The Truth Store II

On May 8, 2006 I filed with the court of common pleas, Lackawanna County, to appeal thirteen (13) criminal convictions pursuant to the Pennsylvania Title 75 Motor Vehicle code.

On August 22nd, while present in the court of common pleas for that appeal, Judge Vito Geroulo announced "Commonwealth vs. Hannevig." To better understand what I was going to be dealing with before I entered his bar, I attempted to clarify with him which case was being tried; the one from the magistrate (wherein I am a "defendant"), or my appeal (where I am a "plaintiff")? The judge, Vito Geroulo, told me I was "wasting" his time.

I asked again, explaining that this appeal was brought to the court as a "Claim of Conusance"/"Claim of Cognizance" wherein it was up to the courts to resolve the controversy, and I wanted to be prepared to enter the court based on how I was being perceived.

Instead of replying to my question, Judge Geroulo said I was in "contempt" and signaled the Sheriff's deputies.

I was handcuffed and taken to a room where I was searched and put in a holding cell. About 5 - 10 minutes later, I was put in leg irons and re-handcuffed, this time, with the belt to hold my hands firmly against my waist and taken back into court for regurgitation of the issues that brought me there from the magistrate's court for the appeal!

Judge Geroulo said I could appeal. I reminded him that the appeal was before him and had not yet been heard. Judge Geroulo refused to hear the enclosed appeal. Here's what's been happening:

1. The Numbers for the Thirteen (13) Dockets originally in controversy; 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, upon submission of a “Notice of Appeal from Summary Criminal Conviction,” given Docket Numbers; 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, and CP-35-SA-0000076-2006.

2. Janet L. Dolan, Director Bureau of Driver Licensing, failed to respond to a May 22, 2006, Certified Mail #70051820000818337944, wherein Fiduciary, Dolan, was asked to provide the “wet ink” “valid” documentation of my contractual obligations with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing that would substantiate the Commonwealth's claim that I had a current “driving record” upon which her actions could be taken.

3. On 7/10/06, knowing the disposition of the 1987 Toyota Camry that was impounded by Officer James Reed on February 1, 2006, was on appeal and the title in controversy, and that he did not rebut my full acceptance of his “Not Guilty” plea, Magistrate Sean P. McGraw participated with City of Carbondale Police Officer Joseph A Demchak, Badge #101, in the issuance, and conviction of Docket No.: TR-0000860-06. A conviction that was predicated on Citation No.: B3206329-0 with the remark in block “62;” “Title request by G & G Towing.”

4. Lackawanna County, District Attorney, Andrew J. Jarbola, III, on August 4, 2006, implied in his letter regarding my appeal that he was a judge when he stated in that letter that the hearing for my appeal would be in his office on August 22, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. and that my failure to appear may result in automatic dismissal of my case by the Court. District Attorney, Jarbola, failed to respond to my August 11, 2006 faxed (570-963-6725) request that he provide to me proof of his implied claim that he qualified as a judge and his court is the court of common pleas for Lackawanna County.

5. Judge, Vito Geroulo, in the court of common pleas, Lackawanna County, on August 22, 2006, had employees of the Sheriff’s Department shackle my wrists and ankles before taking me before the bar to try me again for the “Not Guilty” charges I had already fully accepted.

6. Judge, Vito Geroulo did not allow me to present my petition for review in his court for governmental redress of grievances under the Constitution and Laws of these united States of America and under the Constitutional Charter of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Judge Geroulo’s behavior in court implied misdemeanor offenses consistent with 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2902(2); and the issue of title remains in controversy.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The Judicial Conduct Board's response is for you, the court
of public opinion, to contemplate.

Click HERE for the gist of this, and other, controversies.

R MULL at The Supreme Court Disciplinary Board received my complaint on September 11, 2006, 12:29 pm, LEMOYNE, PA 17043. This is what I sent pursuant to:

E. STATEMENT OF COMPLAINT: (Note: Attach as many additional pages as necessary to fully set forth all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding your complaint).


1. On March 16, 2006 Magistrate Sean P. McGraw, Esquire, District Court 45-3-03, Carbondale, Lackawanna County, in response to my February 13, 2006 ex relatione, quo warranto opportunity to privately resolve a justiciable claim, claim of conusance/claim of cognizance, entered a “NOT GUILTY” plea and the sum of “$.00” for each of thirteen (13) criminal convictions pursuant to the Pennsylvania Title 75 Motor Vehicle code.



2. On April 17, 2006 each of the thirteen (13) Dockets; 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 with the additional request that the title be released and the account closed.


3. On May 1, 2006, contrary to the jurisdictional facts and evidence presented by City of Carbondale Officers Reed and Fofi, Magistrate Sean P. McGraw, Esquire presumed jurisdiction, repudiated his not guilty pleas, and convicted me of twelve of the thirteen aforementioned dockets.


4. On May 8, 2006 I motioned the court for IFP status (enclosed) and filed with the court of common pleas, Lackawanna County, to appeal Magistrate McGraw’s breach of duty and his twelve (12) criminal convictions pursuant to the Pennsylvania Title 75 Motor Vehicle code (enclosed).


5. The Numbers for the Thirteen (13) Dockets originally in controversy; 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, upon submission of a “Notice of Appeal from Summary Criminal Conviction,” given Docket Numbers; 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, and CP-35-SA-0000076-2006. Submitted to each Docket was a copy of the acceptance of Magistrate McGraw, Esquire’s “not guilty” plea.


6. Janet L. Dolan, Director Bureau of Driver Licensing, failed to respond to a May 22, 2006, Certified Mail #70051820000818337944, wherein Fiduciary, Dolan, was asked to provide the “wet ink” “valid” documentation of my contractual obligations with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing that would substantiate the Commonwealth's claim that I had a current “driving record” upon which her actions could be taken. (Copies of these two correspondences are enclosed.)


7. On 7/10/06, knowing the disposition of the 1987 Toyota Camry that was impounded by Officer James Reed on February 1, 2006, was on appeal and the title in controversy, and that he did not rebut my full acceptance of his “Not Guilty” plea, Magistrate Sean P. McGraw participated with City of Carbondale Police Officer Joseph A Demchak, Badge #101, in the issuance, and conviction of Docket No.: TR-0000860-06. A conviction that was predicated on Citation No.: B3206329-0 with the remark in block “62;” “Title request by G & G Towing.” (Thirteen pages attached.)


8. On August 4, 2006, Lackawanna County, District Attorney, Andrew J. Jarbola, III, implied in his letter regarding my appeal that he was a judge, and that his office was the “one court of common pleas” in the Lackawanna County judicial district when he stated in that letter that the hearing for my appeal would be in his office on August 22, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. and that my failure to appear may result in automatic dismissal of my case by the Court. (One page attached.)


9. District Attorney, Jarbola, failed to respond to my August 11, 2006 faxed (570-963-6725) request that he provide to me proof; that he qualified as a judge, that his court is the “one” court of common pleas for Lackawanna County, and that there were (in my case) “exceptions” that would preclude my appeal from being heard by a bona fide court of common pleas judge. (Two pages attached.)


10. On August 22, 2006 the court of common pleas Judge, Vito Geroulo did not allow me to present my appeal. (Eighteen page appeal; claim of conusance/claim of cognizance Petition for Review attached.)


11. On August 22, 2006, without hearing my appeal, court of common pleas Judge, Vito Geroulo, signed Lackawanna County District Attorney Andrew J. Jarbola, Esquire’s, “ORDERED and DECREED” guilt and stated fines for eight (8) of the thirteen (13) repudiated citations.


12. Attorney Andrew J. Jarbola, Esquire’s August 4, 2006 letter to me, and his subsequent August 22, 2006 “ORDER” “IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY”, suggests a treasonable collusive action that precluded my right to appeal the substantive issues that remain in controversy: First and foremost among those substantive issues are fundamental matters of jurisdiction and title. (“ORDER” attached.)


13. District Attorney Andrew J. Jarbola III, Esquire’s actions clearly exceeded the limits of his canons; i.e., “Code of Professional Responsibility,” and in so doing Attorney Jarbola perpetrated fraud upon Judge Vito Geroulo, and the court with conduct so egregious that it interfered with the task of fair and impartial adjudication of the substantive issues brought before it on appeal. District Attorney Jarbola’s violations in this instance is worthy of full investigation by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for such disciplinary actions they shall deem advisable.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
To the right is the letter from District Attorney Jarbola's office.


Below is how the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handled this complaint and the follow-up fax and e-mail inquiry. You, the reader, be the judge. Do our complaints to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania actually reach the members of that Board?

Click HERE for an overview of this, and other, controversies.

Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People
Supreme Court of the United States 1795

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed . 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States

To understand fully the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Articles of Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America, one might study for hours and hours the case of, U.S. v James Daniel Good Real Property, 114 S. Ct. 492, 496m 505D (1993).

It is now well settled that there is no judicial remedy in favor of an individual against a state to compel the performance of a contract, though it is settled that a state can pass no law impairing the obligation of a contract once made (18 Murry v Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 is an instructive case on this subject).

"There is no such thing as power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it; All else is withheld." Jillird v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.

"As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer is bound to know these fundamental rights and priveliges, and must keep within the law at his peril." Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 231 14N.W. (2d) 400 (1944)

"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence,
100 S.Ct 1398 (1980)

Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution." Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen 481 F. 946

A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151.

"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, US 425 p. 442

--
"It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error." American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442.