Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jean Coulter, Petitioner v. James P. Coulter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Jean Coulter, Pro Se Plaintiff

V.

Case No.:

2:15-cv-00967-CB

James P. Coulter, Defendant

RESPONSE TO THE SUA SPONTE ORDER OF

COURT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE LOCATION

OF PLAINTIFF'S POST OFFICE BOX SHOULD

NOT BE CONSIDERED PROOF OF

PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENCY

I have learned (through internet search 1) of

the Court's determination that it should sua sponte

raise the question of "jurisdiction", based exclusively

on the Court's knowledge of Coulter's "mailing

address". Preliminary to the discussion of my State

of Residence, I think it is appropriate to mention that

a case filed earlier in the Western District (and

approved for consideration in the Federal Courts by

this same Court) which has been assigned to Judge

1

Because I am again traveling (having begun

my trip on August, 19), I have only received mail from

the Butler box, (which I maintain particularly

because the private owners of that service are

especially responsive to requests to forward the mail

to the address where I can be temporarily found).

37a.

So, I have relied on the internet docket to keep me

informed of court events, such as the Court's sua

sponte action on August 18.

Conte, has not received this same "personal

attention" by the Court in that case.

I have mentioned the issue to people in the

Philadelphia area, and although it might sound

"cheeky", it might be helpful to mention it here as

well. The problems that exist between people in

Philadelphia and people in Pittsburgh result, in large

part, from the people in Pittsburgh believing that

Pittsburgh is a real city. The differences between a

"real" Metropolitan Area and the Pittsburgh Area are

vast and arguably might be seen as beneficial to

people who live in either of the areas. But, I believe

this "misunderstanding" by some who have never

experienced life in a genuine Metropolitan Area is

part of the reason for the Court's "issues" with the

case under consideration at this time.

In support of the, Show Cause Order, Coulter

states

When I moved to Philadelphia, I noticed

1.)

significant issues with mail delivery. It had gotten so

bad that I contacted the consumer division of the

Post Office who agreed to send a "Test Letter" to

measure the degree of issues with my Postal Carrier.

They sent a Certified Letter bearing the return

address of their unit of the Postal Service and

tracked the Carrier's handling of the letter. Even

though he was most certainly aware of its reason for

being, he still failed to make any attempt at delivery

of that letter. So, he was "forced" to return to his

route after he checked in, at the end of the day, to

actually make the required delivery attempt (in the

-

-

-

38a.

case of the bulk drop points, merely leaving a

notification in my box). It was at that point that I

decided (2011, I believe), to obtain a Post Office Box

as the only way that I could possibly actually receive

my mail. And, I have maintained that as my mailing

address, for reasons related to my own laziness (since

I am planning another move in the relatively near

future). (Exhibit A)

The Philadelphia Metropolitan Area,

essentially includes Philadelphia County along with

large areas of Montgomery, Delaware and Bucks

Counties in Pennsylvania and Camden County in

New Jersey. My home, is in Camden County. And,

while I don't live in the City of Camden itself, there

are certainly a significant number of residents of

that end of the county, who can, and likely do (at

least on pleasant Spring or Fall days), commute by

foot to their work in the city of Philadelphia. (I

haven't personally walked over the bridge, but I have

spoken with many others, on my New Jersey Transit

bus route, that have.)

And, I like what I expect is the majority

of people in the Metropolitan Philadelphia Area,

have close personal ties to people and businesses on

both sides of the river. Indeed, my move to New

Jersey made me only a few miles farther from most

opf my friends and was less than 20 miles from my

prior residence.

Perhaps an analogy to the situation in

Pittsburgh could better explain why probably the

majority of my friends and in many cases, business

connections, are still based in the western side of the

river which forms the border between Pennsylvania

and New Jersey. In many ways, is is as though I had

lived in Oakland, but did most of my work in the

-

-

39a.

Golden Triangle before I eventually moved to

Cranberry Township. I would maintain friendships

in Oakland and find no reason to change my bank,

because the bank I first contacted in Allegheny

County, also has many convenient branches in Butler

County. And I would still often travel to work in

Downtown Pittsburgh, despite quite legitimately

considering myself a resident of Butler. County.

I do not have a car. This is "typically"

my situation when my residence is in a metropolitan

area. (I have also lived in Boston and Chicago.)

BUT, my driver's license is issued from New Jersey,

and has been since June of last year, when I made

the decision to permanently move out of

Pennsylvania I was that tired of the extreme

corruption of the State and Local Governments. (So,

at this point, I don't think that I am registered to

vote in any state.) My next move, I am hoping, will

be to a location where those who govern will be held

to a higher standard... (Exhibit B)

My "primary care physician" is in New

Jersey, and my Health Insurance reflects my

connections to New Jersey as well. Indeed, my

coverage only extends to the boarders of New Jersey.

(Exhibits B and E) I sometimes buy medications at a

CVS in Camden County, sometimes a Waigreens in

the City of Philadelphia and sometimes wherever I

am traveling at the time.

I have a library card from my local, New

Jersey library, although I have been known to take a

"working vacation" to one of the other libraries in the

metropolitan area, for a change of scenery when I

look up from my computer screen. (Exhibit B)

'I pay Income Taxes in New Jersey. And

had the check paying the taxes "bounce" earlier this

-

-

-

4'.

ft

year, because the old account in Pennsylvania

withdrew the deposit from my account, and placed it

in a bank-owned account, rather than placing a

"hold" on the money as is required by banking

regulations. (Exhibit D)

The world is quickly changing, and the

9.)

concept of "residence" is changing from what it used

to be when banks did not have branches in grocery

stores or ATMs in every convenience store/gas

station. I have "rewards cards" issued by my local

Whole Foods store as part of Whole Foods "test" of

the cards, so I am not certain if they are even

available now in Philadelphia. (I know at one point,

they apparently weren't yet available on that side of

the river, but this is not something I "follow".) Local

movie theaters are quickly closing as "cinemaplexes"

pop up in both the suburban areas as well as the

central city area. People no longer have their first

job out-of-school, be the one they retire from. And

people rarely live in the same house for more than a

few years. I have banked at a branch of my

"Philadelphia" bank, while on a trip to Florida, and

also while visiting in Boston.

-

-

CONCLUSION

I guess what it comes down to, is the fact that

New Jersey thinks that I am a Resident of New

Jersey. My Doctor and my Health Insurance feel the

same way. My friends and most of my business

connections don't care one way or the other. The

Defendant in this case, has argued that I am a New

Jersey Resident, as the basis for asking the case to

be moved to Butler County Courts (where he

resides). It is only this Court, which questions my

State of Residence.

41a.

WHEREFORE, if the Court determines that

my Residence for "Diversity" reasons is still in doubt,

I will ask for an immediate recusal before the

Defendant has had the opportunity to even respond

to the Complaint. This is required as this Court has

shown an unusually strong pattern of bias perhaps

now due to Official Proceedings which have taken

place outside of Pittsburgh.

Respectfully Submitted,

-

Jean Coulter, Pro Se Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

JEAN COULTER,

)

Plaintiff,

) Civil Action No. 15-967

)

V.

) Judge Cathy Bissoo

)

JAMES P. COULTER,

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This Court is required to address questions of

subject matter jurisdiction "sua sponte," i.e., of its

own accord. Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d

72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit, pro se, against

her brother, regarding the disposition of her family's

homestead in Butler County, Pennsylvania. See

generally Compi. (Doc. 1) at ¶ 4(a) (pg. 4 of 22); ¶

4(a)(i) (pg. 5 of 22) and ¶ 44) (pg. 10 of 22). Plaintiff

alleges diversity jurisdiction, stating that her brother

42a.

is a "[riesident" of Pennsylvania and that she is "a

resident of New Jersey." Id. at ¶J 1-2. Plaintiff's

apparent claim of New Jersey citizenship

notwithstanding, the Complaint provides as her

mailing address a location in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. Id. at ¶ 1. Moreover, Plaintiff's

mailing-envelope has a return address in Butler,

Pennsylvania 1; and the Court takes judicial notice of

Plaintiff's previous filings, identifying

Pennsylvania as her place of residence. See, e.g.,

Compl. in Civil Action No. 12-1461 (W.D.

Pa., filed Oct. 10, 2012).

A party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears

the burden of proof, under a preponderanceofthe-evidence standard. McCann v. Newman

Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir.

1 See Doc. 1-3. 2006) (all cited and quoted sources

omitted, now and hereafter, within). Citizenship is

synonymous with domicile, and the domicile of an

individual is her true, fixed and permanent

home and place of habitation. It is the place to which,

whenever she is absent, she has the intention of

returning. Id. In examining assertions of subjective

intent, the Court will consider a number of objective

criteria for the purposes of corroboration. See id.

Those criteria are listed in detail, below. See

discussion infra.

To change domicile, two things are required:

the individual must take up residence in the

new domicile; and she must intend to remain there.

Id. But a domicile once-acquired is presumed to

continue until it is shown to have been changed. This

principle gives rise to a presumption favoring an

established domicile over a new one. McCann at 28687. When the party claiming a new domicile is the

proponent Of federal jurisdiction, she carries two

burdens the burden of production regarding

domicile; and, ultimately, the burden of persuasion

regarding federal jurisdiction. Id. at 289.

Thus far, Plaintiff has carried neither. Her

claimed "residen[ce]" at an unspecified address in

New Jersey is insufficient. See, e.g., Bell v.

Pleasantville Housing Auth., 2011 WL 37961441 *3

(3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2011) (holding same, because

"physical presence at [an] addressof residence is but

only one factor"). Moreover, given that no fewer than

two Pennsylvania addresses appear in Plaintiff's

filings (one in Butler, Pennsylvania and the other in

Philadelphia), and that she previously has identified

Pennsylvania as her place of residence, a

presumption in favor of an established domicile,

Pennsylvania, is applicable.

Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby is ORDERED to

show cause why this case should not be dismissed for

lack of subject matter (diversity) jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is required to submit evidence, including

documentation as appropriate, demonstrating New

Jersey-citizenship.

As the Third Circuit has counseled, persuasive

evidence regarding Plaintiff's domicile includes

(1) the establishment of a home; (2) places of

business or employment; (3) the location of spouse,

family and other significant personal relationships;

(4) membership in organizations; (5) location of

assets, including banking and other financial

accounts; (6) where taxes are paid; (7) where political

rights are exercised; (8) driver's license and vehicle

registration; and (9) any other indicia regarding the

centering of business, domestic, social and civic life.

-

McCann, 458 F.3d at 286; Bell, 2011 WL 3796144 at

*3

Plaintiff's deadline for responding to this

Order to Show Cause is September 4, 2015.

This deadline already has been lengthened to

account for the fact- gathering and submissions

required by this Order.

Only if Plaintiff convinces the Court, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that she is a

citizen Of New Jersey, will her case be permitted to

proceed. Having been made aware of the

relevant factors, moreover, Plaintiff's silence

regarding one or more of them will lead the Court

to conclude that the factor disfavors New Jersey

domicile/citizenship. Furthermore, Plaintiff is

advised that the mandates of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11 apply with equal force to pro se

litigants. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (in

signing court filings, pro se litigant certifies that

factual assertions/denials are supported/warranted

based on evidence); see. also generally Smith

v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 864 F.Supp.2d 1241,

1275 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2012) (among other

things, Rule 11 invokes "[a] duty of candor to the

court," which, if breached, may result in the

imposition of monetary and/or other sanctions).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 18, 2015 s\Cathy Bissoon

Cathy Bissoon

United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. mail):

Jean Coulter

3000 Chestnut Street

P0 Box 8094

45a.

Philadephia, PA 19101

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

JEAN COULTER, Plaintiff

V.

JAMES P. COULTER, Defendant Case No

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, JEAN COULTER,

and files Complaint for Civil Action. Jean Coulter

seeks to recover damages through a Civil Action

against JAMES P. COULTER, Defendant, for the

injuries suffered by Jean Coulter as the result of the

actions taken by James Coulter against Jean, and

her property. In support of her request, Plaintiff

states:

Plaintiff, is JEAN COULTER, with

mailing address:

3000 Chestnut Street, P.O. Box 8094

Philadelphia, PA 19101

412-616-9505

Jean Coulter is a resident of New Jersey.

Party to be sued, JAMES P. COULTER

is a Pennsylvania Residents, with Address of Place of

Business

Dillon, McCandless, King, Coulter and

Graham

128 West Cunningham Street

Butler, PA 16001

724-283-2200.

4..

Amount Plaintiff is claiming TWO

3.)

Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents

($250,000.00) plus expenses to repair damages

attributable to James Coulter's failure to

complete the sale of his share of the property to Jean

Coulter (for which James received payment in full in

2011), removal of plantings in 2013 (some of the

subsequent damages were only recently discovered),

along with punitive damages for this intentional

destruction of the value of the home. This Civil

Action also concerns amounts necessary to repair the

even more recently discovered damages caused by

faulty installation of gutters and/or "gutter guards"

at the front porch of the house (late Fall 2014

discovery). (This unnecessary "maintenance" has

caused significant damages to the soffit, fascia and

roof of the house at those points as well as damages

to the walls, floor and stairs of the house (from water

found to be entering the basement of the house, due

to the damages above).)

Additionally, Jean Coulter is now forced to

seek recovery for injuries related to the second

instance of BURGLARY believed to have again been

committed by Defendant and members of his family.

This time (January 31, 2015 February 1, 2015)

trespassers entered, uninvited and unannounced,

shortly after 11:00 P.M. on the night of Saturday,

January 31, 2015. Their entry was made through

the front door of the house, with use of a key

although Defendant (at the time of the forced entry

in July 2013) claimed to have misplaced the most

recent set of keys he has been provided) and claims

that he therefore was forced to replace a lock

on the side door, in order to permit access for

"necessary" repairs! Trespassers remained in the

-

-

-

-

47a.

house until sometime between 12:11 A.M. and 12:30

A.M. on Monday, February 1, 2015 at which time,

they left the house and re-locked the door.

This new instance of BURGLARY, results in

Jean Coulter's new claims for INVASION OF

PRIVACY and INJURIES RELATED TO CRIMINAL

ACTS (including Burglary and Theft).

-

1332.

Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §

Claims and Facts upon which the

4.)

Claims are based:

COUNT 1Claim BREACH OF CONTRACT

with respect to the sale of James's share of the

property- in the amount of $15,000.00 plus

interest and completion of the paperwork related to

the sale.

Facts upon which the claim is based:

In an email sent on June 6, 2011, James

a.)

Coulter demanded that Jean Coulter either buy his

share of the property in Butler, PA for $25,000.00, or

sell her equal share for the sum of $10,000.00 or

come up with a counter-offer acceptable to James

Coulter. James Coulter threatened if Jean Coulter

did not comply with his demands that he would

empty the house of Jean's belongings and go to court

to have the property "partitioned" and Jean Coulter

would be forced to enter into a bidding war with

strangers:

"Monday, March 14, 2011 12:30 PM

From: "James P. Coulter" <JCoulter@dmkcglaw.com>

-

-

-

A:.

To: "jeanecoulter@yahoo.com"

<jeanecoulter@yahoo.com> . . ."

"... I have to do something with the house.

About a year ago, I offered to sell you my 1/3

interest for $25,000 or purchase your 1/3

interest for $10,000. I would strongly prefer

to buy your interest because I would like to

save the house. That offer still stands.

If you don't want to work on resolving

this, I will not have any choice. I will have to

get into the house to start throwing stuff away

as needed to allow the heating, plumbing and

electrical systems to be repaired. If you want

30-60 days to remove whatever you want from

the home, that is satisfactory...

The emails clearly constitute a

i.)

"contract" between Jean Coulter (buyer) and James

Coulter (seller), the seller has clearly made an "offer"

to sell the property which is identified in the March

email as "604 North McKean St.". This fact is

confirmed both by the fact that the word "offer" is

specifically incorporated into the "contract" email as

well as James's repeated use of the term offer in

subsequent emails as well: "About a year ago, I

offered to sell you my 1/3interest for $25,000"

That offer still stands." (email of Monday, March 4,

2011)

While the email does not list the book and

page where the title to the property is listed, the

Opening paragraph of the email states the street

address of the property, 604 N. McKean St. : "I

received the 2011 spring tax cards for 604 North

McKean St." That first paragraph also indicates that

this is the property for which James Coulter is in

possession of the "tax cards", which James is

..."

49a.

expecting Jean to use when she pays the home's tax

bills. So the fact that the "offer" (Defendant's own

description of the purpose of the document) does not

list the exact details concerning the property, in

technical terms" these details are obviously

understood by both Parties as it is the Family

Home which both Parties "grew up" in. And, this is

only one in a series of "offers" made by Defendant

with respect to this same property.

On June 6, 2011, Defendant

wrote : "You have had 100% control of the house for 6

1/2 years.

It looks like the roof at the rear of the

house is in need of significant repairs" "I would

prefer not to fight with you, but it appears inevitable.

If you want to buy my interest, please make your

offer. If you want to sell your interest, please make

an offer. I have already given you my figures.

Otherwise, when I find the time, I intend to file the

paperwork with the court to Partition the property."

Surely, the totality of the "discussion" of

Defendant's various "offers" to sell, makes it

abundantly clear which property Defendant

has offered to sell and therefore, exactly which

property Jean Coulter purchased on June 8, 2011!

Additionally, neither party has ever asserted that

there exists a difference of opinion about what the

offer covered.

At that time, Jean Coulter first

called James's office and informed his secretary that

Jean was agreeing to purchase James's share of the

house for $25,000.00 (despite James's decision that it

was appropriate to offer only $10,000.00 to buy

Jean's equal share of the property). Jean "followedup" with an email stating very clearly "Jim You

-

...

...

-

50a.

agreed to sell me your share of the hoouse (sic) for

25000 and I am accepting your offer. I will have a

check for 25000 overnighted TOMORROW'

Indeed, on June 9, 2011, in

iv.)

response to Jean Coulter's acceptance ofthe "offer",

James Coulter even admitted that he had made an

"offer"!

Please don't send the check, I won't accept it.

You rejected my offer (which was made

months ago) and which was never renewed.

It is notable that Defendant has never stated when

the offer was rejected. Indeed, it was not until James

began threatening Jean, that Jean even felt that

there was any necessity to respond to James' clearly

unwanted offers of purchase or sale. Defendant also

has never explained what part of his "offer" indicates

and expiration date, or that it was going to expire

upon this supposed occurrence.

V.)

It is self-evident that the

remaining elements of a contract are also present.

a.) The agreement clearly specifies

the dollar amount required to complete either the

purchase or sale "I offered to sell you my 1/3 interest

for $25,000 or purchase your 1/3 interest for

$10,000.".

W

The agreement to purchase is

readily evident in Jean Coulter's response "> Jim You

agreed to sell me your share of the hoouse for 25000

and 1 am accepting your offer I am NOT interested

in your attempts at controlling me. IF YOU

WERENT WILLING TO SELL AT THAT PRICE

YOU SHOULDNT HAVE MADE THE OFFER."

As Jean Coulter made no

c.)

requests for changes to the terms of the agreement

as set for by James, it is clear that there was a

51a.

"meeting of the minds" concerning Jean's purchase of

James's share of the house.

And, while the "offer" is not

signed in cursive, James Coulter's "electronic

signature" is indeed part of the email contract

document. Thus Defendant's claims that the email is

"mere[ly] communications between disgruntled

parties" and therefore it "cannot, under any

circumstance, be found to form a contract" are

clearly disingenuous!

James Coulter previously agreed (in his

email of June 6, 2011) that the house is not part of

the estate which has been "closed" for several

years: "If I was (sic) interested in 'strong arming' you,

I would have left the house in the estate and asked

the Court to Order you to relinquish possession. I

didn't do that ..."

While the property in dispute at this time was

once part of the estate of their mother, the estate was

closed, and the home divided equally among the

siblings, a number of years before James Coulter's

share was purchased by Jean Coulter, and before any

of the damages to the home occurred, which are

claimed in this Civil Action.

Jean Coulter was not particularly

pleased with the terms of James Coulter's offer, but

Jean Coulter obtained a Cashier's Check for

$25,000.00, from a bank in Philadelphia, and sent it

overnight to James Coulter's place of business, to end

the pressures being exerted by James Coulter.

Additionally, Jean Coulter added a hand-written note

to the envelope enclosing the check, stating the

purpose of the check. That document has not been

located, and may be among the items removed from

the home when James and members of James's

-

-

52a.

family broke into the home and riffled through Jean's

files).

Although James Coulter made a clear offer, in

writing, to sell his share of the property for

$25,000.00:

"About a year ago, I offered to sell you my 1/3

interest for $25,000 or purchase your 1/3

interest for $10,000. I would strongly prefer to

buy your interest because I would like to

save the house. That offer still stands."

and accepted a Cashier's Check (for the full amount

of his offer) in full payment for that share, James

Coulter has failed to complete the sale of the

property. This results in James's BREACH OF

CONTRACT of their clear agreement for the sale of

the property by James Coulter, and the purchase of

the property by Jean Coulter.

Jean accepted the inflated price, for the

purpose of stopping James Coulter's harassment and

threats to enter the home and discard Jean's

property. As the harassment has continued, and

valuable property removed (and likely sold), James

should be required to both complete the transfer of

the property which was sold in 2011, as well as

refund the $15,000.0 which James, himself,

calculates as the amount over-paid by Jean which

Jean agreed to pay in order to end James's abuse and

threats but the threats and harassment/thefts

have continued unabated.

Upon learning that Jean Coulter had

sent payment in full for the amount demanded by

James Coulter's prior email, James Coulter

attempted to renege on his offer to sell for the sum of

$25,000.00 and then stated that he was unwilling

to sell at any price and had only been interested in

-

-

-

-

53a.

purchasing Jean Coulter's share. This act of FRAUD,

should result in punitive damages as the inflated

price (for James's share of the house) was paid for

the purpose of ending the harassment and

intimidation by Defendant and James has taken

steps calculated to diminish the value of the home, to

Jean, as well as, perhaps to a lesser extent, the

public.

To date, James Coulter has refused to

f.)

complete the paperwork to finalize the sale of his

share of the house, stating his "legal opinion" that

"legally" his former offer was withdrawn, when

James Coulter suggested that Jean name a price at

which she was willing to sell, despite this withdrawal

never having been stated in the demanding email

and his statements that "If you want to buy my

interest, please make your offer. If you want to sell

your interest, please make an offer. I have already

given you my figures.", which clearly explains that

James was making the clear suggestion that Jean

give a counteroffer, if Jean would not accept James's

previously provided "figures".

However, Jean was not aware that James had

actually refused to complete the sale, and indeed

believed that he was still posturing, as James

retained the check, and it remained valid for

a period of 90 days after it was drawn on the bank's

account.

COUNT 2 a. Claim BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT 2. b. Claim FRAUD

and

COUNT 2.c. Claim PERSONAL INJURIES

resulting from harassment

All three "sub-Counts" are related to monies

withheld from Jean's share of their mother's estate

-

-

-

-

-

54a.

upon closing of the Estate in the amount of

$50,000.00 plus interest and punitive

damages

Facts upon which the claims are made:

The previous averments (a f) are incorporated into

this section where applicable.

g.)

At the time of their mother's death,

James Coulter informed Jean Coulter that he

possessed a Will, signed by their mother that divided

the assets equally, but named only James as the only

executor of the Will. James repeatedly stated that

"they" wanted Jean to purchase the house, and

promised that the sale would be "at a good price",

while demanding that Jean make a commitment to

purchase of the house even though James

repeatedly refused to name the "good price" at which

the house would be sold. That Will was never filed by

James, and indeed, has never been seen by anyone

but James, to the best on my knowledge and belief.

And, it is believed that this FRAUD was perpetrated

for the purpose of placing James in control of the

bank account in order to permit the hiring of

incompetent construction workers (who

"coincidentally" owe James money) and permit

James continuing control over Jean for reasons

known best to James, but believed to be related to

James' relationship with his wife (Susan), who

continues to commit criminal acts against members

of James's family for the stated benefit of Susan's

sisters.

This FRAUD was not known previously, as

Jean did not believe that her brother would lie about

the existence of a Will, which most certainly would

have to be filed at some point.

-

-

-

-

-

At the time of settlement of their

Mother's estate (from which the Parties had become

co-owners of the home upon the "closing" of the

Estate), James Coulter stated that he wanted to have

Jean sign a "Family Settlement Agreement", and

then demanded that Jean unequivocally agree to

sign it, while refusing to provide any details about

the proposed contents of the supposed agreement.

Indeed, it was not until 2015, when Jean went to the

Court's Records Department, to personally see the

documents which had been filed with the Butler

County Court, did Jean learn that her brother,

Defendant James Coulter not only deceived Jean, but

also the court.. His deception of the court occurred

because none of the documents were ever even sent

to Jean, as would be required by the Butler Court.

In the Settlement Agreement, as James

had stated he would do over Jean's clear and

vehement objection, the "agreement" withheld

significant monies, for use repairing the house prior

to sale. Jean Coulter has learned that James Coulter

has utilized the money in that fund, for expenses

that he alone has approved despite the fact that the

Will required that Jean Coulter and Barbara Coulter

serve as executors of the estate and the settlement

papers filed with the Court (at the time of closing of

the estate), made no mention of any change in

persons authorized to handle affairs of the withheld

monies and the remaining "real" asset (the house in

Butler, PA).

While the money in the account now controlled

exclusively came from the estate, the estate was

closed with the Court's acceptance of the filings

introduced by James, in relation to the affairs of the

Estate.

-

-

-

56a.

James's mis-used of the monies withheld for

the sole purpose of repairs required just prior to sale,

constitutes BREACH OF CONTRACT.

The undesired "work" has

ii.)

included, among other things:

a.) replacement of gutters (rather

than the approved cleaning, despite the fact that the

gutters had been recently replaced, and clearly did

not require replacement) in direct violation of their

agreement to clean only. Exacerbating this situation

is the fact that the installation of the gutters and/or

the associated gutter guards, has caused leaks

which were first noticed when the damage extended

through the exterior wall, and water leaked into the

house at the basement level. Because Jean was

unaware of this work having being done, the

damages were unnoticed until the paint on the soffits

and fascia was destroyed, and the leak in the

basement was noticed.

W

installation of cement tile roofing,

to repair where clay tile had been broken by a limb

falling from the neighbor's tree (despite the

knowledge that Jean had purchased matching clay

tiles, that the roofing was "on site" and roofing

contractor had been scheduled). This "maintenance"

was performed without even informing Jean of the

work, and indeed, it was the roofer hired by Jean

Coulter to do repairs who informed Jean of the prior

word, after-the-fact, when the roofer was angrily

calling Jean to complain that he had not been

informed that his services were no longer needed.

The results of this unauthorized and

unannounced "maintenance" have included

additional damages to the dormer roof. The dormer

57a.

(rubber) roof was originally scheduled to be replaced

at the same time as the clay tile however, the

scheduled roofer informed Jean that he had spoken

with James, and was told that the dormer roof did

not require his work either. It is not known whether

James "mis-lead" "Jean's roofer", or whether "Jean's

roofer" was concerned that his reputation would be

harmed by it being associated with the clearly

inferior job of installation of the cement roofing tiles.

Despite their clear agreement to

c.)

leave the plantings at the front of the house alone,

James Coulter hired an untrained and inexperienced

person (identity unknown, but James admitted that

the worker was not a landscaper), and charged the

expenses to the "withheld monies". The removal of

the trees and shrubs left large stumps extending out

of the ground so large quantities of mulch was

dumped in the area. It was initially believed that

the mulch was the major cause of the new water

problems in the basement. However, despite Jean

attempting to move at least some of the mulch and

other materials hidden under it, the water

leakage remains a problem. James was specifically

informed of this problem, and asked to personally

accept responsibility for the necessary repairs. James

directly refused to accept any responsibility for these

damages being done to the house and this refusal

to accept any responsibility was the tipping point

which resulted in Jean filing this Civil Action.

Essentially all of these instances of "maintenance"

(other than the work on the roof) were initiated, by

James, only after James was paid for the sale of his

share. Additionally, as at least one of the three

shares has been sold at least once, it is believed that,

IF Jean Coulter must abide by the terms of a

-

-

-

RM

fraudulently produced and filed "agreement", that

agreement is no longer in effect due to the prior sale

of one or more shares of the house.

James threatened his way into Jean's

acceptance of a price that James understood that

Jean realized was "unfair" threatening to discard

Jean's belongings when Jean was out of town and

unable to protect them from James' theft. These

threats constitute criminal actions which resulted in

damages, including the over-payment for the

property, and emotional distress all of which were

James's obvious purposes.

COUNT 3.a. FRAUD

and

Count 3.b. PERSONAL INJURIES (and punitive

damages) resulting from commission of a crime by

Defendant, namely BURLARY and THEFT

the full amount is not yet determined (awaiting an

inventory of missing items)

Facts upon which the claims are made:

The previous averments (a h) are incorporated into

this section where applicable.

For the second time in approximately 18

i.)

months, it is believed that

Defendant has BURGLARIZED the house which is

the subject of this Civil Action as the home

was entered by key, and upon departing the home,

the burglars carefully re-locked the front door

(which cannot lock without a key).

On the prior occasion, July 2013,

i.)

James Coulter and members of his family, entered

the home by breaking in through a window when

they were under the impression that the battery for

the home's alarm system was "dead" because the

power line entering the home had been brought to

-

-

-

-

-

-

59a.

the ground by a tree limb. James Coulter

intentionally delayed informing Jean Coulter of this

circumstance (and actually never informed he of

such, until Jean was present at the home, and saw

the damages herself), and arranged to have one of

the locks changed, in order to permit his (and his

wife's) access to the house, at any time, without Jean

Coulter's knowledge. It is readily apparent that

James and Susan Coulter intended to enter the

house at will and steal everything that was not

nailed down (and perhaps to then begin to remove

the copper pipes, etc.)

More recently, the house was

ii.)

again entered by Defendant and members of his

family, this time through the front door when

"fresh" snow indicated that Jean was not currently in

residence.

When James BURGLARIZED the house

a.)

in July 2013, James claimed that the entry was

solely to install a lock so that repairs could be

arranged for, and commenced. However, despite the

forced entry and damages resulting from it and

despite James's assurances that he would accept

responsibility for the repair of the electric service,

Jean Coulter discovered nearly three (3) MONTHS

later, that James had not even begun the process

of finding an electrician to replace the lines

necessary to provide electric service into the house.

Jean Coulter has suffered personal injuries including

emotional distress at the invasion of privacy, and loss

of innumerable possessions of "sentimental value"

which were stolen by James and his family, but

believed discarded because they were never returned

despite their lack of re-sale value.

-

-

-

[;Ii1

James Coulter has recently (since he

W

was discovered breaking into the house in July 2013)

asserted that he "owns" equal access to the property,

despite the fact that Jean Coulter alone had been

responsible for essentially all of the expenses of

the house. Jean accepted this responsibility on the

basis that the other siblings would not have

uninvited access to the home (as would be the case

with a tenant paying rent). Jean Coulter now

claims damages for half of utilities, maintenance,

taxes and insurance which have been paid by

Jean Coulter, alone, during the period when Jean

Coulter believed that James Coulter had accepted

Jean's payment of these amounts, as "rent" for

exclusive use of the property by Jean Coulter.

If James feels that Jean Coulter's

understanding of her right to exclusive use of the

house was/is inaccurate, then it is only fair that

James accept responsibility for half of all of the

expenses which Jean has been responsible for, based

on her understanding that these expenditures were

Jean's responsibility alone, as compensation for

Jean's right to exclusive use of the home. (If James

believes that he has, all along, had equal access to

the home, then he too must accept responsibility for

half of the expenses of the home for the entire term

during which he feels that he has had a right to

unfettered access. If James does not agree that he

owes Jean for half of the expenses of the home for the

entire time, then James would have explained before

now, what precipitating event caused him to obtain

equal access at that moment. But he has not, so Jean

claims half of all expenses for the categories of bills

itemized below:

'Insurance (approximately $650/year for 10

years)

Taxes ten years at approximately

$2,000.00/year school tax, $1,000.00/year city tax and

$ 550.00/year county tax.

Utilities, as well as routine and special

maintenance often necessitated by destruction of

property by James or incompetent contractors he

hired (often over Jean's clearly stated objections):

Alarm Since Summer 2007,

approximately $40/month along with purchase of

the original system (approx. $1,000.00), and

replacement of the original (previously working)

system (approx. $4,600.00), when it was smashed by

Defendant or his family, upon their entry through

the window was made in July 2013.

Caretaker when Jean was not at

the home on at least a weekly basis, and James

refused to accept any responsibility for the property

instead stating his expectation that Jean would find

someone to do it anytime Jean would be absent.

($3,000.00 + $2,500.00)

Phone, electric, gas, water, sewer,

garbage service for ten years when Jean had believed

that she alone was permitted unfettered access, but

when, apparently, James was intending to enter any

time he chose to do so.

And maintenance (painting of.

garage doors, etc.) as well as making arrangements

for all of the necessary services for the house such.

as grass, leaf and snow. work. Specifically, the

payments to the Caretaker were necessitated by

James Coulter's repeated refused to accept any

responsibility for care of the home. Jean Coulter, on

numerous occasions, provided a key for James

-

-

-

-

-

62a.

Coulter to use in case of an emergency. Jean had also

informed James of the pass code for the alarm

system (which Jean Coulter had paid to have

installed and monitored). Around the time that Jean

moved to Philadelphia (2010 perhaps), Jean spoke

with James, and asked if he still knew where his key

was located, or did James want another key

(because James and Susan had repeatedly

"misplaced" their key, and Jean had routinely

replaced the key). James informed Jean that he did

not want a key, as he expected Jean to have friends

provide access for any repairs or other emergency

access instead of Jean relying on James or

Susan for such "assistance" (James was perhaps

relying on Jean's acceptance of sole responsibility for

the house as Jean had never requested James use his

key, even though he had been provided keys for

years, even before the family home became part of

the estate of their mother).

When Jean Coulter first agreed to

j.)

accept full responsibility for the taxes, utilities and

insurance along with basic maintenance and

related expenses, it was with the understanding that

Jean Coulter would have exclusive use of the home

similar to what would be provided upon payment of a

pre-set amount of rent each month. A similar

arrangement had occurred at the time that the

Coulters' mother was placed in a care facility, when

medications to control unacceptable (sometimes

violent outbursts by the mother) were not yet

available for use on the mother. Jean Coulter

understood that the previous arrangement was being

continued after the death of their mother, in order to

provide time for all of the siblings to determine the

-

-

-

63a.

price, etc. for Jean to purchase the home as was

repeatedly offered (but without even an approximate

sales price ever being suggested by the other

siblings). And, James Coulter has admitted his

agreement with this arrangement in emails,

including (on June 17, 2011):

"Jean,

I find it difficult to understand how you feel

that the house has "improved" during the

time you have had exclusive use of it. ..."

And. On June 6, 2011:

"You have had 100% control of the house for 6

'

/2 years."

k.) The agreement and completion of payments

related to Jean's rights to "exclusive use" of the

house during the period when James Coulter and his

family broke into the home and removed large

quantities of jewelry and other valuables, occurred

on various dates in late 2012 through early 2013 as

invoices for yearly taxes, insurance became due.

It was not until July 2013, that Jean

1.)

Coulter had any indication that their understanding

as to the exclusion of the other siblings from the

home, was no longer in effect when Jean Coulter

discovered that her brother, Defendant James

Coulter had entered the house through a window

(after removing the air conditioner which was semipermanently installed there). Jean received a call

from the alarm company, stating that the motion

detector was triggered, surprisingly without any door

or window being triggered. Because Jean Coulter

was in Pittsburgh, coincidentally, when the alarm

was triggered, she was able to arrive at the

home before the intruders left the home and

learned that the intruders were Defendant James

-

-

-

.4.

Coulter and members of his family. When Jean

Coulter first saw Defendant James Coulter, the

first words out of his mouth were "What are you

doing here? You're supposed to be in Philadelphia,"

(or similar). At that time, Jean noticed that a very

large tree limb had brought the power line down, and

believed that James and his family were present in

order to take care of the emergency repairs. And,

indeed, James claimed that they were present to

change a lock, so that they could access the house to

have repairs completed. No explanation was ever

provided as to why James had never bothered to

notify Jean of this need for access. And it is believed

that James had hoped to have the locks changed, etc.

so that Jean would never be aware of their entry and

removal of property, until a significant period of time

had passed, and the thefts could be blamed on

unknown parties.

m.) Because James Coulter has retroactively

"revoked" Jean Coulter's right to exclusive access/use

of the house, Jean Coulter believes that James

Coulter must be held financially responsible for an

equal share of the expenses for the entire term of

what Jean Coulter had been deceived into' believing

was for her exclusive occupancy of the home -" or half

(1/2) of ALL of the monies expended by Jean Coulter

(since their mother's death) for the exclusive use

of the home for the full term during which James

Coulter fraudulently convinced Jean Coulter that she

would have exclusive access to the home! If James

had not been a "co-tenant" all along, then surely

James's entry into the home through the window (in

July 2013), then the consequential damages must be

the result of James's criminal actions specifically,

burglary!

-

65a.

n.) Subsequently James informed Jean that he

was intending to provide his wife with access any

time that Susan (his wife) wanted access despite

his wife's extensive history of theft from various

members of the Coulter family. And, when Jean

Coulter returned to the house to assure that

everything had been secured, Jean noticed that her

financial records, which were stored in an attic àloset

beside her mother's jewelry, had been riffled through

and that absolutely every piece of their mother's

jewelry had been removed even a number of large

shopping bags of costume jewelry (which were stored

in their original gift boxes).

Subsequent to this discovery, Jean Coulter

attempted to locate her Mother's and deceased

relatives' sterling flatware and tea sets, and has not

found them to be present on the premises

anymore either.

It should be noted that shortly

after the Coulter's mother died, Jean was approached

by Susan Coulter, the wife of James Coulter, who

asked Jean to agree to share her inheritance with the

sister-in-laws' three sisters. (This was a particularly

strange request, because Jean knew that James had

already given his share to his sons, similarly for their

sister Barbara. So, it was clear that Jean alone

would be the only one expected to share her

inheritance with the sister-in-law's sisters, while the

sister-in-law was not even giving a small portion of

"her own" inheritance to her own sisters). Jean

politely declined the offer to give away her money to

people who barely knew Jean's name.

It should also be noted, that at

the time of division of the Coulter's aunt's home and

belongings, James's wife was specifically excluded by

-

-

-

reM

O.-

the Will from inheritance of jewelry. James asked

Jean to share with his wife, and Jean asked to see

the jewelry before committing to give a portion to

defendant's wife especially as this was in

defiance of the aunt's clearly expressed wishes. Prior

to Jean even seeing the jewelry though, it

disappeared while still in the custody of James (at

his home) with James explaining that his wife

informed him that he had already left the jewelry at

Jean's home although he did not remember doing it

and Jean never even saw or received any of the

aunt's jewelry. Further, when the aunt's home was

emptied in preparation for sale, James announced

his unilateral decision (over Jean's clearly worded

objections) that all of the contents/antiques be given

to his sisters-in-law, as supposed payment to his

wife, for services James felt that Susan had provided

to the Coulter family (although no services were

mentioned, and Jean was unaware of any specific

services which Susan had provided (beyond taking

Coulters' mother to a doctor's appointment ONCE

several years earlier) particularly in light of the

fact that their mother had provided weekly

babysitting and daily tutoring services for years for

James's family. These facts are raised to show a

pattern of behaviors by James Coulter and James's

wife, Susan Coulter which confirm the validity of the

conclusions drawn as to the nefarious intentions of

both James and Susan, and the necessity for punitive

damages.

CAUSES OF ACTION

James P. Coulter has committed Fraud, Theft

and Breach of both their written and oral Contracts

related to the sale of his share of the property on

North McKean Street, as well as their agreement

-

-

-

-

-

-

67a.

related to the monies held for use related to repairs

of the property on North McKean Street, and as

related to the plants, trees, bushes and landscaping

of the property.

Additionally, the illegal entry into the property

over which Jean Coulter had exclusive access, andremoval of property when Defendant had no right of

ownership to anything within the home has

resulted in significantly personal injures for Jean

Coulter.

DAMAGES

21.

Jean Coulter has suffered significant

monetary damages and suffered significant stresses

as James Coulter has failed to complete the

paperwork necessary to finalize the sale of his share

of the property. Additionally, James Coulter's

"maintenance" has decreased the value of the

property and caused obvious and significant

damages to the integrity of the buildings on the

property. Further, it is believed that at least portions

of the "maintenance" was performed for the specific

purpose of decreasing the value of the home to Jean

Coulter for the sole purpose of permitting James to

obtain ownership of Jean's share, at a lower price.

Jean continues to find new maintenance issues (such

as water leaks) and ultimately discovers that the

repairs are not necessitated by deterioration of the

home with time, or storms, etc.. Instead, these new

repairs are necessitated by incompetent work in

another area of the house, by contractors apparently

hired by James, without discussion or notice to Jean.

In most instances, the undesired "maintenance" (i.e.

replacement of gutters when the existing ones were

relatively new, and had no problems) is for no

conceivable purpose. Additionally, this so-called

-

-

-

maintenance has caused leaks which extend to

regions distant from the work which caused them

and continue to cause significant damage, as Jean

was unaware that she needed to search for damages

caused by workers she was never informed had been

on-site.

Additionally, it is believed that the repeated

break-ins are intended to convince Jean that

she is unable to protect the home and its contents

from repeated theft or destruction by James and

members of his family. And the disingenuous claims

made by Defendant are clearly intended to

convince Jean that she cannot truly prevail, as

James had no fear of either Law Enforcement or

the Courts in the small town where he lies (and the

property is located). The Parties' father was

an attorney, who gave very little legal advice to his

daughter, but he did clearly state that "You cannot

legislate morality", and apparently you cannot

adequately legislate even decency with respect to the

actions of a "big fish" in the small pond of Butler, PA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Jean Coulter seeks compensation in the

amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars

($550,000.00), plus punitive damages, along with

money for repairs necessitated by James

Coulter's "maintenance" related to the removal of

numerous trees and shrubs, and repairs for the

newly discovered leaks from "maintenance" on the

gutters at the front porch area and any other

relief which the Court finds appropriate. The amount

has increased to the repeated break-ins,

including those two (2) occasions which occurred

within 2015.

-

Signed, this the 24th day of July 2015,

in Philadelphia, Pa.

Jean Coulter, Pro Se Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

JEAN COULTER, Pro Se Plaintiff

V.

Case

No.:

DISTRICT JUDGE CATHY BISSOON, THIRD

CIRCUIT JUDGE THEODORE A, MCKEE, THIRD

CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, THIRD

CIRCUIT JUDGE THOMAS MICHAEL

HARDIMAN, THIRD CIRCUIT JUDGE JOSEPH A.

GREENAWAY JR., THIRD CIRCUIT JUDGE

JULIO M. FUENTES, THIRD CIRCUIT JUDGE

THOMAS IGNATIUS VANASKIE MARIE MILIE

JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE JOY FLOWERS CONTI,

UNKNOWN EMPLOYEE IN THE CLERKS

OFFICE, and DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD G.

ANDREWS, Defendants

Amended COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION

NOW COMES, Pro Se Plaintiff, JEAN

COULTER and files Amended Complaint for Civil

Action, to recover for injuries suffered as the result of

intentional acts by all Defendants, which resulted

from their willing involvement in the Criminal and

Civil Conspiracy against Coulter's Rights. In support

of her request Coulter states:

Parties

Pro Se Plaintiff, JEAN COULTER, is a

1.)

resident of New Jersey, with mailing address:

1LSI

P.O. Box 8094

Philadelphia, PA 19101-8094

412-616-9505

Defendant CATHY BISSOON, is a

Federal Employee, and is believed to be a resident of

Pennsylvania, with contact address:

Chambers of District Judge Cathy Bissoon

U.S. District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania

700 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 208-7350

Defendant THEODORE A. MCKEE, is a

Federal Employee, and is believed to be a resident of

Pennsylvania, with contact address:

Chambers of Third Circuit Judge Theodore A.

McKee

Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Room 20614

601 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 597-9601

Defendant Third Circuit Judge

ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, is a Federal Employee,

believed to be a resident of Pennsylvania, with

contact address:

Chambers of Third Circuit Judge Scirica

Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Room 22614

601 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 597-2399

Defendant Third Circuit Judge

THOMAS H. HARDIMAN, is a Federal Employee,

believed to be a resident of Pennsylvania, with

contact address:

Chambers of Third Circuit Judge Hardiman

71a.

U.S. Courthouse, Room 2270

700 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 208-7440

Defendant Third Circuit Judge

JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY JR., is a Federal

Employees, believed to be a resident of Pennsylvania,

with contact addresses

Chambers of Third Circuit Judge Greenaway

Frank R. Lauterman Post Office & Courthouse

Federal Square and Walnut Street, Room 411

Newark, N.J. 07102

(973) 622-4828

Defendant Third Circuit Judge JULIO

M. FUENTES, is a Federal Employee, believed to be

a resident of Pennsylvania, with contact address:

Chambers of Third Circuit Judge Julio M.

Fuenties

Martin Luther King Federal Building & U.S.

Courthouse

50 Walnut Street, Room 5032

Newark, N.J. 07102

(973) 645-3831

Defendant Third Circuit Judge

THOMAS IGNATIUS VANASKIE,

is a Federal Employee, believed to be a resident of

Pennsylvania, with contact address:

Chambers of Third Circuit Judge Vanaskie

William J. Nealon Federal Building & U.S.

Courthouse

P.O. Box 913

235 N. Washington Avenue

Scranton, PA 18501

(570) 207-5720

72a.

Defendant MARIE MILIE JONES, is an

Attorney, and is believed to be a resident of

Pennsylvania, with contact address:

Marie Mille Jones

JonesPassodelis

707 Grant Street, Room 3510

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 315-7272

Defendant DISTRICT JUDGE JOY

FLOWERS CONTI, is a Federal employee, and is

believed to be a resident of Pennsylvania, with

contact address:

Chambers of District Judge Joy Flowers Conti

U.S. District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania

700 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 208-7330

ii.) Defendant UNKNOWN EMPLOYEE IN

THE CLERK'S OFFICE, is a Federal Employee, and

is believed to be a resident of Pennsylvania, with

contact address:

Unknown Employee in the Clerk's Office

U.S. District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania

700 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 2087500

12.) Defendant DISTRICT JUDGE

RICHARD G. ANDREWS, is a Federal employee, and

is believed to be a resident of Delaware, with contact

address

J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building

844 N. King Street, Unit 9, Room 6325

Wilmington, DE 19801-3555

73a.

302-573-4581

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in this Court is pursuant to

both 28 U.S. Code § 1332 and 28 U.S. Code § 1983.

Claims

Defendants are responsible for

significant injuries to Coulter, as the result of

Defendants' participation in the CRIMINAL AND

CIVIL CONSPIRACY to commit COLOR OF LAW

VIOLATIONS of Coulter's CIVIL RIGHTS, as well as

acts of FRAUD and PERSONAL INJURIES

resulting from Defendants' involvement in the CIVIL

and CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES against Coulter.

Further, because Defendants' actions violated both

the explicit as well as the implied terms of their

contractual relationship, Defendants are also

responsible for BREACH OF CONTRACT and

BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT (including

those set forth in the Pennsylvania Code of Conduct

for Attorneys, the Code of Conduct for United States

Judges and observance of all Criminal Statutes,

among other implied conditions). Additionally, the

Defendants are also responsible for the injuries

resulting from their acts of INTENTIONAL

INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

Factual Basis Upon Which The Claims Are Made

On December 18, 2012, Defendant

CATHY BISSOON, issued an Order in two unrelated

cases, which required that the Clerk's Office in the

U.S. District Court assign any case filed by Plaintiff

JEAN COULTER, to be first "passed on" by

Defendant Bissoon. It is readily obvious that this

action by Defendant Bissoon is not merely

unauthorized, but it is indeed specifically forbidden

-

74a.

as the Federal Courts have in place an extensive

system to assure random assignment of cases in

order to assure Due Process for each Party appearing

in the Federal Courts. It is also patently obvious

that the reason for Defendant Bissoon's action, was

to assure that Coulter not be capable of finding

Justice in the Federal Courts! For this reason, this

action by Defendant Bissoon, clearly was intended to

violate Coulter's CIVIL RIGHT to DUE PROCESS

and that Defendant Bissoon's action was taken under

the COLOR OF LAW rather than under the

Authority of Law! Further, it is believed that

Defendant Bissoon's actions constitute the violation

of Federal Criminal Statutes, specifically, 18 U.S.

Code Sections 241 and 242:

"18 U.S. Code § 241 Conspiracy against

rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure,

oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in

any State, Territory, Commonwealth,

Possession, or District in the free exercise or

enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to

him by the Constitution or laws of the United

States, or because of his having so exercised

the same; or

-

-

They shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

and

"18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of rights

under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully

subjects any person in any State, Territory,

-

75a.

Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution or laws of the United States,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

not more than one year, or both; ..."

As these acts are criminal by definition, they are

believed to not qualify as "judicial acts", and thus

Defendant Bissoon's immunity is abrogated.

Further, as assignment of cases is not typically a

duty of a judge (and is indeed forbidden), this too

means that Defendant Bissoon is liable for damages

which result from this (illegal) administrative

function.

The December 18, 2012 Order, because

it required the participation of members of the

Clerk's Office, also acted as Defendant Bissoon's

"recruitment" of additional Federal employee(s)

(possibly through coercing), to convince those

employees to abandon their Official Responsibility to

assign cases utilizing the system in place to assure

Random Assignment of cases. Thus Defendant

UNKNOWN EMPLOYEE OF THE CLERK'S

OFFICE, became a co-conspirator in both the

CRIMINAL as well as CIVIL CONSPIRACY against

Coulter's Civil Rights and also means that

Defendant Unknown Employee of the Clerk's Office

is similarly responsible for Coulter's damages.

Further, it is believed that Defendant Unknown

Employee of the Clerk's Office's subsequent actions

in assigning cases to Defendant Bissoon, constitute

the violation of Federal Criminal Statutes,

specifically, 18 U.S. Code Sections 241 and 242.

The December 2012 Order was not the

first time that Defendant Bissoon had chosen to

-

76a.

violate both Criminal Statutes as well as Coulter's

Civil Rights. Indeed, Bissoon's Orders in each and

every prior case involving Coulter had all been based

on Bissoon's "consideration" of "facts" supplied

exclusively by Defendant MARIE MILIE JONES's

filing of a Sealed Adoption Record from the State

Courts. Noteworthy, is the fact that the Sealed

Adoption Record was written by one of the

Defendants in the prior actions, and therefore would

not be considered as having been produced by an

unbiased source as well as the fact that the

document was unavailable for Defendant Bissoon's

consideration, as it was not filed by Coulter and not

part of the "Public Record" of any case (prior to

Defendant Bissoon's decision to permit the Sealed

Adoption Record to be made Public in the Federal

Court! It is also noteworthy that the release of

Sealed Adoption Records, by an attorney, constitutes

the commission of a Misdemeanor, under

Pennsylvania Statutes:

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2915. Court and agency

records.

(a) General rule. All court and agency

records shall be maintained as a permanent

record and withheld from inspection except as

provided under this chapter.

-

-

--

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2910. Penalty for unauthorized

disclosure.

Any officer or employee of the court, other

than a judge thereof, who willfully discloses

impounded or otherwise confidential

information

other than as expressly

authorized and provided in this chapter,

...

...,

77a.

commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(emphasis added)

Additionally, it should be noted that Defendant

Bissoon does not have the authority to permit the

release of these Sealed Adoption Records, as

Pennsylvania Statute only permits information from

these Records to be released, upon Order from "the

court which finalized the adoption" or an agency

related to the proceedings which resulted in the

finalized adoption (an Order which Defendant

Bissoon is obviously does not have the authority to

produce)

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2915. Court and Agency

Records.

(b) Who may access court or agency records.

Only the following are authorized to access

court or agency records for the purpose of

releasing nonidentifying or identifying

information under this chapter:

The court which finalized the adoption.

The agency that coordinated the adoption.

A successor agency authorized by the court

which finalized the adoption.

and

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2931. Access to information.

Who may access information. The

(a)

following individuals may file a written

request for ... information with the court

which finalized the adoption the agency which

coordinated the adoption or a successor agency

..." (emphasis added)

It is therefore believed that both Defendant Bissoon

and Defendant Jones are responsible for the violation

of the State Crimes as well as violating 18 U.S. Code

-

-

...

78a.

-

-

Sections 241 and 242, due to the inclusion of

confidential information about Plaintiff Coulter (and

others)in violation to those Parties Rights to Privacy,

and the action is clearly an Abuse of Process. And,

Defendant Bissoon has an Administrative obligation,

pursuant to Canon 3B(5), to report the criminal

actions of Defendant Jones:

"(5) A judge should take appropriate action

upon learning of reliable evidence indicating

the likelihood that a judge's conduct

contravened this Code or a lawyer violated

applicable rules of professional conduct."

Because Information from the Sealed Adoption

Record was made part of the December 18, 2012

Order, both Defendants Bissoon and Defendant

Bissoon, are both responsible for damages due to

FRAUD and INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS as well as the COLOR OF

LAW VIOLATION OF RIGHTS and CONSPIRACY

TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS under the Color of

Law as well as the injuries which have resulted from

the CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY against

Coulter's Rights to Privacy and Due Process!

18.) The Appellate Panel who decided the

matter which resulted in the December 18, 2012,

Defendant SCIRICA, Defendant HARDIMAN, and

Defendant GREENAWAY JR., as well as Defendants

who heard the Appeal of a subsequent case which

was dismissed by Defendant Bissoon (in March

2015), Defendant S CIRICA, Defendant FUENTES,

and Defendant VANASKIE were all aware of the

both the CRIMINALITY of the Order of December

2012, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code Sections 241 and

242, as well as Bissoon's crimes related to the release

-

79a.

and utilization of Information from a Sealed

Adoption Record but none of these Defendants

chose to act upon that knowledge as required by

Criminal Statutes as well as the Code of Conduct for

Jurists. The decision by each of these judges from

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forms the

Proximate Cause of Coulter's Injuries when they

chose to also produce a Fraudulent Decision, with the

obvious purpose of protecting the proceeds of the

crimes committed by Bissoon in these two cases.

Because each of the Defendants who

subsequently read the December 2012 Order,

Defendants McKee, Scirica,. Hardiman, Greenaway,

Fuentes, Vanaskie; Conti, Delaware DISTRICT

JUDGE RICHARD G. ANDREWS, are obligated to

comply with the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges,

it is believed that these Defendants have also

violated Federal and State Criminal Statutes,

including 18 U.S. Code Sections 241 and 242, as the

Code of Conduct for Federal Judges requires that all

Federal Judges comply with the law which requires

that they report a felony as otherwise they have

also comniitted a crime, specifically, Misprision of a

Felony:

CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID

IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and

comply with the law and

should act at all times in a manner that

promotes public confidence in the

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

-

-

COMMENTARY

EIii

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety

occurs when reasonable minds, with

knowledge of all the relevant circumstances

disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would

conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity,

impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve

as a judgeis impaired.... Actual Improprieties

under this standard include violations of law,

court rules, or other specific provisions of this

Code."

and:

CANON 3:AJUDGE SHOULD PERFORM

THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY,

IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

The duties of judicial office take precedence

over all other activities. In

performing the duties prescribed by law, the

judge should adhere to the following

standards:

B. Administrative Responsibilities.

(5) A judge should take appropriate action

upon learning of reliable evidence indicating

the likelihood that a judge's conduct

contravened this Code or a lawyer violated

applicable rules of professional conduct.

COMMENTARY

Canon 313(5). Appropriate action may include

direct communication with the judge or

lawyer, other direct action if available,

reporting the conduct to the appropriate

authorities,..."

and

18 U.S. Code § 4 Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual

commission of a felony cognizable by a court of

the United States, conceals and does not as

soon as possible make known the same to

some judge or other person in civil or military

authority under the United States, shall be

fined under this title or imprisoned not more

than three years, or both.

It seems readily apparent that, upon becoming aware

of "reliable evidence" which indicates that Federal

Crimes have been committed, as evidenced by a

document which is part of the Official Record of a

case in the Federal Courts the "appropriate action"

would have to include "reporting the conduct to the

appropriate authorities" which would include Law

Enforcement!

Each of the Judicial Defendants are immune

from civil suit for their Judicial Actions alone, so, it

should be noted that Canon 3B(5) is designated as

one of the judges' "Administrative Responsibilities",

in contrast to the responsibilities listed under Canon

3(A) : "A. Adjudicative Responsibilities."

19.) Defendant THIRD CIRCUIT COURT

OF APPEALS JUDGE MCKEE is responsible for

Coulter's injuries as the proximate cause of Coulter's

injuries results from Defendant McKee's

Memorandum Opinion dated August 24, 2015. In

that Opinion, Circuit Judge McKee clearly feigned

misunderstanding of Coulter's Complaint of

Misconduct by Judge Bissoon, in order to permit him

to dismiss the complaint, rather than force (Judge

Bissoon obviously was acting to protect the interests

of both the Defendant who wrote that State Court

Document (from the Adoption Record), as well as her

-

82a.

colleague (Atty. Marie Milie Jones) who acted as

Defendants' Counsel in each of the earlier cases. In

addition to the obvious involvement in crimes by

Defendant Bissoon, it is noteworthy that Defendant

Jones has a lengthy relationship with Defendant

Bissoon which extends far beyond the walls of the

courtroom a fact which Defendant Jones chose to

repeatedly conceal from Coulter as well as the

opposing Parties in each and every case which

Defendant Jones has brought into Defendant

Bissoon's Courtroom. And this fact compounds the

culpability of Defendant Jones in this matter as well

as any case where Jones has represented parties

before Defendant Bissoon.

It is apparent that Defendant McKee has an

obligation, pursuant to Canon 3B (5), to report

Defendant Bissoon's crimes, that he learned of as the

result of his Administrative duty, to Law

Enforcement as he is required to inform the

"appropriate authorities". It is therefore obvious that

Defendant McKee's actions not merely abrogate his,

immunity from civil actions, but Defendant McKee's

acts, are believed to constitute the commission of

multiple Federal and State Crimes, including 18 U.S.

Code Sections 241 and 242, as Defendant McKee is

similarly required to report the Criminal Actions of

Defendant Bissoon, but failed to do so.

19.) Defendant JOY FLOWERS CONTI also

has liability for the damages suffered by Coulter as

Judge Conti was erroneously sent the Complaint of

Judicial Misconduct against Judge Bissoon

however, Defendant Conti chose to fail to take steps

to forward the Complaint of Misconduct to the

appropriate individuals in the Circuit Court. Thus,

Judge Conti also joined into the Criminal Conspiracy

-

-

En

against Coulter and must also share the

consequences of the crimes committed directly by

Defendant Bissoon.

It is therefore obvious that Defendant Conti's

actions not merely abrogate her immunity from civil

actions, but Defendant Conti's acts, it is believed,

constitute the commission of multiple Federal and

State Crimes, including 18 U.S. Code Sections 241

and 242, as Defendant Conti is similarly required to

report the Criminal Actions of Defendant Bissoon,

but failed to do so, as required by the Administrative

duties required by Canon 3B (5).

20.) Defendant RICHARD G. ANDREWS,

from Delaware, accepted the assignment to hear the

case against the other Defendants, in order to

provide some measure of impartiality. But, rather

than conscientiously perform his official "judicial

duties", he chose to instead assume the duties

normally assigned to Counsel for Defendants. Thus

Defendant Andrews' actions, as they are not typically

those of a judge, do not qualify as "judicial". Further,

Defendant Andrews also became aware of the crimes

by all of the other Defendants, and also is required to

report those criminal activities pursuant to Canon

3B (5), just as every other Federal Judge is required

to do. Because Canon 3B(5) is defined as an

Administrative Duty, by the Judicial Conference

(which is composed of the Chief Judge from each

Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court), again,

Defendant Andrews is without immunity for his

actions in this matter.

Rather than honestly review the filings thus

far, Defendant Andrews has chosen to review the

documents with the eye of Counsel for Defendants,

-and-has thus asserted-th-at-the-"vexatious- litigant------

MI

-

-

-

order" of December 2012 is far more encompassing

than it is asserting that the bar is set to prohibit all

"allegations about how Plaintiffs previous litigation

was handled", rather than the unrelated restrictions

which exclusively restrict Coulter "from filing any

additional civil actions related to or arising from the

state court proceedings...". The reason for this

unconscionable expansion is clearly in order to

permit the unlawful dismissal of this matter, as it is

in no manner "related to" any state court proceeding,

and there is no conceivable way in which Defendant

Bissoon's decision to commit a series of crimes, could

possibly be considered to have been caused by (or

arisen from) any proceeding in any state court, as

Coulter and Bissoon have never been Parties to any

matter in any court before this matter was filed.

And, Defendant Andrews has even asserted that the

complaint has never alleged any wrongdoing by

Defendant Jones despite it clearly stating that

Defendant Jones is responsible for "filing of a Sealed

Adoption Record from the State Courts". The

criminality of this action has been clarified in the

Amended Complaint, but even in the Complaint

upon which Defendant Andrews has argued there to

be no wrongdoing alleged, Coulter clearly alleged the

crimes by Defendant Bissoon and thus the

criminality of Defendant Jones' actions should have

been readily understood as well "Judge Bissoon's role

in the criminal release of Sealed Adoption Records

from the State Court to their public release in the

Federal Courts ..."

As is the case will all of the other "Judicial

Defendants", Defendant Andrews' immunity for

"judicial acts" does not extend to his obligation, as an

Administrative Duty" to comply with Canon 3B (5),

-

-

-

85a.

which requires that he report to Law Enforcement

the crimes of all of the other Defendants (with the

possible exception of the Unknown Employee in the

Clerk's Office).

Further, Defendant Andrews has attempted to

FRAUDULENTLY convince Coulter that he has

magnanimously granted her an opportunity to

defend her position in this matter, stating:

"The Court is contemplating either striking or

dismissing with prejudice the complaint

against all defendants for the above-stated

reasons. Plaintiff is pro se. She has paid the

filing fee. Before this Court takes any action

on the complaint, Plaintiff will be given an

opportunity to be heard. ..."

It is patently obvious that the Defendant Andrews is

trying to convince Coulter that he is being just as

willing to give Coulter a break, as he has been

willing to "misunderstand" the obligations of his

fellow jurists with respect to the professional

obligations of all of the Defendants as well as all of

the Defendants' actions concerning their willing

involvement in serious crimes!

-

Conclusion

It is obvious that each of the Defendants

willingly, entered into a Criminal and Civil

Conspiracy against Coulter for either the purpose of

protecting the Defendants in those matters or for

the purpose of protecting one of their Colleagues

(Defendant Bissoon) and the proceeds of Bissoon's

crimes. Thus, the Proximate Cause of Coulter's

Injuries results from the remaining Defendants

actions to protect Bissoon. Further, because of

Defendants' actions subsequent to their decision to

-

-

[Ski1

protect Defendant Bissoon from Criminal Sanctions

for her numerous crimes, the Defendants' are

without immunity for their "pre - adjudication" and

thus "absolute judicial immunity" does not apply (as

the decision to commit a crime, in order to their

colleague, is obviously not a "judicial act") and all

Defendants must be held financially and criminally

responsible for their subsequent actions which have

seriously,, injured Coulter. Further, as each of the

Defendants (with the possible exception of Unknown

Employee)are obligated to comply with the Code of

Conduct for Federal Judges (or PA Rules of

Professional Conduct for Attorneys (for Defendant

Jones, each of the Defendants have lost their

immunity and are completely liable for the damages

suffered as the result of the Civil and Criminal

Conspiracy which they chose to enter into.

Prayer for Relief

Coulter seeks recovery for injuries in the

amount of $125,000,000.00 (One Hundred TwentyFive Million Dollars and No Cents) along any other

Relief which the Court finds appropriate.

Coulter exercises her right to TRIAL BY JURY

in this matter.

I declare under penalty of perjury that

the foregoing is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed this 27th day of February, 2017

Jean Coulter, Pro Se Plaintiff

No

260 Pullman Square, PMB 172

Butler, PA 16001

August 29, 2015

Court Clerk's Office, Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Complaint of Misconduct by Theodore A. McKee,

Chief Judge

Dear Sir or Madam;

I am filing an official Complaint of Misconduct

by Theodore A. McKee, based on what can only be

determined to be his intentional "misunderstanding"

of the Official Complaint of Misconduct by District

Judge Cathy Bis soon -with the sole purpose of his

intentional misunderstanding being so the Chief

Judge may claim "plausible deniability" when he is

ultimately investigated for his clear violation of 18

U.S. Code Section 4 (Misprision of felony) and 18

U.S. Code Sections 241 and 242 (Conspiracy against

rights and Deprivation of rights under color of law).

Instead, it is obvious that the Chief Judge McKee

has chosen to look the other way, to clear evidence of

felonies, committed from the bench, by a District

Judge under his supervision.

The Chief Judge has determined (pages 4-5)

from the portion of my Complaint against Judge

Bissoon (which is cited below), that I am complaining

of "inappropriate conduct on the part of the SubjectJudge, including alleged "concealing" of wrong-doings

by private attorneys in a state court proceeding...

Even if it were accepted as true for the purposes of

this opinion that certain private attorneys

wrongfully disclosed confidential documents in a

state court proceeding, none of those would implicate

the Subject Judge, who is a federal judge and did not

oversee the state court proceedings." (emphasis

added):

"... the filing of an Adoption Record in the

Federal Court constitutes the violation of

Pennsylvania Criminal Statutes by the

Defendants' Counsel in those cases. And,

because this release of Sealed Adoption

Records was committed by "State Actors", this

violation of our Civil Rights, specifically the

Right to Privacy, also involves the commission

of Color of Law Civil Rights Violations by

Defendants (and Counsel) in those other

actions.

I asked Judge Bissoon to reconsider her

decision to unilaterally dismiss my current

case, based on its supposed "related- nes s" to

those other cases and I also asked Judge

Bissoon to "re-seal" the Adoption Record which

she previously, improperly utilized as the

"Public Record" against me. At that time, I

explained that the Record was sealed, and

therefore not properly considered part of the

"Public Record" of any case, but the Judge

ignored this information and used it anyway.

.." (emphasis added)

Clearly, there is no possible basis for the Chief Judge

to have somehow determined that I have complained

about actions which took place in the state courts.

And it is equally obvious that this is the only possible

manner in which the Chief Judge could extricate one

of his subordinates from the quagmire she has placed

herself in!

While I am cognizant that "judges and bar

associations [continue to be] singularly tolerant of

misdeeds of their brethren . ." the Chief Judge's

-

actions clearly cross the line, into Misprision of a

felony and Conspiracy against rights, through his

intentional manipulation and miscomprehension of

the clearly stated facts. And, it is for this reason that

an Official Inquiry into the actions by the Chief

Judge must take place with particular emphasis on

his willingness to "join in" to the clearly criminal

actions by his subordinate.

I have included a copy of both of the letters

which were required in order for the "investigation"

by the Chief Judge to have been initiated, as well as

a copy of the Chief Judge's Memorandum Opinion,

which so clearly proves his culpability as well.

Perhaps the next step upthe ladder will not be so

willing to place their own necks on the chopping

block, the way that Chief Judge McKee has...

Respectfully Submitted,

Jean Coulter

1

U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren

Burger, in his Opinion in the case of In re Griffiths,

413 US 717, in 1973

-

IIp