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 Absol ute 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 prio r conviction and

sentence. Kell now raises such claims as:

3. Did indeed Ta d Kell halt the assumption of jurisdiction by Adam Foriska [the Warren County police officer who wrote the citation] in his law merchant capacity? Did T ad Kell accomplish thi s by offer ing a Notice of rights and the n signing without prejudice purs uant to UCC 308? Does indeed Ta d Kell have remedy and recourse, pursuant to UCC 308, to have jurisdiction be proved before any part of an administrative quasi

- judicial procedure can conti nue?

... 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 driverJ

- S27018

- 19

- 3

-

license really just Tad Jere my Kell’s persona as created by the birth certi ficate 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 Confederat ion as part of The Organic Laws of the United States. Do these documents create a very specific venue and due process that must be honor ed 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 is sues

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 t rial court

discerned possible issues concerning discovery and an alleged request for

continuance. I n an abundance of caution, w e 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 o pinion in the event of further proceedings.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/9/2019