In Pennsylvania, when a judge (#14) issues a void order, and then issues a subsequent void order based on that first void order (which is void on it’s own failures in addition to it’s relation to the original void order), and then issues a third void order (which again is void on it’s own failures and NOT simply because of the prior void orders),and then has additionally failed to permit/deliberately prevented the properly filed Appeal from being released to the Superior Court for consideration…. (The Appeal was acknowledged by the judge and was being processed when the 3rd void order was issued.)

Judge #14 is removed from the matter.

When enforcement is attempted, and the void-ness is proven during the defendant’s presentation at the hearing – AND the judge (#15) finds he truly DOES lack jurisdiction additionally because of the pending appeal, should it be expected that the judge will rule sua sponte on the void orders, or will he require specific motions to that effect?

This is an actual case. www.work2bdone.com/live



No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: