Summing Up a Case 'Dauphin County' Style
The
prosecutor
at the Penn. Secretary of State's Office said he wanted
to
"send a message to other notaries public so no one would
do as she had
done", whatever that was, but the only “example”
made is how an
anti-American, Constitution-hating conspiracy is
operating in
Pennsylvania. They
refused to acknowledge Claudia's political jurisdiction,
even though no
one challenged her Affidavit of Non-Corporate Status.
They trashed our
laws and proceeded by lies, deceit, manipulation and
threats, making
felons out of law-abiding, productive Americans. Jennie
Allen said in
her closing
argument that:
1) The
documents
filed into the public record by or for Claudia
had “clogged the system "and" .
. .
numerous
government agencies . . . had to
“
. . . stop her actions.”
Fact: Documents are put into the public record so everyone can be aware of what’s going on - - “transparency,” as it were. No government agency got involved. A. Taylor Williams testified that she handled the 'expungment case' at her own expense, not as part of her job with the Supreme Court. Neither has the Recorder of Deeds office in any county complained that their public records were 'clogged up' because of Claudia's paperwork!
2) Misquoting the instructions on Claudia’s payment instrument, the BPN, she said, “ . . . if this innocent bond is not paid to close out the case, that there are going to be consequences and repercussions for Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr., etc. . . . “
Fact: Documents are put into the public record so everyone can be aware of what’s going on - - “transparency,” as it were. No government agency got involved. A. Taylor Williams testified that she handled the 'expungment case' at her own expense, not as part of her job with the Supreme Court. Neither has the Recorder of Deeds office in any county complained that their public records were 'clogged up' because of Claudia's paperwork!
2) Misquoting the instructions on Claudia’s payment instrument, the BPN, she said, “ . . . if this innocent bond is not paid to close out the case, that there are going to be consequences and repercussions for Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr., etc. . . . “
Fact:
Paid by
whom
and to
whom?
The
BPN
directed
the
Secretary
of
the
U.S.
Department
of
Treasury
to
credit the court’s account but it was
never sent to him. What Jenni Henley Allen said
makes no
sense. The evidence shows that the fiduciaries breached
their duty and
stole the funds
since the BPN is missing. Should they not be held
accountable?
3) “ ... she was given a day in court. The Judge said, you know, we’re going to hear you. March 28th, come in. Have your day in court.”
Fact: Lawrence F Clark, Jr. wanted Claudia in court on the 28th of March 2008 to make her arrest easier since she would not waive her Rights and give business records to the Bureau without probable cause. The “day in court” was March 4th 2008 which Claudia attended and Lawrence F Clark, Jr. had made his unlawful intentions quite clear.
3) “ ... she was given a day in court. The Judge said, you know, we’re going to hear you. March 28th, come in. Have your day in court.”
Fact: Lawrence F Clark, Jr. wanted Claudia in court on the 28th of March 2008 to make her arrest easier since she would not waive her Rights and give business records to the Bureau without probable cause. The “day in court” was March 4th 2008 which Claudia attended and Lawrence F Clark, Jr. had made his unlawful intentions quite clear.
4) According
to
Jenni
Allen, Claudia was using Kevin Mahoney’s address
in Massachusetts
instead of her own address.
Fact: Claudia had no reason to use Kevin’s address as her own. What part of ‘the notary has to document responses’ does Jenni Henley Allen not understand? Kevin put his address on the paperwork so replies could pass through his hands first for the purposes of record keeping. It is NOT conspiratorial. It is business.
Jenni Henley Allen fabricated a scenario which didn’t exist in reality. Even though Claudia explained her intentions and her actions earlier, Jenni Henley Allen basically told the jury what to think. She twisted facts, made up motivation and invented relationships where none existed. Since the prosecution had the last word, there was no way Claudia could correct the unreal account in the minds of the jurors.
During the lunch break just before the verdict was pronounced, Claudia was summoned from the cage she was locked in, in the Sheriff’s office. The jury had a question for her. She was brought upstairs and through the building but was stopped outside the courtroom door. The jury’s question had been answered and Claudia was not needed. What was the question? Who had answered it? Only the D.A. and the court had control over and access to the jury.
Fact: Claudia had no reason to use Kevin’s address as her own. What part of ‘the notary has to document responses’ does Jenni Henley Allen not understand? Kevin put his address on the paperwork so replies could pass through his hands first for the purposes of record keeping. It is NOT conspiratorial. It is business.
Jenni Henley Allen fabricated a scenario which didn’t exist in reality. Even though Claudia explained her intentions and her actions earlier, Jenni Henley Allen basically told the jury what to think. She twisted facts, made up motivation and invented relationships where none existed. Since the prosecution had the last word, there was no way Claudia could correct the unreal account in the minds of the jurors.
During the lunch break just before the verdict was pronounced, Claudia was summoned from the cage she was locked in, in the Sheriff’s office. The jury had a question for her. She was brought upstairs and through the building but was stopped outside the courtroom door. The jury’s question had been answered and Claudia was not needed. What was the question? Who had answered it? Only the D.A. and the court had control over and access to the jury.
The jury rendered verdicts of guilty on all but one of the charges.
If
the
Commonwealth were correct in their assertion
that Claudia’s documents were retaliatory, they wouldn’t
have had to
obstruct her defense. They would not have
prevented her from
calling witnesses, granting her time to gather necessary
paperwork and
would not have staged the dramatic arrest of her
assistance of counsel
from the courtroom. A. Taylor Williams would not
have had to
compromise her integrity by obfuscating answers to
simple questions and
yammering on with irrelevant stories. Jenni Henley
Allen would
not have
demeaned her dignity by making up false scenarios to
support her
fanciful allegations.
Jenni Henley Allen wove a tale that Claudia was minimizing her relationships with Kevin Mahoney and the king of the Sovereign Church. The fact is Claudia hardly knew either of those men as her dealings with both of them were purely business within brief frames of time. For instance, she was unaware that Kevin is also the parent of a Down Syndrome daughter until they were riding in the “paddy wagon” from prison to court. Had they known each other personally, surely their children would have been mentioned.
Neither Francesca nor Claudia had ever met the king of the Sovereign Church of Christ and had only spoken with him by phone or e-mail from October 2008 until he ended communications in July 2009. Jennie Henley Allen’s purpose was to make her unfounded conspiracy theory more believable to the jury.
Jenni Henley Allen wove a tale that Claudia was minimizing her relationships with Kevin Mahoney and the king of the Sovereign Church. The fact is Claudia hardly knew either of those men as her dealings with both of them were purely business within brief frames of time. For instance, she was unaware that Kevin is also the parent of a Down Syndrome daughter until they were riding in the “paddy wagon” from prison to court. Had they known each other personally, surely their children would have been mentioned.
Neither Francesca nor Claudia had ever met the king of the Sovereign Church of Christ and had only spoken with him by phone or e-mail from October 2008 until he ended communications in July 2009. Jennie Henley Allen’s purpose was to make her unfounded conspiracy theory more believable to the jury.
The
Aftermath
A week or so after Claudia’s trial, Francesca was extradited from New Jersey to DCP in Pennsylvania. Mother and daughter immediately began discussing the details of how Claudia’s Affidavit had been recorded in Luzerne County. It was then that Claudia found out it had been indexed to Francesca’s name alone and that Clark had to have known there was no retaliatory intent in the filing.
The facts of the Affidavit’s filing were brought up at the sentencing hearing. Judge Brown told Claudia about the Motion for Post-Sentencing Relief and suggested she request a new trial. Well that was certainly inefficient. Had he granted the continuance Claudia asked for just prior to trial, having a new trial would be unnecessary. But then again, had Claudia been able to gather the evidence of her innocence, call her witnesses etc., the Commonwealth would have lost the case. In true Judge Brown style, he was giving the appearance of impartiality and concern for the Rights of the defendant.
Claudia’s sentence was for 2 to 5 years with credit given for the 8 months spent in DCP. Since the retaliation statute was written for a violent crime, there is no earlier release from prison than the two year minimum which is scheduled for January 9, 2011. The remainder of the sentence is served on parole.
Judge Brown’s remarks after passing sentence puts the mind trained to seek truth and objectivity into a terrifying realization that it is witnessing an insane attempt to justify the destruction of ethics and savaging of the soul of America and the ideals it still stands for. His complete disregard for the theft of funds destined for the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury by public officials and his intentional clinging to obvious lies indicates the thinking of a sociopath, maybe even a psychopath. He felt compelled to state his reason for imprisoning a woman he had to have known was innocent:
“Ms.
Montelione,
“ he said, “has indicated in court
a lack of remorse and, indeed, has been defiant in many
ways with
regard to her respect for the court system, the judicial
system.”
What could be more defiant with regard to respect for the court system than a judge’s disregard for the Rules of Court and his breach of his oath of office? Was Judge Brown saying that Claudia should have lied about her innocence and taken on guilt which didn’t exist in order to cover up for corrupt public officials? This in itself is shocking to the universal sense of justice.
What could be more defiant with regard to respect for the court system than a judge’s disregard for the Rules of Court and his breach of his oath of office? Was Judge Brown saying that Claudia should have lied about her innocence and taken on guilt which didn’t exist in order to cover up for corrupt public officials? This in itself is shocking to the universal sense of justice.
He
did
admit that “. . . a
judicial system that does work is very important to the
citizens
. . .“, and then in grasping for Claudia’s
victims
since none existed, he said “. . . the
victims
could be the citizens of this Commonwealth who rely upon
a court system
to be the resource to which they can turn when they are
involved with
any crimes that an individual has been accused of
committing or even
any wrongs on the civil side. And if the public is
not able to
believe that the judicial officers, judges, prosecutors
and others in
the judicial system, warden at the prison, are not
people who can be
relied upon to do their job as they
see it [emphasis added], then the system would
be
sorely, sorely weakened; and to have judicial officials,
prosecutors,
that need to, shall I say, get out from under the kind
of bonds and the
kind of documents that have been used here and as the
jury found were
done in retaliation for official conduct, there would be
no level of
comfort that any citizen of any kind, of any stature in
life, any
standing in society could have to believe that some
people could bully
judicial officers, that people would threaten them with
gigantic
judgments that would cause these individuals to have in
some cases,
spend money to hire persons who could help them deal
with such a thing.”
“ . . . do their jobs as they see it?” Is Brown implying that the misappropriation of funds by the fiduciaries named on the BPN is okay because they see incoming funds as a “perk” of their jobs for their personal enjoyment?
“ . . . in retaliation for official conduct . . . “ really sticks at the heart of the matter. Here, Brown actually condones the disregard of their own Rules of Court; condones their warring against the U.S. Constitution; condones their sending an innocent woman to prison to cover up their wrong-doing, because all of that was part of their “official conduct”. With his words, Judge Brown has joined Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr., A.G. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. and the Dauphin County D.A. in creating legal chaos.
According to Brown, Claudia’s telling the Respondents on her Affidavit that they are in violation of the federal criminal code and recounting the injuries they’ve done to her is “bullying judicial officers”. If the allegations that Claudia swore to were not true, why didn’t Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr., A.G. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. and/or Warden DeRose reply and tell her she was full of beans? Does he really not see how Claudia, Francesca, Kevin and Gene have been bullied?
“ . . . do their jobs as they see it?” Is Brown implying that the misappropriation of funds by the fiduciaries named on the BPN is okay because they see incoming funds as a “perk” of their jobs for their personal enjoyment?
“ . . . in retaliation for official conduct . . . “ really sticks at the heart of the matter. Here, Brown actually condones the disregard of their own Rules of Court; condones their warring against the U.S. Constitution; condones their sending an innocent woman to prison to cover up their wrong-doing, because all of that was part of their “official conduct”. With his words, Judge Brown has joined Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr., A.G. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. and the Dauphin County D.A. in creating legal chaos.
According to Brown, Claudia’s telling the Respondents on her Affidavit that they are in violation of the federal criminal code and recounting the injuries they’ve done to her is “bullying judicial officers”. If the allegations that Claudia swore to were not true, why didn’t Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr., A.G. Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. and/or Warden DeRose reply and tell her she was full of beans? Does he really not see how Claudia, Francesca, Kevin and Gene have been bullied?
Here’s
an
interesting anecdote of something that
happened to Gene at his arraignment on the UPL
charge. “Not
guilty” had already been written on the plea form by
someone
else. Gene crossed it out and began writing
“Innocent” when
Assistant D.A. Fran Chardo ripped the pen from his hand
and said,
“That’s it! You’re going away and you’re not
coming back!”
Chardo thinks life in prison for correcting his plea for
a
non-jailable, 3rd degree misdemeanor is fair and
proper? Isn’t
that “bullying”?
And lastly, according to Brown, Claudia’s actions had the effect of “. . . weakening our democracy and our way of life by threatening the very system that to keep oppressors, and sometimes it’s in the form of the government, from being able to take advantage of individuals because the judicial system would be weakened by persons who were afraid to do their jobs.” Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr. oppressed Claudia and took unlawful advantage of her. So did Brown.
Well, you know what Judge Brown? If oppressive, deceitful and lying public officials were afraid to work their corruption because they would be pulled up on it, we’d have a much healthier system.
And lastly, according to Brown, Claudia’s actions had the effect of “. . . weakening our democracy and our way of life by threatening the very system that to keep oppressors, and sometimes it’s in the form of the government, from being able to take advantage of individuals because the judicial system would be weakened by persons who were afraid to do their jobs.” Judge Lawrence F Clark, Jr. oppressed Claudia and took unlawful advantage of her. So did Brown.
Well, you know what Judge Brown? If oppressive, deceitful and lying public officials were afraid to work their corruption because they would be pulled up on it, we’d have a much healthier system.
Brown
misses
a very important point. If the
courts could be depended upon to do their jobs
correctly, there would
be no need to use private documents that are sometimes
put into the
public record.
And here’s something else, Judge Brown. Claudia and Francesca, Kevin and Gene too, have tremendous respect for public officials who do not compromise their ethics or integrity.
We give ten thumbs up to Joyce McKeever, the hearing examiner at the Secretary of State’s office who apparently refused to give a false report of her findings at the hearing of March 10, 2008. She gave no decision at all rather than lie about Claudia’s notary practices.
And here’s something else, Judge Brown. Claudia and Francesca, Kevin and Gene too, have tremendous respect for public officials who do not compromise their ethics or integrity.
We give ten thumbs up to Joyce McKeever, the hearing examiner at the Secretary of State’s office who apparently refused to give a false report of her findings at the hearing of March 10, 2008. She gave no decision at all rather than lie about Claudia’s notary practices.
We
give
ten thumbs up to Ann Lokuta, former Judge of
the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, who had the
courage to
preserve Claudia’s Rights in Judge Lawrence F Clark,
Jr.’s lawsuit that
he didn’t have
the decency to serve her with while she was in prison.
And another ten thumbs up for District Justice Barbara Pianka of Harrisburg for not involving herself with the false charges brought against Claudia and declined to arraign her on them.
More than likely, all three women were pressured to act otherwise but stood their ground to do what was right. Perhaps they're all fed up with the "good ol' boy" network that takes the place of true justice here in Pennsylvania. That takes strength of character. There is no need to use affidavits to clarify the truth when dealing with people like this because, as far as our experience with them is concerned, they act with conscience and carry out the responsibilities of their jobs properly and with integrity which the "good ol' boys" lack.
Eugene (Gene) Wrona also deserves a lot of credit for stepping in to help Claudia and Francesca at no cost whatsoever to them, just out of respect and love for the law. The lawyers union (BAR Association) disbarred him for his reporting a corrupt judge to the Disciplinary Board. Rather than cleaning their own house, they shot down the ‘whistle blower’ who was trying to protect litigants from the terrible harm that can be inflicted by a corrupt judge. It takes fortitude and compassion to “do right though the heavens may fall”.
There is an adage thousands of years old that goes, “those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” It certainly fits the actions of those who have persecuted Claudia, her family and associates. History teaches us quite clearly that great nations have perished because of corruption from within. The megalomaniacal thinking that grips both Judges Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. and Charles C. Brown, Jr., as well as other actors in the Commonwealth v. Montelione scenario, is indicative of such madness and destructive corruption. Consider how Brown stresses the importance of maintaining an illusion of a working system. Surely, Brown must realize that a system that has the appearance of being lawful but whose actions have an unlawful affect, and effect, is the definition of ‘acting under color of law'. He is actually admitting to violating 18 USC § 242 ("deprivation of rights under color of law") as a regular practice, which is exactly Claudia’s allegation in her lawful Affidavit that was used to charge her with "retaliation".
