The Hook: Stage I

WIP  …  Work In Progress

The HOOK:  Stage I

In October of 2007, Claudia Montelione was your average “independent” self-employed Notary Public with a small desktop publishing operation to supplement her income. Her daughter, Francesca, also a Notary Public, worked with her at their publishing operation called “The Penny Pincher Press” (“PPP”).
In October 2007, Claudia received a Notice from the PA. Bureau of Consumer Protection (“BCP”), a government agency reporting to the Attorney General of the Commonwealth. This “Notice” changed the lives of Claudia, Francesca, Claudia’s other daughter, Lisa, Kevin Mahoney, another Notary Public, your website Administrator, and many others.
Claudia believes strongly in the U.S. Constitution and the Law and understands her rights and her Duty to support the Constitution.  She responded to the BCP “Notice” with an affidavit, stating that she would be happy to comply if BCP would provide her with a copy of the “consumer complaint”, a constitutional right protected under the 6th Amendment.

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of the Montelione saga in October of 2007, Claudia, Francesca and Kevin were commissioned notary public officers in their respective commonwealth’s.  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 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.

BCP’s failure to produce a “Consumer Complaint” was Not the 1st Crime committed by the State against Claudia Montelione …  and others.  However, this “failure” deprives Respondent) Claudia  of “due process of law” and constitutes “criminal conflict of interest” in violation of 18 USC §§ 242 and 241. See also 5 USC § 2635.101. 
BCP also failed to distinguish between the notary business (public) and “PPP” the private sector business operation. BCP lacks authority to investigate Claudia’s ‘notary’ activities.  

“ … Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” quoting Moore v. ? Hartman ?, 431 US, at 502, 52 L Ed 2d 531, 97 S Ct 1932 (plurality opinion).

The U.S. Supreme Court HELD in Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 108 S.Ct. 896 (1988):
“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Failure to give notice violates “the most rudimentary demands of due process of law.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). See also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed. 490 (1980); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed. 18 (1976); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 1569, 23 L.Ed. 129 (1969); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714, 733, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878).                              And

Where a person has been deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process, “it is no answer to say that in his particular case due process of law would have led to the same result because he had no adequate defense upon the merits.” Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 424, 35 S.Ct. 625, 629, 59 L.Ed. 1027 (1915).

“As we observed in Armstrong, supra, only “wiping the slate clean … would have restored the petitioner to the position he would have occupied had due process of law been accorded to him in the first place.” Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 108 S.Ct. 896 (1988).

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).

“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Armstrong, 358 US 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, (1958) 

There is an implied rebuttable presumption that BCP lacks any authority to “investigate” a public sector function such as notary public which is commissioned by the Secretary of State.

BCP refused to address that issue. The acting “criminal” at this stage was (is) Kathryn H. Silcox, an attorney for BCP, a government agency  within the Office of the Attorney General. Silcox was, at all times, acting “under color of law”.  i.e., she has No law to support her actions, but she acted “Because She Could” with immunity from prosecution or even a civil lawsuit. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. was AG at that time. Attorney Michael Gerdes assisted Silcox in the execution of numerous crimes against Claudia and others.
No basis was offered for this “investigation” by Atty. Silcox (BCP), who “claimed” that BCP has authority to demand these records under Pa. Code. [71 P.S. § 307(a)]. Evidently. Atty. Silcox is unaware of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, second sentence, a.k.a. “Supremacy clause”.

 The U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV secures the right of We the People against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Attorney General has a fiduciary responsibility to preserve such rights. The PA Secretary of State is responsible for the performance of “commissioned” Notary Publics in Pennsylvania.
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 521, Attorney General (Corbett) was served with a Constitutional Challenge to 71 P.S. § 307(a) via Certified U.S. Mail # 7008 1830 0000 1034 1422. Corbett failed to respond, triggering justifiable charges of “neglect of duty”.

When Claudia repeated her demand for a copy of the “consumer complaint”, Silcox served a subpoena without [in the absence of] a court order. The subpoena was served on Claudia at her place of business in Scranton, Lackawanna County, PA.
BCP is in violation of Pa.R.C.P. Rule 234.1(a) for subpoenas. BCP also violates Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1007 Commencement of Action. 
Commencement of action “requires” the moving party to file with the prothonotary either a praecipe for a writ of summons (none filed) or “a complaint” (none filed). Without initiating an  action, BCP DENIED Claudia her “due process” rights and simultaneously established that the subpoena was issued without “jurisdiction” in any Pennsylvania “court of law”.  That subpoena is a legal “nullity”, void ab initio.  
Despite the lack of jurisdiction, service of the subpoena establishes Lackawanna county as the “forum contractus“.  BCP (Silcox) “refused” to produce a consumer complaint, a document required “by Law” for the protection of Claudia’s “due process” rights.
Is this not Negligence?   …   abuse of office/discretion?
Public Service “FRAUD”? 
The Bureau lacks authority to investigate any business without a formal complaint by a “consumer”.
[ Says “WHO”?  See CONSTITUTION / CONTRACT ]

To this point, BCP has deprived Claudia of her civil and Constitutional due process rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In most states, such deprivations are prosecutable offenses as “criminal misconduct” under 18 USC §§ 241, 242 et al and 5 CFR § 2635.101
Claudia responded to Silcox that she would (be happy to) provide the information demanded if the Bureau would inform / provide her with a complaint that identifies a complainant, i.e.,BCP must comply with Claudia’s due process rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the “investigation”. Silcox “misrepresented” to the court that Claudia REFUSED to comply.   

Claudia wanted to know if the action was civil or criminal, and whether it was against PPP or against her [public sector] services as a Notary. Claudia claimed her right to face her accuser.
BCP failed
to file a COMPLAINT, either civil or criminal, in Dauphin County to establish a cause of action in a foreign court. Instead, BCP filed a Motion for 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, becoming an accessory to the “Conflict of interest Crimes” of BCP. 
Does “due process” of law exist in Dauphin County, PA? Apparently NOT in the courtroom of Lawrence F. Clark, Jr.

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.
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.
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.

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.

Silcox, [allegedly] learned in the Law, responded by serving an unlawful subpoena on Claudia in Scranton, Lackawanna County, PA.
Penna. Rules of Civil Procedure 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 the Rules of Court (pseudo-Law), 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. Has Silcox ever heard of Miranda?
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.
NOTE: An unlawful seizure of Claudia’s property etc. was subsequently executed by the PA State Police; an activity known as “CONFISCATION“.  

It is clear that Silcox and other public servants misconstrue the Law. They believe that as “public servants”, the public must serve them and that “Government agents are ABOVE the LAW!”      5 CFR § 2635.101 disagrees … 

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 18 USC §§ 241 and 242 et al, Kathryn H. Silcox, Esq., is a “criminal”.

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. Corbett later served one term as Governor, and was rejected by the People in his bid for a second term.

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 several “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?

 

CONSPIRACY:

The Secretary of State issues all commissions to Notary(s) Public, so the Bureau, 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.
By mere coincidence, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State summoned Claudia to Harrisburg on March 10, 2008, for a review of her practices as a notary public. 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.
The Secretary found no evidence of wrong-doing in the performance of her notary functions. 

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 Government of 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 with 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 PA Law, a defendant is granted 30 days (4 April, 2008) 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” under “investigation” was for unauthorized practice of Law, a(n) alleged misdemeanor. The “complainant” appears to be the Pennsylvania Bar Association (“PBA”).  
The PBA lacks standing to bring a complaint against anyone in Pennsylvania courts. PBA is a “foreign” organization and not a “person”. If PBA chooses to bring any action against an American citizen,  such action must be brought in a federal court. A state court cannot try a matter when the state is a party to the action because an “appearance of impropriety” is raised under “susceptibility to prejudice”.

What shall we call it when a State Agency (BCP) brings an action on behalf of the BAR Association?  

Subsequently, false charges of Retaliation against a prosecutor or judicial official  were brought against Claudia under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953.1. Somehow, the instrument issued to peaceably settle and close the case was falsely labelled a “judgment” by prosecutors and the court.]


 

 

 

Leave a Reply

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