Itu2019s high time we question the Constitution of the United Statesu2019 courts and its entire justice system. The court had construed to what I said; making a statement from a story that holds certain facts. Full docket text for document 29: Statement by PRO SE PLFF PETER SAUERS, re: Certain Facts. (kw, ) —- Date 2 7 2018 The Columbo technique indicates that, Michael E. Peters of Eastburn and Gray P.C were conducting fraudulent activities and corruption, by removing documents from one court to another; telling Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter that he doesnu2019t see the need for them to be presented at the court. He insisted that he has the right to decide whether to bring documents forward or not. Law Offices of Robert P. Hoopes to John A. Van Luvanee of Eastburn and Gray P.C. in a document dated August 26, 2015, reveals an elaborate cover-up of real facts of their attempt to take away our constitutional rights. Removing and re-creating new documents is the specialty of Attorneysu2019 representing Eastburn and Gray P.C at this point in my case which the law clearly does not support. Fresh documents were prepared to back up the facts they needed to match there actions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in Philadelphia failed us all despite the fact that they made us believe that they the situation very much under control but they donu2019t, as well as the Federal judges and its entire justice system. They all failed us. The Federal Bureau of Investigation actually made reasonable efforts by stating they are in possession of all documents involved. Honorable Judge Thomas Ignatius Vanaskie, Honorable Judge Robert E. Cowen, and Honorable Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard concurred with Honorable Judge Gene E.K. Pratters. But will they stand by her to uphold justice at this point? Honorable Gene E.K. Pratters has done her part by confirming that, there are certain facts to the statement I wrote. My Constitutional rights were clearly taken as I targeted one huge fact out of many. Honorable Judge Gene E.K. Prattersu2019 Order pre-dates the final decision. How can any judge support an Order that pre-dates the decisions in question, if not to be a fortune teller rather than a judge? Iu2019d like to hear what the three Judges named from the appellant court have to say about this. How can this ever be possible in a lawful country? Iu2019m likewise interested in the names of all the other judges that would follow suit that concurred with this action. An order predating final ruling is a clear violation of my constitutional rights and u201c42 U.S.C. u00a7 1983u201d shows a clear deception. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice should have acted cordially to protect the judges and everyoneu2019s constitutional rights. (u201c42 U.S.C. u00a7 1983u201d). Every person who, u201cunder color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usageu201d As officers of the court, and in other not to have a showoff like Pontius Pilot, they should be able to answer my questions on how someone could take action prior to the act, in which the law clearly does not support. Kindly note my opinion as Honorable Gene E.K. Pratters has done; call it what you like. Maybe a Statement or an Opinion by PRO-SE PLFF PETER SAUERS. Re: Certain Facts Verification PETER SAUERS ADA Pro-se verifies that he is one for himself in this action, and that the statements made in the forgoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of law u201c18 pa. C.S. Section 4904u2019, relating to unsworn, falsification to authorities. Appendix ADA Pro se Statement As stated to Gene E.K. Pratters many times, I am mentally challenged. My opportunity to live the good life was very fragile and this is not victimless not in the least. The way I see it, the Federal governmentu2019s failure is very probable and certainly possible as this isnu2019t the first time such a thing will be happening. u201cForty acres and a mule,u201d only this times, it is the mentally challenged middle class vs. the rich, powerful, influential, corrupt men and women. I can only pray for justice. u201cForty acres and a mule,u201d refers to promises not kept by are Federal government agencies and a prejudice to the challenged in my seeing. My First Amendment rights as to the United States Constitution to add my opinion docket to uphold life, liberty and my pursuit for happiness. Fresh documents were made and transferred while still in front of Honorable Judge Gene E.K. Pratters. The proof is in the transcripts, deeds and other documents. Constitution of the United States and State Constitution: as to my rights to them. Section 1002-A. Jurisdiction and Venue on Appeal; Time for Appeal. All appeals from all land use decisions rendered pursuant to Article IX shall be taken to the court of common pleas of the judicial district wherein the land is located and shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the decision as provided in 42 Pa.C.S. 5572 (relating to time of entry of order) or, in the case of a deemed decision, within 30 days after the date upon which notice of said deemed decision is given as set forth in section 908(9) of this acu201dt. DONE Case # 2015-05735 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No one is above law? I had to preserve my rights within the law, so please look into the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS “Appeals Officer Karen A. Diaz” MOTIONDE NOVO Case No: 2015-05753 Attorney for the Defendant Michael E. Peters Appeals Officer Karen A. Diaz Chief Deputy District Attorney District Attorneyu2019s Office 100 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Approval was made on April 12, 2017. u201cSection 1002-A: Jurisdiction and Venue on Appeal. No Notice to date for actions taken by Lower Southampton Board of Supervisors. Tax Map Parcel Nos. 21-003-114 and 21-003-111: Filed within 30 days. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice should have this on their radar. Because the Department of Justice told me I should sit outside of the DA`s office and demand that they respond to my MOTION DE NOVO because of the law Section 1002-A. Jurisdiction and Venue on Appeal; Time for Appeal. The Chronological order of events Ordered THAT DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET NO. 9) IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCKET NO. 8) IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING STATISTICS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 1213/16/. 12/15/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(rab, On the April 12, 2017, approval was made, passed and voted on by Township officials without any legal notification to the residence required by law. Fresh documents were made as needed outside the law. Eastburn and Gray P.Cu2019s Attorneys, Township Officials and the developers would all have been involved in the making documents that show a conflict. A private property was taken for public use for private developers. Just look to 8 N, Westview Ave on to 531 West Street Rd. and you will see what we are talking about. Chronological order of events, documents, dates shows fraudulent activities and corruption Prejudgments were made by officers of the court in my case thereu2019s no other way to articulate this to the chronological order of events and actions. Conducting fraudulent activities and corruption, could bring ones not involved with deception to the courts. u2018 531 W. Street Road, a 48-unit townhouse development near Westview Avenue, received preliminary and final plan approval Aug. 12, 2015. The deal was made 2018 at the time of sale with the use of 8 N Westview Avenue, April 12, 2019 with re made documents hidden from the residence. Connecticut v. Doehr Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of a defendant’s real property upon the filing of an action, without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a requirement that the plaintiff post a bond, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prejudgment writ of attachment A prejudgment writ of attachment may be ordered in a legal action where a plaintiff has demonstrated meritorious allegations, fraud in the underlying action, or that defendant may attempt to dispose of or hide assets from the court. Posted on line.
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Dr. Leslie Rainaldi. I offer a broad base of experience helping adults, couples, and
Today we had a service tech come to our house to look into an AC issue. The technician told me, “your AC compressor is failing. I put a
This “company” has many “mining webpages” all under a slightly different name . | this one is , bitminer.io | it
www.autoshack.com/returns-policy | I ordered a front and back set that included: front brakes and brake rotors and back brakes and brake
I am a warm, compassionate, caring therapist who works with all type of people. You will always be treated with respect and dignity. I
He wrote me a check for 600.00 and it was bad. Now he is out of Business. The Guy says He is a Man of God when we first met. I have
Got a voice mail from someone (with a non-American accent) stating he is representing a Justin Brown Law firm. Claims there has been a law
I have been calling CoolHandle about my refund since March 17, 2018 to present. I have only spoken to the support team. I have not spoken
This complaint and/or review was posted on HolySmoke.org on 10:55 am, February 02, 2021 (CST) and is a permanent record located at: https://www.holysmoke.org/scam/appellate-courts-phila/.
The reviews & complaints posted about Appellate Courts Phila. was submitted by a member or guest on this website. Any and all opinions and information are published as is. HolySmoke.org does not edit or remove any aspect of the report and is simply a consumer grievance free-speech platform. As such, HolySmoke.org cannot be held liable for the complaints and reviews posted about Appellate Courts Phila. as per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.