The Toronto 9/11 Hearings - 9/11/11

Era of Love & Peace (man known as Vic Beck)

More at:  FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES and THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

Jury Power

Judicial Corruption

Whose idea was it to perpetrate a "unified system" of corrupt Courts in Pennsylvania?

How and why is it perpetuated?

When a judge acquiesces to the mediocrity implied by banal 'form and process', where does one obtain the "honest services" for which s/he has paid?

Are judges aware that they, too, are being defrauded by those who perpetrated and perpetuate a system of corrupt courts?

More about Dr. Richard I Fine is available at How To Disqualify Your State Superior Court Judge & Get A New Trial.

Another reason to dissolve United States, Inc.

Have the American people been the unknowing victims of TREASONOUS FRAUD?

How important is an Oath of Office?

Were you, or are you now, in the U.S. military?  Were you told that the U.S. or State you served was defined under Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (14)(15)?

(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

(15) “United States” means—

  (A) a Federal corporation;

  (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

  (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

If you believe you've been a victim of a seditious or treasonous fraud your remedy may be found in the verbage of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b):

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

What is you plan?

In the Court of Public Opinion

In the ancient Book of Joel (2:17-18) it is written:  .  .  .  "Spare your people, Yahweh, And don't give Your heritage to reproach, that the nations should rule over them. Why should they say among the peoples, 'Where is their God?'"    .  .  . 

Click HERE for the controversy.

This is what went to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. 

Lisa Gillick filed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's first response, a "Motion to Quash" AFTER the Lackawanna County District Attorney's Office realized a DEFAULT was being filed. 

A reply to the "Motion to Quash" with Authorities was submitted. 

An unknown Superior Court entity granted Gillick's "Motion to Quash".

A Request for Affirmative Relief was submitted and granted by the Court of Common Pleas - Lackawanna County.

The following Right to Know request asking questions about the Affirmative Relief was submitted to Lackawanna County.

Rather than answering the questions presented, Christina Gallagher, on behalf of Mary Ferrario Rinaldi, the Clerk of Courts for Lackawanna County, retaliated as follows:

The hearing took place in the Lackawanna County Courthouse in a courtroom where a non-gold-fringed-American flag was situate to the right of Senior Judge, JEROME CHESLOCK, a retired judge from Monroe County.  The following is the transcript of how Judge Cheslock ruled in this hearing.

The following is what Cheslock said he read.  See page 4 of the (above) transcript.

Here is what City of Carbondale Police Officers Dave Fofi and James Reed used as evidence on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Here is The Law:

Do you believe you have the authority to render a verdict?

Here's what it says in another ancient book:

1Co 6:2 - 3  Do you not know that the set-apart ones shall judge the world?  And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?  Do you not know that we shall judge messengers?  How much more, matters of this life?  (ISR)

ARTICLES OF FREEDOM

What happened with the "bailout" money?

University of Ottawa Professor, Michel Chossudovsky, explains what's happening with the "bailout" money.

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS ELECTIONS - OCTOBER 10th 2009

The Continental Congress will convene on November 8, 2009.

Congress requires our oversight.

Congressmen (like Mike Rogers) need our support.

So: What's the next step for a free people?

- Reaffirm your allegiance to the organic principles of our constitutional republic.

- Become involved in the October 10, 2009 election process to elect delegates to the November 9 - 22 Continental Congress of 2009.

- Learn more about the Continental Congress 2009 at http://www.cc2009.us/about-cc2009.

Submission #65632 to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Philadelphia

Please investigate whether a criminal conspiracy involving "Impersonation/Identity Fraud" and "Advance Fee Scheme(s)" have been perpetrated (and continues to be perpetuated) by members of the Pennsylvania Bar Association in the "County of Lackawanna" and/or "Lackawanna County" and The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania and/or the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System. For your convenience I have put what I believe to be substantive evidence onto the following blogs: Integrity Training and The Truth Store.

AN OPEN LETTER to PA and FEDERAL LEGISLATORS in OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT MANDATED ID: BIOMETRIC and OTHER!

We all know that precedence for obtaining government identification, whether it’s a passport, driver’s license or “photo”, has ‘always’ included the submission of a completed application and monetary consideration (i.e., “payment”) to the issuing authority. Therefore, I will attempt to make known my concerns from three perspectives; the lawful, the legal and the prophetic, within the parameters of your historical fiduciary duties as representatives to the people of our nation and the essential characteristics of indenture contracts; adhesion and unconscionable. But, first, I preface what I am about to say with the well known, yet to be rebutted, fundamental point of reference upon which I present lawful, legal and prophetic opposition to the federal Real ID Act of 2005, or any other such mandated identification that may be promulgated.

PREFACE
Recent documentaries have revealed that the cost to the owners of the Federal Reserve (those who print the American people’s ‘units of exchange’, i.e., “dollars” or “money”) is approximately $.042 to print a "bill" of any denomination, therefore, when a worker receives $10.00 for his/her labor the owners of the Federal Reserve profit approximately $9.958 just for printing that “bill”. Another +/- $2.00 (20%) Federal Tax is then demanded by agents of the IRS on behalf of those who print the money. As I calculate it, with the present use of these "bills", for each $10.00 of a working man's labor his DEBT to the owners of the Federal Reserve (those who print the money) is approximately $11.96. Should a laborer acquiesce by chip or plastic card (i.e., a likely future use of any “Real [government issued] ID”) to a totally cashless economy, the profits to the owners of the Federal Reserve will increase exponentially! Without consideration for other forms of taxation and interest on loans and mortgages, American men and women will profit those who oversee the manufacturing of the card or chip they must use; approximately $12.00 for every $10.00 of a man's labor! In fact, when you take the time to do the math, you will see that Governor Rendell’s $2.00 per hour increase in the “minimum wage” of Pennsylvanians still kept the affected ‘wage earner’ at “minimum wage” and essentially increased the revenues of the owners of the Federal Reserve (at least) $1.92 per hour, per the tens of thousands of recipients!

Today the people of our nation are at a threshold. Will you, our elected representatives who took an oath to support, obey and defend with fidelity the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions of a “republic” with a democratic process, support, obey and defend with fidelity that Form of government to which you pledge your allegiance and swore your oath; or, Will you, willingly volunteer the people of your nation into a “feudal” form of governance with a communistic “party” process wherein the ‘American dream’ will be based on an optimal form of voluntary indebted servitude to a (relative) ‘handful of men’ who print the money and, at their whim, can pull the proverbial “plug” on an ATM or erase a name from a database? (On a personal note, I can’t help but to suspect that the descendents of our European ancestors who remained in Europe and have a sense of history are laughing at our naivety.)

HISTORY
According to "http://findlaw.com" - "All that is necessary for most contracts to be legally valid are the following two elements:

- All parties are in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other).

- Something of value has been exchanged, such as cash, services, or goods (or a promise to exchange such an item) for something else of value. "

Therefore, given the binding nature of our freewill participation in contracts, it is disingenuous to believe that the "Charters" (i.e., the ‘corporate contracts’) that were granted to "new world" colonizers (including "William Penn, Esquire, and his heirs and assigns" in 1681 by Charles the Second, Chancellor Heneage, Lord Finch, and their heirs and successors) somehow (miraculously) disappeared in 1776 by a few (relatively speaking) signatures on a “Declaration of Independence”. Or, in 1791 with the ratification of the “Bill of Rights”, i.e., the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, Esquire Penn's obligations to his corporate feudal masters most likely remained in tact and it was simply a matter of business-as-usual for European investors to commission their 'privy councilors' to promulgate the contract law(s) that would continue to govern their global commerce to this day. No doubt that this was, and continues to be, easily done with the blessings of the people who have not yet recognized that their venerated Constitution was written in 'doublespeak'! Since the birth of our nation platitudes like "emancipation", "reconstruction", "reorganization", “war on terror”, etc. have toyed with our emotions and left us vulnerable to proverbial “ravaging wolves in sheep’s clothing”. Have we forgotten that "councilors" still promulgate the laws upon which the courts must act? And that the “privy councilors” became the “Board of Trade and Plantations”? What (now) are they called in the global marketplace? Are they now members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) who are using members of the United States Congress as their brokers to implement the documentation (i.e., the Real ID) that will give them absolute ownership of our physical and intellectual properties?

THE LAWFUL
According to www.FindLaw.com 'the freedom of contract' is "a power or right to contract and freely determine the provisions of contracts without arbitrary or unreasonable legal restrictions esp. as guaranteed under the contract clause of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution". The Congress of these united States, however, had the power to Amend this Constitution: And they did!

THE LEGAL
With the 13th and 14th Amendments to the original, duly ratified U.S. Constitution of 1791, preparatory steps were taken by Congress to, in a business-as-usual manner, re-venue into the system of government with which they were most comfortable ALL Americans who were willing to alienate (or lien) themselves from their "unalienable Rights" into a statutory form of feudalism. In 1865 the 13th Amendment was crafted with words that allow for 'voluntary servitude' and "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". Furthermore, Congress gave themselves the "power to enforce this article (the 13th Amendment; i.e., voluntary servitude) by appropriate legislation". The next step in this re-venuing scheme came in 1868. Complimentary with feudalistic governance and an (oligarchic) party process, Democrat and Republican members of Congress gave to themselves jurisdiction over the descendants of those Americans who voluntarily "ceded" themselves into statutory servitude in a manner consistent with the laws enacted to facilitate an economy based on the principles of “debenture”. With the assistance of the Democrat and Republican members of Congress, a silent (plutocratic) coup incrementally continued in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th and 17th Amendments, in 1933 with Roosevelt's monetary 'reorganization' (a “New Deal” for his plutocratic cronies), in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, then with the Coinage Act of 1965 whereby, (according to wikipedia) constitutionally mandated silver was eliminated from the circulating dimes and quarter dollars, and diminished in the half dollar. In addition to the above provisions, for which it is best known, the act:

- Made all coins and currency of the United States (including certain bank issues) a legal tender. This has been taken to reverse the demonetisation of the Trade Dollar, and

- Gave the Secretary (of the Treasury) broad discretion to enter into contracts to assure an adequate supply of clad coins, without regard to public procurement laws.

Fortunately, in Pennsylvania, the crafters of the Pennsylvania Constitution had the foresight to provide remedy to those men and women who would become cognizant of this blatant “bait and switch” fraud and in Article 1, Section 17 provided that; "No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed."

THE PROPHETIC
Prophecy, when it comes to pass, is nothing more than the consequences of predictable societal behaviors.

The prophecy found in Rev. 13:16-17 seems consistent with the mandated Real ID AND with the anticipated consequences of the normal behaviors of a statutorily oppressed people who may be “fearful, and unbelieving” (Rev. 21:8).

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads (i.e., perhaps a ‘mind set’ in the ‘executive functioning’ area of one’s brain?): And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name"

BUT, (if I’m correct in my assessment) there’s another side of this prophecy. It’s found in Rev. 18:11–13:

“And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, . . . and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.”

Who knows! It may be that all that is needed is a leader with access that encourages and sustains the “courage” of others to come out of an economic bondage of their own making. After all, one would think that a people who have been praying “Thy kingdom come” for 2000 years and have the ability to “bind” and “loose” at will would be more than willing to follow such a leader and collectively shake off their oppressors.

CONCLUSION
In my opinion, the promulgation of the Real ID Act of 2005 is a mere formality to give credible authority to a parallel system of feudal governance that IF ALLOWED will authorize the final death blow to our (previously guaranteed) constitutional republic, and usher in that which “Christians” have feared for two millennia. Truly, I reiterate what I said previously;

Today the people of our nation are at a threshold. Will you, our elected representatives who took an oath to support, obey and defend with fidelity the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions of a “republic” with a democratic process, support, obey and defend with fidelity that Form of government to which you pledge your allegiance and swore your oath; or, Will you, willingly volunteer the people of your nation into a “feudal” form of governance with a communistic “party” process wherein the ‘American dream’ will be based on an optimal form of voluntary indebted servitude to a (relative) ‘handful of men’ who print the money and, at their whim, can pull the proverbial “plug” on an ATM or erase a name from a database?

I can only quote scripture, speak from the objective lessons of History, and share my personal experience with the municipal magistrate’s “prize court”. (Yes, “prize court”. Look it up in the Encyclopedia Britannica.)

My experience* speaks specifically to the issues pertinent to this testimony in opposition to government issued ID that is mandated to be purchased with debt based money; whether it’s this “Real ID” issue currently before the Pennsylvania legislature or any other! Therefore, it is my desire that whatever the members of the Pennsylvania legislature decide to do that they include provisions that will “support, obey and defend” the Constitutional protections provided for men and women, like my self, who choose NOT to apply for commercial benefits and privileges that must be paid for with a debt-based currency, a “legal” fiat “tender” that alienates us from our “unalienable Rights” and causes many to suffer undue ‘pains and penalties’ from court officers who choose to gain political favor by sustaining, what amounts to, treasonous Bills of Attainder.

My personal evaluation of the lawful, legal and prophetic characteristics of the proposed mandated legislation has been from the vantage of a 1960’s era (pre Treasury Department “mercenary”) Navy veteran who took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. I am a woman who believes the "self evident truth" that she "resides" in her "freehold" (i.e., her "self"/”body” whose name is the “title” that “identifies” her) until she returns (at death) to her "domicile" wherein she must give an account to her “Creator”. With that said, ANY application that I would make for a “benefit” and “privilege” with debt based money, i.e., a “unit of exchange” that essentially enslaves the labors of my future generations to the future generations of the mere men who print that money, would violate my Sovereign's Law against "coveting" that “benefit” or “privilege”, and "stealing" to get it! Such are the characteristics and subsequent consequences of the indenture contracts that have been legislated by Democrat and Republican Congressional and State legislators since the Civil War. Clearly, we, the American people have been legislated into a form of mandated statutory feudalism by systemic adhesion and unconscionable contracts with those who print the U.S. currency, our mandated unit of exchange. Our ‘legal tender’ has been monopolized by a global oligarchy of plutocrats whose ultimate goal appears to be the megalomaniacal occupation and distribution of the labors and produce of our global resources; human and otherwise. The councilors who craft and mandate legislation such as the Real ID without which we, the people, are presumed to have no identity and, therefore, no standing in law are the true "terrorist" from whom we, the people, need your legislated defenses and protection. So, I ask: Will you ‘cast out the moneychangers’ and legislate for the people those defenses and protections necessary for us to live our lives with the integrity expected of us by our “Creator”; i.e., the Sovereign to whom we must all (eventually) bow our knee and give an account?

* MY EXPERIENCE
THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE GEORGIA AND NEVADA LICENSES TELL THE STORY AS TO WHY I STOPPED PURCHASING LICENSES. THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT LICENSE ME TO OPERATE A TOYOTA CAMRY THAT SEATS 5. THE PURCHASE OF LICENSE REQUIRED THAT I VIOLATE MY CONSCIOUS AND LIE THAT I AM ENGAGED IN 'INTERSTATE COMMERCE'.

KNOWING THAT I CANNOT 'DRIVE' A COMMERCIALLY REGISTERED VEHICLE UNLESS I HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE I CHOSE TO KEEP THE LAW AS I UNDERSTOOD IT AND USE 'THE LAW OF THE FLAG' IN MY TRAVELS.

THE SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE OF WHAT I PERCEIVED TO BE MY PROPERTY AND THE CAPTURE OF A LAWFUL U.S. FLAG SUGGESTS THAT WE HAVE A 'FOREIGN OCCUPYING POWER' IN CONTROL OF OUR NATION’S COURTS. THE POWER APPEARS TO BE THAT OF COMMERCE, AND OUR NATION (IT APPEARS) IS BEING GOVERNED BY AN INTERNATIONAL OLIGARCHY OF PLUTOCRATS WHO MAKE THE LAWS UPON WHICH THE COURTS MUST ACT.

I BROUGHT MY GRIEVANCE ON APPEAL AS A "PETITION FOR REVIEW" OF THIS SUBSTANTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER THAT INVOLVES ISSUES OF “JURISDICTION”, “TITLE” AND “OWNERSHIP”, AND, ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE; “AGENCY”, “IDENTITY” AND “OWNERSHIP”.

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR REVIEW THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE LACKAWANNA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND THE SUPERIOR COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT.

FEEL AT LIBERTY TO REVIEW THE BLOGS AND THE COURT DOCKETS.

WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT HAS THE UNITED STATES?

"Communism", "Feudalism" or a "Constitutional republic"? You decide.

Ron Paul on the "Real ID"

The ACLU Responds

To the right is the ACLU's (AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA's) response to my recent request for their assistance in bringing closure to my controversy with the Commonwealth.

The controversy brought before the court as a "Petition For Review" asked the court to determine whether, as an American, I had sovereign jurisdiction or commercial agency, marketable title or fictional identification, and whether my ownership of property was absolute or conditional.

Apparently members of the ACLU did not believe that resolution to this controversy would be a benefit to a large class of people or lead to a change in the law upon which the courts must act.

REAL ID IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF AN AGENCY (Updated 9/4/07)

Your real ID is the one you've been given by your parents.

Here's what happened in Arizona in 1985:

Here's what's happening in Pennsylvania.

And, here's what happened in New Hampshire.

ARE OTHER NATIONS REALLY ENVIOUS OF OUR LIBERTIES; OR, ARE THEY JEALOUSLY PRESERVING THEIR OWN?

In Pennsylvania an action at law will lie on a decree of a court of chancery, but the pleas nil debet and nul tiel record cannot be pleaded in such an action.

Agents of COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA in DOCKET NO(S).: 1654 MDA 2006 and TR-0000860-06 have willfully, deliberately and with, what appears to be, malicious intent remained silent as to the matters of agency, jurisdiction, identity, title, and ownership currently before their superior court. Their actions can be best described as "collusive", and essentially render validity to those who suspect that members of the U.S. government are involved in a treasonous "conspiracy" against any American who chooses to remain in a jurisdictional state other than that of a 13th or 14th Amendment citizen.

AUTHORITIES

REPLY: MOTION TO QUASH

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA FILES ITS RESPONSE

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed its first (to my knowledge) response to the court regarding the matter documented below. If this is what attorney's go to law school to learn, I feel grieved over the future of our children, our grandchildren, and our beloved nation.

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT & GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION

The image to the left is an example of what the Canadian speaker, Rob Menard, is saying in Bursting Bubbles, as he explains our voluntary compliance with a voluntary conveyance wherein we; unsuspecting, law abiding, inhabitants of a state, are deceived into volunteering that we are engaged as "drivers" in a commercial activity.

Have you ever asked yourself;

"Why am I required to purchase "government issued identification" with debt based Federal Reserve currency?"

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES & THE LETTER OF THE LAW

Herein shown is one of the better examples of the types of legislative doublespeak that are eroding our perceived liberties.

The application, pictured to the right, is the reverse side of a Pennsylvania 2003 "Certification of Birth". The application validates what the Canadian speaker, Robert-Arthur:Menard, is saying in Bursting Bubbles, a video that explains our part in the perpetuation of a global business scheme that was in effect long before the colonies were chartered.

Notice that the application (second paragraph) is to "correct the certified copy issued" whereby the father and mother swears by oath in the presence of a Notary that their child is a "SUBJECT" (second line, on the left side of the application).

If the corrections are not made by the parents, the "SUBJECT'S SIGNATURE" is required (also under oath) on the 3rd line from bottom on the right side of the form.

Now, as all law abiding, good parents who love their children, know, the government mandates education, and they must provide a "birth certificate" to enroll their child in a public school. Also notice how Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads in Section 1:

Uniformity of Taxation:

"All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws."

If you have access to a Pennsylvania 'Certification of Birth' hold it up to the light and notice the 'chain link' watermark.

UPDATE - SUPERIOR : COMMON LAW COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION - BRIEF - FILED 12/18/06

IN THE
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Middle District
Harrisburg, PA 17101
DOCKET NO(S).: 1654 MDA 2006 and TR-0000860-06
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
VERONICA A HANNEVIG, Sui Juris, Appellant, Aggrieved Party, Conusant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Brief

APPEAL FROM THE ORDER and DECREE BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DATED 22, AUGUST 2006 TO CLAIM OF CONUSANCE/CLAIM OF COGNIZANCE PETITION FOR REVIEW DOCKET NO(S).: CP-35-SA-0000064-2006, CP-35-SA-0000065-2006, CP-35-SA-0000066-2006, CP-35-SA-0000067-2006, CP-35-SA-0000068-2006, CP-35-SA-0000069-2006, CP-35-SA-0000070-2006, CP-35-SA-0000071-2006, CP-35-SA-0000072-2006, CP-35-SA-0000073-2006, CP-35-SA-0000074-2006, CP-35-SA-0000075-2006, CP-35-SA-0000076-2006 AND TR-0000860-06.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 1, Part V, 1503(a)(c)(4) has jurisdiction to hear this matter in accordance with Amendments one (1) through Ten (10) of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including:

Article 1, Section 11 – All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct, and

Article 5, Section 9 - There shall be a right of appeal in all cases to a court of record from a court not of record; and there shall also be a right of appeal from a court of record or from an administrative agency to a court of record or to an appellate court, the selection of such court to be as provided by law; and there shall be such other rights of appeal as may be provided by law, and

U.S.C., Title 28 Rule 70 - If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party. On application of the party entitled to performance, the clerk shall issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the property of the disobedient party to compel obedience to the judgment. The court may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt. If real or personal property is within the district, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may enter a judgment divesting the title of any party and vesting it in others and such judgment has the effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law. When any order or judgment is for the delivery of possession, the party in whose favor it is entered is entitled to a writ of execution or assistance upon application to the clerk.

Appellant, Aggrevied Party, therefore, brings this conusant matter tentere placita at no cost before the common law court concurrent with this superior court in forma pauperis to resolve ‘in the interest of justice’ questions of jurisdiction (agency), marketable title (identity) and absolute ownership.

Except for prescriptive damages prescribed by both common and statutory law, Conusant believes that this is a matter between the two courts; the noncommercial common law court of public opinion and the commercial Commonwealth courts of Pennsylvania, and not the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Appellant as alleged by the lower courts.

OPINION OF THE LOWER COURTS
To Conusant’s knowledge, neither Magisterial District Court Judge, Sean P. McGraw, nor Court of Common Pleas Judge, Vito Geroulo, has provided an opinion for their determinations on the above captioned matters as of December 15, 2006.

STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Does Magisterial District Court Judge, Sean P. McGraw, upon ex relatione quo warranto inquiry, have a duty to provide statutory proof of claim of the citations he entertains in his fiduciary capacity? To whom is that duty owed?

Did Judge McGraw, the City of Carbondale, James Reed, Badge #126, and Dave Fofi , Badge #110, have the legal authority to support the claims presented? Was it their duty to determine jurisdiction?

Does an unrebutted affidavit, claim or charge stand as truth in commerce?
Does an owner, issuer, lessor retain unencumbered right to possession of their goods?

By what statute pursuant to Title 1, Pa.C.S. 1503(c)(4) did Joseph Demchak, James Reed or Dave Fofi obtain from me bona fide (“wet ink”) signatures that “Acknowledges Receipt of Citation”?

Do Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings establish superior claims over agency, identity and ownership?

Is a “registration plate” the same as a “Flag” at law?

If government issued documents, such as a driver’s license and photo identification, are required to establish identity, what is the legal status of someone who chooses not to purchase a government document? What is their lawful status? What is the meaning of “issue”?

Does someone’s voluntary purchase of a government document convey agency, identity and ownership of their estate and interest to a foreign jurisdiction?

Is it lawful for government Agents to discriminate against inhabitants of this Commonwealth who choose not to convey the agency, identity and ownership of their freehold estate and interest to a foreign jurisdiction?

Is an automobile that is not for hire in its primary personal, family and household usage required to be commercially registered?

If an automobile is not commercially registered, is the operator in control of that automobile required to be licensed?

Is a licensed Pennsylvania inspection station required to issue an “official” commercial “certificate of inspection” and emission sticker to an automobile that is not required to be registered?

STATEMENT OF CASE
1. On February 1, 2006, without evidence of a bona fide warrant, City of Carbondale Police Officers James Reed, Badge #126 and Dave Fofi, Badge #110, seized from HANNEVIG, VERONICA A an “Exempt Household Automobile”; a white 1987 Toyota Camry sedan (VIN# JT2SV21E6H3142887), henceforth referred to as “Camry”, and a metal, un-obscured Title 4 U.S.C. §1, 2 and 3 non-gold-fringed, Civilian American Flag of these united States of America, with the printing "Sovereign, Private Property, Non-Commercial American" that identified both her jurisdiction and an "Exempt Household Automobile" with the recorded unrebutted Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) lien conspicuously displayed on the Flag by an affixed sticker; 99-cv-2497, henceforth referred to as “Flag”.

2. At the time of the aforementioned seizure on February 1, 2006, no citations were issued and under Aggrieved Party’s verbal protest, Officers Reed and Fofi contracted with G&G Towing to impound the aforementioned Camry that had a “WARNING” notice on its windshield that cited United States Codes governing “Trespass”.

3. On February 1, 2006 the Camry and Flag were last seen at the parking lot of the Turkey Hill convenience store on Rt. 171, Belmont Street.

4. On February 3, 2006, via Certified Mail (70050390000226773478 and 70050390000226773485) Officers Reed and Fofi were afforded an opportunity to privately resolve a justiciable claim within forty-eight (48) hours of their February 6, 2006 receipt of Veronica Ann; Hannevig’s request to resolve this matter in accordance with law consistent with her non-commercial jurisdiction and their Oaths of Office, specifically within the provisions of Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the U.S. Constitution with the first ten (10) Amendments as ratified in 1791.

5. On February 9, 2006 HANNEVIG, VERONICA A received thirteen (13) SUMMONS with attached CITATION/SUMMONS wherein each the “Defendant’s signature” acknowledging receipt of the Citation was indicated by Officer James Reed as “FILED”.

6. HANNEVIG, VERONICA A has no knowledge of her “signature” being “FILED” in acknowledgment of any Citation with the City of Carbondale Police Department.

7. On February 11, 2006 City of Carbondale Clerk, Michelle Bannon provided Officers Reed and Fofi’s oaths of office and Darwin Professional Underwriters, Inc., Public Officials Liability Declaration, Policy Number 0202-0232, which Conusant HANNEVIG accepted as valid.

8. On February 13, 2006 Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Magisterial District Court No: 45-3-03 was offered an opportunity to privately resolve a justiciable claim by providing ex rel quo warranto statutory proof that would substantiate the thirteen (13) claims cited by Officer James Reed. Attached to this offer was Veronica Ann; Hannevig’s Affidavit of Non Corporate Status with its Memorandum of Law and Points of Authority in Support, the UCC-9 classification of “consumer goods” as provided in law on 5/30/1999, her Affidavit of Publication of her Legal Notices for that lien that were run for four (4) consecutive weeks beginning 5/27/1999 to 6/16/1999 and copies of the Certified Mail receipts from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PA State Police, Lackawanna County Sheriff’s Department, the Department of Revenue, and the Attorney General’s office indicating their receipt of the Newspapers’ Affidavit of the publications with a copy of the Legal Notice. The notice advised the reader that her “Exempt Household Automobile” would be identified by a private Flag showing "Sovereign, Private Property, Non-Commercial American" were enclosed.

9. On March 17, 2006 Veronica Ann; Hannevig requested of Mark Taffera, Director of The Rose Center, that he coordinate a neutral forum for mediation between her and Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire to resolve underlying principles involved with diverse jurisdictions and the return of her property; i.e., the Camry and the Flag. Diverse jurisdictions being recognized internationally as “the law of the flag”.

10. On March 17, 2006 HANNEVIG, VERONICA A received from Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire, dated 3/16/06, thirteen “NOTICE OF TRIAL SUMMARY CASE”, Docket Nos.: TR-0000155-06, TR-0000158-06, TR-0000162-06, TR-0000160-06, TR-0000157-06, TR-0000164-06, TR-0000165-06, TR-0000166-06, TR-0000159-06, TR-0000161-06, TR-0000163-06, TR-0000153-06, AND TR-0000154-06 wherein he stated, “This court has received your plea of NOT GUILTY to the above summary violation(s). The sum of $.00 has been accepted as collateral for your appearance at trial.”

11. Neither HANNEVIG, VERONICA A or Veronica Ann; Hannevig entered a plea “NOT GUILTY” to Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire’s District Court No: 45-3-03, nor did they grant him power of attorney to enter a plea on her behalf.

12. Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire exercised silence to Veronica Ann; Hannevig’s offer to him to privately resolve a justiciable claim by providing statutory proof that would substantiate the thirteen (13) claims cited by Officer James Reed.

13. Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire was non-response to Veronica Ann; Hannevig’s offer to resolve by alternate dispute resolution, i.e., the mediation referenced in paragraph nine (9), to resolve the underlying principles and interests involved with an adjudication of title as it applies to the Conusant’s claim to diverse jurisdictions.

14. Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire exercised silence with regard to the return of HANNEVIG, VERONICA A, and Veronica Ann; Hannevig’s property, i.e., the Camry and the Flag, and, his ‘act of law’, which focused on issues not germane to the instant matter, precluded Judge Vito Geroulo from fulfilling his obligation to the court and adjudicating the substantive issues regarding agency (jurisdiction), identity (marketable title) and (absolute) ownership.

15. By Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire’s decision not to pre-emptively adjudicate the substantive questions regarding agency (jurisdiction) consistent with the Flag, and identity (marketable title) and (absolute) ownership of the Camry, Magistrate McGraw has delayed resolution to the irrelevant actions upon which the above captioned dockets are predicated.

16. Consistent with the law of the Flag and her non-commercial jurisdiction wherein she is obligated to her Sovereign to ‘agree with her adversary quickly, while she is with him in the way’, on April 17, 2006 each of the thirteen (13) pleas listed as Docket Nos.: TR-0000155-06, TR-0000158-06, TR-0000162-06, TR-0000160-06, TR-0000157-06, TR-0000164-06, TR-0000165-06, TR-0000166-06, TR-0000159-06, TR-0000161-06, TR-0000163-06, TR-0000153-06, AND TR-0000154-06 were “FULLY ACCEPTED AND RETURNED FOR VALUE. Secured Party, Veronica Ann; Hannevig, further “REQUEST TITLE BE RELEASED AND THE ACCOUNT CLOSED” thereby establishing unencumbered freehold jurisdiction and jurisdictional “title” to her UCC-1 fiction, Conusant HANNIVIG, VERONICA A.

17. Although the Secured Party for VERONICA A HANNEVIG had fully accepted Magistrate McGraw’s not-guilty plea and requested the title be released and the account closed, the NOTICES referred to in paragraph 10 included the threat “Should you fail to appear for your trial, a warrant may be issued for your arrest.”

18. On May 1, 2006, a trial was held and Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire, upon presentment of evidence wherein Officers Reed and Fofi stated that they did not know the difference between a Flag and a Registration Tag/Plate in law, Magistrate McGraw convicted VERONICA A HANNEVIG of TR-0000155-06, TR-0000158-06, TR-0000162-06, TR-0000160-06, TR-0000157-06, TR-0000164-06, TR-0000165-06, TR-0000159-06, TR-0000161-06, TR-0000163-06, TR-0000153-06, and TR-0000154-06; and, not guilty of TR-0000166-06, 75§4581§§A2, Officer Reed’s false entry of “Failure to Use Safety Belt System”.

19. On June 29, 2006, City of Carbondale Mayor, Justin Taylor was noticed in writing via hand carried correspondence dated June 28, 2006 that it had been in excess of 145 days since officers Reed and Fofi had seized VERONICA A HANNEVIG’s property and she had not yet been advised in writing as to the disposition of the white 1987 Toyota Camry. The correspondence advised that the mandated automobile insurance would be due on July 1st, 2006 and she had not yet been notified as to who holds title to either her or the aforementioned white 1987 Toyota Camry.

20. Chief of Police, City of Carbondale, Jeff Taylor and Officers Reed and Fofi received a copy of the correspondence referenced in paragraph 19 via Certified Mail 70051820000818337982 on June 30, 2006.

21. On July 12, 2006 VERONICA A HANNEVIG received by regular mail Summons TR-0000860-06/Ciation B3206329-0 submitted by Officer Joseph A. Demchak, Badge #101, re: “title request by G&G Towing”, claiming “Defendant did abandoned the above vehicle for more than 24 hrs at G&G” and citing S75§7311.1. (See paragraph three (3).)

22. On July 13, 2006 TR-0000860-06/Ciation B3206329-0 was hand delivered to Magistrate McGraw’s office with a NOTICE reminding him that it was not VERONICA A HANNEVIG that abandoned the Camry at G&G Towing (see paragraph three (3)); as she, too, had requested that the title holder come forward and assert their claim of legal ownership.

23. On July 14, 2006 a copy of the paragraph 19 “NOTICE” was filed with the Clerk of Judicial Records for placement in the Court of Common Pleas appeal file pursuant to Rule 324(2).

SUMMARY
24. As of this date, persons of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have failed to statutorily substantiate that Officers Joseph Demchek, James Reed and Dave Fofi’s claims of agency, identity and ownership over Conusant and her property, is superior to that of her freeholder and Sovereign pursuant to Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 1, Part V, 1503(a)(c)(4) and U.S.C., Title 28 Rule 70.

25. Magistrate McGraw, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, rather than exercising his options to return to VERONICA A HANNEVIG what she presumed to be her property as previously described in paragraph one (1), and levy judgment against the officers who failed to perform their constitutional duties with fidelity and integrity, exercised his right to remain silent on all of the relevant issues presented to him as set forth in the administrative documents here, in this above captioned file, contained; and, by an “act of law” in his judicial authority, Magistrate McGraw, chose to hinder and delay equitable resolution in what appears to be a “collusive action” to convey the title of a creditor.

26. Persons of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania having failed to produce a compulsory counterclaim to Secured Party, Veronica Ann; Hannevig’s acceptance of Magistrate McGraw’s unsolicited “not guilty” pleas and her request that unencumbered title be released to her have defaulted in their obligation to perform in the function for which they were hired.

ASSESSMENT OF THIS JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
27. The instant matters before this tentere placita court created by this claim of conusance in the Letter Rogatory, the August 21, 2006 Petition For Review, and the Petition For Review (Addendum), pertain to controversy over agency ‘jurisdiction’, identity ‘marketable title’ and ‘absolute’ ownership.

28. Except for prescriptive damages prescribed by both common and statutory law, Conusant believes that this is a matter between the two courts; the noncommercial common law court of public opinion as secured by Pa.C.S. Title 1, Part V, 1503(a)(c)(4) and the commercial Commonwealth courts of Pennsylvania, and not the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Aggrieved Party, Appellant.

29. Because the Title 4 U.S.C. §1, 2 and 3 non-gold-fringed, Civilian American Flag of these united States of America, which Conusant presumed to be the banner of her sovereign’s jurisdiction, had been seized and not returned, she believes that, by their silence, Officers Joseph Demchek, James Reed and Dave Fofi, and Magistrate Sean McGraw, Esquire, have treasonously (U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3) breached the duties of their Oaths of Office by not immediately addressing, and appropriately responding to a blatant internationally recognized ‘act of war’.

30. Whether by omission or commission the persons of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s failed to adhere to statutory procedure set forth in Pa.C.S. Title 75 Section 7305 and Rules of Civil Procedure governing Actions at Law as they apply to the seizure and impound of the controverted Flag and the Camry VIN# JT2SV21E6H3142887.

31. Unless otherwise proved by a thorough review of the records brought forth in this above captioned case, by omission or commission, the persons of the City of Carbondale and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have engaged in a Title 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 constitutional tort of “theft” of Conusant’s property; i.e., the Flag.

32. Unless otherwise proved by a thorough review of the records brought forth in this above captioned case, by omission or commission, the persons of the City of Carbondale and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have engaged in a Title 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 constitutional tort of “theft” of Conusant’s property; i.e., the Camry VIN# JT2SV21E6H3142887.

33. The ‘act of law’ set forth by Magistrate McGraw, upon which the consequences of Conusant’s appeals to agency, identity and ownership of her freehold and controverted property are predicated, have been brought before this Superior Court of Pennsylvania to be adjudicated pursuant to both statutory and common law as these laws apply to the inhabitants of Pennsylvania who are other than a Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment United States citizen in voluntary servitude to Congressional legislation.

34. Monetary damages continue to accrue as noted during the administrative attempts to resolve this justiciable controversy immediately following the yet to be adjudicated seizure, or theft, (whatever the court opines in writing) of the controverted; Flag of these united States of America, the Camry VIN# JT2SV21E6H3142887, and Conusant’s freehold.

CONCLUSION
35. Agents of the Commonwealth having failed to comply with Title I, Pa.C.S. 1503(c)(4), Rules of Criminal Procedure; 521(a)(b), 588(A)(B) and Rule 324(B)(2)(3), and Rules of Civil Procedure; 1032(a)(b), 1061(a)(b)(1, et seq.) and Rule 1029(e)(1) in specifically denying the averments of facts set forth ex rel quo warranto, and in Conusant’s Letter Rogatory and petitions for review, as they relate to agency (jurisdiction), identity (marketable title) and absolute ownership, have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

36. Appropriate relief and damages are assessed on the judgment in this action as follows:

37. Upon the Courts’ determination that a document, obligation or deed affecting the Aggrieved Party’s right, lien, title or interest in the properties in controversy is cancelled or is valid, invalid or discharged;

38. The Court shall enter a final judgment ordering the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and their agents, the prothonotary, or the recorder of deeds to file, record, cancel, surrender or satisfy of record, as the case may be, any plan, document, obligation or deed determined to be valid, invalid, satisfied or discharged, and to execute and deliver any document, obligation, property or deed necessary to Appellant HANNEVIG to make the decree effective;

39. The Court shall enter any other order necessary for the granting of proper relief, including, and not limited to;

40. The immediate delivery of one (1) metal, un-obscured Title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2, & 3 Civilian American Flag of these united States of America, with the printing "Sovereign, Private Property, Non-Commercial American" "Exempt Household Automobile" and an affixed sticker on which is printed 99-cv-2497, and restitution of $266.00 if delivered, $x,xxx,xxx.00 if not delivered,

41. The immediate delivery, unencumbered by adhesion and unconscionable contracts or agreements, of one (1) 1987 Toyota Camry VIN# JT2SV21E6H3142887, $63,609.64 if delivered, $x,xxx,xxx.00 if not delivered,

42. Exemplary damages of $xxx,xxx,xxx.00for abuse of due process, detainment and deprivation of Aggrieved Party’s liberty to travel in pursuit of the necessities of life and happiness,

43. Exemplary damages of $x,xxx,xxx.00 for illegal or unlawful seizure of private property without a lawful and true 4th Amendment Warrant,

44. Exemplary damages of $x,xxx,xxx.00 for unlawful distraint/interstate detainer under color of law,

45. Exemplary damages of $x,xxx,xxx.00 for cruel and unusual punishment, . . . conspiracy, encroachment, abuse of authority under color of law,

46. Exemplary damages of $x,xxx,xxx.00 as consistent with non-commercial and commercial statute and rules governing “fraudulent conveyances” and “wrongful acts”,

47. Total damages as of December 11, 2006 are assessed to be $xxx,xxx,xxx.00,

48. Notwithstanding the Courts’ ultimate decisions, Damage for Delay at Wall Street Journal 7 ¼%, Prime Rate Percentage on 1/3/2006 is $xxx,xxx,xxx.00.

49. A default judgment in favor of Appellant, Aggrieved Party, Conusant, VERONICA A HANNEVIG, against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is ordered.



__________________________________________
VERONICA A HANNEVIG, Sui Juris
Appellant/Aggrieved Party/Conusant
xxx MAIN STREET
XXXXXXX, PENNSYLVANIA XXXXX

UPDATE - SUPERIOR : COMMON LAW COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Middle District
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

vs.

VERONICA A HANNEVIG, Sui Juris
Appellant, Aggrieved Party, Conusant

vs.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

CLAIM OF CONUSANCE/CLAIM OF COGNIZANCE
PETITION FOR REVIEW (ADDENDUM)
DOCKET NO(S).: 1654 MDA 2006 and TR-0000860-06

Comes now, pursuant to Rule 1513, Appellant, Aggrieved Party, Conusant, VERONICA A HANNEVIG, Sui Juris, hereby submitting her timely motion In Forma Pauperis for consideration of the “Petition for Review” that she had previously appealed to the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on August 22, 2006. It is Appellant’s understanding that said petition, certified from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas record on August 21, 2006, is now included in the docket as captioned (1654 MDA 2006). TR-0000860-06 is included, as an appendage to the controversy that, although settled by default in Conusant’s common law, non-commercial jurisdiction wherein perjury is prohibited, remains unresolved within the various Commonwealth of Pennsylvania fictitious commercial jurisdictions.

1. Upon Magistrate Sean P. McGraw’s failure to state legal claims ex rel, quo warranto to my February 13, 2006 inquiry, Appellant, Aggrieved Party, Conusant, VERONICA A HANNEVIG, Sui Juris brought this controversy before the Commonwealth’s commercial courts, subsequent to her Letter Rogatory, as a Claim of Conusance.

2. A Claim of Conusance:

“ . . . is defined to be an intervention by a third person, demanding judicature in the cause against the plaintiff, who has chosen to commence his action out of claimant's court. . . . . 2. It is a question of jurisdiction between the two courts . . . ; and not between the plaintiff and defendant, as in the case of plea to the jurisdiction, and therefore it must be demanded by the party entitled to conusance, or by his representative, and not by the defendant or his attorney. Id. ibid. A plea to the jurisdiction must be pleaded in person, but a claim of conusance may be made by attorney. . . . 3. There are three sorts of conusance. 1. Tentere placita, which does not oust another court of its jurisdiction, but only creates a concurrent one. 2. Cognitio placitorum, when the plea is commenced in one court, of which conusance belongs to another. 3. A conusance of exclusive jurisdiction; as that no other court shall hold pica, &c. Hard. 509 Bac. Ab. Courts, D.” – Bouvier’s

3. Consistent with Rule 1513, Cognitio placitorum Conusant HANNEVIG’s petition for review to the court of common pleas, now accepted by Superior Court, contains a statement of the basis for the jurisdiction of the court; the names of the party seeking review; the name of the government unit and the public officers which made the determination sought to be reviewed; reference to the order or other determination sought to be reviewed; a general statement of the objections to the order or other determination; and a short statement of the relief sought. The statement of objections included subsidiary question fairly comprised therein. It is, and was, not necessary for the petition to include or have annexed thereto a copy of the text, of the order or other determination sought to be reviewed.

4. HANNEVIG anticipated (and did not receive from either Magistrate McGraw, or Judge Vito Geroulo) a fair and unbiased adjudication of the facts presented in accordance with the following precedence:

(a) Miranda v. Arizona. "Where rights secured by the Constitution involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 491

(b) "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v U.S. 230F 486 at 489;

(c) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v Cullen, 481 F 946

(d) "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" (Marbury vs. Madison,5 U.S. (1803));

(e) "An unconstitutional act is not law-, it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed" (Norton vs. Shelby County,118 U.S.425, pg.442);

(f) "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it" (16 AmJur,2nd, Sec 177).

(g) “Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such has been the adjudications of our courts of justice.” And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham's case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin's case.); Cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 2 Otto 542, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875); Church of Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 226, 232 (1892); U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) (There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God); and that class of Authority, infra; Blasphemy; Christianity; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394.

(h) "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642. [Cf. 16A Am.Jur.2d § 270; God] N.B. Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff'd. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831)

(i) "We [Courts] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, that to usurp that which is not given. THE ONE OR THE OTHER WOULD BE TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION." (Also see: U.S. vs

Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, at pg. 406).

(j) "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. . . . The court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." Justice Black

(k) "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson

(l) Terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce. . . . the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 CFR 0.85(l)).

(m) "(I)n our republican forms of government the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people [Private Citizens] of the nation: and the residual sovereignty of each state, not granted [contracted] to any of its functionaries, is in the people [Private Citizens] of the state;" [Emphasis mine] - Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 471 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Page 3096.

(n) “The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.)(1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec.219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

(o) “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.” [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]

(p) “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.” [Aff’d. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 414 (1971); United States v. Singleton, D.C. No. 96-10054-05-FGT, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998);

(q) A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 528 (1935) “First. Two preliminary points are stressed by the government with respect to the appropriate approach to the important questions presented. We are told that the provision of the statute authorizing the adoption of codes must be viewed in the light of the grave national crisis with which Congress was confronted. Undoubtedly, the conditions to which power is addressed are always to be considered when the exercise of power is challenged. Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power. The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the [295 U.S. 495, 529] imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extra constitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment- 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”;

(r) Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-426 (1934) “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions [290 U.S. 398, 426] which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. Thus, the war power of the federal government is not created by the emergency of war, but it is a power given to meet that emergency. It is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme co-operative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties.”;

(s) United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921) “We are of opinion that the court below was clearly right in ruling that the decisions of this court indisputably establish that the mere existence of a state of war could not suspend or change the operation upon the power of Congress of the guaranties and limitations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as to questions such as we are here passing upon.” Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121-127; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 336, 13 S. Sup. Ct. 622; United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U.S. 505, 571, 19 S. Sup. Ct. 25; McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 61, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; [255 U.S. 81, 89] United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 326;1 Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Company, 251 U.S. 146, 156, 40 S. Sup. Ct. 106. “It follows that in testing the operation of the Constitution upon the subject here involved the question of the existence or nonexistence of a state of war becomes negligible, and we put it out of view.”;

(t) Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281 (1866) “The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of men that any of its great provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Government.”;

3. Upon appeal to the court of common pleas, on August 22, 2006, when in the courtroom of Judge Vito Geroulo, rather than answering my question as to how I was perceived by the court (as a “plaintiff” or a “defendant”) Judge Geroulo chose to demonstrate his reply by signaling employed Sheriff Deputies to vicariously assault, search, detain, and shackle me like a ‘fugitive slave’ before bringing me before him without my appeal papers, exhibits, or eyeglasses.

4. The instant matters before this tentere placita court created by this claim of conusance pertains to controversy over ‘jurisdiction’, ‘marketable title’ and ‘absolute ownership’ and is outlined in the brief that was presented to Judge Geroulo and not heard. It is my understanding that the brief was forwarded to your court from the Lackawanna County Clerk of Judicial Records on, or about, September 20, 2006.

5. following is only a synopsis of the full extent of this instant controversy which is detailed in the Petition for Review that was brought before Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas and contained in your file.

6. The questions include, and are not limited to:

(a) Is a “registration plate” the same as a “Flag” at law?

(b) Did Magistrate Sean McGraw have jurisdiction over the subject matter presented to him by the City of Carbondale, James Reed, Dave Fofi, and Joseph Demchak?

(c) Does sufficiency of service of process require a “wet ink” signature?

(d) To what extent does a fictitious person, or entity, have jurisdiction over a person who has absolute marketable title to their property?

(e) Does an owner, issuer, lessor retain ‘absolute ownership’ and unencumbered right to possession of their goods?

(f) Does a filed UCC lien establish a superior claim over a matter in controversy?

(g) At law, Is a non-fictitious person who possess estate or interest required to be licensed by a fictitious entity?

(h) Is the failure of a fiction to rebut a rebuttable affidavit admission of their improper venue and lack of jurisdiction?

(i) Has the 13th Amendment empowered Congress to criminalize noncommercial Americans who choose not to volunteer into commercial servitude?

(j) Is the numbers on the driver license an adhesion contract with an undisclosed commercial foreign entity?

7. Since my appeal to the court of common pleas on August 22, 2006 the following activities are noteworthy:

8. On September 5th The Judicial Conduct Board received my request for an investigation into the court’s behavior as it relates to 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2902(a)(2); Unlawful restraint.

(a) Offense defined.- A person commits an offense if he knowingly:

1. restrains another unlawfully in circumstances exposing him to risk of serious
bodily injury; or

2. holds another in a condition of involuntary servitude. (a) Magistrate Sean McGraw exhibited deliberate indifference to the wrongful acts (criminal conspiracy, criminal trespass, forfeiture of property, involuntary servitude, misrepresentation of the motor vehicle code, collusive actions regarding the theft and receiving of stolen property, (see TR-0000860-06)) of Carbondale Police Officers; James Reed, Dave Fofi, and Joseph Demchak. Magistrate McGraw seems to lack elementary proficiency in matters pertaining to the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions, and jurisdiction, title and ownership.

(b) Court of Common Pleas Judge, Vito Geroulo, exhibited malfeasance with his terroristic threats when he directed Sheriff’s Deputies to assault and bring me before him for my appeal, like a fugitive slave; in handcuffs and leg irons, without my appeal papers and eyeglasses.

9. On September 11, 2006 The Disciplinary Board of The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania received from me a "Complaint Information Form" regarding the behavior of District Attorney, Andrew Jarbola, III, as it relates to collusion, and fraud upon the court; behaviors typically assoicated with corrupt organizations in their exercise of criminal conspiracies and criminal trespass, to wit:

(a) In his August 4, 2006 correspondence re: Commonwealth v Veronica Hannevig, District Attorney, Andrew Jarbola, III, implied that his office was the court of common pleas, and that my “failure to appear” in his office may result in an automatic dismissal of my appeal.

(b) On letterhead dated September 12, 2006 John Francis Dougherty, Disciplinary Counsel, dismissed my complaint stating he had “ . . . found no violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct . . . ” and that such a letter is “generated in the normal course of business of the judicial system in Lackawanna County . . .”

(c) On September 14, 2006 I sought to clarify his letter via e-mail wherein I asked if all the board concurred that Andrew Jarbola “did not violate any Rule of Professional Conduct by failing to address the substantive and fundamental issues of jurisdiction and title.”

(d) On letterhead dated September 14, 2006 Mr. Dougherty stated that he and “the Counsel in Charge of this office; none of the others attorneys you list, presumably taken from the names on our letterhead, had anything to do with consideration of your complaint.”

10. On September 26, 2006 Janet L. Dolan, Director, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, upon failure to respond in her fiduciary duties to my May 22, 2006 request for bona fide “wet ink” documentation of my current “driving record” upon which her stated actions could be taken, mailed to me a “final order of suspension,” in which she included a form, were I to complete would be a “Misstatement of fact . . . a misdemeanor of the third degree, punishable by a fine of up to $2,500.00 and/or imprisonment up to one year (18 PA C.S. Section 4904(b)).

11. Service of the above captioned appeal to Superior Court included Lackawanna County Court Reporter, Kelly-Jo A. Klein. Ms. Klein was ordered to produce, certify and file the transcript, and a copy of the audio cassett tape, of the appellate proceedings she witnessed and recorded in Judge Vito Geroulo’s court on August 22, 2006.

(a) Ms. Klein, in her September 20, 2006 letter (which she mailed on September 26, 2006) states that the audio cassette tape “is not an official record” and implies that she cannot begin transcription of the proceedings unles I send her $120.00.

12. Monetary damages continue to accrue as stated in the Petition to Review submitted on appeal to the court of common pleas, and is now in this file before the superior court.

13. Trespass damages continue to accrue at $10,000 per day as per the “warning” posted on the impounded 1987 Toyota Camry, VIN# JT2SV21E6H3142887, and a metal, un-obscured Title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2, & 3 Civilian American Flag of these united States of America, with the printing "Sovereign, Private Property, Non-Commercial American" that identified an "Exempt Household Automobile" with the recorded lien conspicuously displayed on the Flag by an affixed sticker; 99-cv-2497.

14. Appellant brings this conusant matter Tentere placita at no cost before the common law court of public opinion concurrent with this superior court in forma pauperis to resolve ‘in the interest of justice’ questions of jurisdiction, marketable title and absolute ownership.

15. Conusant believes that this is a matter between the two courts, the noncommercial common law court of public opinion and the commercial Commonwealth courts of Pennsylvania, and NOT the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Appellant.

THEREFORE; Appellant, Aggrieved Party, Conusant, VERONICA A HANNEVIG, Sui Juris, requests that your court find in favor of the common law and that the aforementioned items, her flag and automobile (see, paragraph 13), be immediately returned to her unencumbered by adhesion and unconscionable contracts or agreements, exemplary damages awarded as assessed in the Petition to Review that is found in her file from the lower court, AND that pursuant to Rule 521 you will dutifully “give immediate notice in writing to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania of the existence of a (constitutional) question” regarding the usurpation of noncommercial unaliened Rights into a federal commercial jurisdiction under color of law.

Date: October 3, 2006 Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________
VERONICA A HANNEVIG, Sui Juris
Appellant/Aggrieved Party/Conusant