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
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
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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
posted by Niki at 7:22 PM
<< Home