Jean Coulter v. James P. Coulter, et al.

Do facts require that this matter be transferred to a different circuit? The co­ conspirators used their “connections” to affect actions taken by civil servants, evidenced by the fact that the Police did not “merely” provide unauthorized access, but then they also concealed those acts from others. Further, all federal judges are political appointees - and as one of the Respondents is a Federal Judge, their position enhances their influence on others within the “Justice System” (particularly within the same “region” as where they serve on the bench).

Do facts show the Respondents are co­ conspirators violating Jean’s Rights to Privacy with sham “welfare check”? In fact, it is clear that the Police would not have so blatantly chosen to “overlook” Jean’s Right to Privacy, had they not been pressured or encouraged to do so by those more politically powerful (judges) involved in case.

Do the facts show that certain of the Respondents violated Due Process both by willfully assigning Yeager to hear the related state case (knowing of Yeager’s desire to won the home) and by altering transcripts? These are clearly the reasons for the timing of the delayed transfer of the case from the Philadelphia Courts.

Are all Respondents criminally and civilly liable for damages as the result of their conspiracy/conspiracies? Police/Fire are not entitled to immunity under these facts - and others were not in conformance with their official capacities.

Must all Judicial Conduct Codes require their Reviewers report to police every time facts show that there has possibly been criminal activity by any lawyer or judge? “Self-policins” does not work! i.