Superior Court of PA - CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF

The victim of Rule 1.6 injustice will discover a new group when the matter escalates up to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is a group positioned between the litigant and the judiciary. This provides the opportunity for a new kind of corruption - intercept, misdirect and 'play judge'.

When they play judge, they are acting like the absent-minded professor of judges. The level of carelessness is clearly visible.

To maintain confidentiality, Rule 1.6 permits fraud to conceal prior fraud and the Central Legal Staff demonstrate such an extreme disrespect for the facts, the truth and the law that there is no denying the deception - this is not the work of a judge who has been on the bench for years.

PER CURIAM orders are only permitted in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for 'housekeeping' types of issues.

Even when utilized for housekeeping or general scheduling, the Per Curiam Order will include the reference to the relevant Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure.

You file a Motion seeking the decision of the Superior Court regarding issues relative to the Appeal;
and receive a Per Curiam order dismissing or denying that motion,
one sentence,
with no further information,
with no reference to an applicable Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure,
which shows no indication of any review by any judge,
with no signature of a judge,
which ignores every issue in the motion,
without any explanation.

WHY DO THEY THINK THAT YOU ARE SO STUPID THAT YOU WILL NOT NOTICE?
(It is at times like this that my faith in humanity falters.)
It is hard to believe that so many people are working against you. They do not know you. You did not cause the lack of jurisdiction. Every time they fuck up, you lose more. And the system comes down harder on you.

A review of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Law relating to the business operation of the Superior Court fails to show any allowance for a Per Curiam order unless the issue is purely for scheduling or ‘housekeeping.’

Clearly, the motion did not go to any motions judge for review. The Central Legal Staff intercepted and disposed of your motion.

Pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Central Legal Staff may participate in fraudulent actions intended to prevent disclosure which could adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, the Central Legal Staff office, coworkers and themselves.

The Central Legal Staff is not protecting the integrity of the judiciary, by intercepting the document. If they wanted to protect the integrity of the judge, they would make sure the judge had jurisdiction. And every effort is contrary to that task.

At best, the Central Legal Staff is preventing the judge from direct involvement in the action
- by obstructing justice,
- interfering with the administration of the courts,
- denying constitutional rights,
- participating in a conspiracy
- causing continued fraud against the victim,
- Rule 1.6 has usurped the Rule of Law and rights protected by the US Constitution.


The Central Legal Staff are members of the American Bar Association, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and other affiliated organizations.

The Central Legal Staff are compensated for presenting Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs for the ABA and it’s various affiliated organizations.

THE CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF IS POSITIONED TO INTERCEPT...
Where every document must go through the CLS;
the issue has been neglected;
the decision fails to indicate any direct action or review by any judge;
the Motion was not vexatious or frivilous;
Rule 1.6 permits efforts by legal professionals which prevent disclosure of fraud;
an initial action or order lacked jurisdiction and represented a fraud;
CLS members are legal professionals and member of the various Bar Associations and affiliates;
CLS Members are compensated for presenting seminars for the Bar Associations;
When you asked for a signed copy of the document, YOU WERE DENIED.
When requesting the signed document, the clerks responses suggested you were paranoid or crazy;
When you petitioned the court for the signed document, it was ignored.
You have had to sign every copy of every document along with it’s verification and certificate of service.


It's not paranoia. It is a rape of the public trust.

Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy were things which your parents convinced you to believe in which you later found out did not exist. The hopeful litigant had persevered undaunted while experiencing and documenting egregious and inescapable injustice persevering that every level of the courts may not have been undermined and usurped by Rule 1.6.

But, it happened.