 |
 |
 |
| |
This is a bizarre tale
of how a small
family -- a
62-year-old single
mother of two daughters, the younger one of whom
has Down Syndrome --
became the target of political corruption and
official oppression in
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The events
erupted as a reaction to
a simple concept that has caused an unethical stir
among a treasonous
faction of legal professionals. The concept consists of two perfectly legal and inexpensive ingredients, affidavits and the services of a notary public which, when used in a fair manner, results in pure due process of law. The private dispute resolution process is for the use of men and women directly with whomever damaged them and results in an administrative judgment which can then be taken into court or can be used in a commercial process to collect damages. Claudia Ann Montelione, a former legal secretary, and her older daughter, Francesca Shannon, had used different types of affidavits in their own affairs and offered samples of them on their websites. Both women were also notary publics. For a small donation, visitors to their websites (webmavin.com and naturallyprudent.com) could have the samples e-mailed to them. Under the business name of ‘Penny Pincher Press’, Claudia or Francesca could provide secretarial services to those so challenged, and under their own names could act as notary witnesses to any private administrative process. Most customers had previously prepared paperwork and only requested notary services. While the world wide web did not jam up with traffic to their websites, there was a fairly steady stream of interested parties from across the U.S. of A. and some in Canada. In fact, it was a Canadian couple, both with claims of damages due to constructive discharge from employment with their separate former multi-national corporate employers that triggered the legal nightmare endured by both women, their family and friends, since January 2008 and is still on-going. As the processes of the Canadian couple, Rita and John, neared completion, Joseph Little, and attorney for Dresser Inc. of Houston, Texas, parent company of John’s former employer, DI Canada, threatened Claudia that he would “come after” her if she and John did not sign an agreement saying that neither one of them would file a commercial lien against Dresser. John did not intend to file a lien and it would not be Claudia’s place to decide to do that. John’s objective was to obtain a Declaratory Judgment in a U.S. Court based upon the completed affidavit process and then bring it into a Canadian Court under Treaty law. Neither John nor Claudia were doing anything they could be sued for so Little’s letter was ignored. 
 Letter to Attorney General Corbett to which Little's letter was attached. Right click to view images. |
| |
The
Meaning
of
“I’ll
come
after
you.”
Weeks later, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, Pedro Cortez, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Thomas W. Corbett Jr. and Dresser Inc. came after Claudia like gang busters. The Secretary of State, who gives notaries public their commissions, wanted to investigate Claudia’s notary practices. AG Corbett had his Bureau of Consumer Protection ask for all of her business records and Dresser brought a peculiar lawsuit against her in Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Claudia’s “home” county. The plaintiff was Dresser, the defendants were Claudia and John Petruzzo but there was no complaint. In violation of the Rules of Court, the case was opened with a Motion for Declaratory Judgment. The problem was, there was nothing for the court to give a declaratory judgment on. The Motion quoted sections of John’s affidavit and apparently linked Claudia to it simply because she had sent him the samples of an “Administrative Remedy”, a series of sworn-to documents (affidavits) which have been available across the country for at least five years and more recently, on the internet too. John never came down from Canada to defend his paperwork. In Secretary of State Pedro Cortez’s action, his investigator found nothing wrong with Claudia’s notary practices but the attorney at that office remained unconvinced. He demanded a hearing which took place on March 10, 2008 in front of Hearing Examiner Joyce McKeever. She also found no wrong-doing but Attorney Douglas Cassel couldn’t let go of it. He made remarks to the effect that he wanted to 'make an example' of Claudia. How was he going to do that when everything was in good order? The last and greatest gang-banger was A.G. Corbett who sicced his pitbull Bureau of Consumer Protection on Claudia and Francesca. Caught in the conflict was Claudia’s younger daughter, Lisa, who is permanently disabled by Down’s Syndrome. When the Bureau first requested Claudia’s business records, she sent them an affidavit called a “Conditional Acceptance for Value for Proof of Claim” saying she’d give them the records upon their letting her know what the complaint was for, who claimed harm had been done and what the charges were. Not only was probable cause not revealed, her affidavit was answered with a subpoena which demanded the business records. What part of “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . “ Fifth Amendment guarantee did they not understand? Where was the court case that the subpoena is supposed to be ancillary to? Maybe the Bureau was so used to not being asked questions that they didn’t take her seriously. Claudia sent Kathryn Silcox at the Bureau a Notice of Fault reminding her that by law, probable cause needed to be given and Silcox or the Bureau was duty-bound to answer the “Conditional Acceptance . . . “ This time, the answer was Terrance Green sent by the Bureau’s Scranton office to serve Claudia with a Notice to Appear in Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas on March 4, 2008. Say what? Dauphin County, where the state capitol of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, is located, is some 130 miles from Claudia’s home and office in Scranton. It was not the proper venue for a case against Claudia. In addition, REAL court orders are served by a Sheriff’s Deputy in a brown uniform not an agent of the plaintiff in a business suit. However, there was a judge’s name on the Notice. Grasping for some anchor in the world of law and order, Claudia crafted another “Conditional Acceptance . . . “ with questions about the matter for Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr. to answer. Maybe he could clear up the confusion/mistake. Wrong! The game for which the rules were unknown turned nasty real fast. Terrance Green showed up again with an “Important Notice”. It had no answers but did have a threat that if Claudia did not show up in the foreign and distant court, an arrest warrant would be issued. In retrospect, if such a thing happened again, she would bring it to her local sheriff. His/Her foremost responsibility is to uphold the law that the A.G. and his Bureau were trashing. To meet the uncomfortable situation head-on, Claudia made a special appearance in Dauphin County Court with her assistance of counsel, Eugene Wrona, and an entourage of friends. Prior to going, some research on both A.G. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. and Court of Common Pleas was done. According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. has no oath of office on file which renders him without standing to bring anything into court. |
| |
According
to
Dun & Bradstreet, which
compiles data on all
registered companies, the Dauphin County Court is a
private corporation
doing business as a court. Based on this
information, Claudia
prepared a “Motion to Dismiss” to which she attached
the Supreme
Court’s letter. Other Motions were created in an
effort
to turn that forum into a Constitutional court so
that she would know
how to proceed. An “Affidavit of Non-Corporate
Status” made it
clear that Claudia is a living woman, an American
Citizen, and is not
subject to the jurisdiction of that fictional court
which
was foreign to her. She was not a shareholder
nor an employee of
that
corporation so
by what lawful authority did it claim jurisdiction
over her?
Was it only by the sheer brute force of the state
police and the threat
of their prison? Are we back
to the law of the jungle after more
than 200 years of development? Yes, well, apparently the court in Dauphin County believes we are. Because Claudia’s Motions were not formatted in accordance with Dauphin County’s local rules, all of them were dismissed with “Non-Entertaining Orders”. Such order is unknown in the Rules of Civil Procedure for the Commonwealth, so it isn’t known if that corporate court used rules according to the “Civil Procedure of Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr.” or according to the more general “Rule of Off-the-Cuff”, but there it was. Having a three inch margin on the first page and a “distribution legend” at the end rather than a separate Certificate of Service was apparently much more important than the plaintiff’s violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution but, to give credit where credit is due, Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr. suggested the Motions be reformatted and re-submitted. The promise of fairness, however, was short lived. The next order of the court's business was to chase Eugene Wrona from the well of the court, leaving Claudia defenseless with no assistance of counsel, a violation of the Sixth Amendment. She struggled on alone, vainly trying to get answers to her questions. Judge Clark admitted to having an oath of office and said he would rule in accordance with it, but then denied Claudia her protected rights specified in the 5th and 6th Amendments. What laws had Lawrence F Clark, Jr. sworn to uphold? He made it clear that if business records were not turned over to the Bureau within ten days, there would be another hearing and prison would be the result. “You look like a nice lady,” said Lawrence F Clark, Jr. to Claudia. “I can assure you, you won’t do well in Dauphin County Prison with the likes of what’s in the general population there.” The court action that took place on March 4, 2008 can be termed a ‘Star Chamber’ proceeding which is an inquisitional-type of investigation requiring self-incrimination which is arbitrary and oppressive. The Star Chamber was abolished in England in 1641 because of its abuses of power but has been resurrected by Pennsylvania’s Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. The 5th and 6th Amendments had been added to the united States Constitution specifically to prevent the Star Chamber from ever occuring again. The events related herein represent a danger to society since they show a gross distortion of the legal structures and public offices established to protect the people and their rights. The corrupt public officials who are abusing the system, bringing back a hated procedure, create a burden on public resources both financially and in misuse of personnel since such resources are being used for the narrow interests of an exclusive group of people. |
