Custom Search
Pennsylvania Takes a 'Political Prisoner'?
Claudia Montelione, a “notary public” in Lackawanna County was arrested and incarcerated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on March 28, 2008. She remains in jail without bail.
Her “crime”?
She refused to waive her constitutional protections upon the demand of the Attorney General for an unlawful search and seizure of records. The Attorney General employed its “pit-bull” agency, the Bureau of Consumer Protection” to threaten, harass, oppress and terrorize Ms. Montelione.
Her trial?
NONE!
Ms. Montelione was brought before a Dauphin County court where she was denied the assistance of counsel, and was brow-beaten and threatened by the court. She made a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction where she was denied “due process of law” and equal protection of law by Dauphin County judge Lawrence F. Clark, who subsequently issued an arrest warrant for civil contempt when Ms. Montelione failed to comply with an unlawful subpoena, demanding her due process right to be served with a “complaint” submitted by a consumer/client of her notary business or her printing business, THE PENNY PINCHER PRESS.
Dauphin County failed to provide evidence that it has jurisdiction to hear any matter involving Ms. Montelione, acting therefore without jurisdiction. Under Pennsylvania law, any legal action may only be commenced by filing a “complaint” or a “writ of summons” in the county where the alleged “cause of action arose”. PaRCP 1006 and 1007. A subordinate agency for the Attorney General filed a Motion for Sanctions in Dauphin rather than respond to defendant’s rightful demand to identify or produce a “complaint” by a customer. See Dauphin County docket # 2008-CV-00875-EQ. to confirm this report.
The Commonwealth failed to comply with either of these “Rules” in violation of defendant’s rights.
Acting without jurisdiction, Judge Clark convicted her of “contempt of court” while she was without the assistance of counsel, contrary to settled Pennsylvania Law.
This case involves international intrigue and “political” intimidation.
Claudia Montelione provided notary services to a Canadian national which drew the wrath of a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the multi-national conglomerate. James Little, an attorney for Dresser, Inc, a Texas-based subsidiary of Halliburton threatened Ms. Montelione with prosecution for “practicing law without a license”. Dresser, Inc. is a ‘sister’ company of DI Canada, the Canadian subsidiary.
The Attorney General for Pennsylvania capitulated to Dresser, and initiated the unlawful action against a public officer commissioned in Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State joined with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Consumer Protection and initiated a second “action” for the purpose of rescinding her commission as a Notary Public. The attorney for the Secretary of State stated in a hearing on March 10, 2008, that they were going to “make an example” of Ms. Montelione.
This corrupt legal travesty gets better. While in prison, someone, presumably judge Clark, brought criminal charges against Ms. Montelione. She was brought before a District Court judge who continued the action.
During this period, Ms. Montelione’s daughter filed a Petition in Federal Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In a display of judicial cooperation, federal judge Sylvia H. Rambo “dismissed” the petition on the grounds that Montelione’s daughter lacks standing to bring a habeas corpus action.
Perhaps judge Rambo, and other federal judges should study the Constitution.
Judge Rambo should be asked to explain how a PRISONER, held without bail and without visits by family and friends can be expected to prepare a habeas action when she has been deprived of communication with friends and family. Only “members of the bar” were permitted to see her.
The legal doctrine of habeas corpus dates back to the Magna Carta, and recognizes that a writ of habeas corpus may be filed by anyone on behalf of a prisoner. The Middle District of the 3rd Circuit holds differently. Sylvia Rambo acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution thought that habeas corpus was so important that it appears in the text / body of the Constitution, not as an added thought / amendment. One can argue that the framers intended to protect against “political prisoners” under our law.
Ms. Montelione would appreciate a media investigation into the proceedings brought against her in Dauphin County by the Bureau of Consumer Protection (Office of Attorney General), by the Secretary of State (to make an example out of her) and in the District Court where her right to freedom was trampled by Sylvia H. Rambo.
Ms. Montelione has been separated from her family for more than 7 weeks, and by 130 miles, making it more difficult for visitors, including her disabled daughter for whom she is the primary [sole] caregiver.
This prosecution of Ms. Montelione is a travesty of justice. The actions by the State transcends reprehensible. Such actions are despicable!
From: remelin@suddenlink.net