A Terroristic Divorce

Jurisdiction is the power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders.

A jurisdictional question may be broken down into three necessary components:
( ) jurisdiction over the person (in personam),
( ) jurisdiction over the subject matter,
( ) jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought.

The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power”.

Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, or by the legislation.The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power”. Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constit on behalf of which it functions.

To make a legally valid decision in a case, a court must have both
“subject matter jurisdiction” (power to hear the type of case in question, which is granted by the state legislatures and Congress)
and
“personal jurisdiction” (power to make a decision affecting the parties involved in the lawsuit, which a court gets as a result of the parties’ actions).

If a court doesn’t have subject matter jurisdiction AND personal jurisdiction over the parties, it “lacks jurisdiction,” which means it doesn’t have the power to render a decision.

The “parties’ actions” required to secure Personal jurisdiction includes the filing of their claim with the court, the delivery of that claim to the parties and notice to the court that such service has been completed. Due process and procedure permits all parties to be aware of and prepared to present their case before the judge in a hearing.

Where a matter is not properly before the court, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear from the parties or to render any verdict.

Jurisdiction is the power to adjudicate. Litigants may not confer this power on the court by waiver or consent.

All “questions of law” arising before, during, and sometimes after a trial are to be determined solely by the judge.

It is the judges responsibility to assure proper jurisdiction.

When a judge acts without jurisdiction, his orders are void ab initio. It is as if they had never existed.

---

If you review my case you will find that the judges who exacted their damage, acted without jurisdiction, and further acted to conceal the lack of jurisdiction in the prior judges orders.

If you review my case you will see that a bias was created before the first appearance in any courtroom which should have resulted in the judge recusing from the matter. As that recusal, would expose and cause the bias of the earlier order to be exposed, the judges continued to perpetrate the fraud.

In their continuing efforts to conceal the growing volume of unethical and unlawful actions, their actions became leverage for extortion by lawyers for one party to assure rulings in their favor.

By responding to the extortion, the judge’s malicious orders become more criminal in nature…. and more and more evident.

The lawyers seek to deliberately manipulate each successive judge into a position where they will jurisdiction and fall victim to their extortion.

The abuse of power by the judiciary extends to include further actions involving the District Attorney, the Sheriff, local police, county detectives,… who act to further victimize the victim. The County Drug Task Force becomes the paramilitary arm of the Court of Common Pleas… sending their agents, private investigators and confidential informants to attempt to set up and involve the target in criminal activity, causing surveillance of computers, networks and phones, gps tracking of cars and all activity. Preventing the FBI from investigating his reported intrusions because the FBI was aware that the County was behind the activity. FBI became angry at their victim for discovering the tech actions, and their fake agent and begging for their help.

Each level of law enforcement manipulated to “protect the judge” while the corruption continues without possibility of escape.

As the corruption is expose and documented by the victim, the abuse of power by the judiciary to conceal their lack of jurisdiction, their participation and endorsement of extortion extends to actions which clearly attempt to bring about the suicide of the victim.

In an attempt to perpetuate a final blow, a finishing move, the lack of jurisdiction is exposed. It is more than exposed. The victim presents the fatal question repeatedly without response by the judge who ignores the deliberate and manipulative actions indicating his lack of jurisdiction and continues the terror.

The rule to this point has been to ignore the victim.
Every petition by the victim has been ignored.
Every question by the victim is ignored.
All evidence presented by the victim is ignored.
Every statement by the victim is ignored.
Every injustice to the victim is ignored.
Every action to escape the court by the victim is ignored.
Every action to escape is EXPRESSLY PREVENTED – abuse of power, obstruction of justice, denial of access to the courts, you wonder that these judges have ever attended a 3rd grade civics class. They are completely unaware of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, US Law and PA Law. Law enforcement concedes that NO ONE WILL STOP AN ABUSIVE OUT OF CONTROL JUDGE.

Forgetting the capabilities of their victim to persevere, the opportunity for an escape was acted upon. And when they went to obstruct and close that opportunity, it was too late.

I have escaped to the Superior Court with the simple unanswered question of Jurisdiction.
The Superior Court will undoubtedly ponder why the most basic question of jurisdiction has been raised on appeal. They will instruct the judge to simply document his jurisdiction of the matter… If they look into the failure of a judge to respond to the question followed by all the actions to prevent and deny the appeal, they may reverse and remand the order on appeal sending it back to the same court.
I have asked for a change of venue. These things will expose the overall failure of the court regarding jurisdiction.

If the Superior Court reviews the case before them, their shocking findings could result in a response to the Common Pleas Court judiciary to
“Tell him.”
“Tell him what you have done.”
“Tell him that you had no power to do to him the things which you have done.”
“Then resign as you have disgraced the judiciary.”
“Prepare to be prosecuted for your crimes.”