ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFPlaintiff,

Holder of the Key(s), CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW

KELLY H. BINGAMAN, N0. 05-1200 CIVIL TERMDefendant,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POSSIBLY (2) TWO DAYS OUT OF TIME, FOR SAID RESPONDENT BELIEVE THAT PURSUANT TO LAW, SHE IS NOT REQUIRE TO RESPOND TO THE ERRONEOUSLY FILED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BECAUSE OFITS IMPROPER SERVICE AND NEVER BEING SERVED ON THIS RESPONDENT AT ALL AFTER THE FILING OF AUGUST 26TH, 2013; IN VIOLATION OF PA RULE 1028(C ) (1) AND 052 PA. CODE § 5.101.(b) WITH ANSWER DESPITE THE UNCORRECTEDDEFIENCIES OF THE FILINGS:

AND NOW COMES, Petitioner and Relator/Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, :KELLY –

Holland:Bingaman, information and facts before this Court, and one of the inherited

constituents of, “We the People, All Rights Restored and Reserved, Never Waived,” Standing

in Propria Persona Sui Juris, not “Pro Se”. Entering said court by Special Appearance not by

General. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff/Affiant Victim and Witness to Criminal Activities, and

by this “MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POSSIBLY (2) TWO DAYS OUT OF TIME

& ANSWER DESPITE THE UNCORRECTED DEFICIENCIES OF THE FILING” to

be STRICKEN as a PROCEDURAL NULLITY for its Non-compliance with the rules.

I. DEMAND FOR LEAVE TO FILE POSSIBLY (2) TWO DAYS OUT OF TIME Defendant/Counter Plaintiff moves in accords with 052 Pa. Code § 5.101 Preliminary

Objections subsection (b) Notice to Plead – A Preliminary Objection, MUST contain a Notice

to plead which states that an answer to the objection SHALL be filed within (10) ten

days of the date of service of the objection. The filing of the alleged Preliminary Objections1

was filed on the record of the Courts and never served upon the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff,

in accords with the rules and procedures of this Court, therefore, said Objections were

improperly served on this Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in accords with this Title and guidelines

of the Preliminary Objections and not Notice to Plead was ever attached, therefore, making

such filing a PROCEDURAL NULLITY in violation of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s due

process rights.

1. Blank documents posing to be legal documents were sent to said Defendant/Counter

Plaintiff without any court marking or stamping on August 23rd, 2013; with the illegal

intent to deceive said Responded to believe that said document was actually filed upon

the record of the court and it was not, sent out by said Attorney on the Plaintiff/Counter

Defendant’s behalf, when said attorney should have known better for filing legal

briefing is supposed to be his profession, and he should be learned in the procedures

and process of the court, and willfully and purposely chooses to not follow them, in an

unlawful attempt to subvert process procedures, and justice.

Attorney of record should be reminded that since it is his practice and profession to

know law, that he is therefore held to the Highest standards of law, and if he cannot

understand and practice the proper procedures in law, then maybe he should be required

to go back to school and become learned of process of law or permanently be ye barred

& removed from it, for his continual failings from doing so.

2. The species of filings that had been filed on August 26th, 2013 allegedly what was

sent to Defendant/Counter Plaintiff just (3) three days before, even if one was to

construe them to be the same documents would constitute “IMPROPER SERVICE” 2

for it was never properly not timely docketed upon the records of the Court, with court

stamping before filings, and in accords with the rules of Civil procedures within the

State of Pennsylvania before service can be had, the documents has to be served upon

the record of the court and then served to all parties, therefore, conferring no right nor

any duty upon said Defendant/Counter Plaintiff to respond.

3. Moreover, said Preliminary Objections are VOID and ripe for striking by this court,

for it does not purports nor confirms to the Notice requirement of 052 Pa. code § 5.101

(b) for the Preliminary Objections to be served properly with the Notice to Defend and

neither of them were not, and is procedurally void and insufficient and must be stricken

from the record of this Court.

4. Just for clarification and making it plain upon the records of this court and the

edification of all parties, a Demand to Recuse, confirms with the rules as Promulgated

Under Title 28 U.S.C. and does comply with the numeration requirements and legal

sufficiency of process when a Judiciary becomes rouge and violates the rules and

procedures to deprive a citizen/litigant of due process rights and goes against the

prescription and process of law, and is the proper remedy in law to have such officer

of the court removed, and preliminary objections is not the proper procedures to

challenged such a demand, and it is the order and it is the responsibility of the courts

to raise such challenges, in the proper time of court, NOT that of the posing parties,

nor attorney thereof; and are self-authenticating and self-implementing once filed.

5. A Notice of Tort claim is a notice upon the Court and is prescribed under the rules

and of “TORT” and is also governed by the laws of Judicial Notice and therefore,3

the laws as sighted within opposing attorney insufficient filing is inapplicable and

does comply as proper issues raised against such filings and is a false claims asserted

by you.

6. The Demand for Reconsideration is completely procedural and proper process when

Illegal out-side of the rule of law order has been promulgated within the records of the

court and is completely sufficient pursuant to the rules and laws as stated therein, to

properly and lawfully preserve this Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s rights should she

have to appeal any additional unlawful orders enacted upon this Court in abuse of its

discretion after it has been already RECUSED, and would be acting in absent of ALL

authority to proceed and rule within these proceedings without a new Judiciary being

assigned herein. Unlike, said filing by opposing attorney which is procedurally void

and procedurally unsound.

WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff moves, that said Court should grant Defendant/

Counter Plaintiff’s demand to leave to proceed (2) two days out of time because she was

Never given proper notice to plead as required by law in these instances, therefore, it affords

No response by said Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, and subsequently she is not out of time to

make such filings, however, in the alternative, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff moves this Court

to accept the Demand to Strike and the Amended Affidavit in Counter Claim for a Fault Divorce

and with Modification to the Alimony and proper “QDRO” Qualified domestic Relations Order,

as reversed and remanded per the instruction of the Appellate Superior Court action in Bingman

vs. Bingaman, No. 1644 MDA 2008, August 31, 2009; which have been improperly subverted

with the continuance of prolong of this case to prevent, delay, hinder, impede, obstruct and 4

subvert legal process and authority granted unto said Defendant/Counter Plaintiff in her favor for

just relieve and property division as ordered by the rule making authority of the Superior Court

and binding upon this court.

II. THE ANSWER & RESPONSE TO THE INSUFFICENT PRELIMANARY OBJECTIONS NOW RENDERED MOOT FOR IMPROPER SERVICE AND DEFENDANT/COUNTER PLANTIFF AMENDED COUNTER COMPLAINTBY REFERENCE:

7. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff moves and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6

at length as fully set herein.

8. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff emphatically denies and dispute paragraphs 2-8 as being

procedurally Void and Stricken by application of PRAECIPE TO STRIKE for its

procedural violation of well-establish laws, conferring no rights or duties upon this

Defendant/Counter Plaintiff for its procedural nullity.

9. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff assert in accordance with law that said opposition has

No right or authority of law to move against said Respondent in such matter, for they

are precluded from advancing and benefiting from False claims upon the Courts, and

therefore is estoppelled by law from bring such claims for the role of advocacy has

been compromised, and relief cannot granted unto them.

10. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff/Counter Defendant and his attorney

are prohibited by under the laws of EQUITY from being granted relief by this court

and benefiting from their WRONGS, so the prayers as requested/motioned by said

attorney due to his conflict of interest in his pleadings is void and cannot be had.

11. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff asserts that the Counter Claim advanced by said attorney

5

is denied and a procedural nullity of the opposing party, for they are not responding

to any claims of this Respondent as of yet, and they are estoppelled from advancing

such scandalous & impertinent matters before the court, because in every instances

that this attorney attempted to obtain additional attorney’s fees was STRUCK down

by all courts, even the Appellate Court, in Bingaman vs. Bingaman, supra, and is

retention was promulgated and obtained by THEFT and fraud.

12. Therefore, since said Plaintiff/Counter Defendant used an instrument and species of

Crime to retain the representation of said attorney which he was CONVICTED OF,

See a true and correct copy of said Procedures and/or Order of Conviction of Plaintiff/

Counter Defendant marked as Exhibit “A”; said attorney is not entitled to any source

of additional attorney pursuant to 42 Pa. C. S. A. §§’s 2503(7) nor 2503(9); unlawfully

attempting to benefit from his and his client’s perpetration of fraud upon this court and

this Defendant/Counter Plaintiff.

13. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff asserts and denies attorney(s) false allegations in paragraphs

9 through 17 as being procedurally Void and Stricken by application of PRAECIPE

TO STRIKE for its procedural violation of well-establish laws, conferring no rights or

duties upon this Defendant/Counter Plaintiff for its procedural nullity, as scandalous

and impertinent matters, yet, again.

14. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff asserts, yet again, that Factual claims for relief is never in

Bad Faith, but puts this Court and this attorney, if they so choose to forget, that is in

“BAD FAITH” to put forth a false claim, and advance a knowingly “False Claim” of

6

Your client and to know and conceal the facts surrounding your engagement of a

Client hiring you using the very instrument or species of a “CRIME” and the act

of the concealing thereof, is a “CRIME” and is in “BAD FAITH”. “Whose Zoomin’

Who?” quotes by Aretha Franklin. Violations of the Pennsylvania Criminal Code sect.

1904 under Forgery by FALSIFICATION ALTERING OR COUNTERFITING

DOCUMENTS, in this instances CASES!

15. Therefore, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff asserts that the relief requested in the falsely

alleged prayers of the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant by way and through his credulous

attorney of record Joseph D. Caraciola, Esquire is void due to his conflict of interest

in these matters, his unethical and unlawful advancement of false claims of his clients,

and further advancing arguments that have already been struck down and dismissed, by

courts of higher authority, and therefore, cannot survive, this Defendant’s demand to

STRIKE.

16. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff asserts that the motion for Counter Claim For Injunctive

relief is VOID upon its face for its Constitutional unsoundness, and it induces this

said court to laughably act in CONFLICT with the Supreme Law to knowingly and

willfully deny this Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s guaranteed protected inalienable

unalienable rights, to due process and equal access to court, under the “COLOR OF

LAW” in violation of Pa Rule 12(b)(6), moving upon the court to grant authorities

and to violate rights of powers that are not afforded to this Court, to insight anarchy.

paragraphs 18 through 25 must be denied.

17. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff asserts that since the prayers for relief are Constitutionally 7

unsound, it must be dismissed as a matter and procedure of law, and therefore, cannot

STAND.

WHEREFORE, said Defendant/Counter Plaintiff moves for these filing to be accepted (2) two

days out of time, in the alternative, or all be STRICKEN AS A PROCEDURAL NULLITY due

to the IMPROPER SERVICE AND FAILED NOTICE TO DEFEND as the requirement of

the proclaimed law used by un-crafted, unskilled, attorney of record Joseph D. Caraciolo, Esq.,

whom should have known better, and out TRICKED and out SLICKED himself; in accords

with Pa. R. Civ. P.ro. Rule 1028 and 1028(c)(1) and 520 Pa code § 5.101(b) Notice to Plead, be

dismissed with prejudice and further Stricken from the record as a procedural nullity and Moot.

Affiant Victim and Witness to Criminal Activities further sayeth Naught.

Dated this _27 th _ day of _September__, In the Year of Our Lord, 2013;

Respectfully Submitted,

“We the People, All Rights Restored and Reserved, Never Waived,”

________________________________________________________:Kelly –Holland :Bingaman, on behalf of the Defendant and unwittingSurety of the COMMONWEALTH KELLY H. BINGAMAN, EX REL, any and all derivatives thereof; WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT RECOURSE, UNLAWFULLY & FRAUDULENTLY THREAT, DURESS AND COERCION:

V E R I F I C A T I O N

I, __:Kelly –Holland :Bingaman__, of her own free will and fruition, in her Proper Persona,

verify that the above statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are8

made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to

authorities.

Affiant Victim and Witness to Criminal Activities further sayeth Naught.

Dated this _27 th _ day of _September___, In the Year of Our Lord, 2013;

Respectfully Submitted,

“We the People, All Rights Restored and Reserved, Never Waived,”

________________________________________________________:Kelly –Holland :Bingaman, on behalf of the Defendant and unwittingSurety of the COMMONWEALTH KELLY H. BINGAMAN, EX REL, any and all derivatives thereof; WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT RECOURSE, UNLAWFULLY & FRAUDULENTLY THREAT, DURESS AND COERCION:

CERTIFICATE & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE:

“We the People, All Rights Restored and Reserved, Never Waived, :Kelly –Holland :Bingaman, relator of information and facts, hereby states that the said Plaintiff, the Court and the attorney of record as listed below have received service by certified return receipt and U.S. Postal Mail as required in rule 4(e), a true and correct copy of this MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POSSIBLY (2) TWO DAYS OUT OF TIME, FOR SAID RESPONDENT BELIEVE THAT PURSUANT TO LAW, SHE IS NOT REQUIRE TO RESPOND TO THE ERRONEOUSLY FILED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BECAUSE OF ITS IMPROPER SERVICE AND NEVER BEING SERVED ON THIS RESPONDENT AT ALL AFTER THE FILING OF AUGUST 26TH, 2013; IN VIOLATION OF PA RULE 1028 (C ) (1) AND 052 PA. CODE § 5.101 (b) WITH ANSWER DESPITE THE UNCORRECTED DEFIENCIES OF THE FILINGS: on or before October 01 st ,2013 , by way and through a third party uninterested party the U.S. Postal Service by regular mail and certified return receipt;

cc:

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND [HAND DELIVERED] 1 COURT HOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA. 17013ATTN: OFFICE OF THE CLERK & JUDGE’S CHAMBERS

9

PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE SHERYL M. DELOZIER 2929 GERRYSBURG ROAD, SUITE CAMP HILL, PA. 17011

PENNSYLVANIA SENATORPATRICIA H. VANCE3806 MARKET STREETCAMP HILL, PA. 17011

TOWNSHIP MANAGER KEITH M. MARTIN, PRESIDENT100 GETTYSBURG ROADMECHANICSBURG, PA. 17055

MAYOR JACK RITTER36 WEST ALLEN STREETMECHANICSBURG, PA. 17055

JOSEPH D. CARACIOLO,FORMAN, FOREMAN & CARACIOLO112 MARKET STREET 6TH FL.HARRISBURG, PA. 17101

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN JR.,386 LEWISBERRY ROADNEW CUMBERLAND, PA. 17070

Dated this _27 th _ day of _September___, In the Year of Our Lord, 2013;

Respectfully Submitted,

“We the People, All Rights Restored and Reserved, Never Waived,”

________________________________________________________:Kelly –Holland :Bingaman, on behalf of the Defendant and unwittingSurety of the COMMONWEALTH KELLY H. BINGAMAN, EX REL, any and all derivatives thereof; WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT RECOURSE, UNLAWFULLY & FRAUDULENTLY THREAT, DURESS AND COERCION:

10