphin County Local Rules 208.2(d) and 205.2(a)(3) in preparing and submitting Motions to this Court.”
In response, We the People would be thrilled to read Clark’s “novel” explanation of how his court assumed jurisdiction, both subject matter and in personam.
Clark carefully avoids informing the appellate court that Silcox (BCP) failed to comply with (i.e., violated) Pa. R.C.P. Rule 234.1(a), Subpoena …, and Rules 1006 Venue and 1007 Commencement of Action. The defendant is the injured and aggrieved party suffering irreparable harm by the intentional malfeasance/misfeasance of office by agents of the BCP acting “under color of law”. Clark’s attempt to color the subpoena as an administrative subpoena is absolutely and unequivocally unsupported by organic or statutory law. Black’s law does not list “administrative subpoena” OR “subpoena – administrative”. Clark asserts a Legal Fiction.
Clark then proceeds to enumerate (denigrate) actions taken by the defendant in an effort to preserve her constitutional rights. Clark neglects to inform the appellate court that Claudia was acting pro se, without assistance of counsel. Claudia had requested “the assistance of counsel” of Eugene A. Wrona, supra. To the detriment of Claudia, a hostile judge Clark dismissed Wrona from the well compelling a defendant to proceed without assistance of counsel against charges of which she was not informed prosecuted by the Commonwealth
Under settled law, the Pa. Office of Attorney General., BCP, and the court, Lawrence F. Clark Jr., acted in concert to deny due process of law and equal protection of the law to Claudia A. Montelione. See US Supreme Court, Armstrong the Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965).
Claudia must be restored to the position she occupied before her rights were DENIED.
to be continued … … coming soon! We’ve only just Begun …
Hall of Shame Nominee: JUDGE LAWRENCE CLARK