A Terroristic Divorce

Fraud Upon the Court
No Jurisdiction/No Authority
No Due Process
No Res Judicata
No Laches
No Appeal Necessary

Fraud Upon the Court

1. The plaintiff’s false or misleading statement given under oath concerning issues central to her case amounted to fraud. See Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

2. A void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge and is void ab initio and does not have to be declared void by a judge to be void. Only an inspection of the record of the case showing that the judge was without jurisdiction or violated a person’s due process rights, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because they are already void.

3. A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

4. A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill. APp. 1 Dist. 2000).

5. Void judgments generally fall into two classifications, that is, judgments where there is want of jurisdiction of person or subject matter, and judgments procured through fraud, and such judgments may be attacked directly or collaterally, Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, (Ill. app. 2 Dis. 1960).

6. Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court, People ex. re. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App.2 Dist. 1994).

7. The plaintiff’s false or misleading statement given under oath concerning issues central to her case amounted to fraud. See Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

8. A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by court that did not have jurisdiction over subject matter or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756 (Va. 1987).

9. When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

10. Rule 60(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. * “Fraud” here, I believe, is related to misrepresentation, or misconduct inflicted upon the opponent(s), and is different from “fraud (up)on the court”. The former is limited to one year for victims to file a motion for relief, while the latter has no time limitations.

11. A motion under Rule 60(b) (1), (2), and (3) must be made no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

12. There are no time limitations for Rule 60(b) (4) the judgment is void and Rule 60(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court’s power to: (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding; (2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant must be made who was not personally notified of the action; or (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

No Jurisdiction, No Authority to Hear and Rule on a Matter

13. A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958).

14. A void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element, as when court purporting to render it has no jurisdiction, Mills v. Richardson, 81S.E.2d 409 (N.C. 1954).

15. A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in some of the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment, Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E.2d 227, (N.C. 1950).

16. A void judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment, State v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000).

17. If the judge does not have judicial authority to hear and rule on a matter, the court is considered coram non judice, and the judge is a trespasser of the law and, under the law, is acting as an imposter. The judge is therefore acting unlawfully. Under U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the judge would be acting in treason to the Constitution.

No Due Process

18. Judgment is a “void judgment” if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F. Supp. 892, 901. See also Voidable judgment.

19. Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5-Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

20. Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F. Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

21. Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (Ill. App. Dist. 1993).

22. Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E.2d 1383 (Ill App. 5 Dist. 1983).

23. Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.

24. Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14, Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 896 P.2d 58 (Kan.1997)

25. A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, In re. Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan. App. 1999).

26. Here, it is clear from the face of the order confirming sale that Appellant’s due process rights were violated. Thus, the order confirming sale is void on its face and the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter such order. The trial court’s judgment is REVERSED AND this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Duerksen, 810 P.2d 1308, 1991 OK CIV APP 39 (Okla.App.Div.3 04/30/1991).

No Laches/No Time Limit

27. And there is no time limit or laches on an attack on a judgment as void. State v. Lindsey, (1952) 231 Ind. 126, 106 N.E.2d 230; Wright & Miller, supra at § 2862. Wright & Miller are even of the opinion that the reasonable time standard of Federal Trial Rule of Procedure § 60(B) would not apply.

28. Judgment is void if court that rendered it lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction; void judgment is nullity and may be vacated at any time, Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).

29. In re Marriage of Macino, 236 Ill.App.3d 886 (2nd Dist. 1992) (“if the order i[f] void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding.”)

30. Evans v Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990) (“a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally.”)

31. Oak Park Nat. Bank v Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill.App.2d 385, 197 N.E.2d 73, 77 (1st Dist. 1964) (“that judgment is void and may be attacked at any time in the same or any other court, by the parties or by any other person who is affected thereby.”).

32. Laches does not operate to preclude the opening or vacating of a void judgment, for the reason that no amount of acquiescence can make it valid.

33. “attempt to invoke laches as a defense is misplaced because the trial court had no jurisdiction or authority to hear the cases in the first place.” Raymond v. Raymond, 343 Ark. 480, 343 Ark. 480, 36 S.W.3d 733, 36 S.W.3d 733 (Ark. 02/01/2001). A judgment rendered without notice to the parties is void; when there has been no proper service and, therefore, no personal jurisdiction over the defendants in a case, any judgment is void ab initio.

34. A void judgment is vulnerable to a direct or collateral attack regardless of the lapse of time. Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, supra [137 Colo. ___, 328 P.2d 379].

No Res Judicata

35. Once the judgment was found to have been rendered without jurisdiction over the defendants, such judgment was void; it was as though suit had never been brought and there was no impediment to bringing the suit where personal jurisdiction over the defendants could be had; a void judgment amounts to nothing and has no force as res judicata. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Coffelt, 301 Ark. 112, 782 S.W.2d 45 (1990).

36. Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 392 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 1982).

37. A “void” judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58).

38. No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58).

39. A void judgment cannot constitute res judicata. Denial of previous motions to vacate a void judgment could not validate the judgment or constitute res judicata, for the reason that the lack of judicial power inheres in every stage of the proceedings in which the judgment was rendered. Bruce v. Miller, 360 P.2d 508, 1960 OK 266 (Okla. 12/27/1960).

Appeal from a Void Order is Unnecessary

40. Waite v. Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797, 800 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (stating that appellate court has no jurisdiction over void judgment; appellate court must simply declare such a judgment void and dismiss the appeal). A court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.

41. Other effects of the void judgment rule are that an appellate court must raise the subject matter jurisdiction issue sua sponte and that there can be no waiver of the issue or conferred jurisdiction by consent. Matter of City of Ft. Wayne, (1978) 178 Ind. App. 228, 381 N.E.2d 1093, 1095.

42. There is no . . . discretion on the part of a court reviewing a void judgment Schoffstall v. Failey (1979), Ind.App., 389 N.E.2d 361.

43. It is not necessary to appeal from a void order because it never became effective. A void order is subject to collateral attack. Pendergist v. Pendergist, 267 Ark. 1114, 593 S.W.2d 502 (1980).

One of those whom I believe to be a private investigator told me that MAGLOCLEN did not exist.

The thing is when I said I was curious about the place… the first response should not be “It doesn’t exist.” Because, if it did not exist, wouldn’t you have to ask what it was before jumping to help you to that conclusion.

So when the immediate response came back that it didn’t exist, it raised the question WHY DOES THIS PERSON WANT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PLACE DOES NOT EXIST? What is he concealing?

Well, It exists. And it was within walking distance of the place where the question was asked.

MAGLOCLEN is Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network. It is a resource and data aggregator for law enforcement personnel.
www.riss.net I am not sure why anyone, especially a former constable/private investigator, would find it necessary to hide their existence from me.

To preserve the integrity of the judicial process, the courts always should presume that a trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction.

But, they should permit a litigant to overcome this presumption by showing that the judge acted with actual malice, consisting of a knowing or reckless disregard of due process.

Specifically, if the court is to enjoy immunity, it must afford three things—notice, a chance to be heard, and a method of appeal.

In the matters of the Order of July 18, 2011, and the Order of September 23, 2011, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio does not enjoy judicial immunity.

1. The Defendant had not been notified of the Plaintiff’s newly filed petitions delivered immediately before both proceedings.
2. The Defendant was not permitted to speak or present exhibits in support of his position on the matters.
3. Carolyn Carluccio has not permitted the Appeal to move forward to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
– Carolyn Carluccio was the ‘signing judge’ on August 15, 2011 when the Appeal was filed.
– Carolyn Carluccio has neglected to hear a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed concurrently with the Appeal on August 15, 2011.
– Carolyn Carluccio has neglected to hear a Resubmitted Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed on September 19, 2011.
– Carolyn Carluccio has deliberately and intentionally written an opinion which contains irrelevant statements which misinform as to the nature of the Appeal and also applies an improper limitation on the period for filing an Appeal in the Matter.
– Carolyn Carluccio has maliciously, intentionally and fraudulently abused her power under color of law while acting to deny the Defendant his due process rights.
– Carolyn Carluccio has issued a void order without jurisdiction, based on a void order without jurisdiction, to enforce a void order where she lacked jurisdiction. Each subsequent void order sought to further harass and inflict intentional and deliberate harm upon the Defendant.

When unjust injuries are inflicted by improper judicial acts, the state or its insurers should be forced to bear the cost of the wrongful act, not the individual.

In acting with such deliberate action and purpose, Carolyn Carluccio has exposed the similar failures of the prior judges in this matter.

Of these three requirements, the opportunity to appeal should be the most crucial based on the policy that appeal, not a suit for damages, is the preferred method of challenging a judge’s improper actions. Deprivation of an opportunity to appeal effectively renders this policy meaningless and makes some other remedy necessary for proper redress. Moreover, the rightto appeal usually can correct due process violations. Even errors innotice and opportunity to be heard should not ofthemselves subject ajudge to suit as long as the opportunity to appeal is present. In effect, the appeal itself will afford a new opportunity for a proper hearing with proper notice.

The best solution is to give judicial immunity a firm root in due process guarantees. To achieve this result, the simplest approach is to create an irrebuttable presumption of immunity where the statecourt judge’s acts did not deliberately terminate a citizen’s rights without notice, hearing, and opportunity to appeal. Of these three requirements, the chance to appeal is the most important because it provides a means ofcuring defects inany other due process violation.
A judge thus remains unquestionably immune as long as he does not take actions that intentionally and plainly prevent further review.
The duty imposed on a state-court judge, then, is only to recognize that his own decisions may sometimes be in error and to ensure that orders affecting important constitutional rights can be reviewed in another court.

It seems Angst & Angst has closed this Doylestown, PA branch of their law firm.

Imagine the rape victim being forced to tell each subsequent authority about every thrust of the unending experience with the knowledge that the person you are telling is about to join the attack.

Josh Groban – Don’t Give Up (You Are Loved)

Rule 703. Reports of judges.

(A) Policy Statement.

It is the policy of the unified judicial system that any matter at any stage of a proceeding be brought to a fair conclusion as promptly as possible, consistent with the character of the matter and the resources of the system. The requirements of this rule further specify and implement this policy in keeping with the Court’s constitutionally mandated responsibility to oversee the prompt and proper disposition of the business of the Pennsylvania courts.

(B) General Rule.

(1) Every judge shall keep a record of each matter that has been submitted to the judge for decision and which remains undecided.

(2) Every judge shall compile a semi-annual report stating whether the judge has any matter that has been submitted to the judge for decision and remains undecided for ninety days or more as of the last day of the reporting period. Each report shall include matters listed on prior reports which remain undecided.

(a) Decision includes the grant or denial of a pretrial, post-trial, or post-sentence motion or petition, non-jury verdict or decision, entry of an order or judgment, imposition of a sentence, or the filing of an opinion. A matter is submitted for decision even though briefs, transcripts, or reports have been ordered but have not yet been filed.

(b) Judge means a judge of a court of common pleas or a judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court, active or senior, commissioned six months or longer.

(3) If there are no matters submitted to the judge which remain undecided for ninety days or more, the report shall so state.
Official Note: Under this rule, judges must take inventory of matters in chambers, evaluate their status, and determine the steps needed for timely disposition. Judges must also take an active role in ensuring the timely preparation of documents, such as notes of testimony or psychiatric reports.

(C) Form and Content of Report.

(1) The report shall be prepared on a form supplied by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts or generated by the computer system of the judge’s court in the same format as the form supplied by the Administrative Office.

(2) The report shall be signed by the judge.

(3) For each matter which remains undecided ninety days or more, the report shall state:

(a) the type, caption, and number of the case;

(b) the nature of the matter;

(c) the date of submission to the judge;

(d) the specific reason(s) for the delay; and

(e) the specific steps taken to remedy the delay.
Official Note: Specific reasons for a delay might be the filing of additional briefs, a change in the representation of the parties, ongoing settlement negotiations at the request of the parties.

(D) Filing.

(1) The report covering the preceding period of July 1 through December 31 shall be filed on or before January 20, and the report covering the preceding period of January 1 through June 30 shall be filed on or before July 20.

(2) Whenever January 20 or July 20 falls on Saturday or Sunday, or on any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States, the date for filing shall be the next business day.

(3) The judge shall file the original report with the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, and shall file copies of the report with the president judge and the district court administrator of the court on which the judge serves.
Official Note: The requirement that judges file copies of their reports with the president judge and district court administrator will better enable those officials to monitor their dockets in order to address problem areas promptly. If decisional delay persists, the president judge should take strong corrective action. Such action may include providing the judge with additional support or educational resources as may be reasonably available; restructuring judicial case assignments, non-decisional assignments, or work schedules; or any other supervisory action designed to assist the reporting judge in becoming current.

(4) Senior judges or active judges serving in more than one judicial district shall file one consolidated report with the Administrative Office, and shall file copies of the consolidated report with the president judge and the district court administrator for each judicial district in which the judge has matters that have been submitted for decision.

(E) Supplemental Statement by President Judge.

(1) A president judge, at the request of the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, shall supplement a judge’s report with a separate statement of any circumstances affecting the matters reported.

(2) Within thirty days of the president judge’s receipt of the request from the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, any supplemental statement shall be filed with the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, the judge who filed the report, and the district court administrator.

(F) Public Inspection.

Copies of all reports and supplemental statements filed pursuant to paragraphs (B) and (E) shall be made available by the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania and the district court administrator for public inspection and copying.

(G) Report to Judicial Conduct Board.

(1) The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania shall immediately notify the Judicial Conduct Board if a judge fails to file a timely report as required by this rule.

(2) The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania shall, where appropriate, forward to the Judicial Conduct Board any report which includes one or more matters which have remained undecided for one year or more.
Source
The provisions of this Rule 703 adopted March 21, 1972; amended March 7, 1973, 3 Pa.B. 441; effective March 21, 1972; amended January 28, 1997, effective immediately, with the first report due on or before July 21, 1997, 27 Pa.B. 794. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (149447) to (149448).

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

When anyone has inquired to Risa Vetri Ferman about my case, they have been ignored. Worldwide attention that is summarily dismissed and hidden. Requests for information from the U.K and Canada have been ignored and deleted from Risa’s Facebook page without response.

IGNORED, DELETED, and BLOCKED from further inquiries or postings.

When you can’t respond to or face the criminal allegations of your FAILURE TO FOLLOW YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, then it is time to resign.

When your actions to ignore the crimes which have terrorized one man in the county for 7 years, Risa Vetri Ferman should be ashamed.

When you have become part of a criminal organization which seeks to entrap and punish the innocent who stumble into your twisted radar, you are doing more damage than good.

I suppose that is why she hides… at least when she is not out partying with the Malicious and Corrupt Carolyn Carluccio and the similarly disinterested in following her oath Sheriff Eileen Behr. Oh the good they are doing for the community when they terrorize and destroy peoples lives who have committed no crime.

Only in the Family Court can someone who has commited no crime, lose everything.

Filed with Montgomery County Prothonotary. 2/27/2013

1. Every time I am forced by court order to write down what has been stolen from me over the past 7 years and the value of it, it forces me to relive the horrors of the injustice again.

2. It shreds my spirit and robs my soul. And then it will be ignored and asked for again and again and again… and I will pray for the day I gain the capacity for suicide to finally end the terror. The losses are well documented on the court record. Read the Petitions which have NOT been heard.

Best advice to anyone just starting out with this type of situation is SUICIDE. Survival is pointless, they will never let you live. My biggest regret is my inability to commit suicide to save myself and everyone who knows me from the constant intrusion of this matter. Forced to live another day in terror, and fear and under further threat of injustice.

3. To be further terrorized by being ordered to provide an accounting which is already a part of the Court Record which has been summarily ignored for seven years only terrorizes me further. Imagine the rape victim being forced to tell each subsequent attacker about every thrust of the unending experience with the knowledge that the person you are telling is about to join the attack.

4. The Plaintiff, and her attorneys, have not followed ANY court order in this matter since 2007. NOT ONE. Ever. Do the research. AND they have also never been held accountable where enforcement was requested.

5. ANGST & ANGST established their careers by dragging out litigation with an insurance company for almost a decade when his brother murdered his pregnant wife and child and then committed suicide. Robert Angst made sure that his brother’s clients who were robbed of their money did not recover based on the insurance benefits for his dead family members.

6. Judge Page will still lack jurisdiction because you cannot obtain jurisdiction retroactively, nor can you obtain jurisdiction to enforce an order where there is no jurisdiction.

7. Angst & Angst have still not even signed the petition that wasn’t properly filed with the court, and wasn’t properly served, seeking to enforce the void order which was also on a petition not properly filed, served or delivered, before it was withdrawn… and that was based on another petition not file properly, served or heard by the court… than that was also based on a void divorce decree and equitable distribution order which guaranteed my bbeing destitute. Except for the other flaw, the Angst’s not filing for a Divorce Decree.

8. When Judge Carluccio began the process of railroading me out of existence in violation of EVERY COURT PROCEDURE THERE IS… she didn’t realize that the Angst’s were making sure she was exposed… as they had done for the other judges assigned to the matter.

9. There is no stopping a sociopathic lawyer. When a judiciary which lacks integrity and honor will cover for the officer of the court even when they demonstrate the most gravely devious malice towards everyone involved.

10. Here’s the accounting:
a) I want My house returned with monies to return it to the way it was when I was illegally ordered to vacate it.
– It is not my problem that they knowingly sold it through fraud corruption and void orders…GET IT BACK.
b) I want compensation for my possessions $250,000 according to insurance.
c) I want the support money due me until this matter is resolved, and the retroactive years as well.
d) I want compensated for the Agreement cancelled when she robbed my home of its possessions.
e) I want compensated for 7 years of lost salary because their litigation has kep me out of a job,.
f) I want Angst & Angst sanctioned $1,000 for every single procedure violated with clear intent and purpose to obligate and set up a judiciary without integrity and honor.
g) I want Robert Angst & Valerie Angst prosecuted and disbarred and prevented from ever exacting this type of terror on any individual or group for the remainder of their lives.
h) I want Carolyn Carluccio the most vile and determined of the corrupt judges to stand trial for the terror she inflicted, and in accrodance with her own words when seeking election face a punishment consistent with the crime. Take her house, isolate her from her family, put her on the street and throw away everything she owns. AND ABOVE ALL OTHER THINGS, DO NOT ALLOW HER TO BE HEARD IN ANY COURT PROCEEDING AS SHE HAS DONE TO HER VICTIMS.
i) I want full disclosure of the tactics used by every department in the County to terrorize me. MCES, Domestic Relations, Sheriff’s Dept, Prothonotary, etc.
j) I want every secret search warrant revealed
k) I want every secret surveillance order revealed.
l) I want the identity of every confidential informant revealed.
m) I want the identity of every private investigator used by the county and their entire staff lists.
n) I want the resignation of the District Attorney, Risa Ferman for failure to uphold her responsibility and her oath of office and actively participating in the conspiracy to obstruct, deny and prevent justice.
o) I want the resignation of the Sheriff, Eileen Behr for fauilure to uphold her responsibility and her oath of office and actively participating in the conspiracy to obstruct, deny and prevent justice.
p) I want the resignation of Judge Daniele, Judge Del Ricci, Judge Bertin, Judge Tilson, and Judge Carluccio. Their deliberate actions to deny and prevent justice while conspiring with Angst & Angst are clearly documented on the court record. They should not receive any severance and their pensions should be revoked to cover the liability they caused the county.

11. I can’t get the time back. I can’t get the lost time with family friends and my children who were compelled and encouraged by the above named judges to participate. My sons witnessed the power of a corrupt judge to destroy an innocent life should they try to contact their father they would likely have a similar fate.

12. I want my privacy returned, and all phone and computer hacks and surveillance to cease while I prepare the Federal Lawsuit seeking Releif and Damages of $ 1 Billion Dollars against county departments, agencies, contractors, and all individuals involved who abused their authority under color of law to terrorize one man. A man who did nothing except catch his wife following the bad advice of her attorney to commit a few Federal Crimes. Valerie Angst’s ‘testimony’ during the hearing suggest she had improper knowledge of the Defendant’s computer system. This was very troubling as the defendant has been alleging this since June 2007 and his computers have been affected coinciding with petitions filed by Angst & Angst.

13. Yes, at the basic level… that’s where it starts. Valerie Angst told Sonya Healy to violate a few Federal Laws… It affected my business clients, destroyed my business. BUT since I detected it, they set out to annihilate my life by whatever means necessary. And they involved every possible fraud imaginable to pull it off. They manipulated everyone in a position to help into a liability, But their victim wouldn’t die. So they continue until he does.

14. FOR THE RECORD, I did not place Judge Page in this position. Angst & Angst have once again done so. They aimed for Judge Haaz, but thanks to Michael Kehs secreting the failure to hold hearings, it fell to Judge Page. The Angst’s manipulating another Judge into either falling in line with the conspiracy, or exposing the crimes of the prior judiciary.

15. I tried to help by addressing my objections for the reassignnment of the matter. Which are deemed MOOT while failing to address the relief requested in the latest scheduling (?) order. The tremendous disrespect of delivering a court decision on a piece of scrap Scheduling Order paper is the least of the ethical violations experienced in this matter. But it give you reason to wonder at the tremendous lack of respect for the issues of the case.

16. Declare VOID the Orders of Carolyn Carluccio, and Recuse this matter for resolution to another county while referring Angst & Ansgt to the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania for disciplinary actions starting with an immediate suspension of their priviledges to practice law.

Filed with Montgomery County Prothonotary. 2/27/2013

“Grave abuse of discretion is a concept that defies exact definition, but generally refers to ‘capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction’; the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.

Use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is sufficient to taint a decision maker’s action with grave abuse of discretion.”

What does ‘grave’ mean? As applied to public officers, and as a ground for disciplinary action, grave misconduct refers to such misconduct which shows the elements of (a) corruption, (b) clear intent to violate the law, or (c) flagrant disregard of established rule (Landrito v. CSC, 223 SCRA 564, [1993]).

Mandamus, like prohibition, is not a substitute for appeal. The unenvious prospect of maintaining an action through a lengthy appeal
process does not entitle the relator to such an extraordinary writ. Requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus are similar to
those needed for a writ of prohibition. The court must find that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law.
(1) deliberate indifference;
(2) gross negligence or arbitrariness that indeed shocks the conscience; or
(3) intent to cause harm.”

Frivolous Lawsuits and Legal Definitions
Frivolous lawsuits are those filed by a party or attorney who is aware they are without merit, because of a lack of supporting legal argument or factual basis for the claims. Frivolous lawsuits waste time, money, and judicial resources, and fines and/or sanctions may be imposed upon a party or their attorney for filing such a claim.

Frivolous lawsuits are those filed for purposes of harassment or coercion, such as to coerce the defendant into paying more or accepting less money than is rightfully due. They may be filed due to lack of due diligence by an attorney in investigating a client’s claim, or other reasons. Generally, the defendant must win the lawsuit before seeking a remedy for the frivolous claim.

OATH OF OFFICE – Judges
Either by United States Constitution or the state constitution, either one, The oath creates moral obligation and perjury of oath of office is a felony.

Lawyers face a difficult ethical choice when confronted with a lying client. They can avoid the ethical dilemma altogether by turning a blind eye to the client perjury or, worse yet, by encouraging and facilitating false testimony from their clients.

One of the reasons they’ll go after the children is to destabilize people emotionally. It’s not only that it will exhaust you financially. Once they destabilize you emotionally, you become unfit to handle your own case. They can even drive you into depression. They can get you screaming and shouting so even your supporters abandon you because you’re too crazy to deal with.

You understand it perfectly. They bankrupt you. They take your property. They take your children. They really don’t leave you with much of anything.
And they won’t leave you with half. If they target you they’ll take it all because, after they’ve gutted you, they don’t want you to have any resources
left to hire professional help to launch a counter-attack or an appeal.

In other words, if a single judge commits unlawful acts from the bench, he can easily hide behind his personal immunity. But if it can be shown that
that judge is working in association with other judges, then just like a conspiracy, there is not only no collective immunity, there’s no personal immunity either?

Exactly. They have immunity for what they do individually inside a court, but what they do outside — taking bribes and collectively setting up cases in their associations they have no immunity whatsoever because their “corporations” or associations have no immunity.

There’s the old cliche’, “All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But “absolute power” is the working definition of judicial immunity.
If you can‘t try me for anything I do, then I have virtually absolute power — I can do virtually anything I want and get away with it.

“There are three things needed to give jurisdiction: First, power by law to act upon the general subject-matter …. Second, jurisdiction of the person… Third, jurisdiction of the particular case.”‘

A court, acting without jurisdiction of subject-matter, could, as between the parties, arrive at no valid conclusion.
Similarly, as to a court lacking jurisdiction of persons, where such jurisdiction was required.
And, in any event, even the power to decide questions of jurisdiction, presupposes a minimum showing of facts to justify even the initiation of the process of judging.

A court has jurisdiction of subject-matter, when it has the right to adjudicate between given individuals with respect to the field of rights in which the contioversy arises. Similarly, a court has jurisdiction of persons when it has the right to adjudicate, within such field of rights, with respect to the persons who are before the court. And there is still a third conception of jurisdiction, i.e., contemplating the power of the court to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction of subject-matter and jurisdiction of persons. Obviously, as between the parties to a litigation, judicial proceedings are void, if lacking in jurisdiction of subjectmatter, or of persons (where such jurisdiction is necessary). It cannot be important to them that the court had power to decide its own jurisdiction, and was wrong. Nothing less than actual jurisdiction will do; similarly, as to the rights of those whose civil rights depend upon the validity of the adjudication thus made. That the court was wrong on any of the issues in the case, other than jurisdiction,, is immaterial. But as to jurisdiction, the court must have been right.

It is not the actual jurisdiction of the judge, but the presence of sufficient facts requiring him to pass on his own jurisdiction, which affords the subjective test for his own immunity,
When a judge has been provided the facts sufficiently indicative of lack of jurisdiction, and knows that his actions lack jurisdiction and acts anyway, immunity does not apply. His personal acts were Coram Non Judice.

Coram non judice is a Latin phrase which means “not in the presence of a judge”. It is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding held without a judge, with improper venue such as before a court which lacks the authority to hear and decide the case in question, or without proper jurisdiction.

An assertion of judicial jurisdiction beyond the proper limits of jurisdiction is a deprivation of property without due process of law.

Judicial action beyond the preconceptions of jurisdiction is void with a vengeance.

• “lack of jurisdiction over the person” under Rule 12(b)(2), which is
read to cover all of the defense of lack of territorial jurisdiction;
• “improper venue” under Rule 12(b)(3);
• “insufficiency of process” under Rule 12(b)(4), which covers defects in
the form of the summons; and
• “insufficiency of service of process” under Rule 12(b)(5), which covers
defects in the manner of transmitting notice

1. Procedural Settings for Decision on Jurisdiction
To flesh out the definition and implications of the prima facie standard of proof, one must first examine the procedural settings in which the jurisdictional issue will arise.
By bringing any action, the plaintiff asserts, at least implicitly, that the court has jurisdiction and is a proper venue, and that the plaintiff will properly notify the defendant.

But sooner or later, the defendant may dispute the plaintiff’s position and so create a contested issue.

In the ordinary course of the initial action, the defendant can challenge the plaintiff’s implicit or explicit assertions of forum authority, but must do so by raising any personal defense early and in a way that avoids waiver.

If the defendant does raise any of the forum-authority defenses, the court must pass on them. So much for the burden of allegation. The burdens of production and persuasion on these threshold issues will be on the plaintiff.,

The parties receive a reasonable opportunity for discovery on any reasonably contestable issue of forum authority.

The judge may (1) hear and determine the defense in a pretrial proceeding on the application of any party or (2) choose to defer the issue until trial.

The judge determines the issue on documentary proof and affidavits and, if necessary, after an evidentiary hearing.

An affirmative finding on contested jurisdictional facts by a prima facie standard will not affect the merits, because facts found by a lower standard of proof will not preclude issues governed by a higher standard of proof; but a finding of jurisdiction will preclude later relief from judgment for lack of jurisdiction, by the ordinary operation of the jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction doctrine.

Alternatively, under existing law, a finding of no jurisdiction does not produce a valid judgment and so should not be binding in another action, except to defeat jurisdiction in any attempt to sue again in a court where the same jurisdictional issue arises.

Courts should afford the fuller procedures, allowing discovery and an evidentiary hearing if necessary to apply properly the consistently applicable standard of proof.

Alternatively, the court may choose to defer decision under that same standard until such time as those fuller procedures become efficient to employ, perhaps at trial on the merits, although courts should be somewhat reluctant to postpone because delay can unfairly and awkwardly force the defendant to litigate in a place that turns out to lack personal jurisdiction.

A court might find jurisdiction to exist prima facie on a pretrial motion, then go on to rule on other motions and hold a trial, and finally decide that jurisdiction does not exist by a preponderance. This way of opening an affirmative jurisdictional determination to reconsideration at trial under a higher standard of proof would undermine the policies behind Steel Co.’s first-things-first rule, because by then a court without jurisdiction will have taken many steps.

Also worrisome would be any judicial inclination to vary the standard of proof with the defendant’s chosen time for challenging jurisdiction (i.e., special appearance at the outset or later relief from judgment, whether by direct or collateral attack). On special appearance, on a pretty light showing the court might incline to say that the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to proceed to the merits, when the defendant will have an opportunity to continue trying to defeat the plaintiff’s claim. On collateral attack, the court might instead incline to indulge the defaulting defendant when deciding the jurisdictional contest, raising the standard for the plaintiff’s proof and so enabling the defendant to maintain that the plaintiff had wrongly sued this defendant in that first forum; there is a certain appeal to letting the defendant demonstrate, say, that a hallucinating plaintiff fabricated a story to sue the upright defendant in an abusive forum.

Nevertheless, the law shifts the burden of proof to the defendant on subsequent attack, so it seems to reject any urge to indulge a collaterally attacking defendant.

Moreover, a higher standard for the plaintiff on collateral attack by the defendant would open the door a bit to
collateral attack after special-appearance-then-default, because the defendant could argue that the earlier finding under the lower standard
of proof is not preclusive.

It should not be that a plaintiff can get to trial by a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, but once at trial must show both jurisdiction and liability by a preponderance. As I have explained, the delayed jump in the jurisdictional standard of proof would have forced winning defendants to defend on the merits where by law it turns out they did not have a true obligation to defend, and it would also risk imposing on those defendants a jurisdictional dismissal after what would have been a successful defense on the merits unless they can then consent to jurisdiction.

A judge, whose acts are void for lack of jurisdiction, may, nevertheless, be immune from legal responsibility because, in fact, he had sufficient
jurisdiction for that purpose; and, furthermore, because that which is void, as between the parties to a litigation, may still be valid as against
third parties; and, finally, because whether or not a judge shall be responsible for his void acts, may depend on whether he purported to act in a court of general or limited jurisdiction.

Obviously, as between the parties to a litigation, judicial proceedings are void, if lacking in jurisdiction of subjectmatter, or of persons where such jurisdiction is necessary). It cannot be important to them that the court had power to decide its own jurisdiction, and was wrong. Nothing less than actual jurisdiction will do; similarly, as to the rights of those whose civil rights depend upon the validity of the adjudication thus made. That the court was wrong on any of the issues in the case, other than jurisdiction,, is immaterial. But as to jurisdiction, the court must have been right.

This leads us, then, to the inquiry as to what is the irreducible minimum which must appear to justify the initiation of the judicial process. Unfortunately, there is no accurate measure. All that can be said is that such facts must appear as to justify belief, on the part of a reasonable judicial officer, that he is called upon to exercise his judicial function, and should not shirk it.

The lies of an officer of the court outweigh the law and process and procedure and further implicate the judges.
A Pro Se litigant is not supposed to survive the injustice…

Judge Page discovered where he has arrived. He lacks jurisdiction, yet held hearings. He has heard. BUT, his options to what he can do are limited.

Judge Page has heard from a well-prepared Pro Se Defendant and accepted the testimony and documents in accordance with law and procedure. He knows what has happened. He knows why it has happened. He knows how it has happened. He knows the matter before him. He can begin resolution, or exacerbate a prolonged and well-demonstrated court record.

The weight of Judge Page’s decision is huge. His responsibility is to the law. The Plaintiff, the Defendant and the judiciary are each interested parties. The scales of justice do not allow for balancing three ways. The Judge must ignore the interests of one party to come to a proper decision. The only party not represented in the hearing was the judiciary. Unless, the judge in the court is acting as a representative for the prior judiciary. If so, he must recuse for clear conflict of interest.

Judge Page can’t enforce void orders as they remain void whether he concurs or not. The Orders can await the judge who will declare them void, and remain unenforceable because they are void. Judge Page cannot make them any less void, or retroactively grant jurisdiction to void proceedings.

Judge Page lacks jurisdiction to act for the most part as the case remains under appeal. His options are limited. The Law is clear though. Denying Due Process of Law is unacceptable. This must be addressed. Proceeding with the hearings with the knowledge of the pending Appeal was the informed decision of the Judge. The hearing permitted the stalled situation to be presented in court. I won’t argue the lack of jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff’s petition because it moved things along.

From the Court Record…
Evidence of the Appeal in process was presented.
Evidence of Angst & Angst’s repeated failure to properly file and serve court documents was presented.
Evidence of the lack of jurisdiction for multiple prior orders was clearly presented.
Evidence of Ex Parte Documents exchanged between Judge Carluccio and Valerie Angst, yet denied to the Defendant was presented.
Evidence of the knowledge of Judge Carolyn Carluccio of the pending Appeal was clearly presented.
Evidence of the failed attempt by Angst & Angst to secretly reassign the matter to Judge Carolyn Carluccio was clearly presented.
Evidence of the lack of hearings was presented. Well before the Defendant was called to present his case, Judge Page had recognized that a proper hearing on the matter had not taken place.

The only surprise in the February 20, 2013 hearing was the fabricated admission of Valerie Angst to having what must have been a very long ex parte conversation with Judge Carluccio – reportedly during the proceeding but “Off The Record” on September 23, 2011. It had to be long because of all of the information which was reportedly communicated. It did not take place in the presence of this Defendant – so it was ex parte.

As an officer of the court, Valerie Angst is permitted to lie directly to judges on behalf of her client. Valerie Angst may participate in and be permitted inappropriate ex parte conversations until such time as she submits the invoices for her services which lists the item and the judge recuses. But when Valerie Angst chooses to lie about an ex parte conversation with a judge; and that ex parte conversation occurs only in her imagination; is it still an inappropriate ex parte conversation? is it still an ethics violation?
1. If the conversation never took place, there was no inappropriate ex parte conversation with the judge.
2. If the conversation never took place, there has been no ethics violation.
What a glorious way to lie about things.

Consider…

Judge Page is unlikely to declare the orders void. Though that would be absolutely proper, lawful and correct, it exposes the intentional and deliberate flaws of the prior judiciary. Further injustice would not end injustice. It would extend it.

Should Judge Page propose, or order, some financial settlement, he lacks jurisdiction to do so because he lacked jurisdiction to hold the hearing while the matter is under Appeal. Angst & Angst will surely point this out, accepting this fact only now – and perhaps the sanction hit for filing their misguided petition in the first place.

Should Judge Page award me gazillions of dollars for my lost/stolen/dissipated property, it is necessary to recall that PLAINTIFF (Angst & Angst) HAS NOT FOLLOWED ANY COURT ORDER SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THIS MATTER. There is nothing to suggest they will follow court orders now. They remain outlaws. “Above the law” because Angst & Angst survived law school and attained the ability to recruit others into their lawlessness. The gazillions would need to be in cash AND accompanied by the requisite wheelbarrows and security with which to transport the funds to a bank. Lest, this creates another tangential series of enforcement hearings and related appearances.

The right and proper thing to do… Judge Page decides to return my home, but what becomes of the family to whom it was illegally sold by the Plaintiff? The destruction of one man verses the protection of the ‘integrity’ of the court, the lawyers, a family intentionally brought into the matter through fraud and deceit and the absolute compromise of the integrity of the judiciary. Their private investigators should have been able to destroy me… but they have failed. The man who lived through 7 years of isolation terror, harassment and torture.

Angst & Angst have behaved as sociopaths with no regard for the disruption and terror their lawlessness has caused. All under the protective bossom of a court which refuses to see their ward could do any wrong.

Their only defense after a 3 hour presentation of proof of the failure of jurisdiction, fraud of the court, and denial of due process was to make one sentence.

Meaning: I do not get the protection and allowances afforded the officers of the court. I do not get the protection afforded the incompetent. I do not get the protection afforded the deliberately incompetent tactics such as those executed by Angst & Angst. When lawyers fail, the court conceals their failures. When lawyers deliberately fail, the court conceals their failures. Were I to falter, it would be over. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY FOR THEM I HAVE NOT YET FALTERED.

I follow rule. law. procedure. ethics. I am honest. I am direct. I am not cheating. I do not need lies, fraud, deceit and conspiracy. I have TRUTH. The truth never changes and is just so easy to remember.

No lawyer would ever take my case because knowledge of the corruption and lawlessness and intentional failures of the court requires an officer of the court to protect the integrity of a judiciary which has demonstrated it’s lack of integrity.

They will not stop until they attain my suicide. And I am just not capable of it.

The only remaining lawful option, to vacate the void orders, to void the order under Appeal and eliminate the necessity of the Appeal, to conduct hearings to address the financial issues, to conduct hearings on the deliberate misdeeds, to report the misconduct of Angst & Angst for disciplinary action to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, to refer the actions of the judiciary to the Judicial Conduct Board. An acceptable start would be returning the Defendant to his home, with an allowance for the destroyed property, and a stipend upon which to subsist until the final resolution of this matter.

The thought that his matter can be prevented from exposure in a Federal Courtroom should be dismissed. The Defendant has persevered this far, and has endured the terror and injustice of the denial of his civil rights, his parental rights, his human rights and the interference of corruption and lawlessness into his life, denying his liberty, and preventing any appearance of a livelihood. The case is documented. All that remains is assembly of the documents. The continued injustice only extends the time period during which this case can commence.

I live to suffer another day… with no exit in a county where there is no law. Where the chief law enforcement officer in the county, Sheriff Eileen Behr, has conspired to terrorize the Defendant. Where the person who took an oath to prosecute crimes in the county, District Attorney Rise Verti Ferman, has ignored reports of crimes against the Defendant. And where Eileen Behr, Rise Ferman and Carolyn Carluccio can party the nights away together blowing sunshine up each others slacks, skirts and robes while ignoring the complete perversion of justice and the reign of terror and destruction they leave in their offices at the courthouse.

There is no justice in Montgomery County Pennsylvania.
There is no law in Montgomery County Pennsylvania.
Once you learn the terrorists are running the Montgomery County Courthouse, you will be targeted for destruction by every means at the county’s disposal.
I live to suffer another day.