Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Unnecessarily Discourteous and Disrespectful

Today, I received an envelope from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Office of the Prothonotary.

Inside a letter with a PDF signature of Charles E. O'Connor, Jr., Deputy Prothonotary.

AND

A Per Curiam Order relating to the MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW filed on November 14, 2014.

The Per Curiam Order is NOT signed by any judge.

The Per Curiam Order includes a journal number.

The Per Curiam Order is captioned differently than any prior documents.

The Per Curiam Order is Titled 'ORDER OF COURT' instead of "ORDER".

The Per Curiam Order is dated 21st November 2014.

The Motion had been filed on 14th November 2014.

The Motion for the Rule of Law was DENIED.

The decision did not permit 14 days for an answer from Appellee.

Even though the Appellant's Motion was DENIED, the document elaborates
- by chastizing the Appellant with accusations of filing a frivolous motion
- by speculating about the Appellant's dissatisfaction
- by indicating that there is no rule which limits the number of copies which can be time-stamped
- by fabricating a false motive for the Appellant filing the motion
- by fabricating a false ultimate motive for the Appellant filing the motion
- by accusing the Appellant of filing frivolous appeals and motions
- by threatening to financially sanction the Appellant

Appellant's Motion was filed with the court to address a false statement by the Prothonotary clerk, and a refusal to act which could best be described as arbitrary, unnecessarily discourteous and disrespectful.

When the clerk refused the request to time stamp additional copies on November 7, 2014, there was no further discussion or question from Appellant.

An Appellant is without recourse to address spontaneous misinformation by a clerk at the Prothonotary even where it affects paperwork filed in the course of the litigation/appeal.

The filed response, attributed to the Court and unsigned, demonstrates a level of disdain and contempt for litigants, while intimidating and threatening adverse future decisions.

* THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CANONS ARE CLEARLY NOT THE ACTIONS OF A JUDGE *

The Motion did not speculate on any real or imagined motivation for the clerk's discourtesy, disrespect and false statement.

The Motion did not seek to diminish, attack, threaten or intimidate the clerk.

---

So who is writing these documents? ... pretending to be a judge? ... committing fraud? ... threatening a litigant?

Could it be the same PEOPLE who failed to send notices about the scheduling of the Panel?

Could it be the same PEOPLE who have neglected and avoided every opportunity to address the defective and void order EVEN THOUGH THE PROCEDURAL ERROR (AKA DEFECTIVE AND VOID) IS DOCUMENTED IN EVERY FILING BY THE APPELLANT and has been presented in every hearing with exhibits and documentation all supported by the court record.

The lawyers at Angst & Angst never presented any evidence at the hearing in support of jurisdiction.

Judge Carluccio failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in her opinion.

Judge Page failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in his opinion..

The lawyers at Zarwin, Baum, Devito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, P.C. never presented any evidence at the hearing in support of jurisdiction.

Judge Weilheimer failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in her opinion.