Clinton County Judicial Chicanery and Police Corruption
The Honorable Frank Mills, Magisterial District Judge
Magisterial District Court 25-3-03
130 Third Street
Renovo, PA, 17764
January 4, 2011
Subject: Your “no contact” Order of November 16, 2010 (Ref: (1)).
Ref: (1) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Jude Rene Montarsi 231-10 / 102924
Preliminary Hearing, November 16, 2010
Dear Mr. Mills:
While the main issue I want to address to you concerns your “no contact order,” I must digress a moment to take issue with your conclusion that the Commonwealth met its burden.
In reference to (Ref 1) above, at the conclusion of the proceeding, you stated, “I feel the Commonwealth in this case has met its burden.” Feeling is not you’re not paid to feel.
Near the conclusion of the hearing, District Attorney Salisbury stated: “Your Honor, the testimony is that she looked up, [with an] unobstructed view, 30 feet away, saw him put his hands on the gate and push it into her car. You can have either… I believe it’s absolutely intentional. We have the damage.” In the next breath, Salisbury commented, “…because we are at a preliminary hearing, this is not a matter of innocence or guilt. It’s whether a crime was committed. I think we’ve more than met our burden in this case.”
So you apparently accepted Salisbury’s fallacious reasoning that because damage occurred, it automatically followed as a result of a criminal act, calls into question your reputation as an impartial magistrate and perhaps even your motives for advancing this case against me.
The charge of “criminal mischief” against me did not result from a “private criminal complaint” filed by Tina Myers. Rather, it resulted from a “police criminal complaint” brought by PFC Kristin Sager and witnessed by her colleague, CPL Litzelman. Litzelman admitted me on the phone on August 31, 2010 that he took photos and assessed the “alleged” damage to the Myers’ vehicle. It seems to me I should have been afforded the opportunity to examine these officers before you jumped to your hasty conclusion that a “crime” occurred on July 27, 2010 as a result of damage to vehicle. So what testimony did they provide when they were mysteriously absent from my preliminary hearing (after the hearing date was changed twice in order to accommodate their schedules) that led you to conclude that Salisbury met his burden?
I have no criminal record and I have never sued anyone in civil court. But I am convinced beyond doubt that the Clinton County Judiciary—including the District Attorney—operates as a near-criminal enterprise. I have witnessed them breaking laws they have sworn to uphold and displaying a flagrant disregard for professional ethics. Now it seems, they are engaged in corrupting certain members of the city police force. Therefore, I understand completely why you and Mr. Salisbury have shielded Officers Sager and Litzelman from my right to cross-examine them in my preliminary hearing. By advancing this frivolous case, you may well have opened up a Pandora’s Box, leading to the possibility of a grand jury investigation into the growing concerns about public corruption in Clinton County and a federal civil rights lawsuit.
On the morning of November 17, 2010 I received a call from Attorney Boyle’s office to report to District Magistrate Joseph L. Saunders’ office to meet with an attorney from his staff. Mr. Boyle’s office informed me that I had to sign some papers pertaining to the bail. Mr. Boyle’s staff asked of Judge Saunders’ staff the reason why an attorney from Mr. Boyle’s office had to be present in Lock Haven. I don’t know the name of the staff-member involved in that communication from Mr. Saunders’ office, but, Attorney Boyle’s staff and the attorney who came from Harrisburg informed me that the person in Mr. Saunders’ office “refused” to provide a reason to Mr. Boyle’s office as to why the attorney’s presence was necessary.
When Mr. Boyle’s colleague arrived at Mr. Saunders’ office, she was still uninformed about the reason for her having to re-arrange her agenda and drive round trip from Harrisburg—using up five hours of her time. It turns out that it was solely to witness my signature on one form! Anyone could have witnessed my signature on that form! Five hours of that attorney’s time was wasted and billable to me—which in turn depleted the remaining assets in my account for my legal defense with Mr. Boyle’s firm.
Whether you were duped by your supervisors Williamson & Miller, Inc. (and that extends to include Salisbury) or that you simply chose to collude in this fraud, you have nevertheless involved yourself by advancing this case of malicious prosecution against me and have permitted your supervisors and the D.A. to continue with their years of barratry they have been inflicting on me. By the way, I got it from a reliable local county government source—a month before the preliminary hearing—that my case “is already decided” and that “I lost.”
Now I would like to shift your attention to the matter of the “no contact order” that you issued on November 16, 2010.
When you asked about setting bail, District Attorney Salisbury responded, “Your Honor, just simply that [a] no contact provision between the victim [notice the absence of the modifier “alleged”] and her husband…John—with the Defendant. I will instruct them that it will be reciprocal.” Mr. Boyle then said to you, “I guess our concern with that, Your Honor, since they’re next door neighbors, they’re going to see each other. By no contact, I assume that means no verbal, no physical contact.” And you said, “Right.”
On New Year’s Eve 2010, I hired new legal counsel to assist me in my defense of the case of criminal mischief that you have advanced. My new attorney, Mr. Holmes, directed me to provide him with some information to assist in his preparation of my defense. As the “alleged” criminal mischief of July 27, 2010 took place on my property, near the property of Tina and John Myers, it is important for me to have a visual aid—a panoramic photographic view—of the properties in order to best explain my information to Mr. Holmes.
A little before 1:00 PM on January 3, 2011, I went to my patio behind my house, set up a ladder and took some photographs of the area where there are fences and the driveway the Myers use are located, where the “alleged” criminal mischief occurred. I then climbed to the roof where I took a few panoramic shots of the yard area. When I finished, I looked down and I saw Tina Myers leering—LEERING—at me from her yard. Normally, I would have not bothered to pay attention. However, she kept leering at me and at one point, pulled up a camera to her face aiming it directly at me and presumably, she photographed me.
In view of your “no contact” Order, which Mr. Salisbury qualified with the term “reciprocal,” I decided to snap a photo of Myers with her camera aimed directly at me at approximately 1:03 PM—Refer to Enclosure (1)—to demonstrate to you, the contempt with which Tina Myers has openly displayed for your “no contact” order!
BAIL RELEASE CONDITIONS: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. JUDE RENE MONTARSI
"Release Conditions: Defendant may not have any contact or communication whatsever with the victim, Tina Myers and John Myers."
My dictionary gives as a synonym for the noun “contact,” the word “communication.” By definition then, “to contact” is “to communicate.”
Harass is a transitive English verb that is derived from the French, harrasser, which is further derived from Middle French, meaning “to set or sic a dog upon,” further derived from the Old French, hare, used as an interjection “to incite dogs to attack.”
Your order apparently gives the “alleged” victim, Tina Myers a loophole to use non-verbal communication as a means to continue her harassment of me--on behalf of your supervisors and Mr. Salisbury. You must know that her sister was once married to Judge Miller’s brother. So the clever use of the word “reciprocal” by Mr. Salisbury, is just more evidence of the verbal chicanery being used to mask the improper motives that lie underneath your advancement of this case of malicious prosecution against me because I filed formal complaints against Williamson & Miller, Inc. with the JCB, ODC, and AG’s Office. Both you and I know well, that were I to pull such a prank, as did Tina Myers on January 3rd and had violated your “no contact order,” I’d be slapped with a contempt of court citation and fined and maybe even jailed!
In short, the essence of communication is intention and every act of communication, no matter what medium or how small, involves a form of premeditation. When Tina Myers stood leering at me from her yard on January 3rd and then put a camera to her face and pointed it at me, she was communicating something and it was premeditated! What do you think her intention was for this non-verbal communication—contact that you ordered not to take place?
Tina Myers had no legitimate reason to communicate with me. Her communication is just one more event in a series of harassing acts—often assisted by members of the City of Lock Haven Police Force—the latest one involving Lock Haven Police Officer Keith Kibler in early October 2010 in which she and Officer Kibler attempted to intimidate two of my witnesses for the upcoming trial.
To reiterate, while I do not agree with your findings at the preliminary hearing, I must emphasize that I respect your office and do inform you that I have adhered to your “no contact order.” But, on January 3, 2011, only for the legitimate purpose of collecting information to discuss with my attorney so that I can defend myself against the false charge of “criminal mischief” that occurred on July 27, 2010, while on my roof, I was AGAIN subjected to a round of harassment from Tina Myers—this time in direct violation of your “no contact order.”
The official definition of the word “communicates” as it occurs in Pennsylvania’s Criminal Code under the entry for 18 § 2709. Harassment, is defined in this way: "Communicates. Conveys a message without intent of legitimate communication…by…nonverbal…means…” It also defines “course of conduct” as a “pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct.” Your loophole should not be allowed to stand and you should personally see that Tina Myers is cited for “contempt.”
Pennsylvania’s Criminal Code “§ 2709.1. Stalking. (a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of stalking when the person…(2) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another person under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate …an intent…to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person. (b) Venue.-- (1) An offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the communication or communications were made or at the place where the communication or communications were received.”
On December 20, 2011, when I was being arraigned by your supervisor, Judge Williamson, he dispensed to me from his font of lawyerly wisdom, this piece of unsolicited advice: He advised me to get a lawyer “who knows what he is doing.” Soon, others involved in this case may need their own lawyers who had better have expertise in criminal defense and federal civil rights litigation.
Sincerely,
Jude René Montarsi
574 South Fairview Street
Lock Haven, PA 17745
Cc:
(1) Judicial Conduct Board
(2) Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(3) M. Carlson, Special Agent, Bureau of Criminal Investigations, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via email
(4) R. Drawbaugh, Special Agent, Public Corruptions Unit, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via email
(5) Dennis Boyle, Esquire via email
(6) Bart W. Holmes, Esquire via email
(7) Richard K. Parker via email
(8) www.MontarsiBlog.com
Enclosure. One photograph.
Magisterial District Court 25-3-03
130 Third Street
Renovo, PA, 17764
January 4, 2011
Subject: Your “no contact” Order of November 16, 2010 (Ref: (1)).
Ref: (1) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Jude Rene Montarsi 231-10 / 102924
Preliminary Hearing, November 16, 2010
Dear Mr. Mills:
While the main issue I want to address to you concerns your “no contact order,” I must digress a moment to take issue with your conclusion that the Commonwealth met its burden.
In reference to (Ref 1) above, at the conclusion of the proceeding, you stated, “I feel the Commonwealth in this case has met its burden.” Feeling is not you’re not paid to feel.
Near the conclusion of the hearing, District Attorney Salisbury stated: “Your Honor, the testimony is that she looked up, [with an] unobstructed view, 30 feet away, saw him put his hands on the gate and push it into her car. You can have either… I believe it’s absolutely intentional. We have the damage.” In the next breath, Salisbury commented, “…because we are at a preliminary hearing, this is not a matter of innocence or guilt. It’s whether a crime was committed. I think we’ve more than met our burden in this case.”
So you apparently accepted Salisbury’s fallacious reasoning that because damage occurred, it automatically followed as a result of a criminal act, calls into question your reputation as an impartial magistrate and perhaps even your motives for advancing this case against me.
The charge of “criminal mischief” against me did not result from a “private criminal complaint” filed by Tina Myers. Rather, it resulted from a “police criminal complaint” brought by PFC Kristin Sager and witnessed by her colleague, CPL Litzelman. Litzelman admitted me on the phone on August 31, 2010 that he took photos and assessed the “alleged” damage to the Myers’ vehicle. It seems to me I should have been afforded the opportunity to examine these officers before you jumped to your hasty conclusion that a “crime” occurred on July 27, 2010 as a result of damage to vehicle. So what testimony did they provide when they were mysteriously absent from my preliminary hearing (after the hearing date was changed twice in order to accommodate their schedules) that led you to conclude that Salisbury met his burden?
I have no criminal record and I have never sued anyone in civil court. But I am convinced beyond doubt that the Clinton County Judiciary—including the District Attorney—operates as a near-criminal enterprise. I have witnessed them breaking laws they have sworn to uphold and displaying a flagrant disregard for professional ethics. Now it seems, they are engaged in corrupting certain members of the city police force. Therefore, I understand completely why you and Mr. Salisbury have shielded Officers Sager and Litzelman from my right to cross-examine them in my preliminary hearing. By advancing this frivolous case, you may well have opened up a Pandora’s Box, leading to the possibility of a grand jury investigation into the growing concerns about public corruption in Clinton County and a federal civil rights lawsuit.
On the morning of November 17, 2010 I received a call from Attorney Boyle’s office to report to District Magistrate Joseph L. Saunders’ office to meet with an attorney from his staff. Mr. Boyle’s office informed me that I had to sign some papers pertaining to the bail. Mr. Boyle’s staff asked of Judge Saunders’ staff the reason why an attorney from Mr. Boyle’s office had to be present in Lock Haven. I don’t know the name of the staff-member involved in that communication from Mr. Saunders’ office, but, Attorney Boyle’s staff and the attorney who came from Harrisburg informed me that the person in Mr. Saunders’ office “refused” to provide a reason to Mr. Boyle’s office as to why the attorney’s presence was necessary.
When Mr. Boyle’s colleague arrived at Mr. Saunders’ office, she was still uninformed about the reason for her having to re-arrange her agenda and drive round trip from Harrisburg—using up five hours of her time. It turns out that it was solely to witness my signature on one form! Anyone could have witnessed my signature on that form! Five hours of that attorney’s time was wasted and billable to me—which in turn depleted the remaining assets in my account for my legal defense with Mr. Boyle’s firm.
Whether you were duped by your supervisors Williamson & Miller, Inc. (and that extends to include Salisbury) or that you simply chose to collude in this fraud, you have nevertheless involved yourself by advancing this case of malicious prosecution against me and have permitted your supervisors and the D.A. to continue with their years of barratry they have been inflicting on me. By the way, I got it from a reliable local county government source—a month before the preliminary hearing—that my case “is already decided” and that “I lost.”
Now I would like to shift your attention to the matter of the “no contact order” that you issued on November 16, 2010.
When you asked about setting bail, District Attorney Salisbury responded, “Your Honor, just simply that [a] no contact provision between the victim [notice the absence of the modifier “alleged”] and her husband…John—with the Defendant. I will instruct them that it will be reciprocal.” Mr. Boyle then said to you, “I guess our concern with that, Your Honor, since they’re next door neighbors, they’re going to see each other. By no contact, I assume that means no verbal, no physical contact.” And you said, “Right.”
On New Year’s Eve 2010, I hired new legal counsel to assist me in my defense of the case of criminal mischief that you have advanced. My new attorney, Mr. Holmes, directed me to provide him with some information to assist in his preparation of my defense. As the “alleged” criminal mischief of July 27, 2010 took place on my property, near the property of Tina and John Myers, it is important for me to have a visual aid—a panoramic photographic view—of the properties in order to best explain my information to Mr. Holmes.
A little before 1:00 PM on January 3, 2011, I went to my patio behind my house, set up a ladder and took some photographs of the area where there are fences and the driveway the Myers use are located, where the “alleged” criminal mischief occurred. I then climbed to the roof where I took a few panoramic shots of the yard area. When I finished, I looked down and I saw Tina Myers leering—LEERING—at me from her yard. Normally, I would have not bothered to pay attention. However, she kept leering at me and at one point, pulled up a camera to her face aiming it directly at me and presumably, she photographed me.
In view of your “no contact” Order, which Mr. Salisbury qualified with the term “reciprocal,” I decided to snap a photo of Myers with her camera aimed directly at me at approximately 1:03 PM—Refer to Enclosure (1)—to demonstrate to you, the contempt with which Tina Myers has openly displayed for your “no contact” order!
BAIL RELEASE CONDITIONS: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. JUDE RENE MONTARSI
"Release Conditions: Defendant may not have any contact or communication whatsever with the victim, Tina Myers and John Myers."
My dictionary gives as a synonym for the noun “contact,” the word “communication.” By definition then, “to contact” is “to communicate.”
Harass is a transitive English verb that is derived from the French, harrasser, which is further derived from Middle French, meaning “to set or sic a dog upon,” further derived from the Old French, hare, used as an interjection “to incite dogs to attack.”
Your order apparently gives the “alleged” victim, Tina Myers a loophole to use non-verbal communication as a means to continue her harassment of me--on behalf of your supervisors and Mr. Salisbury. You must know that her sister was once married to Judge Miller’s brother. So the clever use of the word “reciprocal” by Mr. Salisbury, is just more evidence of the verbal chicanery being used to mask the improper motives that lie underneath your advancement of this case of malicious prosecution against me because I filed formal complaints against Williamson & Miller, Inc. with the JCB, ODC, and AG’s Office. Both you and I know well, that were I to pull such a prank, as did Tina Myers on January 3rd and had violated your “no contact order,” I’d be slapped with a contempt of court citation and fined and maybe even jailed!
In short, the essence of communication is intention and every act of communication, no matter what medium or how small, involves a form of premeditation. When Tina Myers stood leering at me from her yard on January 3rd and then put a camera to her face and pointed it at me, she was communicating something and it was premeditated! What do you think her intention was for this non-verbal communication—contact that you ordered not to take place?
Tina Myers had no legitimate reason to communicate with me. Her communication is just one more event in a series of harassing acts—often assisted by members of the City of Lock Haven Police Force—the latest one involving Lock Haven Police Officer Keith Kibler in early October 2010 in which she and Officer Kibler attempted to intimidate two of my witnesses for the upcoming trial.
To reiterate, while I do not agree with your findings at the preliminary hearing, I must emphasize that I respect your office and do inform you that I have adhered to your “no contact order.” But, on January 3, 2011, only for the legitimate purpose of collecting information to discuss with my attorney so that I can defend myself against the false charge of “criminal mischief” that occurred on July 27, 2010, while on my roof, I was AGAIN subjected to a round of harassment from Tina Myers—this time in direct violation of your “no contact order.”
The official definition of the word “communicates” as it occurs in Pennsylvania’s Criminal Code under the entry for 18 § 2709. Harassment, is defined in this way: "Communicates. Conveys a message without intent of legitimate communication…by…nonverbal…means…” It also defines “course of conduct” as a “pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct.” Your loophole should not be allowed to stand and you should personally see that Tina Myers is cited for “contempt.”
Pennsylvania’s Criminal Code “§ 2709.1. Stalking. (a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of stalking when the person…(2) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another person under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate …an intent…to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person. (b) Venue.-- (1) An offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the communication or communications were made or at the place where the communication or communications were received.”
On December 20, 2011, when I was being arraigned by your supervisor, Judge Williamson, he dispensed to me from his font of lawyerly wisdom, this piece of unsolicited advice: He advised me to get a lawyer “who knows what he is doing.” Soon, others involved in this case may need their own lawyers who had better have expertise in criminal defense and federal civil rights litigation.
Sincerely,
Jude René Montarsi
574 South Fairview Street
Lock Haven, PA 17745
Cc:
(1) Judicial Conduct Board
(2) Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(3) M. Carlson, Special Agent, Bureau of Criminal Investigations, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via email
(4) R. Drawbaugh, Special Agent, Public Corruptions Unit, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via email
(5) Dennis Boyle, Esquire via email
(6) Bart W. Holmes, Esquire via email
(7) Richard K. Parker via email
(8) www.MontarsiBlog.com
Enclosure. One photograph.
posted by Jude Rene Montarsi | 10:35 AM
|
0 comments
