E.A. Wrona

Eugene A. Wrona, a.k.a. Administrator / PA Court Injustice


NOTE:  Judicial Atrocities are not limited to “Family Court” corruption. Matters between The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a.k.a. “Cmwlth.”, and Eugene A. Wrona offer conclusive evidence of judicial misconduct and criminal misconduct in Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, “DCCCP“.

Wrona is a “victim” of Pennsylvania courts where the PBA, “Pennsylvania Bar Association”, has a vested interest in “retaliation” against any attorney who is willing to expose judicial misconduct, criminal misconduct, breach of fiduciary responsibility, breach of trust, breach of integrity et al from the bench, from prosecutors and by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, “DBSC”.

Wrona became involved with DCCCP when he agreed to assist a friend, Claudia A. Montelione, in matters involving the Attorney General of PA; Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., and the Bureau of Consumer Protection, “BCP”. Without a consumer complaint, Claudia came under “criminal” investigation by BCP.

At the time, Claudia was a commissioned Notary Public in Pennsylvania, and also operated a small computer publishing business known as the “Penny Pincher Press”, “PPP”, from her residence in Scranton, Lackawanna County, PA. The Montelione case may be accessed for details of criminal misconduct beginning from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. (now serving as Governor).

BCP served “unlawful” subpoenas on Claudia in Lackawanna County and then went “judge-shopping” for a friendly court in Dauphin County. Service in Lackawanna County establishes the “forum contractus” in that court.

Rules of Court, Pa.R.C.P. 1007, requires that Commencement of an Action” requires either a “praecipe for a writ of summons” or a “complaint”. BCP provided neither. There is no evidence of a “consumer complaint” against Claudia, and a case was opened in DCCCP without a “Complaint”. The absence of a “complaint” is conclusive evidence of deprivation of due process of law.

The Cmwlth. failed to establish any Jurisdiction in Dauphin County. Without a “consumer” complaint, BCP was depriving Claudia of due process of law and other constitutional rights. The “friendly” DCCCP judge is Lawrence F. Clark, Jr.
Claudia A. Montelione has the courage to stand up to this rogue agency of the State government. She paid a very heavy price.

Background: Cmwlth. v. Wrona

In a nutshell, DCCCP abused its discretion when it assumed jurisdiction in the Montelione matters. When a court improperly assumes jurisdiction, all judicial actions of that court are a nullityvoid ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. Wrona offered to assist Claudia to raise a constitutional challenge to jurisdiction in Dauphin County. See details in Montelione case.

Where a court acts in the absence of jurisdiction, is it possible for a person, attorney or non-attorney, and even a “prosecutor” to “practice law” in that court? Or is the “practice of law / unauthorized practice of law” void ab initio since the court is violating the due process rights of one or more litigants?

DCCCP became very displeased, and brought criminal charges against Wrona under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 for “Unauthorized practice of law” (upl). There is only one problem, but it is relevant, significant and material. Pennsylvania has never enacted a statute to “authorize” the practice of law, ergo, the practice of law in this Commonwealth must be, by definition, “un“-authorized.  Further, Pennsylvania has not enacted a “criminal statute” for the “UN-authorized practice of law”. 


On 29 April, 2009, Dauphin County charged Eugene A. Wrona, with an alleged third-class misdemeanor under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524. – Penalty for unauthorized practice of law.

But For the “presumptive authority” (a.k.a., prejudice) of a state Law Enforcement Officer to act “under color of law”, this statute, which is not listed as an offense in 204 Pa.Code 303.15, “List of Offenses“, would never see the light of day in a criminal complaint.

This malicious prosecution has “Retaliation” written in large print across the top of each page.  The Cmwlth. also relies on false information published by DBSC that Wrona has been disbarred by the“Supreme Court of Pennsylvania“. 

The Cmwlth. has the burden of proof to produce an Order of Court, signed by a Justice of the Supreme Court, that disbars Wrona. To date, the Cmwlth. has failed to produce any such instrument. Without a bona fide Order of Court, enforcement becomes a criminal act. The Cmwlth. will forever be unable to produce a bona fide order of disbarrment. No such document exists. Even if such document existed, the Cmwlth. is unable to establish in personam jurisdiction under separate facts.

Trustee Detective Jerome P. Wood brought forward a Criminal Complaint, OTN – K 853958-0, docket #000182-09, alleging that Wrona violated the “penal laws” of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Wood signed the Affidavit of Probable Cause. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for May 20, 2009, before District Magistrate (“trustee”) Joseph S. Solomon.

Trustee Wood failed to appear at the preliminary hearing to prosecute his complaint. Trustee Solomon incorrectly DISMISSED the action “without prejudice“, exposing the defendant to DENIAL of his constitutional right and protection from being twice put in jeopardy. U.S. Constitution and Pa. Const., Article I, section 10. Declaration of Rights;

Twice in Jeopardy. “… No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, …”.

 Trustee Wood submitted the exact same “Affidavit of Probable Cause” he used on April 29, 2009. Wood again failed to produce an Order of Court signed by a SCOPa justice. There will be No Such Signed Order because the Court DENIED Wrona’s Appeal for a de novo hearing; another “due process” violation by SCOPa. 

The Cmwlth. relies on false information that Mr. Wrona has been disbarred by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. See Criminal Complaint, OTN  –  K 854006-6.

Wrona was DENIED his Constitutional right to present his defense to the charges that he is disbarred and that he was engaged in the “unauthorized” practice of law.  Link to Crim. Complaint.  

On 28 July, 2009, Dauphin County again charged Wrona with the same Criminal Complaint, violating 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524. * – Penalty for unauthorized practice of law.
* Note: Restatement of Law distinguishes between the commercial practice of law and the practice of law as an “occupation of common right.”  There is NO CRIME!

On this date, 1st Asst. D.A. Francis T. Chardo, III, entered the courtroom where the Cmwlth. was “hearing” the criminal trial of Claudia Montelione for the fabricated crimes of “Retaliation” against judicial officers, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4953. Trustee Charles C. Brown, a “Senior” judge from Centre County, presided.

At her criminal trial, Claudia refused to permit a “public defender” to represent her, requesting Wrona to serve as her “assistance of counsel”  pursuant to the U.S. Const., 6th Amend. See N.O.T., July 28, 2009.

Trustee Brown and Wrona were engaged in a pre-trial discussion as to whether Pennsylvania law permitted ‘any person’, butcher, baker, gas station attendant, florist, etc., to serve as assistance of counsel for a friend. Wrona read into the record the relevant language of Pennsylvania Law: “The Frame of Government of 1682″, a colonial Treaty between the King of England and Wm. Penn.

During this dialogue, trustee Chardo marched into the courtroom, usurped the authority of the judge to announce that he was arresting Wrona for the “unauthorized practice of law”, a 2nd offense.  

Trustee Chardo LIED to the court perpetrating a “fraud on the court”. There can be NO 2nd Offense without a prior conviction. See Jarowecki, pages 19 & 20. Despite the lack of evidence and misrepresentation [fraud] upon the court, “trustee” Brown determined that Wrona intended to engage in the practice of law during this dialogue; contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3.A.(4).
Even if TRUE, an “intent” to commit a crime is NOT sufficient to establish “probable cause”! The Criminal Complaint dated July 28, 2009 constitutes Fraud on the Court; a criminal offense. The Criminal Complaint brought forward on July 28, smacks of a “criminal conspiracy” involving the Dauphin County Office of District Attorney, asst. DA Francis T. Chardo, III, detective Jerome P. Wood and the “visiting” judge, 

Detective Jerome P. Wood, MPOETC # 21388, Badge # 111, filed another Criminal Complaint with the same charge, violating 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524. Wood is also a “trustee” with a fiduciary responsibility to serve the people under the Public Trust. Wood, Chardo and Brown are all agents for the Commonwealth and subject to the Uniform Bonding Code, “UBC“.

 Reasonable minds could conclude that Brown and Chardo et al were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to arrest Wrona and to DENY a citizen of Constitutional and civil rights. See 18 USC §§ 241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 et al.

On Oct. 21, 2009, trustee Wood testified at a preliminary hearing before trustee Solomon that he was present in the courtroom on July 28, 2009, and heard Wrona claim to represent Ms. Montelione to trustee Brown. The Notes of Testimony for July 28, 2009, REFUTE trustee Wood’s false testimony. The Cmwlth. presented an “alleged” witness, Det. Jerome P. Wood, to perjure himself and perpetrate a “fraud upon the court”. 

Courtroom Arrest
On July 28, 2009, this scribe appeared at DCCCP intending to serve as “assistance of counsel” for Claudia pursuant to Amendment VI of the U.S Constitution and as provided under Pennsylvania Law in the Frame of Government of 1682, a document incorporated into Law as a prior Treaty incorporated as Colonial Law under 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1503.

Before the jury was seated, trustee Brown began by addressing the courtroom, putting on the record that the defendant had refused “representation” by a public defender. However, he directed that a “public defender” attorney remain with defendant in the well giving an appearance that Claudia A. Montelione had “assistance of counsel”.

Defendant Montelione expressed (on the record) her choice for “assistance of counsel”, to wit, Eugene Wrona, rather than a court-appointed defense counsel. The Notes of Testimony confirm that the court, trustee (judge) Brown, was aware of Claudia’s preference. He was also aware of a conspiracy to arrest Wrona from the sanctuary of the courtroom.  Link to N.O.T., page15.

Trustee Brown made other remarks/announcements, then entered into an exchange of dialogue with Eugene Wrona, an attorney, trained in the law and admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania. Wrona is also commissioned as a Private Attorney General, Qualified Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness.
As a Private Attorney General, Wrona is “authorized” to practice Law in any court of Admiralty jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 exempts any person authorized to practice law in any court within the U.S. from criminal prosecution.

Trustee Brown recognized Wrona to the court, according him a “full right to be heard according to Law” pursuant to Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3.A(4) as a person legally interested in the proceeding, or so it appeared.

In this dialogue with the court, Wrona did not represent Claudia. To the contrary he denied representing her but offered a compelling argument as to why he should be permitted to “assist” her as counsel pursuant to her rights under Amendment VI to the U.S. Constitution and the [Pennsylvania] Frame of Government of 1682. Wrona read into the record the relevant clause from Colonial Law that supports and endorses this position. Brown ultimately offered the appointment of Wrona as “assistance of counsel” under the caveat that advice could only be offered during recesses or breaks from outside the “bar”.

Is that what the Framer’s intended as “assistance of counsel”?

When he signed the Frame of Govt. of 1682*, did William Penn agree that the assistance of a friend shall be offered to the court only from the audience during recesses?
* Laws Agreed Upon in England, &c.
VI. That, in all courts all persons of all persuasions may freely appear in their own way, and according to their own manners and there personally plead their own cause themselves; or, if unable, by their friends: and the first process shall be the exhibition of the complaint in court, fourteen days before the trial; and that the party, complained against, may be fitted for the same, he or she shall be summoned, no less than ten days before, and a copy of the complaint delivered him or her, at his or her dwelling house. But before the complaint of any person be received, he shall solemnly declare in court, that he believes, in his conscience, his cause is just.

Did trustee Brown perform his duty (fiduciary responsibility) as a judge with fidelity to the Constitution and Laws of the U.S. and this Cmwlth.?

Did trustee Brown DENY Claudia her right to the assistance of a friend to plead her own case? 

Was trustee Brown under instruction to draw a specific response from Wrona which could be used to incriminate him? What response was that?
Wrona believes that Brown was to inquire whether Wrona had a Supreme Court ID number, or Supreme Court license number; a “trigger” term.  After Wrona made several assertions that he was Not appearing as an attorney, but as a “friend”, He yielded, on the record, his Supreme Court ID number after being “prodded” several times by Brown.

Almost immediately, First Assistant D.A. Francis T. Chardo, III, a trustee under the Public Trust, made his “grand entrance” and proudly announced his mission to arrest Wrona for the unauthorized practice of law.  

During the dialogue between Brown and Wrona, First Assistant D.A. Francis T. Chardo, III, a trustee under the Public Trust, entered the sanctuary of the courtroom accompanied by deputy sheriffs. Trustee Chardo interrupted the dialogue to introduce himself and to announce that he was taking Eugene Wrona into custody (arresting him) for unauthorized practice of Law, claiming it was a “second offense”. Trustee Brown permitted trustee Chardo to usurp the authority of the court. All “trustees” in this court are subject to federal law as a public servant / employee, invoking 5 USC § 2635.101  Basic obligation of public employees.

It may be that Chardo is unfamiliar with Canon 3.A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and other settled points of law, including federal and State Constitutions that prohibit being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. Dauphin County, through trustee Wood had twice earlier brought the same charge against Wrona, once in April, then after failure to prosecute on May 20, 2009, trustee Wood brought the same charge on June 29, 2009. Link to Crim. Complaints 000162 and 000266.

Constitutional protections from being twice put in jeopardy demand that the 2nd criminal charge shall be dismissed, supra. It is reasonable to conclude that prosecutors bring multiple charges against a “prisoner” for the prejudicial value of Grade Enhancement and Sentence Enhancement. Prosecutors know that judges will take their word for these false and malicious misrepresentations of law, and NEVER identify the “fraud on the court” and the irreparable harm inflicted upon the accused. 

When fairly adjudicated, the score will be Wrona – 2; Dauphin County – 0.

There can be “no second offense” until AFTER A CONVICTION for a “first offense”.  Link to Jarowecki.

Trustee Chardo engaged in bringing a false criminal complaint under a statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524, that does not appear among the list of criminal offenses published for this Commonwealth. 204 Pa.Code 303.15 – List Of Offenses.

Trustee Chardo’s criminal charge on July 28, 2009, does not pass the “smile” test when held against Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3.A(4) or Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3( a), ( c) and (d);  Rule 3.4( a), (b) and (c); Rule 3.8(a) et al; as well as Rules regarding “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession”. e.g., Rules 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 et al.

Application of the statute cannot be labelled a crime. Where there is NO CRIME, a criminal court may not assume subject-matter jurisdiction. The record, Notes of Testimony, clearly evidences that the accused was not “representing” the defendant. Application of the statute relies on proof that the accused has been disbarred. The Commonwealth is unable to produce a bona fide ORDER OF COURT to DISBAR the accused.

The Commonwealth is unable to meet its burden of proof to establish Probable Cause.

The arrest of Mr. Wrona from the sanctuary of a courtroom exposes Chardo as an oppressor, a thug, unfit for office. Prior and subsequent charges for the same or related events may satisfy a criminal charge for “malicious prosecution”, the filing of which are criminal acts as well as “Official Oppression”. 

Does it appear that the courtroom confrontation with Chardo was “orchestrated” in advance? Was Judge Brown a conspirator with DA Chardo? Did DA Marsico have knowledge of and did he approve of this arrest? Was Detective Wood in the courtroom? 

Can Wrona meet the standard of “probable cause” for the crime of “Retaliation”, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953, by the court and public employees therein? 

Chardo’s efforts to harass, intimidate, coerce and oppress Wrona via multiple charges must be seen for what they are – action taken under color of law for unlawful purposes by persons, but for the office they hold, who would not be able to sniff at meeting the burden of proof for prima facie evidence.

After Chardo interrupted the dialogue between Judge Brown and Wrona, the judge permitted Wrona to address the court again. Brown appointed Wrona as “assistance of counsel” for Claudia with the conditions stated above. Subsequently, or shortly thereafter, Judge Brown told Chardo to do what he had to do. Wrona was belted and cuffed and physically removed from the courtroom, a State – Sanctioned Kidnapping.

Wrona was taken to a holding cell until paperwork was completed and then he was taken by Detective Wood and an unidentified detective to the office of District Justice Joseph S. Solomon for a bail hearing.

Wood told Solomon that the DA wanted a $100,000.00 bail bond for a third class misdemeanor. Justice Solomon determined that Wrona was not a flight risk and Wrona was Released on his Own Recognizance (ROR) with a minor special condition.

Wrona did not return to the courtroom to avoid violating the condition of bail. At this point, Wrona had not even considered hiring an attorney to defend him.

Contact us

Abstract | Document List | Problems | Remedies | Private Attorney General | Appeals
Dauphin County Criminal Court

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *