J-S27018-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TAD JEREMY KELL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1328 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 6, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-62-SA-0000011-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and COLINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED: September 9, 2019

Tad Jeremy Kell appeals, pro se and in forma pauperis,

1

from the 

judgment of sentence imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren 

County, on August 6, 2018, after Kell failed to appear at the August 3, 2018 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 However, Kell’s self-written brief is titled: 

Tad Jeremy Kell

Proceeding su juris, In Propria Persona, as the Beneficiary 

Creditor 

Absolutely not proceeding pro se

Kingdom of the Power of Powers,)

on the soil of ) SS: Declaration of

Warren County, Pennsylvania ) Foreign Neutral

United States of America ) under Absolute Law’s

) of The Living Father

Kell’s Brief, cover page (emphasis added). We do not know what Kell means, 

but he is not represented by counsel.
J-S27018-19

- 2 -

summary appeal of a traffic citation. The trial court reinstated the fines and 

costs that had been imposed by the Magisterial District Court on April 23, 

2018. In this timely appeal, Kell raises 23 issues. Because Kell did not appear 

before the trial court, none of these issues was raised before the trial court. 

Accordingly, we have no issues to review and we affirm judgment of sentence.

On April 23, 2018, Kell was found guilty of violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 

1501(a), driving without a license. He was ordered to pay the fine and costs. 

Kell appealed that finding but failed to attend the trial de novo that had been 

scheduled for August 3, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the trial court filed its order 

dismissing the summary appeal and reinstating the prior conviction and 

sentence. Kell now raises such claims as:

3. Did indeed Tad Kell halt the assumption of jurisdiction by Adam 

Foriska [the Warren County police officer who wrote the citation] 

in his law merchant capacity? Did Tad Kell accomplish this by

offering a Notice of rights and then signing without prejudice 

pursuant to UCC 308? Does indeed Tad Kell have remedy and 

recourse, pursuant to UCC 308, to have jurisdiction be proved 

before any part of an administrative quasi-judicial procedure can 

continue?

...

12. May the Maureen Skerda [President Judge of Warren County] 

simply ignore a counterclaim and proceed to the chance to be 

heard phase of the procedural process by assuming consent

...

16. Does the flesh and blood man Tad Jeremy Kell have the liberty 

to be the Beneficiary of the accounts created by the Birth 

certificate and social security card

...

19. Is the person Judge Skerda mentions in her reply to the 

statement 1925b concerning the word person in PA code driver 
J-S27018-19

- 3 -

license really just Tad Jeremy Kell’s persona as created by the 

birth certificate and social security card

...

22. Tad Jeremy Kell as an American National by many generations 

of birthright Pennsylvanians whose liberties are defined by the 

treaty of Paris and The Articles of Confederation as part of The 

Organic Laws of the United States. Do these documents create a 

very specific venue and due process that must be honored when 

such a standing is made

Kell’s Brief at 4-8.

We see no need to relate all 23 of Kell’s issues. None of the issues 

appear to have been raised before the trial court. 

Initially, we note that “[i]t is a bedrock appellate principle that 

‘issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be 

raised for the first time on appeal.’...”

Commonwealth v. Hitcho, 123 A.3d 731, 756 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).

Additionally, Kell was ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of 

matters complained of on appeal. He filed a document entitled “Statements 

to the courts it may concern.” The trial court accepted this document as the 

Rule 1925(b) statement. We have reviewed the document and find it to be 

incomprehensible. As such, we believe no issue has been preserved through 

the Rule 1925(b) statement either.2 However, we note the trial court 

discerned possible issues concerning discovery and an alleged request for 

continuance. In an abundance of caution, we will adopt the trial court’s

____________________________________________

2 See Commonwealth v. Dozier, 99 A.3d 106 (Pa. Super 2014), wherein 

only four of the eighteen issues raised were worthy of consideration, the other 

fourteen issues were incomprehensible and not addressed.
J-S27018-19

- 4 -

opinion regarding those claims. The parties are directed to attach a copy of 

the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/9/2019