An Explanation of Why Claudia is on an Incommunicado Vacation:

   Before any “urban legends” can get started, here is the actual story of how Claudia happened upon a prison experience.

   Sometime around the middle of 2007, Claudia was contacted by a Canadian fellow; we’ll call him ‘John’, who was interested in using the International Claim in Admiralty, Administrative Remedy (hereinafter, “AR”) with regard to a Constructive Discharge claim he had against his former employer, a large multi-national corporation, headquartered in Texas, Dresser, Inc. All the files were sent to him and he developed and executed them, sending them to Claudia for serving to the Respondents under Notary Certificate of Service. The process took a few months to complete, during which time Dresser personnel did not respond to or rebut any of the claims made in the A.R. Just prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Dishonor, Claudia and John received a very abusive, intimidating and threatening letter from Dresser’s Texas attorney, Joseph Little, demanding that an Agreement be signed by both John and Claudia, stating that neither one of them would file a commercial lien against Dresser. Claudia wrote a polite letter back to Mr. Little explaining that the A.R. is a private process between the parties addressed and no third party can intervene. The response that came back to Claudia said words to the effect that, “You don’t understand. If you don’t sign the Agreement, I’ll be coming after YOU.’ Naturally, we didn’t sign.

   A few weeks later, Claudia received a Notice from an investigator with the secretary of State’s Office, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is the Office that gives Notaries their commissions. She met with the investigator and all seemed to be well, but some time later, she received Notice of a hearing scheduled for March, 2008. Around the same time, the Bureau of Consumer Protection, a division of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, sent Claudia a Notice that they wanted to investigate her entire business, in detail. Claudia responded back with a Conditional Acceptance for Value for Proof of Claim (CA). It was never answered, so 2 weeks later, she sent the Bureau a Negative Avernment, confirming all the statements she had made in the CA, but that affidavit was not answered either. Instead, the Deputy A.G. sent a subpoena demanding all the information originally requested. Not understanding how a subpoena could be issued when there was no on-going court case, Claudia returned it and sent another CA.

   Meanwhile, court papers arrived with a case caption of “Dresser, Inc. v. Claudia Montelione & [John (name omitted here)], but it was not the usual Complaint and Notice to Defend. Instead, it was a motion for Declaratory Judgment which they somehow got a docket number for and they were looking for the judge to declare the A.R. to be legally invalid.

   Of the 3-Sided attack, the A.G.’s was the worst. A Notice arrived in late February 2008, that there would be a hearing on the A.G.’s Motion for Sanctions which was based upon the subpoena previously issued. Once again, a court case had been opened with a mere Motion and no Complaint or Notice to Defend. The hearing was scheduled for March 4^th in Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania. It turned out to be little more than an intimidation and threat session with the Deputy A.G. sitting silent throughout the proceeding while the judge prosecuted the case from the bench.

   “Do you have an Oath of Office on file?” Claudia asked the judge. “Yes” replied Judge Clark. “And will you rule in occordance with your oath of office?” she inquired. “Yes, I will.” was the response. Not more than 10 minutes later, Judge Clark was enticing Claudia to waive her 5^th Amendment protected Right to not have to incriminate herself by saying, “Why don’t you just give the A.G. what he wants and all of this will be over?”

   At one point, when Claudia asked what happened to due process of law, the judge had 2 Sherriff’s deputies come up behind Claudia and just stand there. Whenever she would ask something Judge Clark didn’t want to deal with, like “How could a subpoena be issued when there is no on-going court case?”, he would speak over her, drowning her out. That hearing ended with the judge ordering Claudia to answer all of the A.G.’s subpoena under penalty of perjury within 10 days or face another hearing and subsequent incarceration.

   In order to close the whole case down, Claudia relied upon her training as Law Merchant and set up a Private Discharging and Indemnity bond with the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and then had a notary public tender a Bonded Promissory Note to the court in Dauphin County for her. Not wanting to re-contract with the court or put herself under its jurisdiction, Claudia issued Orders from her own private court confirming hat the case had been settled and closed and therefore, the next hearing date set for March 28 was superfluous. The personnel in the Prothonotary’s Office at the courthouse had been instructed to file the documents into the Foreign Judgments folder so they would not be mistaken to be a continuation of the just-closed case. Judge Clark dishonored the BPN, the Notary’s Due Presentment Under Notary Seal (he said it was ‘legally invalid’) and issued a bench warrant.

   In the lae afternoon of March 29^th, Claudia was arrested at her home and brought to the Dauphin County Prison. A few days later, a state trooper served her with a Criminal Complaint for tampering with public records and retaliation against a prosecutor and judicial official. Within the Affidavit of Probably Cause was a paragraph about the A. R. being offered on Claudia’s website which was taken directly from the Motion for Declaratory Judgment in the Dresser suit. The A.R. had not been mentioned at all in the A.G.’s court action so it was clear evidence of a conspiracy.

   The Affidavit of Probable Cause went on to say that the BPN that had been tendered to the court was a “judgment” in retaliation against the A.G., the Deputy A.G. and the judge. The interesting thing is, the original BPN was sent to the Prothonotary for processing since it is believed that it is the Prothonotary/Clerk of Court who handles the bonds for the court. However, Prothonotary Farina was never mentioned in the Affidavit of Probable Cause even though he was one of the fiduciaries on the BPN.

            To be continued …

home