01.22
An Expression comes to mind. (Which requires an aural argument. Apologies…)
“The accent is on the wrong syllable.”
(The ac-cent is on the wrong syl-LA-ble.)
The cute expression tells you the problem and demonstrates itself. It plays out in your mind. You hear it wrong. Your mind knows right away. The pronunciation distracts/confuses you while the answer is being provided.
Wordplay.
And so it is with … INTERLOCUTORY.
I thought that prefix (inter = within) could be removed. Then, the base pronounced lo-CUE-tory. But, it is not inter + lo-CUE-to-ry.
I speak multiple languages. Yet, I stumbled over the word. I felt stupid EVERYTIME I tried to say it… to pronounce it. I am not too proud to ask a question. So, EVERYTIME I used it in a sentence, I would ask if I got it right. In my experience, the word only exists in one realm. I never got an answer from within that realm.
I was told the correct pronunciation of the word by someone from Philadelphia.
inner – lokka – tory
So why does interlocutory require wordplay for correct pronunciation?
An issue arises before something starts. It is immediately identified as interlocutory. You are told the issue will be addressed at the end. Logic suggests “address it immediately to avoid the entire waste of time and effort.”
An issue arises in the middle. It is identified as interlocutory. You are told of chaos and confusion which requires that issue must be addressed at the end. Logic suggests “addressing it now will avoid any further waste of time and effort.” AND Logically, neglecting the issue IS WHAT IS CAUSING the chaos and confusion.
When raised after completion, the interlocutory issue is called ‘moot’.
LOGIC indicates IT IS MOOT. It is not interlocutory anymore.
HOLD ON!!! WHAT?
You made it to the end. You were required to waste time and effort. You were required to wait, to endure, to survive. NOW, YOU TRULY SEE THE COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT. b AND… IT IS MOOT. But, it is also not an interlocutory issue any longer. Those rules no longer apply.
Perhaps, the struggle with pronunciation of interlocutory is necessary to recognize the problem is the problem in itself.
Once played, the interlocutory card prevents resolution. The resolution is prevented by identifying the issue as interlocutory – it occurs in the middle. If you get to the end, it is not interlocutory. IT’S MOOT. All the wasted time and effort which sought to avoid getting to a point where that time and effort would be indicated as wasted time and effort is moot once you get to the end and realize … it was all wasted time and effort.
WELL, NOW IT IS, but… AW, shit, so there it is. Logic told you something was wrong. Wordplay. A GAME? But, this has no place to occur HERE. Not in a court of law. The American system of justice could NOT have been undermined by machinations, or petty manipulations.
HERE? HOW? WHY? WHAT? WHO? WHERE? WHEN?
Interlocutory is “wrapped within itself”. You can only identify it when you are within the issue. At any other time, it is identified as something else.
Interlocutory issues can not be addressed while interlocutory; and at any other time, they are pointless.
Interlocutory translates to “have not and never intend to answer the question or address the issue, demonstrating a confident belief of protection from any requirement for response. Ever.”
HERE?
In a court which is required to have jurisdiction??
In Superior Court, what they are concealing, which is lacking in the lower court, is the very thing the higher court is saying they do not have… JURISDICTION. On appeal, the higher court indicates their lack of jurisdiction to address the lower court’s jurisdiction.
There can be no bigger indication that something is wrong. Yet, there is no suggestion of any intention to indicate or resolve the problem. Any recourse will be prevented.
IT’S OBVIOUS. IT”S IN YOUR FACE. It’s only funny when it happens to other people. Why? That’s simple. There’s no easy escape. Survival is key.
Courts can pretend they have jurisdiction, BUT, CLEARLY KNOW WHEN THEY DON’T.
There is no retro-active jurisdiction. There is no interpretive jurisdiction. It is a matter of law, a fact, either it exists or it doesn’t. There are no gray areas. The elements of jurisdiction are a necessity. The most basic necessity in jurisprudence is jurisdiction.
If the court has it, they indicate it immediately, arrogantly, without hesitation, and with indignation to demonstrate their confidence.
If they don’t have it, it will be as though you never asked. Because, well, you never asked. If you had, there are “rules” in place.
There’s no correcting a lack of jurisdiction. Where you keep asking, the court will only conclude one thing. You are incapable of realizing that the court is never going to tell you. You’re incompetent.
If you indicate the court had no jurisdiction to decide “competency”… OH NO YOU DI’INT. There will be no further discussion of the matter as you have been found to be “severely mentally disabled.”
Courts don’t indicate their want (or lack) of jurisdiction. Courts defer any obligation to answer. There is NO OVERSIGHT of interlocutory issues.
CLARIFICATION: From their perspective there is no oversight outside the judicial branch. They locked down all lawyers with non-disclosure (Rule 1.6).
WHY?
Because what they are doing is WRONG. What they are doing is denying basic American principles… the Rule of Law, Constitution.
WHAT?
The Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land, is based on morality. All federal laws must be constitutional. The state constitutions must also defer to the US Constitution. State laws must be constitutional. Denying basic American principles is so wrong, it is not moral… not constitutional… a nullity… NO LAW. So, in Pennsylvania, they called them ‘rules”.
“Well, this rule said it was interlocutory… and another rule said it can’t be reviewed,… and another rule said it was too late.” STOP! BREATHE! THOSE RULES ARE NOT LAWS. Regular people do not differentiate because the law is the law. BREATH!! LAWS MUST BE CONSTITUTIONAL. ELSE, NO LAW. BREATH!!! It’s not just ‘rules’, there are other words which do similar things. |
RULES ARE NOT LAWS. There is no review to see if that, or any, “rule” has an unconstitutional consequence.
Where a lawyer may learn of the consequence, lawyers are mandated to non-disclosure (Rule 1.6) which prevents raising the unconstitutional consequence as a challenge.
Where no one would address “the rule you know” to be wrong, there has always been another “rule you don’t know” which required non-disclosure.
I had experienced years of litigation, when it became clear, that “rule you don’t know” was the precise problem. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. The needle in the haystack of injustice. The mandate for the silent participation by lawyers.
Unless, and until, it had a direct affect on them, a lawyer could take no action to expose the problem. And where permitted to expose the problem, the reality of the true intent would hit that lawyer like a ton of bricks. If any lawyer tried to take any action, the system would retaliate.
And it did.
| Article V Section 10(c) Pennsylvania Constitution |
| “The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. “ |
Those “rules” are derived from the rule-making authority of Article V Section 10(c) of the state constitutions.
The “rules” must be “… consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant,…”
BUT, those Rules HAVE denied protection of the law and all constitutional rights. MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!
BUT, no one helps. Right? Let’s recruit some assistance. If you read one phrase further.
The “rules” may not “… affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court…”
The General Assembly indicates the jurisdiction of the courts by law. The jurisdiction of any court is the responsibility of the General Assembly.
You contacted your legislators. You were told that they do not get involved in issues currently before any court or involving the judiciary.
LEGISLATORS: JURISDICTION AND RELATED ISSUES ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO DEFER JURISDICTION TO JUDICIARY.
While you have been neglecting to recognize, or address, these problems with the judicial branch, the judiciary have been writing ‘rules’ which undermine the Laws of the General Assembly, ignore rights secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution, and deny rights and protections under the Constitution of the United States.
In neglecting their constitutional mandate “TO DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT”, the General Assembly – Pennsylvania’s legislative branch, has neglected any review, oversight or action regarding jurisdiction of the courts. Where discovered to be lacking in jurisdiction, the courts have enacted rules which prevent resolution or recourse while preventing the laws of the commonwealth, and denying the rights of litigants.
Additionally, the judicial branch has demanded participation and non-disclosure by lawyers pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
The executive branch, Office of the Attorney General, has been similarly obstructed and prevented from responsibilities to the Commonwealth, to the Rule of Law and to the Constitutions.
I present this matter to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seeking resolution, recourse and restoration of constitutional protections.
The Judiciary has neglected any review or enforcement pursuant to “their rules” which have denied equal protection of the law and all constitutional rights.
“Their rules” have additionally prevented any review of unconstitutional affect(s) of their rules where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information mandates non-disclosure where adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary.
I have no obligation to any improperly enacted and unconstitutional confidentiality rule which requires silent participation in the complete denial to American citizens of the protection of the Rule of Law and prevention of rights protected by the Constitutions of the US and the state. I am not a lawyer. “Their” Rule 1.6 applies to lawyers.
I respectfully request the members of the General Assembly to self-identify those who are obligated pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
I respectfully request those members obligated pursuant to Rule 1.6 recuse, and be excused permitting their personal rights to be respected, from any further discussion or involvement in this issue.
I respectfully request those members, not directly affected pursuant to Rule 1.6, who have been advised by their legal counsel to abstain or recuse from participation in any further discussion or involvement in this issue, to indicate by name those persons advising them and provide the reasoning/basis for their advice.
I respectfully request the Office of the Attorney General, obligated pursuant to Rule 1.6, recuse or withdraw so that personal rights can be respected.
I respectfully request the involvement of Special Attorney General Doug Gansler, as proxy for the Attorney General, with the understanding that he has reasonable awareness of these issues and is under no obligation pursuant to rules being challenged constitutionally, including Rule 1.6, and has no privileged relationships within the Commonwealth which must be admitted, concealed or protected.
I respectfully call attention to the matter currently in the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County Pennsylvania, Judge William R. Carpenter presiding, where the jurisdiction of the court has been challenged and jurisdiction remains ignored. Demonstrating the lack of any resolution or recourse, the history of the case(s) is presented as briefly as possible.
No Comment.
Add Your Comment