It’s high time we question the Constitution of the United States’ 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 doesn’t 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 Attorneys’ 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 don’t, 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. Pratters’ 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?
I’d 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? I’m 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 “42 U.S.C. § 1983” shows a clear deception.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice should have acted cordially to protect the judges and everyone’s constitutional rights. (“42 U.S.C. § 1983”). Every person who, “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage”
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 “18 pa. C.S. Section 4904’, 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 government’s failure is very probable and certainly possible as this isn’t the first time such a thing will be happening. “Forty acres and a mule,” 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. “Forty acres and a mule,” 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 ac”t. 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 Attorney’s Office 100 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Approval was made on April 12, 2017. “Section 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.C’s 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 there’s 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.
‒ 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 2013 at the time of sale with the use of 8 N Westview Avenue, April 12, 2017 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.
Appellate Courts Phila Reviews
It’s high time we question the Constitution of the United States’ 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 doesn’t 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 Attorneys’ 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 don’t, 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. Pratters’ 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?
I’d 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? I’m 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 “42 U.S.C. § 1983” shows a clear deception.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice should have acted cordially to protect the judges and everyone’s constitutional rights. (“42 U.S.C. § 1983”). Every person who, “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage”
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 “18 pa. C.S. Section 4904’, 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 government’s failure is very probable and certainly possible as this isn’t the first time such a thing will be happening. “Forty acres and a mule,” 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. “Forty acres and a mule,” 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 ac”t. 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 Attorney’s Office 100 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Approval was made on April 12, 2017. “Section 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.C’s 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 there’s 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.
‒ 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 2013 at the time of sale with the use of 8 N Westview Avenue, April 12, 2017 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.