Problems: Montelione Case

Coming soon…

     The case against Claudia A. Montelione contains numerous examples of prosecutorial misconduct, judicial misconduct,  abusive law enforcement, criminal conspiracy with acts of tyranny, oppression and “domestic terrorism”. Law enforcement violated Claudia’s rights under the 4th Amendment. Prosecutors, in collaboration with the court( s), violated her rights under the 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments  et al. The perpetrators acted from the very beginning under color of law. The Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania should be held accountable for some of the most egregious offenses against private citizens by a top law enforcement agency … in history.
     The most egregious offense is that the Commonwealth, Office of AG, and Dauphin Court of Common Pleas acted in the absence of jurisdiction, both subject matter and in personam. All judicial actions following the initial contacts between the Commonwealth and the Respondent are void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction.
“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).

     The ENTIRE proceedings against Claudia Montelione is a nullity for lack of jurisdiction.  

   JURISDICTION and Due Process:

     Claudia Montelione was DENIED “due process of Law” by the corrupt State government of Pennsylvania. The persecution of Claudia began with an inquiry into her professional life by the Pa Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) in 2007.
Kathryn H. Silcox, an attorney for BCP, in “criminal” violation of Claudia’s 4th Amendment rights,  demanded that Claudia turn over ALL her records … under the false premise that there was a Consumer Complaint against her. Atty. Silcox FAILED (REFUSED) to produce a “consumer complaint”, and perpetrated a “fraud on the court” after judge-shopping in Dauphin County. Kathryn H. Silcox, a government agent,  committed “crimes” against Claudia.
See “Jurisdiction” cites below. 
     Due process requires that an accused must be afforded the opportunity to face their accusers, with enough information contained in the “complaint” to prepare a defense. See 6th Amendment, U.S. Const. Atty. Silcox was and IS INCAPABLE of producing a “consumer complaint”! 
     Claudia raised a challenge to “jurisdiction” in Dauphin County, which 
Lawrence Clark (judge?) “tyrannically” DENIED in DCCCP. By failing to demand that jurisdiction be established by the moving party, Lawrence Clark became a “CRIMINAL”!
See Basic Obligations of Public Servants: 5 CFR 2635.101. 

     Claudia was DENIED Due Process of Law; the 6th Amendment right to face her accuser(s); the opportunity to prepare a defense; and other rights as an American. By DENYing Claudia’s rights to a Fair and Honest Court, Lawrence Clark became a “Traitor” to the U.S. Constitution, and therewith FORFEITED any jurisdiction which may have been vested in Dauphin County courts. Accordingly, any “Order” entered from his court is void ab initio, and is UNENFORCEABLE. Any subsequent actions by the court are “nullities”. 
A subsequent action to criminalize Mr. Wrona is another “fraud on the court” perpetrated by the District Attorney of Dauphin County, to expand the “universe of criminality” inflicted from DCCCP.  


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

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

“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).

“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

      Claudia “challenged” the jurisdiction of DCP from their first correspondence.  DCP went “judge-shopping” to “terrorize” their target.
During the period of governmental assault on Claudia, the Secretary of State conducted an “investigation” into her performance as a Notary Public. The “Secretary” found “no wrongdoing” from their investigation of Claudia which raises the concern that the Office of Attorney General (Thomas W. Corbett, Jr.) acted out of malice with an “evil intent” in the malicious prosecution in these matters
. Jurisdiction for these charges properly belonged in a federal court.

     Federal crimes committed against Claudia include, but are not limited to: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1346 et al, and 42 USC § 1983; “conflict of interest crimes”. Public officers and agents violated many Pennsylvania criminal statutes including 18 PaCS § 903 – Conspiracy and 18
§ 4953 – Retaliation. Should Claudia have been entitled to a “Redress of Grievances” under the First Amendment against The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Dauphin County?     

Has Pennsylvania turned into a “Police State”?

   If arresting and incarcerating a citizen without a complaint, and holding her “incommunicado” for more than a month without permitting visitors, including her daughter, is governmental  “business as usual”, then allegations that Pennsylvania courts are corrupt cannot be Denied. If, on the other hand, a person cannot be arrested without a complaint “filed” with an enforce-ment agency, then the matters of Commonwealth v. Claudia A. Montelione present irrefutable evidence of the “corruption” of a government agency and Dauphin County CCCP.
Further, when the “state” is bringing a criminal charge on behalf of the State, jurisdiction is, or should be, automatically transferred to a federal court.  UBC 5.0.

     The “corruption” is criminal under 5 CFR 2635.101 for “conflict of interest” crimes. 

     The PA Office of Attorney General employed its “pit-bull” agency, the Bureau of Consumer Protection (“BCP”) to harass, intimidate and ultimately “terrorize” Claudia Montelione. Its agent, Kathleen H. Silcox, Esq., must certainly rely on “qualified immunity”, because she subsequently filed a formal complaint for upl against this administrator. 

     The Montelione matter arose when a foreign corporation (in Texas) accused “Claudia”, a commissioned notary public in Pennsylvania, of practicing law without a license (“upl”) and threatening her livelihood.  Is it important to know that this foreign corporation is a subsidiary of Halliburton? And that upl is Not a crime? And that Claudia Montelione provided “notarial” services to an employee of a Canadian subsidiary?
Just what were the “notarial services” provided by Claudia?   She served as a 3rd Party Witness for notarized legal documents; an approved administrative function for notary publics.

Montelione’s businesses operate in Lackawanna County, exclusively.  
      The Texas corporation appears to have executed its “threat” via the informal process of bringing  the “services” provided by Claudia A. Montelione to the attention of BCP via a monthly meeting of the PA BAR Association.
One must wonder whether the the Texas attorney went through the Office of Attorney General Corbett to exercise its “threat”! 

     Pennsylvania’s BCP entered the fray by threatening Montelione with an “investigation” of her printing business. The threat was issued by Silcox, supra. The Bureau has No authorization to investigate the “Notary” business or even Claudia’s private publishing business without a formal complaint.  However, showing that the Pennsylvania government is not haphazard when it comes to tyranny, oppression and terrorism, the Secretary of State joined the fray and opened an investigation into Montelione’s “notary business”. The attorney for the Secretary of State (Douglas Cassel ?? ) uttered “on the record” that they were going to “make an example” of her.
Montelione answered the Bureau’s initial request for information by asking for evidence of a consumer’s “complaint” against her business. The Bureau has none, so it issued an unlawful  subpoena demanding production of books and other materials for both businesses.

     Pennsylvania Law states that a subpoena must be issued by (under authority of) a court. The Bureau is not a court, but claims a special “dispensation” that it can circumvent the law. When Montelione again demanded evidence of a complaint and other proof, the Bureau, Kathryn H. Silcox, Esq., filed a “Motion for Sanctions” in Dauphin County court. See Dauphin County docket # 2008-CV-00875-EQ.

     Montelione made a “special appearance” in Dauphin County (March 4) to challenge the “jurisdiction” of the court, and the authority under which the Bureau was proceeding. Lawrence F. Clark, DCCCP judge, would hear none of that, referring to Montelione’s constitutional argument as a “dog and pony show”. He then ordered Claudia to comply with the bogus subpeona within 10 days or be held in contempt.  An offended litigant has 3o days in which to file an appeal. Clark DENIED Claidia’s “right of appeal”.
    Clark subsequently explained his determination that the “unlawful subpeona” served by BCP is lawful under a new doctrine he created for the occasion. Clark states “on the record” that the Attorney General has “sweeping powers” to investigate anyone or anything without a complaint. Let’s call it the “sweeping powers doctrine” of Dauphin County.
     Clark compelled Claudia to represent herself without the assistance of counsel, contrary to Pennsylvania law. In so doing, judge Clark managed to violate Montelione’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, contrary to his Oath of Office to support and defend those rights. Clark knowingly and intentionally committed these “crimes” to DENY “due process of law” to Claudia.

     Clark forfeited the jurisdiction of the court, rendering his actions to be VOID.

     The outcome was pre-determined. i.e., the case was “fixed”.

     Kathryn Silcox did not appear for BCP at the hearing, and was not available for cross-examination.

     Clark threatened to hold Montelione in contempt unless she complied with the “unlawful” subpoena. When she failed to surrender to the Pennsylvania Gestapo, Clark issued a warrant for her arrest, sending troopers from Dauphin County to Lackawanna County to “bring her back” to face the contempt charge.

     Montelione was arrested on March 28, 2008, and brought before Clark on March 29, again without the assistance of counsel, where he found her in “contempt” and sentenced her to jail. The statute she was convicted of does not permit a sentence of imprisonment, but that is no deterrent to our Gestapo. The “moved” her 130 miles to imprison her far from her friends and family, despite requirement that defendant must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the action occurred.

     Montelione remains in jail, and has not seen her disabled daughter for more than six weeks.
While in jail, criminal charges were brought against Montelione, presumably by judge Clark. She is charged with 3 counts of “Retaliation against prosecutor or judicial officer” and 1 count of “Tampering with public records.” See docket # CR-0000158-08.

     Did she commit these crimes from her jail cell? Or are these a knowingly “false complaint” brought by a corrupt judicial officer?

     Montelione’s other daughter filed a Petition in Federal Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In a display of judicial cooperation, federal judge Rambo dismissed” the petition on the grounds that Montelione’s daughter lacks standing to bring a habeas corpus action. Perhaps our federal judges should study the Constitution. The framers thought that habeas corpus was so important that it appears in the text / body of the Constitution, not as an added thought / amendment.

      Judge Rambo should be asked to explain how a PRISONER can be expected to prepare a habeas action when she has been deprived of communication with friends and family. Only “members of the bar” were permitted to see her. Most courts recognize that a writ of habeas corpus may be filed by anyone on behalf of a prisoner.

     Isn’t it true that lawyers have a greater allegiance to the judges than to their clients?

     Does anyone believe that this is the only instance where this court runs roughshod over innocent people?


Contact us

Abstract | Document List | Problems | Remedies

Leave a Reply

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