PLEASE NOTE: This “page” is an ongoing Work in Progress which will contain numerous ‘links’ to official documents that are or should be part of the court record. Thank you for your patience.
Please Review “Constitution / The Contract” to understand the Fiduciary Responsibility [and legal duty ] of PUBLIC SERVANTS. See also 5 CFR 2635.101
Since Magna Carta, the world has recognized the importance of justice in a free society. “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.” (Magna Carta, 1215.)
This nation’s founding fathers knew people would never consent to be governed and surrender their right to decide disputes by force, unless government offered a just forum for resolving those disputes.
The right to bring grievances to the courts, in good faith, is protected by state and federal constitutions in a variety of ways. In most states, the right to trial by jury in civil cases is recognized. The right to cross-examine witnesses is considered fundamental to the American judicial system. Moreover, the first amendment protects the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The “right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.” Because “the right to petition is ‘among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights,’ … the right of access to the courts shares this ‘preferred place’ in [the United States’] hierarchy of constitutional freedoms and values. This balancing question is resolved differently in different states, often with substantial difficulty. [ See Wikipedia — SLAPP ]
NOTE: Judicial Atrocities are not limited to “Family Court” corruption. The matters of Commonwealth (also “Cmwlth.”) v. Montelione and Cmwlth. v. Wrona produce irrefutable evidence of “crimes” perpetrated upon the accused at the hands of judges, prosecutors and other agents for the government. Collateral cases were brought for purposes of harassment and intimidation; known also as “domestic terrorism“.
Attorney(s) General for Pennsylvania appear to be willing co-conspirators in the systematic destruction / corruption of our “judicial system”.
CRIMES: CRIMINALS are Running OUR Courts!
Claudia Montelione (“Claudia”) is one of those innocent “victims” of a corrupt government action taken “under color of law”; a “fraud on the court” initiated by Kathryn H. Silcox, a Prosecutor for BCP (Bur. of Consumer Protection), a government agency reporting directly to Atty. Gen. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr.
Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., masquerading as a “judge” in a “court of Law” took actions to deprive Claudia of her rights under the Constitutional, not limited to due process and equal protection of the law.
Clark presided over what can only graciously be described as a “hostile court” where he attempted to intimidate an innocent defendant with threats against her liberty and even her life. (March 2008)
Clark neglected his DUTY to administer the case under Pennsylvania Rules of Court and without demanding that BCP establish jurisdiction in a Dauphin County Court. The mission he embarked upon was to terrorize and tyrannize Claudia so as to aid and abet the criminal actions of BCP. In this process, Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., became a TRAITOR to the Constitution which he took an Oath of Office to support and defend.
“The U.S. 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).
Dauphin County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conspired to fabricate Criminal charges against Claudia Montelione (and others) under 18 Pa.C.S. 4953. The basis for “probable cause” was a bond instrument constructed by Francesca ( Claudia had little or Nothing to do with it), and which was “conveniently” LOST by ?? Steve Farina ?? ( Clerk of Courts/Prothonotary for Dauphin County), and was NEVER entered into evidence … and further, Claudia was charged with threats in retaliation against judicial officers … (Atty. Gen.) Thos. W. Corbett, Jr., (judge) Lawrence F. Clark Jr., and (DCP warden) DeRosa: NONE OF WHOM TESTIFIED IN COURT.
I am unaware if there were any “Affidavits” signed by her accusers …. I doubt it.
Under the UBC (Uniform Bonding Code), Criminal Charges (against Claudia) brought by public officers of the Commonwealth BELONG in federal court. UBC Rule 5.0. Claudia was clearly DENIED “Equal protection of Law”. The Commonwealth is clearly GUILTY of “conflict of interest crimes” pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.101.
The matter of COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. Claudia Montelione began in the State of Texas by an attorney threatening a Notary in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for providing notarial services consistent with her COMMISSION as a PA Notary Public. See Claudia AG 11Dec2007.
The TRUE “Criminal” in this matter is the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Thomas W. Corbett. His subordinates (Kathryn H. Silcox and Michael Gerdes) embarked on a mission of “domestic terrorism” against Claudia to support a foreign organization seeking to intimidate Mss. Montelione.
Claudia NEVER got to face her accusers (6th Amendment right) and the state brought in AOPC (Atty. A. Taylor Williams) and State Trooper Denny L.. Grim et al to “fabricate” a case against her. A ‘foreign” judge (Charles Brown / Centre County) was brought in to DCCCP to orchestrate the charade.
The state failed to meet its burden, Claudia was ‘forced” to proceed without “assistance of counsel” … (this “Administrator was arrested and removed from the court when attempting to “assist”).
Claudia was DENIED “due process”, which forfeits jurisdiction and “criminalized” all Dauphin County court officers involved PLUS the CORRUPT S.O.B. who was then elected governor.
Claudia was “convicted” on the instruction of the court. The JURY was kept IGNORANT of Facts and TRUTH!
‘The people of PA got a little smarter and refused to re-elect Corbett (who belongs in Jail)!
FRAUD ON THE COURT
Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court. Kathryn H. Silcox entered “false statements” material to the outcome into the record to establish Fraud on the Court.
It would be require a stretch of one’s imagination to even think that Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. was not aware of the FRAUD, which makes him an accessory to the crimes.
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
What Happens to the Trial If Fraud on the Court Occurs?
Fraud on the court is one of the most serious violations that can occur in a court of law. If fraud on the court occurs, the effect is that the entire case is voided or cancelled. Any ruling or judgment that the court has issued will be void. The case will usually need to be retried with different court officials, often in an entirely different venue.
For the official who acted in fraud upon the court, they may very well be required to step down from their position and may even be subjected to criminal consequences such as a fine or a jail sentence. It could also result in other serious consequences, such as an attorney being disbarred, or a judge being removed from service. IMPEACHED!
If a court official is found to be biased or prejudiced even before fraud occurs, they are required to excuse themselves from the case, and a different official must be appointed. In some jurisdictions, a trial tainted by fraud on the court will be vacated or set aside for a certain time period (such as two years), to be “reopened” at a later date.
In order for any government agency, subsidiary or law to be applied to an individual American Citizen, it must be first proved or established that the government has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over that particular individual for that time and event. Specifically, before an individual can be charged and convicted with a crime, the government official or agency has a duty to establish lawful jurisdiction in the court where the matter is to be heard. Too frequently, courts unlawfully assume jurisdiction where none exists.
In this instance, the charges brought against Claudia A. Montelione are the product of a “fraud upon the court” brought by a government agent, Kathleen H. Silcox, Esq., (“Silcox”) an attorney for the Bureau of Consumer Protection (“BCP“); a Deputy Attorney General under the Constitutional delegation of Authority from AG Thomas W. Corbett.
Claudia made an effort to resolve all issues in a correspondence with AG Corbett dated 11 Dec. 2007. Claudia’s letter identifies several “breach of trust” violations committed by the Commonwealth — BCP. Claudia AG 11Dec2007.
The fraud perpetrated exists on several levels, including fraud in establishing jurisdiction, and deprivation of Due Process of law. Arguably, the lower court conspired with BCP to drag the victim into a fraudulent court, an improper venue. Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., (judge) in DCCCP must be investigated as a criminal co-conspirator.
The “fraud” began in October 2007 with Silcox, acting “under color of law” (BCP) issued a “Demand” that Claudia produce documents in violation of her 4th Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
Claudia agreed to comply if Silcox (BCP) would provide her with a copy of the Consumer complaint. Unrefuted facts establish that there is/was No Consumer Complaint. Silcox / BCP acted ultra vires under color of law, a fraud on the court. The actions by BCP (Silcox) violate her duty under 5 U.S.C. § 2635.101 Basic obligations of public servants.
Silcox next retaliated by issuing an unlawful Subpoena under alleged authority of 71 PS. 307-1 — 307-6, an Administrative code.
Clark unlawfully assumed in personam jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction … not correctly identified and not properly served with “notice” … which jurisdiction then does not exist according to settled Law and Pennsylvania Rules of Court.
Many individuals lose a case and even go to jail when lawful jurisdiction has not been established, an essential due process issue. The victim has been DENIED due process and equal protection of the Law.
The judge (court) has violated his Oath of Office and has “breached” the Public Trust.
In the matters of Commonwealth of PA v. Claudia A. Montelione, the government has failed to meet its burden of proof that subject matter jurisdiction can be lawfully vested in a Pennsylvania court; certainly NOT in DCCCP. Under settled law, when a court lacks jurisdiction, every order entered in the matter(s) is void ab initio … UNENFORCEABLE.
Claudia Montelione is one of those innocent “victims” of a corrupt government action. Claudia passed away on August 22, 2014. Her “estate” should be eligible for remedy as a recovery under the 1st Amendment; Redress of Grievance clause. Unfortunately, the courts have already terminated our rights under 1st Amendment.
The matters between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Claudia A. Montelione offer conclusive evidence of “criminal misconduct” in the form of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct by the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (“DCCCP”). The issues involve both “civil” and “criminal” court divisions. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General [Thomas W. Corbett, Jr.] is a co-conspirator with DCCCP, the Office of District Attorney [Edward Marsico] and Pennsylvania judges Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. and Charles C. Brown, Jr. Corbett, Marsico and Clark are principles in a criminal conspiracy to Deny Constitutional and civil rights of Claudia A. Montelione. Many other state/court employees have been dragged into this cesspool of corruption; to wit, Steven Farina et al.
The Commonwealth initiated a malicious prosecution against Claudia and others via the Bureau of Consumer Protection (“BCP”) and Kathryn H. Silcox, Esq. Bringing an action against Claudia in Dauphin County CCP, violates Claudia’s due process and equal protection rights. Silcox’ failure to serve appropriate “NOTICE” to the accused violates her “due process” rights. BCP acted in violation of the Uniform Bonding Code (“UBC”) which requires that when the accuser is the “state”, acting “under color of law”, subject matter jurisdiction must be transferred to federal court. A state court cannot try any matter where the state is the accuser pursuant to UBC Rule 5.0. Any action in state court invokes the appearance of impropriety due to “susceptibility to prejudice”. Venue belongs in federal court.
The UBC applies in civil and criminal matters. It follows,a priori, that without a “consumer complaint”, the BCP action is void ab intio for lack of jurisdiction in any Pennsylvania county court.
So where did crimes against Claudia commence?
Is Claudia the Victim of a “criminal” Pennsylvania Commerce or law enforcement agency?
Did Claudia’s crimes commence in Pennsylvania?
Or is Claudia a totally innocent victim of high stakes criminal misconduct from inside the American Bar Association? …
Atty. Gen. Corbett incorporated the Special Investigations Division of the Pennsylvania State Police to harass, intimidate, threaten etc. and ultimately “steal” from the accused.
Claudia is a victim of “tyranny and oppression” by these government officers who are required by Oath of Office to protect her civil and Constitutional rights. In both instances, Claudia is the victim of “intentional terrorism and domestic terrorism”, crimes perpetrated by agents of the government. e.g., Prosecutors and government agents for the Office of the Attorney General as well as for the Office of District Attorney / Dauphin County. See 18 U.S. Code § 2331(1) and (5).
Edward G. Rendell, then serving as Governor of the Cmwlth., was served with a Petition for Relief on behalf of Claudia Montelione. The record shows that Officers of DCCCP intentionally committed numerous, frequent and egregious deviations from the Law and their fiduciary responsibilities in a malicious prosecution of Ms. Montelione. Their acts of misconduct are material to the outcome.
Heroes & Heroines
(an On-Line blog)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Eugene Wrona, Claudia and Francesca Montelione, and Kevin Mahoney – Updated 11-19-2009; Edited for this site.
NOTE: At the time of these events, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. was serving as Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He has since been elected governor for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where he served “one term” and was REJECTED by the People for a second term.
From Muncy prison (Inmate #OP5372) Claudia Montelione has requested that corrections and clarification to amend Eugene Wrona’s account of how she, her daughter, Francesca, Kevin Mahoney and Mr. Wrona were adjudicated into confinement and on-going costly defenses of absurd accusations that were lodged against them by members of the Pennsylvania BAR Association and its “judiciary”. Claudia’s requested corrections and clarifications have been incorporated. Some duplication of these reports remain.
“Hello to All from Dauphin County (PA) Prison; Inmate #75041. October 22, 2009.
It appears that I and several others are being held as “political prisoners” because we have the courage and patriotism to exercise our constitutional rights against a cruel, oppressive and tyrannical government; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Claudia Ann Montelione is a mature individual, competent to make decisions regarding her life. She knows and understands the U.S. Constitution and to this day refuses to waive her rights under that Constitution.
For attempting to exercise those rights, a corrupt government, Cmwlth. of PA, embarked on a series of actions through its corrupt courts that resulted in Claudia Montelione being charged criminally as a “felon”. She was prosecuted “unlawfully” by the State, who replaced her “accusers” with employees of the Cmwlth. (AOPC – Administrative Office of Penna. Courts) to testify falsely before a jury in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities and in violation of their Oaths of Office. The harm inflicted upon Claudia Montelione is “irreparable”. These BAR Association members are co-conspirators in the crimes against Claudia et al.
Claudia’s accusers, then Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., (judge) and Dominic DeRose, (prison warden), refused to appear in court to testify against her, allowing State attorneys to LIE for them. (Subornation of Perjury). See 6th Amendment and “due process of Law”.
Any testimony on behalf of the “alleged” accusers is INADMISSIBLE as Hearsay.
Following an unconstitutional criminal trial(?), Claudia was convicted of multiple offenses which she appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; Docket No. 757 CD 2008. In her behalf were filed an Amicus Brief and a motion for Judgment NOV, see Amendment VI.
The “court” Charles C. Brown, Jr., (judge) set up the charade and JOINED in the criminal conspiracy to trample on Claudia’s rights and to TRASH the U.S. Constitution.
“AOPC” dispatched an attorney, A. Taylor Williams, to testify for the Cmwlth. against Claudia. Her testimony is de facto inadmissible. Her testimony is false and misleading, carefully prepared and intended to persuade jurors that a bona fide financial instrument is bogus.
Brown is a CRIMINAL as co-conspirator in the CRIME of a “false arrest” because he “determined” that an “intent to commit a crime” (UPL – Unauthorized practice of Law)” had taken place.
The court conspired with these State operatives to set up a pseudo-“court” under rules that are prohibitively prejudicial and UNLAWFUL.
Claudia Ann Montelione was convicted as a felon. She spent more than two (2) years in prison for exercising her Constitutional rights. In addition to losing more than 3 years of her life, her family also suffered, including her severely disabled daughter who continues to suffer because her treatments were interrupted.
She was charged criminally with Retaliation against judicial officers under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953.1 and with Conspiracy under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, three counts each. The alleged victims of Claudia’s alleged “crimes” are: then State Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., and prison warden Dominic DeRose*. Not one of Claudia’s accusers appeared at her trial to testify against her.
These men are all officers of the law. Each accuser is, or should be aware that they would need to testify and that the “accused” has a RIGHT under the 6th Amendment to confront his/her accuser.
AG Tom Corbett, (judge) Lawrence Clark, Jr. and Dominic DeRose are CRIMINALS!
Each of these “accusers” are ‘trustees’ under the Public Trust with a fiduciary responsibility under their Oath of Office [which they knowingly and intentionally violate] to preserve the rights of a defendant to face their accusers. U.S. Const., Amend. VI.
Prosecutor Jenni Henley Allen, Asst. DA, is a co-conspirator in these malicious prosecutions.
NOTE: “Prison wardens” are not protected under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953.1. At least two (2) of the charges, (Conspiracy and Retaliation against a prison warden) are FALSE charges, which becomes another CRIME by the Commonwealth, “malicious prosecution“, plus bringing false charges against a citizen.
* Prison warden is NOT a “judicial officer” subject to protection under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953.1. Claudia was tried and convicted on two counts for which there is NO CRIME under Pennsylvania statutes.
Ironically, Claudia is the victim of “retaliatory” prosecution by DCCCP under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953. The “criminals” are the court (Brown, J.), the Office of Attorney General (via BCP and the Special Investigation Division of the Pa. State Police), and the Office of District Attorney.
CRIMINALS ARE RUNNING OUR COURTS!
Each [alleged] accuser violated his Oath of Office and the Constitutional right of a defendant to face his/her accuser. U.S. Const. Amendment VI. Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, these and other State-employed trustees became CRIMINALS.
Claudia was convicted on all counts, suffering irreparable harm. As a felon, Claudia Montelione is no longer eligible to VOTE.
Here are just a few of the “crimes” perpetrated by tyrannical judicial officers against Claudia and others. Link to List of Crimes.
See U.S. Statutes: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1346; and 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
Violators of these statutes become (actually “are”) “criminals”. Irrefutable evidence on the record is sufficient to indict Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., and Charles C. Brown, the presiding judge, Kathryn H. Silcox and others of these and other crimes against the state, against We the People, and against Claudia A. Montelione.
This humble scribe (Wrona), with Claudia, her daughter Francesca, and an innocent bystander, Kevin Mahoney, have all incurred the wrath of this Commonwealth because Claudia refused to waive her right to due process of Law and other rights before these evil tyrants who operate under color of law in Harrisburg, PA, the State Capitol.
The wrath of this Commonwealth is inflicted upon innocent citizens by corrupt government officials not limited to District Attorneys, prosecutors, judges and other law enforcement agents. To learn more about the origins of this travesty / tragedy, Link to The Hook.
At the beginning of the Montelione saga, in October of 2007, Claudia, Francesca and Kevin were commissioned notary public officers, Claudia and Francesca were commissioned in PA, while Kevin was commissioned in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All have since lost their commissions.
The saga began with an innocent looking demand sent to Claudia from the Bureau of Consumer Protection (“BCP”), an agency under the office of Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. Corbett’s agent, Kathryn H Silcox, Esq., an attorney for BCP, demanded that Claudia turn over all her business and notary records for an “investigation” by the Bureau.
The U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV secures the right of We the People against unreasonable searches and seizures.
No basis was offered for this “investigation” by Atty. Silcox (BCP), who served a subpeona in the absence of a court order. BCP is in violation of Pa.R.C.P. Rule 234.1 (a) and (c). BCP also violates Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1007. Commencement of Action.
BCP failed to file a COMPLAINT, either civil or criminal, in Dauphin County to support an Order to compel Claudia A. Montelione to appear in Dauphin County. See DCCCP Docket No. 2008 CV 00875 EQ. Any proceedings for this matter are void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. assumed jurisdiction where none exists.
Does “due process” of law exist in Dauphin County, PA? Apparently NOT in the courtroom of Lawrence F. Clark, Jr.
NOTE: Claudia and Francesca Montelione operate(d) a small desktop publishing business, The Penny Pincher Press [“PPP”], in addition to their notary services practice.
Claudia responded to Silcox that she would (be happy to) provide the information demanded if the Bureau would inform her of a complaint and identify the complainant, i.e., comply with her rights to know the nature and cause of the “investigation” by the Bureau. She wanted to know if the action was civil or criminal, and whether it was against PPP or against her services as a Notary. She claimed her right to face her accuser.
The Bureau lacks authority to investigate any business without a formal complaint by a “consumer”.
[ Says “WHO”? See CONSTITUTION / CONTRACT.]
See also “supremacy clause” of U.S. Constitution; Article VI, second clause.
The Secretary of State issues all commissions to Notary Publics, so the Bureau (BCP), an agent for the Attorney General, lacks any authority whatsoever to pry into those operations. All public officers are “Trustees” who serve the People under the Public Trust.
Trustee Silcox refused to provide fundamental “due process” notice to Claudia and insisted that the Bureau has the right to investigate under the Administrative Code of the Commonwealth (also “Com.”), which is found in Title 71 of Pa. Statutes. [71 P.S. § 741.951(a)] Silcox misrepresents the Law. She is a CRIMINAL under 5 U.S.C.§ 2635.101.
One can reasonably argue that Silcox erred, or misrepresents the Law with this interpretation which is in direct conflict with the “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution; Article VI, clause/sentence 2.
Claudia again responded that she has the right to know her accuser and to be informed of any complaints/charges against her. Claudia agreed to comply with the Bureau’s demands upon receiving this fundamental “complaint” information.
Claudia erred … she assumed that she was appearing in a “court of law” in the United States. Claudia was wrong, She was forced to answer to Dauphin County, Commonwealth of PA.
Silcox, learned in the Law, responded by serving an unlawful subpoena on Claudia in Scranton, Lackawanna County, PA.
Penna. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 234.1 prohibits issuing subpoenas without court approval (an order), and a subpoena “may not be used to compel a person to appear or to produce documents or things ex parte before an attorney, a party or a representative of the party.”
Undeterred by PA Rules of Court, BCP (Silcox) determined that the Rules do not apply to government agents or agencies, relying on the Pennsylvania Administrative Code to overturn Article VI of the U.S. Constitution to achieve its ignoble objectives. Silcox knew, and Claudia did not, that the investigation of Claudia’s records was “criminal” in nature. The subpoena issued under color of Law by BCP attempted an unlawful search and seizure (4th Amendment) and deception to induce self-incrimination (5th Amendment) from Claudia.
Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. “affirmed” Silcox’ faulty interpretation of law by creating the Brand New “sweeping powers doctrine” for government agents.
It is clear that Silcox and other public servants misconstrue the Law. They believe that as “public servants”, the public must serve them.
Kathryn H. Silcox, Esq., agent for Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., knowingly and intentionally violated the Pa. Rules of Court, to wit, Pa.R.C.P. Rule(s) 234.1 and 1007 among others. She also violates her Oath of Office. Her actions violate civil and constitutional rights of Claudia A. Montelione.
Under the settled legal doctrine of “respondeat superior”, BCP actions lay at the foot of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth, who was, at the time, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., now serving as Governor.
NOTE: Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1007 that states “An action may [only] be commenced by filing with the prothonotary (1) a praecipe for a writ of summons, or (2) a complaint.
Each of Claudia’s responses to the Bureau was sent “in honor” pursuant to UCC standards, pointing out that the subpoenas were unlawful. Without compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 1007, there is No Contract between the Bureau (Commonwealth) and Ms. Montelione.
On the other hand, BCP (Silcox) failed to conduct her business in “good faith”, thereby “dishonoring” the implied contract. Trustee Silcox also DENIED Claudia her “intangible right to honest services”. See 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
Title 18 U.S.C. is the federal Criminal Code. Silcox committed “crimes” against Claudia.
Next, the Bureau filed a motion to compel Claudia to comply with the subpoena. Trustee Silcox went “judge-shopping” in Dauphin County, despite Rules of Civil Procedure that dictates Venue in a Lackawanna County court. Silcox found a sympathetic judge, Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., in Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas (DCCCP) to issue an order to appear on Claudia.
Claudia was ordered to appear in Dauphin County by trustee Clark, apparently oblivious to Pa. Rules of Court and the lack of a “complaint” or a “praecipe for a writ of summons”. If Silcox filed either of these, she failed to serve the defendant with such “notice”.
BCP failed to establish “subject matter jurisdiction” in Dauphin County. Clark acted “in the absence of any jurisdiction” to order the appearance of Claudia A. Montelione in his court.
A “Motion to Compel”, “Motion for Sanctions” is neither a writ of summons nor a complaint under Rule 1007. Silcox DENIED Claudia’s right to “due process of Law”. Clark became a co-conspirator.
At this point, the Bureau has failed to establish jurisdiction in Dauphin County. Nevertheless, DCCCP [trustee Clark] ordered Claudia to appear before Clark on March 4, 2008. BCP and the “court” conspired to violate Pa.R.C.P. 1007. Clark’s issuance of the order to appear is at best a “misfeasance” of office.
At what point does government (court) deviation from its own rules become a criminal act?
In a collateral action, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State ordered Claudia to appear on March 10, 2008, for a review of her practices as a notary public. The Secretary found no evidence of wrong-doing in her performance of her notary function. The Dept. of State hearing was to determine if Claudia was engaged in the “unauthorized practice of Law” – alleged to be criminal behavior. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 2524.
On March 4, 2008, Claudia complied with Clark’s Order and made a special appearance in DCCCP to raise the question of [link to] jurisdiction of that court. She was accompanied by Eugene Wrona as “assistance of counsel” pursuant to the U. S. Constitution, Amendment VI, and Pennsylvania Colonial Law, to wit, The Frame of Govt – 1682, incorporated under 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1503,
Trustee Clark would have none of this and as his first order of business, he discharged Wrona, your scribe, from the Well under a verbal threat of incarceration.
Claudia stood alone to face the court (trustee Clark) and the Bureau [Michael Gerdes replaced Silcox as prosecutor]. Claudia made an effort to learn the nature and cause of the action against her without the Assistance of Counsel.
Does anyone detect deprivation of “due process”? via tyranny and oppression?
Trustee Clark ignored Claudia’s requests/demands for due process and the protection of her rights under the U.S. Constitution. He did not inform her that the action against her was “criminal” in nature. He also failed to require Plaintiff [BCP] to establish jurisdiction in DCCCP. He was too busy with threats and intimidation against this courageous woman.
Trustee Clark is “at war” with the U.S. Constitution and performed the duties of his office like a “Thug”.
Settled Law holds that when a court proceeds without jurisdiction, any judicial action is void ab initio. Further, in all criminal proceedings, a defendant must be afforded a trial by jury (U.S. Constitution Article III and Amendment VI) and the assistance of counsel (Amendment VI). See also Constitution of Pennsylvania.
Trustee Clark disregarded his Oath of Office to violate the civil and constitutional rights of Claudia Montelione on March 4, 2008. Further, when he discharged the “assistance of counsel”, settled Law holds that he forfeited any jurisdiction that may have been vested in DCCCP.
Every action by Clark in the matter became void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. All future proceedings in DCCCP are a nullity. The hostility demonstrated by Clark’s demeanor raises the question of whether the action(s) against Claudia are “retaliatory“!
Claudia was ordered to comply with the Bureau’s subpoena within 10 days or be held in “Contempt of Court”. Injustice via threat and intimidation “under color of law”. This was a final order from which a litigant has the right of appeal within 30 days [Pa Constitution, Article V, § 9]. Claudia’s right of appeal was interrupted by an order, void ab initio, to appear for contempt hearing in Dauphin County.
[Under Law, a defendant is granted 30 days (April 9, 2009) to file a Notice of Appeal. Trustee Clark DENIED Claudia’s Right of Appeal by arresting her and Ordered her to be incarcerated in Dauphin County Prison (DCP) before her Appeal date was due.
To this point, Claudia was not yet informed that the “complaint” being “investigated” was for unauthorized practice of Law, a(n) alleged misdemeanor. However, charges of Retaliation against a prosecutor or judicial official under § 4953.1 were brought against Claudia. Somehow, the instrument issued to peaceably settle and close the case was falsely labelled a “judgment” by prosecutors and the court.]
When Claudia failed to appear for the March 28, 2008 hearing due to closure of the case, a Bench Warrant for her arrest was issued. Claudia was taken into custody the very next day and brought to Dauphin County Prison (DCP).
Knowing the Dauphin County court did not intend to administer lawful justice, Claudia relied on her training as a law merchant and closed the case commercially by tendering a payment instrument to the court under a pre-arrangement with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury. The payment was witnessed by Massachusetts Notary Public Kevin Mahoney.
Claudia’s “Bonded Promissory Note” (BPN) bonded the action instead of allowing Dauphin County to bond the case. With apparent contempt for commercial law (“UCC”) and disregard of 28 U.S.C. § 2041 which requires the payment to be forwarded to the Department of Treasury, Judge Clark called the instrument “bogus” and became involved in the initiation of criminal charges against Claudia for “Retaliation against a prosecutor or judicial official” under 18 Pa.S.C.A. § 4953.1 of the Pa Criminal Code. A.O.P.C., (Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts) joined with Dauphin County and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania (Thomas W. Corbett, Jr.) in the unlawful “criminal” prosecution of Claudia A. Montelione.
To this point, Claudia was not yet informed that the “complaint” being “investigated” was for unauthorized practice of Law, a misdemeanor. The statute, 42 Pa.S.C.A. § 2524, does not appear on the List of [criminal] Offenses for this Commonwealth.
UPL – “Unauthorized Practice of Law” IS NOT A CRIME!
The March 10, 2008, hearing by the Secretary of State concluded in Claudia’s favor. The hearing officer admitted that Claudia was not engaged in any wrongdoing. i.e., Claudia was not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Nevertheless, Douglas Cassel, attorney for the Secretary told the [agency] court that the Secretary wanted to “send a message” to others regarding the practices of notaries public in which Claudia engaged, to wit, “third-party witness”. Despite the fact that Claudia provided only such notary services as identified with her commission and or authorized under the UCC. A “third-party witness” function was (is) enumerated on the State’s website for Notary Publics.
When Claudia was incarcerated on 29 March, 2009, she had been deprived of notice (due process) by the Bureau, had not been advised of her rights under the 5th Amendment, had been ordered to appear in a foreign jurisdiction to face [criminal] charges without a filed “criminal” complaint, and was denied assistance of counsel, depriving her of due process and equal protection of Law. And let us not forget the subpoena issued “under color of Law”.
Is it right for a government agency to abuse its authority? Even if the target of the investigation is guilty, does the End justify the Means? Can the government DENY a person due process? Answers! Not lawfully.
Here, the alleged “crime” is a misdemeanor for which the Bureau trampled on Claudia’s rights and TRASHED the U.S. CONSTITUTION. For Shame!
So what did the court [trustee Clark] do?
First, he deprived the accused of assistance of counsel, compelling her to proceed pro se against unknown charges and unknown accusers. Clark knowingly and intentionally DENIED Claudia of her rights under the 6th Amendment.
Next, he excused trustee Silcox from appearing for the Bureau, DENYing defendant of her 6th Amendment rights.
Then he refused Claudia’s due process demand to learn the nature and causes of the action, whether civil or criminal, among others. Clark “wars” with the U.S. Constitution. He then entered “Non-Entertaining Orders”, [his language], to deny several motions, petitions and/or judicial notice actions of defendant.
What is a “non-entertaining” order? Are they “Lawful”? Are they even “recognized”?
Answer! Non-entertaining orders are Not Defined in the laws or statutes for this Commonwealth.
Trustee Clark, by his demeanor and language, replete with threats, disparaged and disrespected this intelligent and competent woman, untrained in the law, from exercising rights secured to every American Citizen through the Bill of Rights. In short, Clark conducted the proceedings like a “bully”, a tyrant.
Claudia was even DENIED the right to face her protagonist, a right protected in Pennsylvania’s Constitution and statutes.
Trustee Clark violated his Oath of Office to “war with the U.S. Constitution”.
A judge at war with the Constitution acts under color of law and without jurisdiction and without immunity afforded that office. His judicial determinations are void ab initio, except to dismiss the action. Link to Jurisdiction cites.
Clark’s Order dated March 4, 2008, compelling Claudia to comply with the Bureau’s subpoena is unenforceable as being void ab initio. As a matter of Law and due process, every subsequent action by the court, the Bureau, the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State Police, their agents et al, is taken under color of law, which is in reality, criminal corruption by the court without any law to support the actions or orders.
Corruption. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
Black’s Law Dict., 6th Ed., p. 345.
Claudia was incarcerated in Dauphin County Prison (DCP). Claudia’s daughter, Francesca, filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court to obtain the release of her mother from this oppressive incarceration.
Federal district judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed the Writ arguing that “daughter and best friend” lacks standing to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a legal doctrine dating to the Magna Carta.
Is “trustee” Rambo correct? Or, was she “playing ball” with Dauphin County?
Francesca attempted other means to get her mother out of jail, including serving an administrative demand for release [affidavit] from illegal incarceration upon Atty. Gen. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. and DCP Warden Dominick DeRose. These trustees are duty-bound to answer the affidavit in a private process witnessed by notary public Kevin Mahoney. See Uniform Bonding Code Rule 5.0.
For Francesca’s efforts taken on behalf of her mother, the Attorney General sent his attack dogs, the Special Investigation Division of the Pennsylvania State Police, to wit, Trooper Denny L. Grimm, to file criminal charges against Claudia, Francesca and Kevin Mahoney, a Massachusetts notary public. The charges include filing false “bogus” financial documents, later withdrawn; and from them, charges of Retaliation against a prosecutor or judicial officer under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4953.1 of the PA Criminal Code.
When Trooper Grimm filed the false Affidavit of Probable Cause in DCCCP, he commits the crime of “fraud on the court”. Jurisdiction, if any, must transfer to federal court.
NOTE: When the Affidavit of Probable Cause is Not Supported by an Affidavit of a civilian “accuser”, the State becomes the accuser, and subject matter jurisdiction immediately transfers to federal court. UBC 5.0.
The Commonwealth proceeded to prosecute Claudia for three counts each of Retaliation and Conspiracy (§ 903) through Dauphin County DA Edward Marsico and Deputy DA Jenni Henley Allen. Named as victims, ergo the “accusers”, are AG Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. and Dauphin County Prison (DCP) Warden Dominic DeRose. See Judgment NOV.
Francesca Montelione and Kevin Mahoney faced similar charges of “Retaliation” and the collateral three counts of Conspiracy. The victims named are Corbett, Clark and DeRose. Neither submitted an Affidavit against Claudia, claiming to be victims.
The entire process – initiated by the State Attorney General – is a criminal charade in violation of the most fundamental Rules for “due process and equal protection of Law”.
The Commonwealth neglects to note [or ignores] that a prison warden is not included as a judicial officer protected under § 4953.1. The criminal counts naming the warden as a victim constitute malfeasance of office by trustee Grimm and the Dauphin County D.A.
The Commonwealth decided on separate trials for each person, which makes it easier to limit evidence for the defense from the jury and limits exculpatory testimony that may persuade a single jury if it heard all three defendants at the same trial. Claudia was tried separately from her “co-conspirators”, Francesca and Kevin.
CONTINUE HERE …
Claudia’s Criminal Trial
Claudia was brought to trial on July 28, 2009 to face six criminal charges. a “foreign judge”, Charles C. Brown, Jr., was brought in from Centre County to administer the proceedings, apparently to avoid any inference of prejudice of DCCCP judges.
She was not represented and was DENIED “assistance of counsel” by judge Brown.
There is No Evidence on the record that the document used as the basis for “probable cause” WAS EVER ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. Apparently, Trooper Grimm learned that the BPN was bona fide and not “bogus” as stated in the Affidavit of Probable Cause”. Since it appears that this document is instrumental to the charges of Retaliation, one must ask: 1) “What is the basis for the criminal charges?” and 2) WHY did the court NOT DISMISS all charges for lack of probable cause, and more.
Prosecution failure to enter the “Affidavit of Probable Cause” into evidence would clearly evidence that the Commonwealth is unable to meet its burden of proof to establish “probable Cause”.
All charges against Claudia Montelione should have been DISMISSED with Prejudice!
Is filing a FALSE “Affidavit of Probable Cause” grounds for dismissal for “fraud on the court” and a counter-complaint for “malicious prosecution“?
The Commonwealth brought Claudia to trial allegedly for “retaliation” against Attorney General Corbett, Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., and the prison warden, Dominic DeRose. Organic Law [Constitution] requires that an accused MUST be afforded the opportunity to face ones accuser(s). Amendment VI.
Federal case law also states that a State may never be the victim of a crime because the State is a fiction, not a real person, and the accused is unable to face his/her accuser.
Neither Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., nor Dominic DeRose testified.
Trustee Brown (masquerading as a “judge”) permitted the State to substitute two State attorneys as proxies to testify for the prosecution against the defendant. One must assume that those attorneys appeared as an “expert witness” under Rules of Evidence. If not, their testimony must be inadmissible as “hearsay” evidence. Pa. Rules of Evidence, Article VIII.
When hearsay evidence is offered against a defendant in a criminal case, the defendant may interpose three separate objections: (1) admission of the evidence would violate the hearsay rule; (2) admission of the evidence would violate defendants right to confront the witnesses against him under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution; and (3) admission of the evidence would violate defendant’s right of confrontation under Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The DA through trustee [Deputy D.A.] Jenni Henley Allen, neglected to inform the defense of these “expert” witnesses, thereby denying defendant her rights to obtain experts to rebut their testimony. The prosecution also neglected to provide the defense of any depositions by these witnesses.
The testimony of these witnesses, whether or NOT “expert witnesses”, is inadmissible, either as Hearsay, or as testifying to “conclusions of Law”. Admitting testimony of proxies deprives the defendant of civil and constitutional rights – in addition to being denied “assistance of counsel”.
Following a two-day trial, where Claudia had been Denied a full and fair opportunity to prepare for trial with her chosen “assistance of counsel”, and was denied her right to call witnesses, etc., she was convicted of all counts.
Because prison practice intercepts and screens Claudia’s mail, Wrona filed several documents on her behalf. Two of these documents are not included among documents under which the Commonwealth charged Wrona with upl; to wit, an Amicus Brief and a Motion for Judgmt NOV 28.
Both documents itemize judicial and prosecutorial misconduct / crimes in the pseudo-“trial” of Commonwealth v. Claudia A. Montelione.
The court and prosecutors know that an attorney who “represents” a client would NEVER file an amicus brief on behalf of that client.
Claudia, a Friend of mine, spent close to 3 years in a Pennsylvania jail with 6 criminal charges … 3 counts of “threatening officers of the court”,18 PaCS 4953.1 [ Atty. Gen., a judge and the prison warden ] … and 3 counts of criminal “Conspiracy” [ they really know how to POUR IT ON! ] … there are NO UNDERLYING criminal charges.
Never mind that ONE of the alleged “officers threatened” [ prison warden ] is not protected under the statute, 18 PaCS 4953.1. So “2” of the charges are “malicious prosecution” [ a “crime” perpetrated by prosecutors in collusion with the “court” ].
But a corrupt court routinely disregards prosecutorial misconduct.
Will Pennsylvanians EVER SEE the DAY when their courts, judges and prosecutors, are Honest?
Let us Pray!
|The Commonwealth relies on inadmissible testimony to obtain a conviction … especially when a corrupt judge [“trustee” Charles C. Brown, Jr.] dispenses the “jury instructions”.|
Was Claudia afforded due process and equal protection of Law?
Corrupt. Spoiled; tainted; vitiated; depraved; debased; morally degenerate. As used as a verb, to change ones morals and principles from good to bad. Black’s Law Dict., 6th Ed., Page 345.
Does testimony by a fellow “prosecuting” attorney conflict with Rules of Professional Conduct? Yea!
Does a judge (“trustee”) have a fiduciary responsibility [legal duty] to protect Constitutional Rights of defendants? YEA!
Did trustee Charles C. Brown, Jr. perform his fiduciary duties with fidelity to his Oath of Office? Nay!
Did trustee Jenni Henley Allen perform her fiduciary duties with fidelity to her Oath of Office? Nay!
Did Claudia receive a fair trial?
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 under 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1503 as Colonial Law.
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 attorney to remain with defendant in the well giving an appearance that Claudia Montelione had “assistance of counsel”.
Trustee Brown made other remarks/announcements, then entered into an exchange of dialogue Eugene Wrona, an attorney, trained in the Law and authorized to practice Law in federal jurisdiction with a Commission [PAG] as Private Attorney General.
Trustee Brown recognized Wrona and accorded 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 and the Frame of Government of 1682. Wrona read into the record the relevant clause from Colonial Law that supports and endorses this position. Brown ultimately appointed 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 Government of 1682, did William Penn agree that the assistance of a friend shall be offered to the court only from the audience during recesses?
During the dialogue between trustee Brown and Wrona, First Assistant D.A. Francis T. Chardo, III, entered the sanctuary of the courtroom with 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”.
It may be that Chardo, who once ran for judge, 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. Detective Jerome P. 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 which must be again dismissed under the Constitution.
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’s criminal charge does not pass the “smile” test when held against Canon 3.A(4). The arrest of Wrona from the sanctuary of a courtroom exposes Chardo as a thug, unfit for office. Prior and subsequent charges for the same or related events are “counterfeit securities”, 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?
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.
Claudia’s trial went into the second day, when a jury found her guilty of all six charges without one “victim” appearing to testify against her.
Whatever happened to the Constitution, and the Oaths of Office of Judges, prosecutors and Law officers who swore to support and defend it? Would anyone care to see the “jury instructions” as issued by Brown to the jury? I would.
On September 12, 2009, Claudia was sentenced. DA Allen castigated her for her alleged crimes, adding BCP attorney Michael Gerdes as another victim. Allen condemned Claudia for showing “no remorse” for her conduct which most non-partisan people would agree was, standing up for the Constitutions; refusing to waive her Rights; exercising her Rights, etc.
DA Jenni Henley Allen showed no remorse for prosecuting Claudia in violation of her 6th Amendment Rights to face Attorney General Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Judge Lawrence F. Clark, Jr., and Warden Dominic DeRose. Allen showed no remorse for allowing state – paid attorneys to testify as witnesses contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Following sentencing, Wrona prepared a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Relief: Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto as “counsel” for Claudia under the 6th Amendment and the Frame of Government of 1682. He left for two weeks vacation, returning home at 10 PM on 30 September 2009. Wrona left home at 7 AM on 1 October 2009 for his Arraignment in Dauphin County. USPS held Wrona’s mail from September 15 to October 1, 2009. Wrona received NO MAIL after September 14, 2009 until after his next arrest on October 1, 2009 by DA Chardo during the Arraignment.
ARREST of Eugene Wrona
On 1 October 2009 Wrona appeared for Arraignment. After checking in I, [Gene Wrona] was accosted by DA Chardo who told the clerk; “I’ve got this one.” I did not recognize him at the time. He escorted me directly to the processing desk, produced my paperwork and told me that I was pleading “Not Guilty. Right?” and he wrote “Not Guilty” on the Arraignment form.
I told him that he cannot fill in the form for me and he responded with “Are you refusing to sign?” after which he said they had two Bench Warrants for my arrest. I asked “What for?” He said for leaving the country, violating conditions of bail. He did not present either Bench Warrant. I told him that I was not refusing to sign the Arraignment form and asked him for the paper and a pen, which he gave to me.
I briefly read over the form and scratched through his “Not Guilty” writing and began writing “Innocen —“ when he ripped the pen from my hand and said to a different staff member “Refuses to sign.”
I then asked his name. He said, “That’s it! You’re gone and you’re not coming back.” I (later) learned his name from a deputy sheriff.
Again, I was arrested by Chardo within a courtroom. This time he alleged to have Bench Warrants which were not served, and which I had not seen. I learned later, after my brother, Reg, opened my mail that the warrants were issued for “criminal activity”, violating conditions of bail. The activity? Filing a “Notice of Appeal” for Claudia on 28 September 2009.
Chardo led me through the crowd and I was delivered over to deputies who put me in a holding cell after preliminary processing. My possessions were catalogued. I was of course handcuffed and belted.
When the paperwork arrived, already signed by Detective Wood for that date, another detective, unnamed, took me for a bail bond hearing.
Before going before the magistrate, I negotiated to put my briefcase in my car which was parked in the parking deck behind the courthouse. I was taken in handcuffs for that purpose. Leg irons were put on for my trip to District Justice Barbara Pianka, and not Joseph S. Solomon whose name was on the document.
The unnamed detective deposited me “alone” in a waiting room outside the magistrate’s courtroom. I estimate the time as being between 10 and 20 minutes. Neither the detective nor the “partner” were in the room with me. When I was finally brought before Pianka, it was apparent that ex parte communications had taken place.
Justice Pianka asked if I understood the charges. I answered that I had not even seen them and would like to read them. She permitted me to side-step in leg irons to the end of the counter to read the criminal complaint by Detective Wood, who was not present.
After reading the complaint I was again brought before the magistrate. She again asked if I understood the charges. I responded with a conditional “Yes” and began to ask a question. District Justice Pianka stated “Bail is set at $50,000.00. She banged the gavel, and left the courtroom. I asked if I would be permitted a phone call. I was directed to a phone, but could not reach my party, since it was a toll call, I presume.
During the entire court proceeding the prosecutor, unnamed detective, spoke not a word. There was no discussion or questions about risk of flight or other related bail issues. It is reasonable to conclude that the detective used his most persuasive manner to convince Pianka ex parte to set an excessive bail per demands of Chardo.
I was then taken for processing, fingerprints, photos, etc. and then transported to DCP (Dauphin County Prison) on Thursday, 1 October 2009 for my first ever overnight in jail.
Note 1: On 28 September 2009 I was in Munich, Germany, and did not file the Notice of Appeal.
Note 2: I was incarcerated in the Classification Unit [A Block] in DCP for 8 days. A Block inmates are not permitted pen/pencil or paper except to submit Inmate Request Forms. I first received a pad of paper and this pen on October 15, 2009, two weeks after my incarceration.
On 5 October 2009 I was “compelled” to meet with a public defender who “represented” me and about a dozen other inmates for a Live Video Rule 150 Bail Hearing where a judge and prosecutors in the courthouse dealt with a public defender and inmates in DCP. DA Chardo was among the prosecutors. He asked several times for my case to be moved up, presumably so he would not be detained. I had no knowledge of these proceedings and had never been served with the documents of my arrest, so I, and probably the public defender, were ignorant of the goals of the prosecutor and possibly the judge who I do not know. It may have been Judge Evans.
When I expressed my ignorance, the judge waived some papers in front of the camera, as if I should be familiar with them, and mentioned something about a Judge Turgeon being assigned to my case. The outcome of that Rule 150 hearing was two interlocutory orders for bail at $5,000.00 each, pending review by judge Turgeon.
On 5 October, 2009 my brother met with a Bail Bondsman, Costopoulis, to post $50,000.00 bail for my release. I was taken to the Records room in DCP to sign the paper(s). I did not recognize the date on one document and asked to read it. A staff member said that I would not be released even if I signed, that another $10,000.00 [cash?] was necessary, evidently the result of the AM Rule 150 hearing, to secure my release.
Interlocutory bail orders serve as a bar to obtaining bail.
On October 6, 2009 I was again cuffed and shackled and dragged to court where I appeared before Judge Jeannine Turgeon. I met there with another public defender for 5 – 10 minutes in preparation for a bail bond/bail revocation hearing. Apparently, the ROR bail I thought applied had been revoked and now Turgeon was following up on the interlocutory orders issued at the Live Video Rule 150 hearing of the day before.
Turgeon listened while a Deputy DA (I think Allen) spewed nonsense about my conduct, never addressing any “flight risk” issues, then asked the PD to answer. I had consented to his representation at this hearing because again, I had not seen any paperwork or been afforded time to digest the material. The PD did reasonably well, but I asked the court’s permission to correct some misstaments and to add other facts. Turgeon granted permission. As I was addressing the court, the PD requested permission to be excused. What does that say?
Ultimately, Turgeon asked me “What would it take” for me to not assist litigants. She asked if I was being paid, and from where I derived my income.
I answered that I was not paid by any “clients” for legal work, and told her the source of my income. It is clear that the “practice of Law” is not an issue. I mentioned something about my integrity that prevents me from not assisting others, or even saying that I would stop assisting those who ask for my help.
Turgeon then increased the bond on the two interlocutory orders from $5,000.00 each to $25,000.00 each. She also added special conditions for bail which do not comport with the Rules for Bail Bonds. (See Rule 525, 526 & 527). Turgeon also applied the “special conditions” to the $50,000.00 bail issued by District Justice Pianka on October 1, 2009.
Does the PA Constitution section that prohibits excessive bail mean anything? Should an unproven violation of a misrepresented Administrative statute 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524, demand $1000,000.00 bail with “special conditions”, while violations of the criminal code, Title 18, are frequently bonded for $10,000.00 or less? What is/are the “penal code” of Pennsylvania, and where is it found?
How does an inmate preserve his constitutional Right for “Equal Protection of the Law”? Do judges have a fiduciary duty to that end?
At this point, one might assume that Wrona could be released on bail for $100,000.00 and the special conditions added by Turgeon. Not So! My brother spoke with Costopoulis to arrange for bail and was told that the DA (possibly Chardo) had added other conditions, to wit, if any charges are brought against Dauphin County, Wrona forfeits $100,000.00. Costopoulis would not post bail under those conditions.
My brother contacted another Bail Bondsman and drove to DCP to arrange bail. After arriving at DCP he was told the same story with slightly more details. He understood the Bail Bondsman to say that the DA (Chardo) requires a $100,000.00 letter of credit which would be forfeited if Wrona files or causes to be filed any charges against Dauphin County.
Do we have a great government, or What?
Does this demand, in and of itself, not violate the Law as well as the Rights of a defendant? Does it not TRAMPLE on the U.S. Constitution?
While Wrona languishes in DCP, filing deadlines are tolling. Claudia also languishes in jail with no one “on her side” able to advance the issues for her appeal. It appears that the Commonwealth may achieve procedurally what it cannot achieve on the merits and under Law. The action(s) against Claudia are all “under color of Law” for lack of jurisdiction.
During this process, my brother engaged an attorney to get me released on bail. For professional reasons, I will not identify him. However, as you can tell by the results, he is ineffective. He met with me one time in DCP and took some of my documents, including an Affidavit I executed here in DCP. He promised to make copies of everything I gave him. I am still waiting . . . . He does not return phone calls to my brother and does not answer communications Faxed to his office. I am concerned that he has been threatened or intimidated by the DA, and that he violated attorney – client privilege by sharing information with the DA.
A preliminary hearing was scheduled for October 21, 2009 for the October 1, 2009 complaint. My brother and others planned to attend, and to bring a recording device to preserve the record. I asked the cell block counselor to confirm the docket ad was told that the case was transferred to Judge Turgeon in DCCCP. I scurried to inform my brother, lawyer and others that the hearing was cancelled – based on information of the counselor.
Surprise! At 7:15 AM on the 21st, a CO told me he was coming for me in a half hour. I was shackled and cuffed and let to a holding area for a Preliminary Hearing before District Judge Solomon at DCP.
Another Surprise! The attorney decided to stop by anyway so he was present to “represent” me. He remarked that he had “forgotten” his recorder and asked a court reporter if she would transcribe my Preliminary Hearing. The answer was “No”.
Justice Solomon found that Commonwealth established a prima facie case and bound the charge over to DCCCP. A dismissal of the charge would have resulted in a Windfall reduction of Bail by $50,000.00.
In the mean time. Chardo called the prisoner at DCP to offer a deal . In exchange for a guilty plea, Wrona would be released immediately and sentenced to parole (unspecified) and “extensive probation”. He made this offer on or about October 15, 2009. The offer was immediately declined and Chardo was informed that Wrona had an attorney in the matter.
The public should learn that parole and probation are “weapons” of the penal system to perpetuate recidivism. Jails appear to be populated by inmates for parole or probation violations as much as for criminal conduct. Once you are “in the system”, the long arm of the penal system will try to keep you there and bring you back. A DUI could be used to incarcerate a parolee.
Claudia Montelioe has been incarcerated for more than 18 months as a result of exercising her constitutionally protected Rights. She was persecuted by BCP and the Attorney General of PA and prosecuted in Dauphin County without ever establishing jurisdiction in that county. Claudia, her daughter Francesca, and Kevin Mahoney are each accused of fabricated crimes that never occurred. The alleged “victims” did not testify at Claudia’s trial, yet she was convicted. The DA knowingly and intentionally violated Claudia’s Rights and the Rights of Francesca and Kevin to prosecute these absurd and frivolous charges. The court, magisterial and common pleas, enabled these false prosecutions by failing to hold the prosecutors to the letter of the Law, the U.S. Constitution and their Oaths of Office, judges included.
For offering legal assistance to Claudia, Eugene Wrona became a target of a corrupt legal system. On at least four separate occasions, criminal charges were brought against him for violating the “penal code” of Pennsylvania. Prosecutors have not yet defined “penal code” and other terms for the offense charged.
Commonwealth failed to prosecute the first charge and re-filed it, violating the Constitution prohibiting double jeopardy. The third charge is bogus, see Canon 3.A(4) of CIC. The last charge is to cover-up a false arrest.
posted by Niki (the irredentist) at 12:58 PM
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
BUREAU OF COMMISSIONS, ELECTIONS
NOW COMES Respondent, CLAUDIA MONTELIONE, who either Agrees or Conditionally Accepts the allegations of the COMMONWEALTH upon their proofs of claim as follows:
2. Agrees in part with the modification that The Penny Pincher Press is a separate business under which Respondent operates, but only performs notary functions under her own name, not The Penny Pincher Press.
3. Agreed and modified, as above.
5. Agreed in part. During the times relevant to the Factual Allegations, Respondent also offered to the public secretarial services separate from her services as a notary public.
9. Respondent Conditionally Accepts that she prepares and tenders documents upon proof of claim that the preparation of documents is not effected in her secretarial capacity as explicated on her website.
10. Agreed. A ‘notary acceptor’ will serve a client’s documents and accept any replies to such documents which are then transmitted to the client, thereby witnessing as to whether or not any interchanges of documents took place.
11. Agreed. As stated in #10, if such responses come in to the notary acceptor, they are transmitted to the client.
12. Agreed. Respondent, in her secretarial capacity, can word process documents for clients and then serve them to another party in her capacity as a notary public.
13. through 32. Conditionally Accepted upon proof of claim that these allegation are not estopped due to the letter Respondent received from Gloria M. Thompson dated February 23, 2007.
(I’d like to add “as there is no apparent reason for the reopening of the Greenberg matter, and if there were, that typing documents from someone else’s handwritten notes is a statutory violation.”)
33. Partially Void. 13 through 32 cannot be incorporated by reference.
34. Neither Admitted nor Denied. Respondent has no record of such request.
35. Neither Admitted nor Denied. Respondent has no record of whether or not such documents were submitted.
37. Respondent conditionally accepts statement #37 upon strict proof of claim that “…the character of the acts performed…” stated in Respondent’s register would not be known by the terms used in said register to notaries public who are knowledgeable in commercial matters.
38. Respondent conditionally accepts statement #38 upon strict proof of claim that the terms used are unknown in the practices of notaries public.
39. Respondent conditionally accepts statement #39 upon strict proof of claim that the allegations in Count Two have been proven.
40. Paragraph 1 is Admitted, but paragraph 39 is only conditionally accepted.
41. Agreed. Receipts of fees for both notary and secretarial services had been mistakenly co-mingled in Respondent’s register.
42. Agreed. Mr. Palmer gave Respondent $20 for the typing of his Affidavit. Only the $5 fee for notary Acknowledgment should have been recorded in Respondent’s register.
43. Respondent conditionally accepts statement #43 upon proof of claim that Respondent did not correct her error as of October 22, 2007, by thereafter only entering notary fees in her register.
44. Paragraph 1 is Admitted, but paragraph 39 is only conditionally accepted.
45. Respondent conditionally accepts statement #45 upon proof of claim that the term “notarize” is not being confused with the term “acknowledge” and that Respondent did not place her notary seal upon the cited documents as a means of proving her status as a bona fide notary public.
46. Respondent conditionally accepts statement #46 upon proof of claim that the term “notarize” is not being confused with the term “acknowledge”.
47. Respondent conditionally accepts statement #47 upon proof of claim that Respondent’s character, integrity and ability hinges upon the definition of the word “notarize”.