… one Nation, under God,
with Liberty and JUSTICE for All.
Hall of Shame Nominee: WILLIAM E. FORD
William E. Ford, judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, introduced the Administrator of Pa Court Injustice (“PCI”) to the criminal corruption that permeates Pennsylvania family courts. All state judges have a fiduciary responsibility as “trustee” under the Public Trust to serve “We the People” with honesty and fidelity under their Oath of Office.
A court of law has three tasks / Duties:
ONE: to search for TRUTH.
TWO: to apply the Truth (evidence) to the law to obtain a JUST decision.
THREE: to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Constitutional Rights of all beneficiaries as a fiduciary under the Public Trust.
The nomination of William E. Ford to this Hall of Shame arises from the corrupt practices and criminal misconduct of the Lehigh County ‘family’ court and Court of Common Pleas (LCCCP).
We the People place our Sacred Trust in the honesty and integrity of public officers, especially judges. Public service requires public officers to perform the duties of office in compliance with their Oath of Office and 5 U.S.C. § 2635.101. Anything less than full compliance identifies the public officer to be a “criminal” for “conflict of interest crimes”. Ford earns his nomination for numerous and egregious departures from the duties of his office [a fiduciary responsibility], from the clear and unambiguous language of the law and for egregious breaches of personal and professional integrity; “criminal misconduct”.
Ford administered “family law” cases where the outcomes were pre-determined, i.e., “fixed“. The case of interest is a “child support” issue that became a criminal case against the court.
We the People have a right to presume that in all judicial proceedings the court will search for TRUTH, and will not distort or alter the facts presented to the court. A court that “manages” the admissibility of evidence neglects its duty to search for TRUTH.
A court that alters the record to remove or distort admissible evidence CONCEALS TRUTH.
“Public officials, officers of government bodies politic, in all branches/departments, executive, legislative, or judicial, being of oath of office, bonded to fidelity, are under ministerial duty.” Supervisors v. United States ex rel, 71 U.S. 435, 4 Wall 435, U.S. v. Thomas, 15 Wall 337, U.S. v. Lee, 106 US 196, 1 S.Ct. 240.
“Our adversary system depends on a most jealous safeguarding of truth and candor,” Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999) citing United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 463 (4th Cir. 1993).
From Truth Tables, Philosophy 101:
If the hypothesis is TRUE: Then JUSTICE may be available.
Where the hypothesis is FALSE [UNTRUE]: Then INJUSTICE Must Prevail.
The only reasonable conclusion for a court to conceal Truth must be that TRUTH interferes with “the pre-determined outcome.”
Such courts are corrupt and are only capable of dispensing INJUSTICE.
CRIMINALS ARE RUNNING OUR COURTS!
In Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (LCCCP), audio tapes are (and have been) edited prior to being transcribed into “Notes of Testimony”. Criminal alteration of audio records of [family] “court” hearings rises to a level of “pattern and practice” Link to Forensic Report. The criminal alteration of audio records of court hearings was reported to judge William E. Ford in December of 1997. This Administrator alerted judge Ford of discrepancies in the audio record of the hearing in Ford’s courtroom on Sept. 24, 1997. He is identified as one of four individuals who had “custody” of an audio tape of a court hearing that was criminally edited prior to being “transcribed”. See Reichley.
See exchange of correspondence CorresFordDec31, 1997, from Administrator to judge Ford, and 26 January CorresFordJan26, 1998, and Ford’s response dated 21 January FordCorres Jan98.
Please NOTE: Judge Ford identifies ONLY Susan Sherry, his court monitor, and his Law Clerk, Licia Ano, as having physical custody of the audio tape during the period in question.
This is False and Misleading information.
It was later learned that two others (from within the courtroom) had “unlawful” custody of the audio tape in question: William E. Ford and Susan G. Maurer. See Reichley, supra.
18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3 requires compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 4.
After the allegations of “editing” the audio tape was reported to [judge] Ford, the ball shifted to his court [no pun intended] to pursue an investigation. Ford neglected his fiduciary responsibility to report the crime to a federal officer, thereby becoming a criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 4.
LCCCP is not singularly culpable for such editing. Audio records are [or have been] edited to remove or distort evidence in Massachusetts courts and recently charged as a criminal practice in the U.S. District Court for the 4th federal District.
Relevant facts material to the outcome are deleted or altered to obscure the TRUTH. TRUTH is altered. Justice is Denied. Tampering with official records is a felony. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911 Tampering.
William E. Ford introduced this Administrator to unlawful edits of audio tapes of a court hearing. Judge Ford presides over a courtroom where criminal alteration of the audio record of hearings is condoned and “covered up”. Audio records have been edited to remove or distort evidence material to the outcome. See Hamoui: Document List for a partial list of criminal edits to the audio tape of court hearings.
Upon a demand for a criminal investigation, Ford provided inaccurate or incomplete information regarding the “chain of custody” for the ‘original’ audio tape of a hearing where the integrity of the record is challenged. To be kind, Ford was “untruthful”. One can only PRESUME his intention was to discourage or obstruct the investigation of criminal misconduct within the court. Obstruction of justice is a crime.
We the People have a right to presume that our judicial system is administered with absolute integrity and fidelity, supra, and that JUDGES [“trustees” under the Public Trust and administrators of justice] will perform the duties of their office with fidelity and in strict compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct and their Oath of Office to protect and preserve the constitutional rights of We the People. See Supervisors v. U.S, supra.
Judges have a fiduciary responsibility [legal duty] to serve as trustees under the Public Trust.
“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error;
it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”
American Communications Ass’n v. Douds , 339 U.S. 382; 70 S.Ct. 674 (1950).
We place our Sacred Trust in the honesty and integrity of public officers, especially judges. William E. Ford breaches that “trust” and violates his duty under the Public Trust, his Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct, committing crimes against the State, crimes against individuals, and crimes against We the People.
In the beginning there was truth. Gen. Chapter 1.
The search for truth is the unending task of the judicial system for without truth that can be no justice. See Pa.R.A.P. Rule 1926.
Background of the Case:
Defendant Hamoui petitioned from a “domestic relations” recommendation for child support for a de novo hearing to modify child support arguing that DRS misapplied the law and failed to consider the financial circumstances of both parties under guideline provisions allowing for a deviation from the guideline amount.
DRS issues interim support orders under a questionable practice where the court “delegates” the judicial power of the court to DRS.
On September 24, 1997, this Administrator entered the courtroom of Judge William E. Ford to litigate a child-support hearing under the child support guidelines for Pennsylvania. By the end of the hearing, the ncp/defendant, Farouk Hamoui, was held in contempt of court and was ordered to raise a substantial amount of money within 90 minutes or he would be incarcerated.
Hamoui filed for a reduction of his child-support payments several months earlier when he was unemployed and had no income.* He had obtained part-time employment several weeks after the DR conference, and, two weeks before the Sept. 24th hearing was promoted to a full-time position with the same employer, City of Allentown. During this period of time, Hamoui remained current with his child-support obligation.
* DRS refused to recognize the period when the ncp had No Income ($00.00).
The factual details of the case need not be examined, except that upon completion of the hearing on the support issue, the Title IV-D attorney, Susan G. Maurer, moved for a ruling of “contempt” against the ncp, despite the fact that upon obtaining employment, Hamoui resumed child support payments via payroll deduction.
Maurer raised an issue of contempt for arrearages that accumulated while the ncp was unemployed and without income.
NOTE: This issue had been resolved earlier with Domestic Relations. DRS initially filed contempt charges against the ncp, then advised counsel that contempt charges would be withdrawn because he was in full compliance with the interim court order after August 8, 1997.
Ford was advised of this during the hearing, and instructed an officer of the court to confirm with Rosemary McFee, Director of DRS.
This publication is not an exercise of relitigating the support case. The reason this case is important is because it exposes the prejudice and bias of the courts and the lengths to which those courts will expand their authority to achieve the intended results. In other words, outcomes are frequently predetermined and courts will, and have, committed crimes for the purpose of preserving the outcome to enable appellate court confirmation without honest appellate scrutiny.
The integrity of the judicial process is imperative in order for the interest of justice to have any chance of serving the public. To preserve the integrity of court records, an elaborate court room audio system had been installed in Lehigh County courts. Audio is (or was) recorded in analog format.
An elaborate system for the chain of custody of court records was also developed to preserve and protect the integrity of court records. Court Administration has “sole responsibility” and accountability for the custody and control of court audio records. Granting outside access to the original audio recording is a “neglect” of duty.
Lehigh county court monitors engaged in a practice where, when “their” judge requested the audio tape, he/she Got it! The “chain of custody” was broken.
Court Administration can no longer attest to the integrity of the audio record.
Tampering with official records of the court is a crime. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911, supra.
The hearing on September 24, 1997 was recorded using this system. Because the outcome of that hearing was so absurd and contrary to the law and the intent of the law, Hamoui decided to appeal the order. Judge William E. Ford found Hamoui in “contempt of court” for his failure to make child support payments during the period when he had No Income ( $ 0.00 ). DRS confirmed that Hamoui had authorized payroll deduction for child support upon obtaining “part-time” employment.
Upon the urging of the Title IV-D attorney (Maurer), Ford had the defendant arrested, shackled, and physically removed from the court. Ford allowed Hamoui approximately 90 minutes to present payment of $700.00 or be processed for incarceration.
NOTE: Hamoui had 3 small children at home, and could lose his part-time employment if incarcerated.
When an appeal is filed, Court Administration is responsible to timely produce a transcribed record of the hearing for the appellant. This office is also responsible for the sole custody of original court records, including “audio”.
Several weeks after the transcribed record should have been released, Court Transcription Services was contacted to inquire about the production of the Notes of Testimony (transcript) for the hearing of Sept. 24, 1997. The court monitor for the hearing, Susan Sherry, informed this Administrator that she had not begun transcribing the record because she was not in possession of the audiotape for the hearing, which she said was then in the custody of one Licia Ano, judge Ford’s law clerk.
The “chain of custody” was violated. The INTEGRITY of the contents of the audio recording for September 24, 1997, is unreliable at best. Neither Ms. Sherry nor judge William E. Ford can testify that the audio record was not criminally edited.
Judge Ford opined that No One would have any reason to edit the audio tapes.
JUDGE FORD IS WRONG!
One reason to edit audio tapes is to preserve the State-Sanctioned Stealing of federal dollars that funnel to the “political subdivision” (courts) via Title IV-D!
Domestic Relations courts are a “Cash Cow” for the judicial branch of state government.
Approximately 10 days later Ms. Sherry contacted counsel to inform him that the transcribed record was complete and that it could be picked up in the courthouse.
A cursory review of the transcript revealed significant and “material to the outcome” deviations between the official record of proceedings and what actually transpired. Relevant and material issues of fact and law were either deleted, or were transposed (relocated in the record) so as to confuse any meaningful effort to make sense of the transcript. Relevant testimony was deleted.
Several months later, Hamoui and counsel reported the criminal edits of the audio tape to the Lehigh County DA; to wit, Asst. DA Douglas G. Reichley.*
Reichley answered the criminal charges by Mail, essentially absolving the court on the grounds that none of the persons who had, or may have had custody of the “original” audio tape record of the hearing would have any reason to alter the record; 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911.Tampering with official records, supra. See Reichley July99 letter.
* Douglas G. Reichley left the DA’s Office and ran for State office successfully and served in the State Legislature. Reichley then ran for “judge” in Lehigh County and was elected. Judge Douglas G. Reichley now serves the people as a Judge in LCCCP.
Prior to calling the first case, William E. Ford announced publicly on September 24, 1997 that persons appearing to reduce child support ‘may as well get up and leave’ because it wasn’t going to happen in his court. Ford pre-determined that not one defendant would get a reduction of child support in his court.
Ford’s remarks were one of many utterances deleted from the audio record.
William E. Ford kept his promise.
In collusion with Maurer, the Title IV-D attorney/solicitor, Ford administered the Hamoui case to prevent or obstruct the admissibility of exculpatory evidence, while at the same time permitting Maurer to testify for plaintiff and to misrepresent fact and law. See PA Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.3(a) – Candor Toward the Tribunal.
The defendant was DENIED the right to test the credibility of Plaintiff.
Ford intentionally “misapplied the support guidelines” to inflate the net income of defendant to support a finding for a higher child support obligation. Maximizing child support collections maximizes the ‘federal incentive’ amount distributed to the court [political subdivision] under 45 CFR. The court becomes a “beneficiary” of judicial misconduct.
The outcomes for Hamoui’s child support and contempt cases were pre-determined. The cases were “fixed“.
Facts material to the outcome stated for the record were deleted from [or distorted in] the audio record to preserve an inaccurate record for appellate review. Maurer misrepresented fact and law material to the presentation of defendant’s case. She obstructed defendant’s effort to cross-examine Plaintiff. Ford concurred.
Defendant was not permitted to test the credibility of Plaintiff in the support matter, depriving him of due process. Depriving a litigant of “due process” forfeits jurisdiction.
Ford refused the opportunity to reconsider his decisions even after learning of Maurer’s material misrepresentations.
Maurer refused her professional obligation to remedy any misstatements she made to the court. RPC 3.3(a).
Ford neglected his duty and violates his Oath of Office.
A finding of “contempt” requires proof that the non-compliance was willful and that contemnor had the [present] ability to comply with the order. The court acknowledges that Hamoui had NO INCOME for more than 5 weeks. By the date of the hearing, defendant obtained employment and had been in full compliance with the interim support order for more than 6 weeks.
Contrary to the position of DRS [Director Rosemary McFee], Maurer brought forward a complaint for contempt against Hamoui. Court employment of contempt charges is intended to intimidate a defendant because it includes the Threat of Incarceration.
Some describe this judicial misconduct as “Domestic Terrorism“.
The court learned that Hamoui was in compliance with the order [since Aug. 8]. Maurer argued that even though Hamoui was in compliance, he has a history of non-compliance, which justifies holding him in contempt at this time. She offered no evidence that Hamoui’s non-compliance was willful.
Ford agreed and Found Hamoui to be in Contempt.
Ford knowingly and intentionally “misapplied the contempt rules of the support guidelines” to arbitrarily find a contemnor guilty when he is in full compliance with the existing order. Clearly, the outcome of the contempt complaint was as pre-determined as the outcome of the support matter. The case was “fixed“. Ford abandons, not merely neglects his duty.
Ford ordered that sheriff’s deputies immediately handcuff Hamoui and drag him to jail, allowing him to avoid lengthy incarceration only if he could pay a $750.00 “ransom” purge amount within 90 minutes. Ford ordered the “imprisonment” of Hamoui, a despicable act of domestic terrorism to extort money.
Note: Ford was aware that Hamoui’s wife was home with three pre-school children, the youngest a seven months-old nurturing infant, and that Hamoui had been in compliance with the current support order since obtaining part-time employment.
Plaintiff even “cried out” in court that she did not want Hamoui thrown in jail. Her pleading was one of many utterances deleted from the audio record.
Hamoui was compelled to borrow money from his parents to pay the purge amount and to escape overnight detention.
The court “earned” an immediate $75.00 incentive (10%) under 45 CFR, and may have included Hamoui among the “deadbeat dads” incarcerated, thereby earning an additional ‘financial incentive’ BONUS under CSEP.
Hamoui appealed both orders. Appellate rules mandate that the record be transcribed within 14 days. FORD interceded and took physical custody of the audio tapes of the hearings prior to having them transcribed, delaying transcription. Ford must be held accountable for the integrity of the audio record. Ford’s law clerk, Licia Ano, obtained the “original” tapes, presumably from Ford.
The”original” audio tapes of the hearings were criminally edited. TRUTH was altered.
The integrity of the transcribed record and the “integrity of this court” was compromised by these criminal actions.
Ford broke the “chain of custody” for the audio record. When the content of the transcribed record was challenged for deficiencies and lack of integrity, Ford LIED about the physical possession and chain of custody of the audio records and conspired with the Office of District Attorney of Lehigh County to whitewash an investigation into the criminal alteration of those audio records. See Document List for an enumeration of discrepancies in the transcribed record and proof of the “whitewash”.
Ford knowingly and intentionally “misapplied the law” in child support and contempt hearings, an abuse of discretion, to support pre-determined outcomes. He reported falsely regarding the “chain of custody” for the audio tape of the Sept. 24, 1997, hearing. This misrepresentation of a material fact constitutes a “fraud on the court” and obstructs justice.
Ford knowingly and intentionally deprives defendants of civil and constitutional rights including ordering the ‘false imprisonment’ [domestic terrorism] of defendants that constitutes “conflict of interest” crimes. 5 CFR 2635.101.
See JUDICIAL ATROCITIES: Hamoui.
Ford subsequently neglected his duty to file an “opinion” as directed by appellate rules. Eight (8) months after the appeal was filed, the appellate court “directed” Ford to file an opinion. He then fabricated facts in his opinion, despite knowledge that the solicitor LIED to the court, that he abused his discretion, and that the audio records were criminally edited.
Obstruction of Justice; Tampering with official records et al.
Hamoui reported the criminal alteration of audio records to the DA for Lehigh County. Asst. DA Douglas Reichley handled the INPUT. The investigation prompted a response from judge Ford. Ford’s response is less than truthful, interfering with the investigation; i.e., obstructing justice. Ford signed correspondence that clearly misstates the chain of custody. Is this “perjury”? or just “business as usual”?
Ford’s letter misstates that only the Court Reporter, Susan Sherry and his Law Clerk, Licia Ano, had custody of the original audio tape. Reichley discovered that the audio tape also found its way into the hands of judge William E. Ford, and the Title IV-D Attorney, Susan G. Maurer.
Court Administration rules require that court reporters maintain exclusive control (custody / possession) of all audio records. Judges should never have custody of court audio records. This Administrator asks “Under what authority should a Title IV-D attorney EVER obtain custody of the official “original” audio recording of a court hearing”?
In a separate action, Ford later heard a Motion to Disqualify the Title IV-D attorney, Susan G. Maurer, Esquire, who also serves as “solicitor” for Domestic Relations in “family” court ( Nov. 8, 1998). Susan G. Maurer violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, perpetrating a “fraud on the court“.
Ford neglected his duty to decide the disqualification motion according to settled law, thereby protecting the financial interests of a dishonest [toward the Tribunal] and corrupt attorney who serves the financial interest of this corrupt court.
Non-custodial parents continue to be irreparably harmed by the corrupt and criminal practices of Lehigh County judges, including William E. Ford. His covert and criminal actions undermine the integrity of the judicial process, the Constitution and the rights of non-custodial parents. This conduct qualifies William E. Ford as a “domestic terrorist” – at war with the federal and State Constitutions.
William E. Ford is a “criminal” under 18 USC § 242 for conspiring with others to deprive persons of their civil rights, and as a participant or accessory in the despicable criminal alteration of audio records in his courtroom. See also 18 USC § 1346 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911. Susan G. Maurer must be included as a “co-conspirator” under 18 USC § 241.
Ford is also guilty of misrepresenting facts to obstruct a criminal investigation, making him a LIAR for attempting to conceal his involvement in the criminal alteration of audio records.
The victims of these corrupt practices and crimes deserve and are entitled to remedial action [redress of grievances] by the government. The extent of remedies, including reparations to victims, are discussed with each case.
William E. Ford commits egregious violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and his [sacred] Oath of Office. He engages in acts of moral turpitude that satisfies the parameters for Impeachment under Articles V and VI of the Constitution of Pennsyl- nvania and Title 11 PACODE § 11.8-806 for engaging in corrupt acts or practices.
William E. Ford knowingly and intentionally NEGLECTED HIS DUTY, VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE and the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, AIDED AND ABETTED THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL ACTS, took action to cover up the crimes, MISAPPLIED THE LAW, and committed OTHER CORRUPT ACTS OR PRACTICES, a MALFEASANCE OF OFFICE.
William E. Ford epitomizes the deceit, tyranny, arrogance and despotism that permeates ‘family’ courts of Pennsylvania. Ford was afforded the opportunity to DENY in Affidavit form each of the above charges. He chose to remain silent.
An unrebutted affidavit stands as Truth in a court of law. By his silence, Ford admits the TRUTH of every accusation and allegation brought against him. He is forever estopped from denying the Truth of these accusations, and therefore stands ‘convicted’ by his silence.
Every elected official or officer subject to impeachment proceedings may be impeached, suspended or removed from office in the event of mental incapacity, incompetency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, mismanagement or for any corrupt act or practice.
Title 11 PACODE § 11.8-806. Grounds for Removal — Impeachment.
Our Constitution and Laws provide for removal from office of public officers whose conduct includes “any corrupt act or practice”. Criminal misconduct or “Dishonesty” or “Neglect of Duty” by a public officer in the performance of his/her duty is a “corrupt act or practice”.
We the People must demand that all public officers found guilty of “corrupt acts or practices” be removed from office. This is only a first step.
Legislators in Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives have a Duty under their Oath of Office to investigate William E. Ford for impeachment. His performance includes criminal misconduct, “Dishonesty” and “Neglect of Duty” that undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Disbarment is appropriate. Anything less infers consent and complicity.
JOIN THE FIGHT TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
PA Court Injustice offers William E. Ford the opportunity for repentance. In order to restore some integrity to his name, PA Court Injustice invites William E. Ford to resign his office and to testify under oath to the corrupt practices employed in Lehigh County ‘family’ court, including the criminal alteration of audio records and the unlawful employment of Susan G. Maurer, Esquire, as Title IV-D attorney/solicitor.
No one is above the Law. Judges are NOT afforded immunity from criminal prosecution. As an accomplice and accessory to the criminal alteration of audio records in his court, Ford must be prosecuted under the law.
The House of Representatives must investigate the charges brought forward to determine whether William E. Ford is unfit for office and must face disciplinary action under Articles V and VI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Discipline for criminal conduct in office must consider impeachment from that office.
Check back for updates.
James B. Martin, Esq. – Lehigh County District Attorney
Susan G. Maurer, Esq., – Title IV-D attorney / solicitor