Dauphin County Criminal Court: E.A. Wrona Case

Look for More … coming soon …

Judges are charged with the DUTY to administer the Law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers intended the Bill of Rights (1791) to secure individual rights for “We the People” against the tyranny and oppression of a Government which is supposed to serve the People and protect those rights. Every statute and every ordinance in every state is required to pass a “Constitutional” muster. A court that fails to preserve the civil and constitutional rights of all litigants commits CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE; e.g., JUDICIAL ATROCITIES.

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (“DCCCP”) is not exempt from accusations of Tyranny and Oppresion visited upon unsuspecting citizens who have displeased agents acting on behalf of the government in Pennsylvania.

Regarding our courts and the administration of Law, all government agents, judges, prosecutors administrative staff, etc. are subject to the Contract with a fiduciary responsibility to perform the duties of their office for the benefit of the citizenry.

Judges, prosecutors, et al serve as “trustees” under the Public Trust.

Two cases readily brought to mind are Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Claudia A. Montelione and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Eugene A. Wrona, your humble Administrator for this site.

These cases clearly establish judicial misconduct and intentional Distribution of Injustice via pre-determined outcomes. i.e., cases are FIXED. Official oppression, malicious prosecution and other coercive tactics are often employed to obtain submission of the victim. Systemic denial of civil and constitutional rights are the tools [weapons] of corrupt judges and prosecutors.

One certain criminal error is to DENY litigants of “Due process of Law”.  The most irrefutable complaint against DCCCP is the claim that the court acted in the absence of JURISDICTION. A court may Not Presume or Assume jurisdiction without first defining which specific area of Law will be reviewed, and without the “moving party” establishing jurisdiction in a specific court.

There exists sufficient case law on this issue, supporting the forfeiture of jurisdiction by a court where one party violates the other party’s rights.

Appellate courts, including SCOTUS, have addressed this issue. Their holdings include:

Jurisdiction CASE LAW!

“Jurisdiction can not be assumed.” Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 100 S.Ct. 1398 (1980).  SCOTUS

“Once challenged, jurisdiction must be answered.” Hagans v. Lavine, 99 S.Ct. 1372, 78 n. 5 (1973).   SCOTUS

“Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even after trial.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., Ltd., 459 F.Supp. 1161 (DC PA 1980).

The United States Supreme Court, in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 24 (1908), stated that “Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.”; citing Old Wayne Mut. Life Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 14 S.Ct. 1108 (1894); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877).    SCOTUS

“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction will subject a court to collateral attack, since the judgment is wholly nugatory.” Riddle v. Cella, 15 A.2d 59, 128 N.J. Eq. 4 (1940). 

=“Where a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it should refrain from any further exercise of power.” Myers v. Long Island Lighting Co., 623 F.Supp. 1076 (D.C.N.Y. 1985).

“A party can not be estopped from asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction” Burch v. Snider, 461 F.Supp. 598 (1978).

“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties, conferred by consent, or ignored by court.” Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Parsons Corp., 430 F.2d 531 (1970).

“Jurisdiction of person may be waived, but lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted by court sua sponte at any time or at appellate level.” Skidmore v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 529 F.2d 1244 (1976).  [Emphasis added.]

“Subject matter jurisdiction is so important that absence of it must be raised at any time, sua sponte, by a court at any level.” Matter of Wildman, 30 B.R. 133 (Bkrtcy Ill. 1983).  [Emphasis added.]

“Where a court has no jurisdiction of subject matter, its proceedings are void and judge can derive no protection from them against potential civil liability.” In re: Tip-Pa-Hans Enterprises, Inc., 27 B.R. 780 (Va. 1983).  

 “The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).   SCOTUS

“Engaging in an act of treason against the United States Constitution by any citizen of the United States is an act of war against the United States.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).    SCOTUS

 

 

 

A presumption of fairness by the court must be maintained by the neutrality of It’s judges and other court officers. A court of law in which a third-party may have an interest in the outcome demands that jurisdiction is forfeited we are even an appearance of impropriety admits a susceptibility to prejudice of the court.

To protect the people from a rogue government there are rules to govern the operation of the courts, Known as the Uniform Bonding Code (UBC). Rule 5.0 directs the Judiciary under these rules. It states clearly and without ambiguity that prosecutors and judges have a duty to remove matters from state court to federal court when the State is a party to the action.

 

Just as JUSTICE DELAYED is JUSTICE DENIED,

INJUSTICE For One is INJUSTICE For ALL!

Each case identifies PROBLEMS within the judicial system and suggests REMEDIES to restore integrity to our courts and where appropriate, reparations to the injured party. Several examples expose judges who administer Law in order to advance a personal agenda or to act for the benefit of one party over another. Black’s Law calls this CORRUPTION.

Examples of criminal misconduct in corrupt courts: Stealing; False Imprisonment; Subornation of Perjury; Trespassing Against the Law; Intentional Deprivation of Constitutional rights (Due Process, etc.); Criminal Alteration of Court Records; Perjury by judges; etc.

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 *