Appellant’s Brief  

            PART ONE: History and Facts in Original intended Filing

    And now comes  Appellant Matthew P. Dec (Pro Se), (filing under this Court’s 

jurisdiction via USC 1983, TVPA, RICO, and various federal tax issues;) 

this Brief contains herein the underlying and currently unaddressed causes, 

and illumination thereof these implications in its filing are made manifest to

 the open eye.

 1- This case proceeds from the events of June 6, 2023 in which Appellant 

during telephonic communication disputed with Magistrate O’Donnell’s office 

over jurisdictional issues; (any issues as pertaining any other previous suits 

such as 23-cv-0072 are null and void possessing only historical significance to 

current Cause of Action of this filing.)

  2- By use of analogy: 

“Mr. Smith drives 3 hours from Butler, Pa. to Greensburg, Pa. and performs a 

roof repair for the sum of $400. Mr. Smith completes his job, receives his 

check, and drives 3 hours back to Butler and deposits his check.  

 “The next day Mr. Smith learns that the check bounced. Mr. Smith calls the 

local magistrate of his region, and is told that he must drive back 3 hours to

Greensburg and locate the district magistrate there to file it.”

 3- Either secretary and Constable Geagan misheard what was said or they lied 

under Oath; and Plaintiff contends that they lied under Oath.

 4- Plaintiff laughed when he learned what he was being charged with saying, 

“Wait til they play the recording and find out that the PCP USA  is a website 

 not street gang.” 

5- Plaintiff sat for 50 days in the Butler County Prison on $250,000 bail without 

a preliminary hearing, while the courts and media spread false accusations 

about him. (This is  a violation of Due Process as a Defendant is to be afforded

 the Right to confront his accusers at a preliminary hearing within 14 days of 

arrest via PA. Statute 234 PA Code 540 (G) (1). 

6- There is no recording, nor any tangible evidence of a crime even being 

committed. Plaintiff is now confronted with a “they said he said” whereby 

which he is accused of 4-5 assaults and 4-5 terroristic threats etc…; and, of 

course, they had no stenographer available at preliminary hearing either.

7- Plaintiff was also victim of lower court officials’ deceptive practices by 

providing a personal friend and common communicator of false witness 

Constable Geagan; that being former magistrate Wayne Seibel (now a civilian) 

from Evans City (located in Butler County and the same office that placed 

Plaintiff on $250,00.00 bail) whom Constable Geagan serviced during his reign 

as magistrate.

 8- Sitting judge was to be from out of county due to mass media generated 

Falsehoods, and all local judges having been associates of Mr. Geagan and DM

 O’Donnell’s office were invalidated via rules of recusal.

 9- Mr. Seibel (a civilian,) by intentionally impersonating a sitting out of

County Judge did thereby commit Fraud upon the Court; and thereby he 

barred any judicial immunity that might previously have been available to him.

 (Mr. Seibel was not a sitting out of county judge, he was a common Citizen 

consciously pretending to be one.) 

 10- Even if all evidence points to a malicious and corrupt organized 

 syndicate’s conspiratorial employments (which it is), a judge has absolute 

immunity to engage in the most vile and reprehensible fascist vomit 

imaginal, for it is an established fact (at least at this point in American History; 

Bruen may change that) via the protections the former Supreme Court 

“justices” bestowed upon the lower levels of their brethren, that the

resulting manifestations prove that they have no leash and have weaponized 

the courts against political and moral rivals. (Freemasons v. The People)

 11- The leash that does exist is in the hands of the State Representatives who

are actually quite remarkable themselves in their Constitutional errors that 

they employ against the People; and the 11th Amendment immunity they

personally appropriate and enjoy is like unto that their like fellow

judicial folk possess; which creates an endless ping pong table that

 accomplishes nothing other than that which is reportedly committed upon

 and unrequited to an unsatisfied and indignant populous. 

 12- This is not what Our Forefathers set forth to create, nor the guidance of 

what they would have thought and wrought, and it is Historically proper to 

assume that they would have refused espousal to the said thought form 

thereof Plaintiff takes dispute with (In fact, they probably would have tarred 

and feathered them.)

 13- Plaintiff has considered this new form of Constitutional analysis (Bruen), 

and concedes that he could not have created a more sure and apt manner 

upon which the justices ought rightfully weigh Constitutional issues.

 11- Because Plaintiff alleges corruption in a multitude of depths and levels as 

is manifest in the forms of USC 1983, TVPA, RICO, and IRS tax fraud, it is 

necessary to understand the verifiable conduct of the local elected

commissioners, judges, magistrates, and DA; and how they all cook together in

 a nice neat RICO package smothered in abuse of process.

 12- It therefore is necessary that Plaintiff expound upon the History of the 

issues that played in the background unseen by the common viewing eye.

 12- Prior to the charges alleged against Plaintiff on June 6, 2023, Plaintiff had

 created and was working on the launch of a unique and yet unseen political 

vision that is to bring activities of police, court officials, legislative officials, and

 prison/enforcement officials into account for their activities.

 13- The manner in which this project was brought to fruition was by the 

creation of a third political party by Plaintiff which was officially inaugurated

as the “People’s Constitutional Party” (PCP), combined with a 

new Christian 501c3 denomination entitled the “Assemblies of a Standard 

Raised” (ASR.)

 14- The PCP subdivided the entire USA into all 3147 counties (parishes,) and 

was created in a manner that gave one person (or group of persons,) the 

opportunity to engage the political adversary in the battle of the electoral 

posts of their region; all via social media built into each county site.

 15- Via the use of social media, a political medium was created whereby which

all former campaign costs are negated with a viewing potential of every 

person that has a laptop/cell phone FOR FREE!

 16- This third Party option boasts the unheard of ability to field 13 Candidates 

into the Presidential Election of 2024 enabling each Candidate to run for 

President free of campaign costs with a built in platform as well as media 

projection abilities ( https://thepcpusa.com/13-candidates/ ) – it also sports

the political unionization of every convicted felon (1 out of 8 men 2018) in the

 nation under the Umbrella of the PCP ( https://thepcpusa.com/felons-union/ )

 – and the unique opportunity at this time in the History of this Nation’s

awakening of proper Court analysis via Bruen to follow in the footsteps of their 

Forefathers, taking an active part in restoring the principals this Nation was

 founded upon within their own personal potentials of CEOs of their own

County 501c4, 501c3, and various other financial potentials proffering various

 IRS code options ( https://thepcpusa.com/county-sites/ )

 17- The “ASR/PCP of Butler, Pennsylvania” was being primed to use as a “flag

 ship” site to show Citizens what can be accomplished against local corruptions

 thereby. 

 18- Two cases are already posted thereon. The primer case is “Cheyenne L. 

Goodin v. Butler, County et al…; and the other is Plaintiff’s current challenge

 of the State punishing Citizens for the practice of a Constitutional Right (Third 

Circuit 23:-2765,) which was recently Dismissed with Prejudice from the

 Western District Court of PA. citing 11th Amendment “safeguards” against 

Citizens attempting to correct Constitutional errors committed against them

 for which cause it was appealed to the Third Circuit. (2:22-cv-1290)

  19-  The case of Cheyenne Goodin v. Butler, et al…, “resolved” via the

District Court, stating that a mother who’s child was fraudulently obtained by a 

man who falsified federal and state documents, and who perjured himself 

under Oath claiming to be the “biological father”, having granted to a 

homicidal drug dealer and sexual abuser a toddler who was sexually abused as

 a result, was found as having no foundation of reasonable cause for the

 District Court to take action, for which cause it was considered “Frivolous and

 Malicious” and was Dismissed with Prejudice by Chief Judge Mark Horniak; a 

top rated NAMBLA Champion of Rights for men to enter little girls bathrooms, 

and handpicked by Michael and Barry Obama themselves. (2:21-cv-00265)

 20- The man who Butler County judges, and federal Judge Horniak, and CYS 

offices  gave the child to, in spite of all warnings and pleadings by Ms. Goodin; 

was arrested on a fourth and fifth DUI, dealing fentanyl/heroin and crystal 

meth, is reportedly being probed for multiple young girls’ deaths by OD, with

the toddler having been reported to have been previously sexually molested by 

the now sponsoring foster family; now sits in jail on a $100,000 bail.

 21- Ms. Goodin, who foolishly returned to that individual’s residence in 

concern for her child became again ensnared in heroin, meth, and crack, and 

was currently believed to be either in a halfway house or a rehab. (Recently it 

was learned by Appellant that she left the halfway house, gave birth in a tub at 

a crack/meth/heroin house where she is prostituted from; spent 10 days in jail 

for leaving halfway house from hospital where she was taken to for excessive 

bleeding; and was released fully addicted under the mental torture of realizing 

her own 4 year old son had sexual relations with her as she was doped up by 

man who perjured himself in court to the “wink” of Judge Yeager and the 

“rubbing of hands” by Att. Mike Zunder: They want this girl overdosed to 

“sweep under the rug” what they did to her.)

 22- The damage done by the lower courts to that mother and child are 

despicable to say the least. That man was told by his attorney Mike Zunder to 

Lie to the judge, the judge (Michael Yeager) knew he was lying, and court

rolled on giving that child to that man, because that man paid Mike Zunder a 

handsome sum.

 23- The filings Plaintiff helped that young woman file would cause any Jury to 

find negligence/corruption upon Judge Yeager, Attorney Zunder and 

Associates, DM Kevin O’Donnell, DA Goldinger, and CYS.

 24- The Butler County system and Plaintiff have been “at war” with each other 

on multiple fronts over a multiple period of years, but never has an episode

 such as this one been seen by Plaintiff ever.

25- Another judge also, who was I believe some sort of senior judge from

Armstrong county was called to sit in on one of her cases in which she sued 

Attorney Zunder and Associates, he refused to let her have a witness speak on 

her behalf, mocked her telling her she “was bringing a knife to a gunfight,” and 

also conceded with the giving of her son to man she claimed was not the

 biological father, was a drug addict and dealer, kept her doped on drugs to 

abuse her, and was turning his attention on her son! 

(Freemasonry as a demonic cult of “brotherhood” has been recognized by people from Anton Lavey {who stated “freemasonry is a screening process for satanic initiation”} to Plaintiff himself who was asked while in Bible college to deliver a man involved in freemasonry whose mind was obsessed with “german shepherds fucking girls as he masturbated in a circle at a ritual at a lodge.” Sometimes the Truth is stranger than fiction it would seem.)

 26- This judge did in the previous hearing tell Plaintiff (who was her witness) 

to “sit and say nothing or be taken from the court” with multiple deputies

 surrounding Plaintiff. With Plaintiff’s own eyes he watched them gang up on

 and beat her down rather than addressing her legitimate issues. 

(Because privacy issues, and a toddler child being sexually and incestuously assaulted being involved, would advise that all communications about the Cheyenne Goodin case being kept concealed and confidential; it is so requested. The issues of sexual abuse contained herein are waived by PA Law all 11th Amendment protections and demands investigation by proper Attorney General.) 

 27- This is one of the issues Plaintiff had every intention of utilizing in his 

purposed goal of launching the Butler, Pa. ASR/PCP as well as other issues of 

direct political import that should have removed from office the DA, 3

commissioners, DM O’Donnell, and DM Stoughton this year; and via the

weaponization of the courts Plaintiff was/is imprisoned and they retained their

offices using vindictive/malicious prosecution.

 28- Although these are the activities leading up to the cause of this suit, 

neither they nor the vindictive/malicious prosecution claims that reside within 

are the core cause of the action.

 29- The cause of this suit begins with Plaintiff being placed on House Arrest

and being forced to pay a 501c3 religious charity organization $450 a month to 

be on bail, or have bail revoked and re-incarcerated; and should end with an

injunction placed upon Defendants prohibiting the continuance of current

practice.

 30- It is 100% illegal to run a house arrest program for the county operating as 

a 501c3 charity! Via the operation of such an act they are engaging in 

violations of both TVPA and RICO. (See Precedential ruling of Third Circuit No.

 21-2846)

 31- Contained within Third Circuit’s ruling in 21:2846 is the established

 violation of the 13 Amendment;

 “Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a 

punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall 

exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” 

 “…In Kozminski, the Supreme Court held that the phrase “involuntary 

servitude,” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 1584 and the Thirteenth Amendment, is 

“limited to cases involving the compulsion of services by the use or threatened 

use of physical or legal coercion.” 487 U.S. at 948. The Court rejected the 

Government’s broader proposed understanding of the phrase, which

encompassed “the compulsion of services by any means that, from the victim’s 

point of view, either leaves the victim with no tolerable alternative but to serve 

the defendant or deprives the victim of the power of choice,” because that 

reading “would delegate to prosecutors and juries the inherently legislative 

task of determining what type of coercive activities are so morally 

reprehensible that they should be punished as crimes.” Id. at 949…

 “…“Modern day examples of involuntary servitude [under the Thirteenth 

Amendment] have been limited to labor camps, isolated religious sects, or

 forced confinement.” Steirer v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 987 F.2d 989, 999 

(3d Cir. 1993). “ ( Third Circuit 21:2846)

 32- There is a distinct difference to Plaintiff’s 13th claims and others; Plaintiff 

is out on $25,000 bail and is innocent until proven guilty! Forcing him and

others to pay a 501c3 religious organization to imprison him at his mother’s 

house at the cost of $450 a month with threat of bail revocation supercedes 

anything that has to do with threats to illegal immigrants or men sentenced to 

jail time for contempt having to sort trash.

 33- As for the TVPA charge:

 “…Congress heeded the Court’s call in Kozminski for legislative action, see 487

U.S. at 951–52, when it passed the TVPA, which defines forced labor broader 

than Kozminski’s definition of involuntary servitude as used in the Thirteenth

Amendment by criminalizing knowingly provid[ing] or obtain[ing] the labor or

services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following

 means— 

(1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical

 restraint to that person or another person; 

 (2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or

 another person; 

(3) By  means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or 

 (4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to

believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person

or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint[.] 

 18 U.S.C § 1589(a). Specifically, subsections (2) and (4) draw more broadly 

than Kozminski’s limitation to “physical or legal coercion.” See also 22 U.S.C. §

 7101(b)(13) (noting, in support of the TVPA’s passage, Kozminski’s narrow

definition of involuntary servitude and stating that “[i]nvoluntary servitude

 statutes are intended to reach cases in which persons are held in a condition

of servitude through nonviolent coercion.”); H.R. Rep. No. 106-939, at 101

(2000) (“Section 1589 will provide federal prosecutors with the tools to combat 

severe forms of worker exploitation that do not rise to the level of involuntary 

servitude as defined in Kozminski.”). 

 “Congress also broadly defined “abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal 

process” as the use or threatened use of a law or legal process, whether 

administrative, civil, or criminal, in any manner or for any purpose for which

the law was not designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to

cause that person to take some action or refrain from taking some action.

18 U.S.C. § 1589(c)(1). 

 “And Congress chose not to include the phrase “involuntary servitude” in the

TVPA. Rather, the TVPA clearly encompasses a broad range of conduct which is

not limited, as the dissent suggests, to ‘appalling criminal conduct and

shocking depravity.’” See Dissent Op. at n.6. That range of conduct 

encompasses circumstances in which the person whose labor is being

 exploited is faced with any number of choices as an alternative to working, 

including actual or threatened physical restraint, serious harm, and abuse of

law or legal process. See 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a). And the TVPA bars getting or 

giving labor “by any one of, or by any combination of, the [prohibited] means,”

 indicating that a victim can face more than a binary choice and remain

protected by the statute. Id. The TVPA’s more-expansive definitions of 

coercion reflect the “increasingly subtle” ways by which labor may be forced,

 United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160, 1169 (9th Cir. 2011), 

including both physical and “nonphysical forms of coercion,” Muchira v. 

Al-Rawaf, 850 F.3d 605, 617 (4th Cir. 2017).  

 “Defendants’ conditioning of plaintiffs’ access to the work release program

 (which plaintiffs allege they needed to free themselves) on a period of nearly

 free, grueling labor at the Recycling Center, is an abuse of law or legal process 

under the TVPA. That is so because it is a use of the work release program in a

manner for which it was not designed, in order to pressure plaintiffs to work at

the Center. Id. at 1589(c)(1). (Third Circuit 21:2846)”

 34- If placing late child support payers in a gruel meal factory for pennies on 

the hour is using “work release”  for a purpose unintended, how much more so

 sticking the innocent of any crimes under forced penalization of house arrest 

at $450 a month to a 501c3 religious charity of the county’s choice? (Another 

question: Does anyone believe that not one DA, ADA, judge, magistrate, cop, 

attorney, etc., knew that that was wrong? Of course they did!)

 35- As a result of these instances the actors all in their official capacity or their

 individual capacity have played their part in violations of the TVPA, RICO, 1st

 Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment, 13th

 Amendment, 14th Amendment, abuse of process, unjust enrichment, white

collar crimes against tax codes, and conspiracy to violate civil rights; (See 

attached Motion for added Defendants.)

 36- Plaintiff avers that these Defendants through their common cult cause of

have conspired to, created, committed, and continue to commit said acts

 contained therein.

 37- Plaintiff rests his Brief upon this foundation and awaits Defendants’ 

defense to Brief; and will perfect his case within the response thereto.

 38- Plaintiff demands a Jury Trial of his peers.

 39- Glade Run Lutheran Services at this moment continues to function as a 

“government instrumentality” enforcing court orders, extorting citizens who

post bail $450.00 a month to be locked in their house as bail condition, 

receiving funding from the county for such labors, and declaring an

approximate $22 MILLION in 2022 of county funding as tax free gifts of love for

 their charitable Christian services!

 40- IRS states: “As noted above, Rev. Rul. 60-384 establishes that a state or 

Municipality function cannot qualify as an IRC 501c(3) organization since its 

purposes are not exclusively purposes described in IRC 501(c)(3). Furthermore, 

an organization wholly-owned by a state or a municipality is not a clear 

counterpart of an IRC 501(c)(3) organization and is not entitled to exemption if 

it exercises powers that are governmental in nature, that is, “enforcement or 

regulatory powers in the public interest such as health, welfare or safety.” 

Exemption is denied because the organization “has purposes or powers which 

are beyond those described in section 501(c)(3).” (This position has been

 implicitly supported by the courts. See Estate of Leslie Johnson v. 

Commissioner 56 T.C. 944 (1971), acq. 1973-2 C.B. 2; Old Colony Trust

 Company v. United States, 438 F. 2d 684 (1st Cir. 1970).) 

 41- That placing Defendants that are Constitutionally “innocent until proven 

guilty” and post bail upon medium level punitive imprisonments, forcing them 

to pay a 501c3 church entity $450.00 a month under threat of incarceration is 

a violation of TVPA (using a system of punishment to extort money from 

citizens on bail) via abuse of a process beyond its intended purposes may be 

seen from “common sense:”

  A- If a Defendant was a danger to society in general he would cut off bracelet 

and go on a shooting spree; for which cause the ankle monitor is worthless.

  B- If a Defendant were a risk to certain people such as a mobster, what better 

alibi could he have after putting a hit on someone but that he was on house 

arrest; for which cause the ankle monitor is worthless.

  C- If a Defendant were to desire to jump bail and become a fugitive, he would 

simply cut off the bracelet and run; for which cause the ankle monitor is 

useless.

  D- There is no justifiable cause for placing a citizen who has posted bail upon 

a medium level punitive imprisonment plan complete with financial extortions 

from a 501c3 church under threats of incarceration from the local county 

government other than racketeering and oppression as is used by 

Authoritarian Regimes around the world to silence political dissent. (See 

Wikipedia “house arrest” search: While house arrest can be applied to criminal 

cases when prison does not seem an appropriate measure, the term is often 

applied to the use of house confinement as a measure of repression by 

authoritarian governments against political dissidents. In these cases, the 

person under house arrest often does not have access to any means of 

communication with people outside of the home; if electronic communication 

is allowed, conversations may be monitored.)

 E- That which is being perpetrated upon Plaintiff is abuse of process and 

official oppression after the manner of foreign regimes to silence dissent may 

be seen by the rules Plaintiff is subject to:

 (a)- Plaintiff may work for other party but is forbidden to bid his own jobs.

 (b)- Plaintiff is now after 5 months permitted to attend a church but is 

forbidden to continue with the building of his own. See www.thepcpusa.com

 42- Plaintiff believes that through this Brief (which DM Eddy Reed refused to 

even let him file) he has overcome the “frivolous” barrier; for which Plaintiff 

respectfully petitions this Court to review his claims.

 

                                                   

 

                                                        

 

                                                       PART TWO

                   Civil, State, and Federal Codes and Laws Violated

 

                                                   INTRODUCTION

43- The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. All 

jurisdictions of its premise as well as all whose vocation is “under color of law” 

are under its dominion and subject to its Laws. (Unless given Absolute 

Immunity to act of their own despotic accord without respite; an idea the 

Framers of our Constitution would have found repugnant.)

44- In the Bruen decision, one the most vital dictates unto this Nation’s 

integrity was given, that statement implied that all issues as pertaining unto 

Constitutional issues must be decided using the basis of the Framers’ intent. 

 45- God forbid that this Nation should fall under the immoral and despotic 

dictates of “woke” judges who consider it their Duty to push “woke” ideologies 

in violation of Constitutional safeguards under the endowment of Absolute 

and/or qualified Immunity! Sadly, We the People see it occurring more and 

more blatantly from the “Trump Debacle” unto even the lowest of courts; 

creating a frenzy of unchecked maliciousness and vindictive prosecution by 

DAs before the judges via the “weaponization” of the courts in violation of 

Rights both procedural as well as substantive. This is happening across the 

Nation as judges and DAs across the Nation have formed “local mobs” under 

Masonic initiation to include both police as well defense attorneys and elected 

officials using their positions to further their self serving agendas.

 46- This is not what our Forefathers envisioned.

 47- The United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol 

Association v. Bruen ruled that Constitutional issues, when faced by the Court, 

must be decided by the precepts of purposed cause as the originating 

Founders of our Constitution had in mind.

 48- The issues in this case are the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 13th, and Fourteenth 

Amendments, TVPA and RICO, as well as Federal tax violations respectfully.  

This issue stems from the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment of the 

Constitution which is singular in imposition, and it began its existence as, and 

under the conditions of;

49- “Preamble… (to the Bill of Rights)

“Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on

 Wednesday of March 4, 1789;

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their 

adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in order to Prevent

 misconstruction or abuse of its Powers, that further Declaratory and 

Restrictive Clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of Public 

confidence in the Government, will best Ensure the Beneficent ends of its 

Institution…”

50- In order to understand the significance of this second statement, it is 

necessary to understand the History behind it:

 51- On June 7, 1776 Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented to the Second 

Continental Congress what became known as the Lee Resolution. The Lee

 Resolution proposed three things to the new Congress:

  A – A Declaration of Independence from Great Britain.

  B – Alliances with foreign powers against Britain be sought out.

  C – A formal confederation of the States be made.

 52- On November 15, 1777 an Articles of Confederation was agreed upon by

 the Congress. The last State to ratify it was Maryland on March 1, 1781, and it

 remained the ruling Document of the United States of America for eight 

years.

 53- There was, however, various flaws to be found with it. The People, having 

just fought a war with Britain over their Civil Rights, were non too eager to

place themselves back into a position they just fought themselves out of.

 54- And so, as a result, they made Congress purposefully weak;

  A – The Congress had no power to tax the people to raise revenue. It could 

Only ask the states for money or get loans. When it did ask the states for 

money, it had no power to force them to comply, so most of the time the

 states didn’t send the requested money, yet the Congress was supposed to 

oversee military affairs and regulate the economy.

  B – Another problem was that each state had one vote. This was inherently

 unfair to the larger states because they were asked to contribute more

 because of their size, yet had no greater say in how things should be done.

  C – Congress was supposed to control the military, but had no power to 

impose taxes to pay for it. It also had no power to require people to serve in 

the army. Instead Congress would send requests to each state to supply 

troops, which many times went unfulfilled. This is one of the reasons why 

George Washington’s Continental Army was continually undermanned.

  D – The Congress had no authority to require delegates to even meet. States

would appoint their delegates, but they might or might not show up to 

scheduled meetings. This made the course of conducting business extremely 

slow. It was so slow that the Peace Treaty with Great Britain, which had

 already been signed by the ambassadors, sat for months in Congress because 

there weren’t enough delegates present to vote on it.

  E- -Congress could make decisions, but could not enforce them.

  F – Congress could not regulate trade between the states. Instead, each state 

created its own trade laws, rules and tariffs. This created a confusing set of 

regulations from state to state and created a great deal of competition from 

state to state in trade matters.

  G – Each state was considered to be a completely sovereign entity that could

 do whatever it wished apart from the specific things mentioned in the Articles

 which were given to the federal government, which included the right to make 

war, control foreign diplomacy, control weights and measure, and act as an 

arbiter between states.

  H – Decisions had to be made unanimously, so one state could veto a measure 

that all the other twelve wanted. 

  55- As a result, the inherent deficiencies came to Light on May 29, 1787 with 

what was called the“Virginia Plan”; whose sole purposed intent may be seen in 

Its first declaration;

  “…Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected ; 

enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, 

“common defense, security of Liberty, and general welfare….”;

 56- Although some change was obviously needed, there was a division 

between what was known as the “Federalists” and the “Anti- Federalists”. The 

Federalists were somewhat against the Bill of Rights as they saw in their view

 that such an enumeration might give a future administration of Congress the 

power to oppose such (as they did by creating 18 USC 922 (G)(1); the 

Anti-Federalists demanded the Bill of Rights to be organized and endowed with 

Absolute Immunity from any course of action taken by Congress. The

Anti-Federalists had their way and the Bill of Rights were ordained as 

“Declaratory and Restrictive Clauses” that were to be forever held INVIOLATE 

by Each and Every Citizen throughout the course of their free lives; never to be

 tampered with legislatively nor judicially forever. For instance, such 

punishments as imprisonment and sometimes death were recognized, but

upon release each Right was fully retained. They were designed so that

Government could never disarm the People individually, nor take away their

Freedom of Speech, nor Religion, etc…, (For to take away one was to take

away all under the singular BILL of Rights, and even as the Bill Rights was 

created to keep the Federal government in check; so like wise was the 14th 

Amendment created as a mirror to keep the States in check.)

 57- What is occurring today in the Courts of Our Nation more closely mirrors 

“Fascist Socialism” under the rule of an authoritarian oligarchy rather than the 

Democratic Republic possessing INVIOLATE Rights of Citizenry. (The loss of ANY 

RIGHT (substantive or procedural) within BILL of Rights furnished unto the 

States via the 14th via Anti-Constitutional impositions would have provoked a 

Second Revolution. And as Bundy Ranch and Capital unrest indicate, it may just 

yet…)

 58- Appellant salutes this Court for its rulings in Range and Quaille, and though

this case has nothing to do with Second Amendment it does implicate the 

others.

  59- In our Forefathers’ days they did not have cars but rather rode horses. 

The absurdity of the current practice at issue  may be seen by this apt

Analogical question posed as pertaining unto the Fourth Amendment, and how

our Forefathers would have reacted to the to be posed question subsequent 

this relay of the Fourth Amendment;

 “The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 

effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 

no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 

persons or things to be seized.”

 60- This Amendment was Ratified because the British Government basically

viewed We the People as a Money Making enterprise. For which cause, the

Citizens quite often did whatsoever they could to retain their income for

themselves: for which cause the British would often spy upon and break in to 

take what they wanted. Also, they would arrest whomsoever they would 

without probable cause. The States after defeating the British had no desire for 

a federal government that would do the same as they that they just

vanquished; for which cause the Fourth was created as a prevention thereof.

 61- As we know from McNeely and Birchfield the warrant requirement is 

synonymous with blood as it is with cars (see Commonwealth v. Alexander) 

and houses.

 62- Question: How would our Forefathers have responded if after the 

ratification of the Bill of Rights they were told that they can practice their Right 

to request a warrant, but if they did their horse would be confiscated for 18 

Months as is currently practiced in Pennsylvania and is under this Court’s 

discretion to resolve via 23-2765?

 63- Or how would a panel of the Framer’s have responded to the following 

averments…?

 

                                                     Averments

64- Appellant, who is innocent until proven guilty, is court ordered to house 

arrest after posting bail, and is forbidden to leave house except to work for 

third party to pay a 501c3 church organization $450 a month under threat of 

incarceration.

 65- An allegory: 

Freemason: “Gentlemen and established soldiers of Freedom who have fought 

to free us from authoritarian rule! We praise your remarkable insight into 

issues that future generations of Americans may encounter should wicked men 

that desire to feed their bellies at the expense of the People arise, and not 

have the moral fortitude to serve the People but rather serve themselves at 

the People’s expense! Your wisdom in the creation of the Bill of Rights is 

unprecedented! However, we seek your blessings in an endeavor we have 

created to incarcerate the People in their houses who post bail; AND, we will 

employ a local priest and his congregation to spy on them! And best yet, we 

will pay the priest to do it, and he will claim tax exemption! Granted, the 

Citizen shall lose his 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment Rights, but we shall 

have sealed him off from society and force him to pay us for so doing until he 

can prove himself innocent!”

 Framers: “If he is dangerous or a flight risk, why would you give him bail?”

Freemason: “ Oh, he is neither a threat to society nor a flight risk. But he is 

politically troublesome, and some of our “brethren” have testified to him 

saying mean things and accusing us of being corrupt and trying to make us lose 

an election!”

 66- How would the Framers have responded? I dare say negatively thereto.

 67- The following, although it’s a habeas corpus motion Appellant wrote for 

his attorney possessing subject matter he desires provided to Judge, shows an 

actual example of how Appellant is being victimized by an authoritarian form 

of persecution:

   68- Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief

 Defendant, in light of prosecution’s last intended “added information”, does 

allege prosecutorial misconduct as well as lack of evidence to proceed; and is 

also a violation of PA Rules of Evidence:

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or [Other] Acts *
* * (b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or [Other] Acts. (1) Prohibited Uses.
Evidence of [a] any other crime, wrong, or [other] act is not
admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. 

A-Prosecution, “in support” of the alleged verbal communication that occurred 

on June 6, 2023, attempts to add as “evidence” a verbal disparagement of

Chicora Borough using strong language Defendant used to describe his opinion 

of them, and their false accusations they made against a church’s grounds that 

he left for them on an answering machine in May 6 of 2023.

 B- Prosecution in his desired introduction of “evidence” states;

“In that call the Defendant threatens tp send some n****** to smash their 

windows out.” Defendant never said that as recording proves…

C- The use of what many would consider “curse words” are words that are 

used by many individuals from many walks of life as “slang”; in particular 

ex-service members such as Defendant who served in the Navy onboard the 

USS Nimitz, or roam the streets and listen to today’s music and develop “slips 

of speech” therefrom others might consider “offensive.”

  D- Because of Defendant’s religious convictions that “vengeance belongeth 

unto the Lord,” he ended his disparagement of them with; “Don’t make me 

pray my God sends sends some niggas to break your windows.” (Throughout 

the Psalms are records of David praying for God to do far worse than break 

windows. See Psalm 109)

   E- The term “nigger” and “niggas” are interchangeable for many and are no 

longer an implicitly implied derogatory term of racial prejudice, but rather 

used in a variety of circumstances. And it can be used as a greeting between 

friends (i), it can be used to denote affiliation (ii), and it can be used to describe 

someone that is of questionable repute regardless of color (iii); in other words, 

it can be used for “people” in general.

 (i) Two friends meet and one says to the other: “What’s up nigga?”

 (ii) When questioned about a clique of friends: “I know them. They’re my 

niggas.”

 (iii) When referring to a thief: “He’s a nigga motha…”

 F- Prosecution is attempting to assassinate Defendant’s character for the use 

of “slang” and protected speech by introducing as “evidence” Defendant’s 

disparaging comments pertaining Chicora Borough’s actions. (Who are WHITE)

 G-The use of such language is standard vocabulary for many without any racial 

prejudice intended and is protected by the First and fourteenth Amendments 

(a) as well as the Word of God (b).

 (a)  A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful 

conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent 

lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.  BRANDENBURG v. 

OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

 (b)  (i)- For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is 

consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: 

That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that 

reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.  Is.29:20-21

                                                 …and again…

    (ii)- Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he 

standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him 

stand. 

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day 

alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Is.14:4-5 

(What is the difference between poop and shit, pee and piss, heck and hell, 

dang and damn, phooey and f…?)

  H- According unto Defendant’s religious beliefs, those that have been “turned 

over to a reprobate mind” (Ro.1:18-32) are same as those in 2 Thess. (2:11-12) 

whom “God sent a strong delusion that they all might be damned.” (If God 

damned them, then they are “God-damned”.)

 I- Prosecution is fabricating statements that were never made at preliminary 

hearing saying,

“… The charges stem from a phone call where the Defendant threatened to 

hire n****** from Pittsburgh to take out District Magistrate Louis 

Stoughton and have-them burn his place down and then take out the 

employees at District Magistrate Kevin O’Donnel’s office.”

 J- Defendant never said what was alleged, and the witnesses that testified at 

the preliminary hearing never alleged that Defendant said what prosecution is 

attempting to add to testimony given underlined above.

 K- In light of the Superior Court decision of Commonwealth vs. Lambert (No. 

349 WDA 2020) , it is up to the commonwealth to prove before the Court that 

the elements required for prosecution are properly presented for a Habeas 

Corpus challenge.

 L- Defendant refutes the alleged allegations from the preliminary hearing, 

refutes the added fabrications of “testimony” newly presented by prosecution 

in Line 2 never stated at the preliminary hearing, and challenges the adequacy 

of testimony given during preliminary hearing to hold over to trial.

 M- Defendant alleges that witnesses lied under Oath, and neglected to 

mention Defendant’s spoken allegations against Judge Yeager, Judge 

Stoughton, Judge O’Donnell, DA Goldinger, Attorney Mike Zunder, and state 

police alleging the following in short surmisings; (when office clerk informed 

Defendant that he was being recorded he immediately proceeded to state the 

following realizing it was recorded, and wanted it recorded to obtain records 

thereof to hold staff and court responsible to act upon such information as is 

an officer of the court’s fiduciary duty:)

 N- Defendant did mention DM Stoughton as pertaining him beating his wife, 

growing pot on his property, permitting raw sewage to leak on his property, 

and catching him in his court conspiring with state police ex parte for which 

cause he had to recuse himself in a previous case in which Defendant was 

charged with trespassing in his own apartment because the apartment was in 

his wife’s maiden name.

  O- Judge Yeager, (Defendant helped Ms. Goodin file the motions) did 

knowingly give a toddler to a drug dealer (Gilbert Smith) that falsified his name 

on Cheyenne Goodin’s son’s birth certificate and perjured himself in court 

claiming to be the biological father who sexually abused him in spite of Ms. 

Goodin’s incessant pleas via court motions to have him removed. (Gilbert 

Smith is currently in Butler County Prison on fentanyl, meth, multiple Duis, and 

being investigated for the OD deaths of six young girls; and the child that is in 

foster care has reported sexual abuse and molestation from foster parents.) 

  P- Attorney Mike Zunder told Gilbert Smith to claim that he was the 

biological father and his office perpetuated this falsehood in Judge Yeager’s 

court, Judge Robinson’s court, and DM O’Donnell’s court.

  Q- Attorney Zunder would take $1500 cash from defendants such as Dennis 

John, and have Driving under DUI charges dropped on multiple occasions in 

offices of DM Stoughton, and DM O’Donnell; with no record left thereof with 

multiple police agencies including state police. 

  R- DA Goldinger, did not only conduct himself as did Judge Doerr who slept 

with probation officers wives in exchange for advancement with Public 

Defender Kerry Starr who resigned and left state to save her marriage; he also 

abused the power of his office to let Justin Castilyn (who owns Butler News on 

Facebook) off parole early and even pay off his fines in exchange for him 

politically attacking Jennifer Vannasdale (which she is suing for and Defendant 

is a witness thereto) with false statements to cause her lose her bid for judge 

(Castilyn told Defendant this personally as well as others who confirmed he 

told them too); DA Goldinger did also charge Castilyn with “theft” for using his 

own debit card, and surrender after losing to a $30,000 lawsuit that granted 

Castilyn $5000 and Att. Joel Hill $25,000 in legal fees; because case was 

dismissed, there is no record. (?)

 S- Defendant was also lied to stating that they recorded the verbal exchange 

of June 6 for which cause he did not request to have a witness to what he said 

present at the preliminary hearing believing that the taped conversation would 

be entered into court record as he intended.

 T- Prosecution did also engage in fraud upon the court when Defendant was 

held for 2 months incarcerated before preliminary hearing for the cause of 

obtaining an out of county judge to hear matter, and instead had Judge Seibel 

who is a local judge and friends with all of Defendant’s adversaries take the 

Bench for the preliminary hearing adjudicating prejudice.

 U- Via obvious circumstantial evidence, it is apparent that Prosecutor intended 

to utilize Defendant’s protected former speech that disparaged the Chicora 

Borough for harassing Christ’s Family Church as munition for the 

weaponization of the courts against Defendant to cover up much corruption; 

and to shield the county in a conspiratorial ploy from lawsuit for what was 

done to that child in that Governor Wolfe removed 11th Amendment 

protection against state agencies for such gross negligence.

 V- Prosecution’s own added fabrication prove that he is lying in that 

Defendant was charged with 4 accounts of simple assault etc…, as was 

allegedly committed against the office and staff of DM Stoughton’s office; for 

had Defendant supposedly said what prosecution added thereto, he would 

have been charged with at least 10 to include DM O’Donnell’s office as well.

 W- Appellant also learned from a local pastor that the message Appellant left 

on recording machine in May  was in their possession as early as September or 

October as DM Louis Stoughton was overheard bragging at a gun show about 

how they had Appellant on tape. Appellant scratched his head on this until 

ADA Zanella provided a false report to visiting judge with the Butler County 

detective claiming they “found this new evidence” around February 1. Pure 

Corruption and falsifying of facts in documents even!

69- THESE ARE THE EVIDENT SIGNS OF AUTHORITARIANISM!

70- Glade Run Lutheran Services church organization has no Constitutionally 

legal authority to invade Appellants privacy, nor do they have the 

Constitutional authority to imprison Appellant with threats of incarceration if 

he doesn’t pay them. 

 71- Glade Run Lutheran Services are claiming all moneys they are paid by 

County as Tax Deductible Contributions.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/250974320

 These are the contracts Glade Run Lutheran Services has with the 

County, they are being paid by the County in contradiction to 501c3 rules.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vxZNYT7c5P8rnJI-kio1g7NJoIVbbd5F/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YF-fetvXY2hFrbezGwFTpXBR23LZZN2N/view?usp=sharing

 Appellant ends this Brief averring the following:

A- Violations of 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments and conspiracy thereto.

B- Violation of TVPA and RICO and conspiracy thereto.

C- Tax evasion and conspiracy thereto.

D- Violation of Privacy and conspiracy thereto.

E- Unjust enrichment and conspiracy thereto.

F- False Imprisonment

G- Retaliation

 73- Butler County Prison did also hold Appellant for three (3) days after bail 

 

was posted. ( Jones v. City of New York) 

 

 74- Upon being released from jail three days after bail was posted, Appellant 

was re-arrested for stopping at Burger King to use restroom and get a drink as 

it was very hot that day and Appellant was walking home from the jail; this was 

considered a “violation” of his bail conditions.

 75- To further manifest their malice, they then placed him in a cell on which is 

used for housing sick heroin addicts, pedophiles, and transgenders with a 

federal inmate that was a homosexual with breast implants that slept on the 

floor by the toilet.

 76- Appellant then after jumping up on the guard’s desk and shouting, “In the 

Jesus Christ I bind every unclean spirit and plead the Blood over this 

entire range;” was maced and accused of “inciting a riot” and placed in 

lockdown.

 77- Appellant sat locked in a cell for 40 days before being granted bail hearing.

 78- Appellant concludes this Brief with the proceeding Petitions…

 

                                                     PART THREE

                                            Petition and relief sought

 

 79- Appellant has stated and maintains that the false prosecution leveled 

against Appellant in state court is malicious and vindictive in nature.

 80- Appellant has stated and maintains that the primary cause for this quite 

literal authoritarian persecution is to cover up the “sale” of a toddler child to a 

man who falsified birth certificate to control a young lady named Cheyenne 

Goodin; with judges, DA, Att. Zunder, State Police, and CYS being privy to.

 81- Appellant has stated and maintains that the cause of this imposition of 

house arrest is politically and financially motivated, is unjust, 

un-Constitutional, and a clear conspiracy to “clear” the negligent/malfeasant 

conduct of the court and county agencies’ wholesale delivery of a toddler child 

to a drug dealer pedophile who perjured himself before the courts with their 

indifference thereto.

 82- Appellant contends that forcing home imprisonment that he must pay for 

after paying for bail upon him as a condition as a release from prison is 

inequitable unto the 8th Amendment (for the costs associated are higher than 

the bail,) is designed to restrict his freedom of association, restrict his ability 

to speak publicly, and as a punishment for his use of speech to expose corrupt 

dealings with disastrous consequences for a young mother and her child.

 83- Appellant contends that the evidence of what was done to that young 

mother and her child are incontrovertible; from the briefs filed in both state 

and federal court to the video evidence provided to Butler County agencies 

which Appellant himself supplied… 

(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IRbWBk6oAsr-X4UU8Ug8fwgqIe7NGfgF/view?usp=sharing )

…all circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Appellant’s USC 1983 

averments are inextricably intertwined with retaliation with the sexual abuse 

that occurred in the Commonwealth; predications upon which sovereign 

immunity does not exist. (Title 42 section 8522 (B) (10)

(10)  Sexual abuse.–Conduct which constitutes an offense enumerated under section 5551(7) (relating to no limitation applicable) if the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by actions or omissions of the Commonwealth party which constitute negligence. 

 84- Appellant contends that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and that 

Glade Run Lutheran Services are guilty of conspiring with Adult Probation as 

well as commissioners as well DA as well as Judge McCune to violate TVPA via 

use of a program for which it was not intended; and RICO under the articles of   

TVPA as well as tax fraud/evasion.

 85- Appellant petitions this Court to review these claims, grant an injunction 

stopping this illegal and un-Constitutional activity, and grant a TRIAL BY JURY. 

 

Respectfully,

 Matthew P. Dec

 215 Campbell Av.

 Butler, Pa. 16001

 724-679-1512

 Thepcpusa@gmail.com