01.28
Those interlocutory RULEs with the unconstitutional affect that have NEVER been reviewed for constitutionality. Yes, that’s a problem.
When a judge deliberately issues an order without jurisdiction, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio called hers “an unappealable order”. The judges know their intentional injustice,… their crime… will be protected by the interlocutory rules and then moot. (Interlocutory Wordplay to Prevent the Truth)
When deliberately acting outside of any jurisdiction with the full knowledge and intention to be acting outside of their jurisdiction, a judge is not acting as a judge. There’s no immunity available for their crime.
The instant appeal, however, furnishes a classic example of the well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine applicable when a case is “capable of repetition yet evading review.” See Commonwealth v. Baker, 564 Pa. 192, 766 A.2d 328, 330 n. 4 (2001).
Pursuant to this principle, an appellate court may decide a case where issues important to the public interest are involved, the nature of the question under consideration is such that it will arise again, and review will be repeatedly thwarted if strict rules of mootness are applied.
| LETTER TO THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS THEIR NEGLECT WHERE COURTS ACT WITHOUT JURISDICTION. And… “Save the Date” for February Trial where you will be each be called as witnesses to explain to the jury the constitutional necessity of the Legislature’s involvement in jurisdiction and to participate in the experience that happens when the courts act absent jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction is proven “capable of repetition yet evading review” by the judiciary. The Legislature must address a responsibility regarding jurisdiction of the courts, their neglect has undermined the integrity of the courts. The lawyers will be excused – a further indication of the affect of RULES which have never been reviewed for their unconstitutional affect on litigants. (Rule 1.6 mandates non-disclosure by lawyers pursuant to CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.) |
Defendant further presents, the indication of the relentless pursuit of this aggressive prosecution while the court is without proper jurisdiction, that the denial of his freedom and the repetitive threat of bench warrants for the last three years shows the denial of constitutionally protected rights which are being accomplished by RULES which have never been reviewed for their collateral unconstitutional affect on litigants. I have demonstrated “the interlocutory game” through four appeals and one to PA Supreme Court.
And by another Rule which mandates non-disclosure by lawyers. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. The one rule which conceals the injustice of those other Rules while ignoring laws, rights and constitutions.
And now, the lack of jurisdiction in the Court of Common Pleas appears to have been deliberately caused with the intention to transfer the matter into a court without jurisdiction, the court records were falsified in the docket (Admitted by court staff), and where the conversation on the record by two lawyers who would be reasonably expected to know the law – and most certainly a law which had last changed in 1985. A law which affects a form they use on an daily, if not hourly, basis. Yet, they both got it completely wrong. Undeniably deliberate.
This has not ever been about justice. It’s is about retaliation, because I survived their injustice to the point where I could see it’s fatal flaws… and I did something to fix it. I am doing something to fix it. They are attacking anyone who tries.
No Comment.
Add Your Comment