Judicial Atrocities

View the Profile of Eugene A. Wrona. 

America, America, God SHED HIS GRACE on THEE …

 2,000+ years ago, Christ entered the temple in Jerusalem and said to the moneychangers …
“It is written, ‘My House shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’
Matthew. 21:13.

Regrettably, that same utterance applies today to American courts and judges. Paraphrase Matthew with:
‘My Courts shall be called courts of Justice,’ but you have made them into a ‘den of thieves.’

      The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition.”
Judge Edith Jones, 5th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals; to the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28, 2003

Organized Crime in Government
     Government officials maintain control of the courts by “licensing lawyers” and by forbidding the common citizens to practice law or give legal advice.
      To protect “official malfeasance”, attorneys are forbidden to file criminal complaints against malfeasant officials, officers and clerks and against officers of other political corporations. If they disobey, they lose their license to practice law. Similarly, when the citizen files a criminal complaint against a public official the prosecutor is expected to protect the public official from prosecution for official malfeasance by exercising some mystical doctrine of “selective prosecution.”

     On this, the 20th Day of March, 2017, I respectfully request the indulgence of these readers to accept my apology regarding my personal condemnation of what I refer to as “black-robed domestic terrorists”.  The expression, “CRIMINALS ARE RUNNING OUR COURTS!” is directed towards all “judges” who fail to perform their duty to preserve the Constitutional rights of all persons (litigants) appearing in their courts. Witness the “HALL OF SHAME” published herein.
.      After watching Neil Gorsuch, nominee to the Supreme Court Of these United States, make his Opening Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee who will decide whether or not to confirm his appointment, I am compelled to amend my “generalized” position / opinion. There must be other exceptions to my statement that All Judges are CRIMINALS.
     I believe what judge Gorsuch said, and accordingly, believe that HE will perform the duties of his office in the manner required under the Oath of Office for the judiciary. I am confident that there are other “judges” with integrity to their fiduciary responsibility.
.                          THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING! 

      We dedicate this page to the memory of Claudia Ann Montelione, who passed away on the 22nd of August, 2014. Claudia was a warrior in the War against corrupt government and CORRUPT COURTS.  Claudia epitomized the essence of Don Quixote, willing at all times …

To fight … the unbeatable foe;
To bear … with unbearable sorrow;
To run … where the brave dare not go …

      In HONOR of Claudia Montelione, we carry on this Fight!
 “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body, working  like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step  like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until  all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”  —  Thomas Jefferson

   “Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice, and are also the most protected.
 —  Alan  Dershowitz

     To her Honor, the Commonwealth of PA retaliated against Claudia via false fabricated criminal charges to prosecute her unlawfully, confirming the words of Voltaire:

                         “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

      To sustain dominion over We the People, the government relies on this fundamental truth:  
                        “IGNORANCE is a SELF-INFLICTED CONDITION!” 

       This Judicial Atrocities section is dedicated to exposing judicial misconduct in American courts which, when investigated, will reveal criminal misconduct by judges, prosecutors and supporting court officers. Among the “tools” of corrupt courts is “false arrest” to impose tyranny and intimidation upon  the victim.    

     We the People need “protection” from those TYRANTS who administer the Law and serve as Public Servants. To that end, a “UNIFORM BONDING CODE” was established to insulate the public from the wrath of the Tyrants. 

      TYRANNY is “the exercise of power beyond right.” John Locke, Second Treatise of Government § 199 (1695), and the discretion of the judge “is the first engine of tyranny.” 4 Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 153 (6th Am. Ed. 1830) (1780).

The True State of The Union!

   The US and all states are under complete control of judicial and political criminals that have prostituted themselves and their positions of Trust. They are members or associates of the Greatest Organized Crime Syndicate ever known to mankind, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (“ABA). They are BAR members: attorneys, judges and politicians that comprise up to 70% of our so called elected representatives.

THE BAR CONTROLS THE ENTIRE U.S.!BEWARE!!!
Prepare for a living hell for We The People allowed these beings to set up mini dictatorships,  i.e., District Attorneys, Sheriffs, the Godless BAR, and the ‘political’ Parties to which they have sold their souls and to which they have sold us out to the highest bidder…In essence the US and all states are as the BIBLE refers to the US:  “The Great Prostitute”! AKA, the New Whore of Babylon …  and We are to Blame…….. Wake Up!   (thanks and compliments to Greg Todd)

CORRUPTION: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.  Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (p. 345). 

JUDGES AS CRIMINALS
The purpose for this page is to introduce to the novice the extent of criminal misconduct that occurs inside the courtroom. The phrase “… with Liberty and Justice for All!” is a falsehood. The atrocities reported here are not anomalies. They are the everyday  proceedings in what are misrepresented to be “courts of Law”. Without the consent and cooperation of criminally corrupt judges, these tragedies could not occur.
The legal community opposes any meaningful steps to correct the multitude of problems. 
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,”
   —  Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).  

“Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
   —   Justice Louis D. Brandeis: Olmstead v. U.S.

IMO, the biggest PROBLEM arising in America is the unconditional corruption of SCOTUS … a group of 9 people, easily “bought”, who make decisions in the name of “THE LAW OF THE LAND.”
So much for the alleged sovereign — We the People!

MALPRACTICE OF LAW:  A Tool of Corrupt Courts

     The ABA uses Disciplinary action against honest lawyers to shut up those whistleblowers who expose the corrupt practices within our courts and government. The only current means to cull the wheat from the chaff in our judicial apparatus is to link the public servant perpetrator with “neglect
of duty”, “malfeasance of office”, and/or “misfeasance of office”. All other public servants are expected to be accountable under their oath of office to protect the public. 

We all know how that isn’t working.
     The criminals within our courts retaliate against honest lawyers to have them “disbarred” and then, through the tentacles of the ABA, define as ‘criminal’, the deprivation of a property interest under a term known as unauthorized practice of law — “upl”.  
     There can be No Such Crime, because the so-called “license to practice law” is, under settled law, an unconstitutional action. The practice of law is, at the very least, a property interest protected under the Constitution.

As I awoke this morning, it dawned on me that We the People need to demand legislation that “criminalizes” corrupt actions of judges, prosecutors and other public servants. See 5 CFR 2635.101 that describes “conflict of interest crimes”. These “crimes” shall also include the three acts described above under ONE Umbrella — titled MALPRACTICE OF LAW!

False Arrest
     A tort (a civil wrong) that consists of an unlawful restraint of an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of movement by another purporting to act according to the law.
    False arrest is often used interchangeably with that of the tort of
False Imprisonment.  false arrest is one method of committing a false imprisonment. A false arrest must be perpetrated by one who asserts that he or she is acting pursuant to legal authority (under color/ cover of Law), whereas a false imprisonment is any unlawful confinement. For example, if a sheriff arrestsperson without any Probable Cause or reasonable basis, the sheriff has committed the torts of false arrest and false imprisonment. The sheriff has acted under a presumption of legal authority to deprive a person unlawfully of his or her liberty of movement. If, however, a driver refuses to allow a passenger to depart from a vehicle, the driver has committed the tort of false imprisonment because he or she unlawfully restrains freedom of movement. The driver has not committed false arrest, however, since he or she is not claiming to act under legal authority. A person who knowingly gives police false information in order to have someone arrested has committed the tort as an accessory to Malicious Prosecution.

     An action can be instituted for the damages ensuing from false arrest, such as loss of salary while imprisoned, or injury to reputation that results in a pecuniary loss to the victim. Ill will and malice are not elements of the tort, but if these factors are proven, Punitive Damages can be awarded in addition to Compensatory Damages or nominal damages. 
     For persons acting “under color of law”, in other words public servants, — the actors have a fiduciary responsibility under the public trust. 5 USC § 2635.101 describes the duties of public servants and identifies “conflict of interest” crimes committed by these public servants under color of law.

Public corruption 

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”  
                      – Henry David Thoreau

CORRUPTION:  An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. 
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
(p. 345)

A minority of 1 Speaking TRUTH is more powerful than Millions striving to conceal It!   (paraphrases Mahatma Gandhi)  

     This website is necessitated because Public Servants, judges and others working in County courthouses across this Commonwealth are involved in a criminal enterprise to obtain Federal money in exchange for adjudicating Child support and child custody cases.

GOTO www.YouTube.com to view concurring videos.

View “DECONSTRUCTING AMERICA“; Part 1 (Time 7:57)  and Part 2 (Time 7:54)

The Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article VI, Section 3  (and 42 Pa.C.S. § 2522) requires all judicial, State and county officers to take the following Oath of Office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”

“Fidelity” is the operative word in that Oath. Ironically (or intentionally) Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.,  fails to specifically define the word, ergo, we shall rely on Webster.
Fidelity:  1.  the quality or state of being faithful; > accuracy in details; 2. EXACTNESS > the degree to which an electronic device accurately reproduces its effect.
NOTE: Criminal alteration of court records VIOLATES the oath-taker’s promise of ‘fidelity’. 

     All persons subject to this Oath accept their fiduciary responsibility (legal duty) as Trustee under the Public Trust. Public corruption involves a “breach” of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices.
Violating one’s Oath of Office constitutes a breach of Trust and when the action deprives a citizen of a Constitutional right, the breach of Trust (faithlessness) becomes a CRIME!   … 18 USC 241, 242

     Our government owes the people an “intangible right to honest services” by all government agents, a.k.a. municipal employees/officers. Implicit in this statement is the inferred obligation to the people that our courts will be honest and will be administered by honest officers of the court and government. Judges and prosecutors must be held to a higher standard of truth and integrity that the citizens for whom they administer the law.

    To protect We the People from a tyrannical and corrupt government, every government agency must be “bonded”. All municipalities and municipal officers of the court must be bonded. 

“Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”  —  Justice Louis D. Brandeis: Olmstead v. U.S.

 “Public Corruption” 
    By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may be guilty of violating federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties; a breach of trust. Further, public corruption may occur when a one or more Trustees conspire to DENY the Constitutional rights of litigants in state or federal courts acting under color of law and the “constitutional delegation of authority” as prescribed under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
    This page reports instances where public officers knowingly and willingly violate their Oath(s) of Office to DENY the rights of individuals in Pennsylvania courts.

     Everything that occurs in a courtroom on behalf of the Commonwealth occurs with the tacit consent of the judicial officer. Accordingly, every instance of prosecutorial misconduct not corrected by the ‘judge’ becomes a Judicial Atrocity and a criminal conspiracy of the court.

 

FRAUD ON THE COURT
     Fraud on the court is one of the most serious and heinous Crimes that can occur in a court of law. Fraud upon the court renders all orders and judgments of that court to be void. Link to “Crimes”, above.
     When fraud on the court occurs, the effect is that the entire case shall be made void or cancelled.  A fraud occurs when a judge violates his Oath of Office to support the PA or US Constitution. That judge is in “breach of trust” which makes him/her a “CRIMINAL” for conflict of interest crimes. Public service

5 USC § 2635.101. 
      If a court official is found to be biased or prejudiced even before fraud occurs, they are required under the Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 3.C) to recuse themselves from the case, and a different official must be appointed. In some jurisdictions, a trial tainted by fraud on the court may be vacated or set aside for a certain time period (such as two years), to be “reopened” at a later date.

 

JUDICIAL ATROCITIES

     Actions by a court that may be one or more of the following: extremely and wantonly wicked, criminal, brutal, vile, cruel, revolting, etc.  In a word, “atrocious” or “despicable”.
CORRUPTION: An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.  Black’s Law Dictionary.  6th Ed. P. 345.

     In the Beginning there was only “natural law”. Before there was Man, there was no need for “Rules”. With the arrival of Man, the world became divided … into Good and Evil.
This conclusion / presumption is irrefutable for without Evil, there can be No “Good”. In the Beginning there was no necessity for rules (or Law) as prescribed by the Creator. See Declaration of Independence. The Creator was named “God“.
     Whether there is or is Not a God is irrelevant for this discussion, Man would have invented one for the purpose of defining and disseminating between Good and Evil.
     God determined what is Good and what is Evil, and handed down ‘natural’ Law to Man.
Hebrew Law, recognized as being more than 4,000 years old, was recorded before Moses and the Exodus from Egypt. The arrival of Christ 2,000 years ago brought about major revisions to Man’s comprehension of Good vs. Evil. Laws became “canonized” for the implementation of “justice”; the product of an Honest application of the Law with Truth. The search for truth is the unending task of a judicial system for Without Truth there can be No Justice.  

  “Every man is guilty of all the good he didn’t do.”  Voltaire

    This Website invites comments and/or rebuttal from any and all judges and prosecutors who object to the content of this site and this page. As Trustee under the Public Trust, judges and prosecutors have a moral “duty” and fiduciary responsibility to answer.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”  U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297. 

       JUDICIAL ATROCITIES are reports of people in government “committing crimes in your name”. “People” identified on this website are judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and other public servants. This website is committed to questioning their actions and Inviting rebuttal, or even a mitigating answer for the atrocities inflicted from the bench; atrocities  =  domestic terrorism by black-robed hoodlums. 

ABUSE OF PER CURIAM ACTIONS

 

    Our courts no longer provide “an opportunity to be heard”. This fundamental element of due proess is being weaned from the Constitrution by judicial abuse of Per Curiam actions … Opinions and “Per Curiam Orders” and “Non-Precedntial” orders, most (or all) of which are unsigned.
     Egregious acts of judicial misconduct occur in appellate courts where PER CURIAM ORDERS are entered without a signature of a judge. When a PER CURIAM Order contains a signature, the signature is usually that of a lawyer on the appellate court central staff, similar to a “Law Clerk”.  Such signatures are “invalid“. PER CURIAM Orders are rarely, if Ever, signed by a judge. In some cases, the Order is labelled “NON-PRECEDENTIAL ORDER” to prohibit future litigants from citing the disposition where it might support their own action.

     A review of Black’s Law Dictionary: ORDER, yields definitions or reference to more than a dozen distinct classifications of an “order”. Conspicuous by its absence are any references to “Per Curiam” or “Non-Precedential” orders. It cannot be “unreasonable” to presume that either “Per Curiam” or “Non-Precedential” orders are void ab initio for lack of a bona fide signature. As averred in the “CONTRACT” page, all law is civil, and orders are subject to the rules of commerce (U.C.C.), e.g., as a contract, which requires a bona fide signature to be enforceable.
     Any ORDER Entered onto the record without a signature of a “JUDGE”, or a magisterial court “judicial officer” is void ab initio for lack of constitutional authority to enter an order. Any unauthorized person who signs such an order violates the rights of the litigant. If that “signer” is an attorney, he/she violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, and should face Disciplinary Action. 

 

 

 Scholarship highlight: The Supreme Court’s misuse of per curiam opinions

Ira P. Robbins is the Barnard T. Welsh Scholar and Professor of Law and Justice at American University, Washington College of Law.  The full version of his article, Hiding Behind the Cloak of Invisibility:  The Supreme Court and Per Curiam Opinions, can be found on SSRN.

      The per curiam opinion is a misused practice that is at odds with the individualized nature of the American common law system, frustrating efforts to hold individual judges accountable and inhibiting development of the law.  Per curiams should be limited to a narrow class of opinions in which the use of formulaic, boilerplate language has already extinguished any sense of individuality.  Opinions containing language that is more expansive, such as when the opinion expounds on the particular facts or law at issue, should be attributed to its author in order to serve as a check on judges’ fidelity to the law and to enable the public and the legal profession to formulate an accurate understanding of the law.

Background 
     Traditionally, the per curiam opinion was used to signal that a case was uncontroversial, obvious, and did not require a substantial opinion.  The early usage of the per curiam (“by the court”) designation, which first appeared in a published Supreme Court decision in 1862, was consistent with the unity among the Justices that its name connotes.  Over the next few decades, the Court generally used the per curiam to quickly dispose of routine proceedings, such as grants or denials of certiorari, dismissals for lack of jurisdiction, and various motion decisions.  By the turn of the century, the Court also regularly issued per curiams for brief affirmances and reversals of lower court decisions.  These early opinions usually comprised only a sentence or two and never revealed disagreements among the Justices.

     Beginning in 1909 with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose strongly worded separate opinions earned him the moniker “the Great Dissenter,” per curiam opinions began to feature dissents.  The per curiam label – which “falters at its inception” because the opinion is necessarily written by some individual Justice – also began to falter at its conclusion, no longer denoting a resolute bloc of complete institutional support.  The practice of writing separately from per curiam opinions was not fully embraced, however, until President Franklin D. Roose- velt’s appointments to the Supreme Court; they brought a strong sense of judicial individuality and a reluctance to suppress their views in favor of chimerical judicial solidarity. By midcentury, Justices dissenting from or concurring with a supposedly unanimous and straightforward per curiam opinion had become well-established.
     Along with the shift from unanimity to discord that characterized Roosevelt’s Court, the per curiam also saw shifts in usage since its original employment in straightforward procedural matters.  By the 1930s, the Supreme Court had begun using per curiams to decide substantive cases accompanied by oral argument and to develop more thorough opinions.  Beginning in the mid-1900s, the Court expanded the role of the per curiam, fashioning it as a strategic device to resolve time-sensitive cases quickly, as a protective shield from controversial issues, and as a way to make new law by indirection.  Through the per curiam, the Court at times also aimed to convey a message of consensus while engaging in more complicated and substantive decision-making.  In addition, the per curiam became a convenient tool for the Supreme Court in deciding controversial cases, because “[w]ith no Justice signing the opinion, there was no individual to be blamed for evading the tough questions.”
     Today the Supreme Court issues a significant number of per curiam dispositions each Term.  But the prevalence of issuing unattributed opinions in cases involving more than boilerplate language raises questions about its impact on judicial accountability and development of the law.

 

Judicial accountability
    Individually attributed opinions and publicly recorded votes are the primary instruments for holding appellate judges and Justices accountable, because those opinions are the sole chronicle of their work.  The signed opinion provides the public with a window into the inner workings of the courts that fosters judicial accountability through an environment of individual responsibility.  As then-Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg once remarked, “Public accountability through the disclosure of votes and opinion authors puts the judge’s conscience and reputation on the line.”  Thomas Jefferson wrote to the same effect:  “The practice [of writing per curiam opinions] is certainly convenient for the lazy, the modest, & the incompetent.”
     When courts use an anonymous veil, they lose not only the environment of transparency and individual responsibility, but often well-reasoned explanations as well.  Again then-Judge Ginsburg:   “Judges generally do not labor over unpublished judgments and memoranda, or even published per curiam opinions, with the same intensity they devote to signed opinions.”  Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner agrees that the signed opinion elicits the greatest effort from judges and “mak[es] the threat of searing professional criticism an effective check on irresponsible judicial actions.”

Development of the law
     Along with providing for individual accountability, the signed opinion reflects the role of Justices as individual lawmakers.  Each Justice contributes a unique philosophy and style.  Knowledge of these philosophies and styles enables lower courts to develop the law and attorneys to tailor their arguments effectively.  But the per curiam label serves to mask its author’s identity, thus obscuring the author’s jurisprudence, the significance of the decision, and the decision’s potential to affect future cases.  The per curiam thus stunts appropriate
development of the law.

     Judges express their individual views and personality by using particular words in the articulation of legal standards.  These words can have immense implications for the law, as lower courts, lawyers, and the public attempt to determine what exactly the law “is” based on a higher court’s language.  As one commentator has noted, “[W]hen a court explains its decision in a judicial opinion, literally every word has a potential future effect on someone’s welfare.”

    At times, Justices will openly advocate for a favored word or phrase to be adopted as the legal standard.  In other instances, Justices are more discreet about the use of language they intend or hope will affect the law in a desired manner.  Justice Brennan, in particular, was known for inserting ostensibly inconsequential language into the text or footnote of an opinion, only to draw on that language to advance his position in a later case.  He planted these seeds (or ticking time-bombs) strategically, knowing how far his colleagues were willing to go and “crafting” legal arguments to which they could, however hesitantly, sign on.  Although these opinions may not have fully conformed to Justice Brennan’s personal point of view, he was willing to compromise – to draft the opinion in a manner that would allow him to advance his entire vision later and to wait patiently for the appropriate case in which to do so.  Justice Brennan’s practice has not gone unnoticed:  his biographers wrote that “Brennan’s colleagues learned to watch for the seemingly innocuous casual statement or footnote – seeds that would be exploited to their logical extreme in a later case.”

     Knowledge of an opinion’s author provides a useful guide for attorneys, allowing them to sort through an array of decisions and examine particular opinions for hints regarding a Justice’s jurisprudential or philosophical leanings on specific issues.  Use of the per curiam strips the opinion of this important tool that judges, attorneys, and the public rely on in analyzing and comprehending court decisions.

Exceptions  
       Notwithstanding the foregoing arguments, there are instances in which the use of a per curiam is entirely appropriate.  These dispositions generally employ standard language that is silent on the unique facts of the case or application of the law to those facts.  Further, these decisions are truly unanimous; the result is so obvious that no Justice feels compelled to write separately.   While it might be convenient to create a distinction between opinions and orders, reserving per curiams only for the latter category, unfortunately the Supreme Court does not follow clear guidelines in issuing its dispositions.

      The specific situations in which use of a per curiam are acceptable include run-of-the-mill DIGs (dismissal of certiorari as improvidently granted) and GVRs (granting certiorari, vacating the judgment, and remanding in light of a recently decided case), or when, for example, the Court bars a litigant from all future in forma pauperis pleading.  Attribution of these orders or opinions would have little value, because the language would not usually address any particular aspects of the case.
     However, any language that explains the Court’s reasoning for a disposition, whether factual or legal, implicates the accountability and development-of-the-law concerns described above.  These concerns also arise when one or more separate opinions follow a per curiam opinion or order.  The existence of separate opinions, whether concurrences or dissents, reveals that the matter is not routine and well-settled, but rather that some significant aspect of the case is subject to conflicting interpretations.

Conclusion
     Anonymity in judicial decisions – not only in the Supreme Court, but also in other courts of last resort (including de facto courts of last resort, like the U.S. courts of appeals) – should be reserved only for a narrow set of opinions and dispositions in which formulaic, boilerplate language leaves no legitimate room for individual expression.  Beyond those cases, judges and Justices should not hide behind a cloak of invisibility.
                                                        <<<<<<<<<<<<    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

 

This page intends to discuss more completely the legitimacy of the use of per curiam “Orders” or “Opinions”. 
       Are per curiam Orders / Opinions enforceable? or are they void ab initio for lack of a signature on a Contract?
    In a perfect world, it would be an honor to hold an office to serve the community, state or Nation so that all People benefit according to their contributions in support of national, state and local objectives. Thomas Jefferson cautioned us about such expectations.
Jefferson was absolutely correct. See Germ of Destruction“, supra.

     Our government, with knowledgeable cooperation of corrupt courts, has become the venal, oppressive tyrant that replaced the monarchy from which we separated.
     The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has been served with notice of efforts to reveal facts related to ‘systemic failure’ for the judicial problem that resulted in the “Kids For Cash” injustice.
     Dismissals of Motions/Petitions and even dismissing Appeals by unsigned per curiam orders offer ‘plausible deniability’ as to the judges being informed in Petitions filed with the Court. Unsigned per curiam orders that dismiss an appeal violates the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article V, section 9.  “Non-Precedential Orders” are another affront to the intelligence of the People and to the “dignity” of the court.
All judges took an Oath of Office to support and defend that Constitution!

 

The Problem? … Rules of Professional Conduct;  Rule 1.6  —  Confidentiality —  which had been “promulgated” into Law by the Supreme Court.
One persistent Question lingers …
WHY DID THE
  SUPREME COURT of PENNSYLVANIA PROMULGATE THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT INTO LAW?
Supreme Court as of August 28, 2014  —  Chief Justice Ronald Castille**
Justice Max Baer / Justice Michael J. Eakin / Justice Seamus McCaffery / Justice Thomas G. Saylor / Justice Correale F. Stevens / Justice Debra Todd 
Supreme Court as of February 28, 2015  —  Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor
Justice Max Baer / Justice Michael J. Eakin / Justice Correale F. Stevens / Justice Debra Todd

* Justice McCaffery resigned from the Court for matters related to distribution of pornographic emails.
** Chief Justice Castille retired in January 2015.

 Does the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article V, Section 10(c)  violate the ‘supremacy clause’ of the U.S. Constitution when it permits the Supreme Court of PA to promulgate “Rules of Court” into Law?

Does Article V, Section 10(c)  unconstitutionally violate Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania thereby rendering the PA Constitution to be unconstitutional

Three subordinate Questions arise:
1. Does promulgating “RULES OF COURT” into Law violate the separation of Powers doctrine?
See Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
2. What REASON necessitated this action?
3. Why did the supreme court in EVERY state promulgate the SAME Rules into law at staggered times from 1968 (PA)  through 2009?

Tyranny of American Courts  

     Tyranny is the product of actions by a tyrant. Judicial atrocities, as depicted here, describe tyranny and oppression from Pennsylvania courts; the actions of tyrants.  Judicial tyranny is no stranger to Pennsylvania courts.
      In 1670, William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, was brought to trial (in England) for the crime of 
“tumultuous assembly”, loosely translated as preaching in public contrary to the tenets of “The Church of England”. Penn did not arrive in America until 1677. 

     Prior to Penn’s trial, English judges could require juries in criminal trials to render a verdict not only on the facts in issue, but on the applicable law as well. Judges of that period maintained that Questions of law involved in criminal cases were not so complicated as to excuse jurors from reaching a verdict.
     The process of a jury determining whether a law is “just” is known as “Jury Nullification”. A jury can decide whether the state may prosecute under an unjust law. e.g., “tumultuous

assembly“.

The Jury Box —  JURY NULLIFICATION: The Constitution’s Last Line of Defense 

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” — John Jay; First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

     The juror’s power of the verdict grants him complete authority over the law and thus the ability to keep the government bound to the limits of the Constitution. The juror’s duty demands that he restrain the government from persecuting the innocent under laws which should not exist.
1)    As a grand juror, you may refuse the government’s request to pursue criminal charges against the accused.
2)    As a trial juror, you can acquit the defendant who is charged with breaking an unconstitutional law.

      Either way, the juror has the power to say “no,” thus having an immediate and direct effect on our government.
     The Constitution is intended to limit government powers and in turn the jury is intended to enforce the Constitution. The government cannot act unconstitutionally without the juror’s consent.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson 

     As a juror, your job is to defend the Constitution by considering the law in question in addition to the facts of the case. If the law is unconstitutional, the juror must deny the government’s request to punish the defendant.
“It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge’s view of the law, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience.” — John Adams

     By not considering that the law in question may violate the Constitution, juries have been turned into mere extensions of the state enforcement mechanism. Trial by jury has been perverted into trial by tyranny.
     Jurors, however, must be permitted to act independently of the state. A jury is meant to serve as third-party mediator between the accused and government. In order to do so, a juror must use his own independent judgment which is not influenced by the bias of the court.
The juror never sought his seat within the jury box. His duty does not bring public popularity or personal gain. He is chosen completely at random and represents no one but himself.
On the contrary, the judges and prosecutors are government employees that sought their positions through political campaigns in their zeal for power and prestige.  Jurors offer “checks and balances”.   
“But we all know that permanent judges… are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative power… It is in the power, therefore of the juries… to judge the law as well as the fact.” – Thomas Jefferson

      One juror can veto the entire jury from granting the government the unconstitutional go-ahead to charge or convict the accused. This power of the individual stems from the founding of our country as a constitutional republic of common-law rather than as a democratic mob rule of men. This can be a double-edged sword, where one juror can possibly “acquit” a guilty perpetrator.
     Majorities in our country as a whole do not have the authority to act on a whim against the rights of the minority. For the most part, a lone juror’s dissent denies the majority the ability to enforce unconstitutional laws.
     It is “We the People” who are sovereign above the government with only God above us. As such, the state can never become God and it is the juror’s duty to maintain that proper order.

Court Quotes on the Power of the Common-Law Jury:
“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence… If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” – U. S. v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.

“The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge… The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.” – U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972, 473 F.2d at 1130 and 1132.

     Judges used many methods to force a jury to do as they (the judges) charged. A jury could be locked up, without water, food, heat, tobacco, or light, until it returned a unanimous verdict or one the judge directed. Literal translation, the outcome of the case was whatever the judge ordered it to be.
     Enforcement of such orders was, in a word, TYRANNY.

     Judges could also levy a fine against members of the jury if they brought in a contrary or “corrupt” verdict and could even impose imprisonment until the fine was paid.  Clearly, judges possessed tyrannical powers and exercised them vigorously.

     Wm. Penn, a Quaker, was placed on trial in the Old Bailey Court (London, Eng.) because he preached a sermon in violation of the “Conventicle Act” which prohibited any meeting for worship other than those of the Church of England.
The Court ordered the jury to find Penn guilty.
The jury refused to find that the law had been violated. (From the 1670 transcript of the trial published by Penn as “The Peoples Ancient and Just Liberties, Asserted in the Trial of William Penn and William Mead. . . . Against The Most Arbitrary Procedure Of That Court.”)
William Penn opposed this style of tyranny from the bench.
After settling Pennsylvania, King Charles II and Penn signed  The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania —  1682.  This instrument laid the foundation for the U.S. Constitution.
Penn’s goal was to have courts responsible to the Law which meant that judges could no longer exercise tyranny and oppression over juries or those accused of crimes.

Judging by the status of Pennsylvania courts, Pennsylvania has regressed back into 17th Century English courts.

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      To demonstrate “guilt” in a court of law, prosecutors must establish a Motive for the crime(s). The most prevalent “motives” are Money, Power, Sex, Envy, etc., in short “supremacy”. This site presents evidence for reasonable motives by the named perpetrators.

   The U.S. government, with subordinate state and local governments, attract people who think they are entitled to ALL of these symbols of supremacy. The federal government is unique in that it has the sole authority to “create” / print MONEY! Subordinate governments of every level have the ability to TAX We the People in order to OBTAIN Money which opens the door to the other ‘symbols’.
    Money is the most prevalent instrument to attract / recruit / maintain an army of government agents/supporters who will protect their $ource of Money by protecting their benefactor from prosecution for unlawful, criminal and corrupt conduct.
The more Money, the More allegiance, the More Security for those at the top. In the judicial system, judges are at the top of the food chain.
     Judges no longer administer trials in conformance with their fiduciary responsibilities under the Constitution. In today’s world, judges serve as commercial administrators for a “corporate” body claiming governmental authority. The bottom line is the important issue. In the corporate world, the bottom line is $$ Money $$.

    Pennsylvania was embroiled in a struggle as to whether a “justice” [Seamus McCaffery] of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (“SCOPa”) should be removed from the bench for numerous accusations of unethical, unlawful and criminal acts. The Chief Justice, Ronald G. Castille, has been after the hide of Justice Seamus McCaffery.
Note: McCaffery resigned from the bench Oct. 2014.
There appeared to be sufficient evidence to remove McCaffery from the bench. HOWEVER, justice Debra McClosky Todd dissented, arguing that the accused must be afforded “due process”, a constitutional right that this Supreme Court of Pennsylvania systematically denies to Pennsylvania citizens, and PERMITS lower and appellate courts to do the same.

Every case on this “Judicial Atrocities” page supports this Fact! Court interpret Rules and Laws in a manner to deprive the citizen of his/her civil and Constitutional rights.

“Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered with
an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1886).


     Initially, SCOPa “suspended” Seamus McCaffery from further duties as a “justice” of this court. Ironically, the course of action selected by the Chief Justice disregards the lawful Constitutional action under which justices of the Supreme Court shall be removed from office — IMPEACHMENT! — pursuant to Article VI, Sections 4, 5 and 6.
The Constitution of this Commonwealth has No Provision for the “suspension” of Public Officers.

     The “suspension” of McCaffery is “at war” with the Constitution of this Commonwealth.
Are ALL the justices of SCOPa oblivious to this fact?

     But for McCaffery’s resignation, Castille directed the prosecution to employ a “Court of Judicial Discipline” (“CJD“), by-passing the Judicial Conduct Board … AND … bypassing the State House of Representatives, who alone have the Constitutional DUTY to administer impeachment proceedings.
     Arguably, the CJD has No Authority and No Jurisdiction to hear the matter of “Supreme Court of Pa. v. Seamus McCaffery”. This “court” is a recent creation that was added to the Constitution of Pennsylvania by Amendment of 1993. Article V, Section 18.
Article V, Section 1 of this Constitution lists the only “constitutional courts” in this Commonwealth. Article V, Section 1 was NOT Amended in 1993.
     The Court of Judicial Discipline is an unconstitutional illusion created to obstruct the path of justice and to obscure the corruption that permeates Pennsylvania courts.
The CJD is an unnecessary and illegal obfuscation to conceal TRUTH and INTEGRITY from We the People. The appropriate path of justice is to adhere to the Pennsylvania Constitution; Article VI, Sections 4, 5 and 6.

     A challenge to the constitutionality of the 1993 amendments to Article V, Section 18, of this Constitution must be subordinate to the 1968 amendment to Article V, Section 10, which “unconstitutionally” grants authority to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to exercise general supervisory and administrative authority over all the courts [in this Commonwealth]. Section 10(c) defines the extended powers and authority of SCOPa with reckless disregard for adherence to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, to wit, the “supremacy clause”.
     The clear and unambiguous language in Article V, Section 10(c), is in conflict with the supremacy clause which renders it to be an unconstitutional amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Accordingly any interpretation of Article V, Section 10(c) that impinges on individual rights secured under the federal Constitution is unconstitutional. Any order to enforce such interpretation is void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction of any court to enter an unconstitutional order.
    Among the rights impinged by Article V, Section 10(c), is the right of every individual to engage in “occupations of common right” without government interference by “licensing” them. The right of due process of law, the right of equal protection under the law, and the inherent right that “all men must be equal under the law” prohibits suspension of laws by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
      The closing statement in Article V, Section 10(c), “All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions”, undermines the protections explicitly secured for We the People under the federal “supremacy clause”, supra, and Article I, Declaration of Rights. This statement renders the Constitution of Pennsylvania as amended in 1968 to be “at war” with the Constitution of the United States as well as with “itself”. Accordingly, It must be unconstitutional.

The Crimes identifies acts of “criminal misconduct” in Pennsylvania courts.  .

     <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    One example of “judicial atrocities” occurred in 2014 where an Oregon Court determined that Christian owners of a family bakery, “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” discriminated against a lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
When Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple’s marriage on the grounds that it violates their Christian belief in the sacrament of marriage, t
he court assessed a fine of $150,000.00, bankrupting the business. The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home.
   The atrocity arises from the court’s refusal to support and defend the Constitution, as required by the Oath of Office for state judges.
    Article VI of the U.S. Constitution holds that the Constitution of the U.S. is the ‘supreme law’ of the land, and that all judges “shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The same Constitution holds that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” …   The Constitution is the codification of of a framework for government to institute the means under which all men have the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness free from the tentacles of a tyrannical government in whatever form. The Constitution is a “limiting” document as regards the power / authority of the federal  government. States are subsidiary to the supreme Law of the Land.
     The court’s interpretation of the Oregon Equality Act of 2007 is a clear example of an egregious disregard for the religious rights of the Klein’s in violation of Article VI and the 1st Amendment.  The elements embodied in the court’s decision satisfies the definition of “atrocity” and “corruption”.  

     This recipe for corruption is occurring in other states, as well. The ‘government’ is stepping into matters where Christians are attacked for their religious beliefs, contrary to the express language of the Constitution. In so doing, the government attempts to redefine the tenets of those religions in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Such courts are “at war” with the Constitution. Those judges must be removed from the bench and be offered the opportunity to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for treason via subterfuge against the supreme Law of the Land. See CORRUPTION; supra. 

     Judicial Atrocities reports several cases where judges disregard the law and appoint themselves as “the LAW”.  Their actions deserve to be investigated for criminal misconduct with intent to deprive litigants of their civil and Constitutional rights, including the “intangible right to honest services” from all government agents. Among the actions reported here are intentional acts of malicious prosecution, fraud on the court (perjury), destruction / alteration of public documents and other “crimes” for which civilians (non-govt. agents) have their lives ruined. The common thread in each of these cases is THE BAR ASSOCIATION which may be the most corrupt ‘professional’ guild in the world. 

     One egregious example of Government oppression from within the court system occurred in Pennsylvania;  Kids For Cash. More than a dozen court officers or employees were later indicted for crimes related to the Kids For Cash scandal.
     A federal investigation of Luzerne County courts unveiled a pattern and practice of criminal behavior from the bench supporting a scheme of State-Sanctioned Stealing and State-Sanctioned Kidnapping of minors. The investigation exposed judges and others operating from within the courthouse engaging in egregious criminal misconduct; Domestic Terrorism.

    “Kids For Cash” is a judicial scandal that was investigated ONLY because of a tragic event. 
One of the juvenile victims committed suicide after being abused while in custody. An investigation followed! 

   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

     According to Pa. Rules of Court, the duty (fiduciary responsibility) of courts is to search for TRUTH and to administer the Law by balancing the facts with the truth. What happens when courts alter the record to fabricate “its own Truth”?
This is the dilemma facing We the People in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In Lehigh County, audio tapes of court hearings have been “criminally altered” to support the decisions of corrupt judges. These actions fit well within the definition of “Corruption”!
In one family court case, Ternigan v. Hamoui, audio records of several court hearings before three different Lehigh County judges, Wm. E. Ford, Edward D. Reibman and Alan M. Black were criminally altered / edited.
James B. “Jim” Martin, the District Attorney for Lehigh County, acted in a conspiratorial manner to ensure that any evidence of the CRIMES (18 Pa.C.S 4911) remained covered. i.e., NOT investigated.
     Alan M. Black filed a false complaint with the Disciplinary Board (“DBSC”) against this Administrator in retaliation for reporting criminal alteration of audio tapes. These four “public servants” were subpeonaed to testify at the Disciplinary Board hearings. None of them appeared in violation of the law and their duty because their testimony may reveal the extent of corruption in Lehigh County courts. DBSC collaborated with the “accuser(s”) to deny the accused “due process of law”. 

     The criminals in Lehigh County court and the Disciplinary Board continue to ‘scam’ the public. The issue raised in Lehigh Count is that audio records of court hearings were edited. Ironically, the transcribed record of the DBSC hearing was also criminally edited. DBSC withdrew its approval for “respondent” to “record” the proceedings of his disciplinary hearing which had been negotiated at the pre-trial conference. Respondent was DENIED the right to defend himself against a CORRUPT tyrannical board acting at all times “under color of law”, then betraying its own rules and ruling when Respondent appeared with a “certified” video/audio professional with credentials for court hearings and depositions.

CRIMINALS ARE RUNNING OUR COURTS!

     The government, a.k.a “court”, protects its criminals by inflicting irreparable harm on those individuals who would have the audacity to expose criminal misconduct in Pennsylvania courts.  The New York Times published an article exposing the PA Supreme Court practice to Silence WhistleBlowers. This Administrator appends a correcting response to the Times. The response clarifies the judge named for subornation of perjury and details other crimes by PA judges in Lehigh County, the  most serious of which is “criminal alteration” of audio records of court hearings. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911. Tampering with Court Records.
The
tool / “weapon of choice” to Silence WhistleBlowers is DBSC [Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court], a rogue collection of attorneys willing to “retaliate” against WhistleBlowers when so directed from above. These attorneys
join the list of “criminals” as accomplices because “Retaliation” is a crime. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953. 

CRIMINALS ARE RUNNING OUR COURTS.
     Pennsylvania courts are administered under the provisions of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article V, Section 10(c)*. This clause violates the “supremacy clause”; Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore “UN-constitutional”.
The administration is carried out by judges, prosecutors (District Attorneys), law enforcement officers and other court administration officers. These persons acting “under color of law”  commit Crimes against litigants, We the People, the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions in violation of their Oath(s) of Office to support and defend same.

* Pa Const., Art. V, Sect. 10(c) 
The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the judicial branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the Gen. assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.

NOTE:  Where the “general rules” prescribed by the Supreme Court are in conflict with rights enumerated in Article I, Declaration of Rights, those general rules are in conflict with the rights secured under the PA Constitution, and are therefore UN-Constitutional. 

These government agents are criminals because they conspire to, and do inflict deprivation of rights of honest citizens beginning with violations of due process and equal protection of law and then graduating into crimes of “domestic terrorism”; e.g., retaliation, harassment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, etc., all crimes implemented “under color of law”.
In a nutshell, Our government is guilty of “Tyranny and Oppression”.
In Cmwlth. v. Montelione, we argue that the conduct of judges Lawrence F. Clark, Jr. and Charles C. Brown, Jr., are both instances of “intentional terrorism and domestic terrorism”. See 18 U.S. Code § 2331(1) and (5). m

Intentional misapplication of law must qualify as a “corrupt act or practice” for which a judge is subject to discipline, including impeachment / removal from office. See MISSION: Title 11 PACODE 11.8-806.

The Meaning of the 4th of July to the American Father
Excerpted from a post published by Glenn Sacks on 2 July, 2007

“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?
I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons  and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour. “Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”

– from abolitionist Frederick Douglass’ speech,

“The Meaning of the 4th of July to the American Negro” at Rochester, NY, July 5, 1852.

     Today, this great Nation has embarked on a new and disreputable mission; to administer our courts in the absence of Truth and Justice.

     With reckless disregard for the Constitution and Laws that support the inherent Rights of Individuals, American courts engage in a pattern and practice of persecution of any persons who would expose unlawful and criminal actions by rogue courts. Tyranny, oppression, harassment and intimidation are their weapons. JUDICIAL ATROCITIES deserve to be identified publicly as DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

     For examples of unlawful and criminal actions by the government via the Courts, one need look No Farther than Massachusetts where the State “family” court engages in State-Sanctioned Stealing in collusion with DCW and Boston Hospital. Justina Pelletier has been unlawfully held “prisoner” from her home and family for more than a year. Justina and her family are residents of Connecticut. [Entered April 2014]
Justina’s parents are only permitted minimal “supervised” visitation with their daughter. Parental rights are being “trampled” by the court, along with the Constitution.
There should be Great Concern whether the Massachusetts court was ever vested with subject matter jurisdiction and then with in personam jurisdiction. Without both, the court a
cted unlawfully, and must be held criminally liable to the Pelletier family (victims).
     Only a “nationwide publicity campaign” by the media is bringing this “domestic terrorism” to light and forcing a resolution. A current threat to Massachusetts is “How Large” a settlement will be awarded the Pelletier family under the 1st Amendment “Redress of Grievances” clause?
The courts have already inflicted “irreparable harm”!
As an aside, the medical condition of Justina has been and continues to deteriorate under the State-Sanctioned over-medication by the State. The Pelletier case is a National tragedy as well as a
JUDICIAL ATROCITY.

     In Nevada, a federal court acted in collusion with BLM (Bureau of Land Management) to do a little cattle-rustling “under color of law”. After State-Sanctioned Stealing of LAND from many local ranchers, BLM ran into Cliven Bundy, who is determined to fight “city hall” for his rights and for his property, including his cattle. Bundy refuses to “sell” his land.
With typical tyrannical attitude of “We’ll Show You”, BLM got land condemned to protect a “desert turtle” [which they are now killing] from Bundy’s grazing cattle. BLM then “rustled” Bundy’s cattle into trucks and STOLE them. Tyranny and Oppression accurately describes the situation, and the Bundy’s are not the perpetrators.
     An armed confrontation between BLM (with government “snipers” positioned in the nearby hills) against “unarmed” ranchers and local supporters received national media
exposure. Only then did our corrupt government take a step back.
Can the “judge” please explain how he reached his determination that these “turtles” need to be protected from the cows? Is there any truth to the rumor that the land in question has value to the government?  and this issue is “political”?
Was the judge merely “complying” with orders from above?
Again, media exposure has forced BLM to withdraw its “prongs”, but the issue is yet to be resolved. Reasonable minds would agree that a 1st Amendment resolution should be available to the Bundy family, and possibly to all the other ranchers who were forced/ coerced into selling their land.
The Nevada story is another tragic example of
JUDICIAL ATROCITIES.

     Courts have a “duty” to search for “Truth”, the fulcrum of Justice. When court records are altered (“edited”), Truth is compromised and the integrity of the court is forfeited.
The judicial process has been corrupted.

“Without Truth, there can be No Justice!”
“Injustice for One is Injustice For ALL!”

     To paraphrase Matthew 21:13; The American courtroom was established as a sanctuary for justice, but has become “a den of thieves”.

“It is a fair characterization of the lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield,” …, in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities otruth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as “moral character”.” Schware v. Board  of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239.

     Responsibility for justice in American courts is laid at the feet of judges. Public servants, especially court officers and representatives of the People, serve under Oath of Office as fiduciaries for the Public Trust on behalf of beneficiaries to that TRUST. All fiduciaries must be “bonded” against dishonest performance by rogue, renegade and/or corrupt public servants, be they judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers or other court administrative officers.
Any judicial action commences with the establishment of “jurisdiction”. A court that proceeds without jurisdiction is a “rogue” court, and its actions are, by definition, void ab initio. Pennsylvania courts are now embarking on  a mission to prosecute persons accused of upl (unauthorized practice of law) without jurisdiction in a state court. See Montelione and Wrona cases.
Judges are expected, nay, they are “required” to conduct the business of the court in conformance with the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT and their Oath of Office. Disregard of that Code should, in every case, subject that judge to discipline and possible removal from the bench via Impeachment.

“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.
“The implication of a trust is the implication of every duty proper to a trust  … . Whoever is a fiduciary or in conscience chargeable as a fiduciary is expected to live up to them.”  Buffum v. Peter Barceloux Co.,  289 US 227, 237; 77 L.Ed. 1140, 1146, cited Braun v. Hansen, 103 F.2d 685 (1939), wherein it further states “being fiduciaries, the ordinary rules of evidence are reversed”, must obey the law,  Butz v. Economou,  438 US 478, 98 S.Ct. 2895, Davis v. Passman,  (1979, US) 442 US 226, 99 S.Ct. 2264.

     Dishonest services by a public officer is a “breach of trust” that deprives the “public” of its “intangible right to honest services”. When a judge fails to perform the duties of his/her office with fidelity, it is reasonable to conclude that a litigant, and the public, have become victim(s) of a “judicial atrocity”.

     Pennsylvania Court Injustice alleges that all judges, prosecutors and/or other court officers nominated herein to this Hall of Shame care not a whit for the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of Pennsylvania or for their fiduciary responsibility to support and defend those Constitutions in accordance with the intended purpose. These individuals would pervert the Constitution if it fails to serve their personal or pecuniary interests. The Rights of We the People are disregarded and trampled by these renegade, rogue court officers.
Dishonest services by a judge
undermines the integrity of the court as well as public confidence in the integrity of the court.  Dishonest service is “judicial misconduct” and constitutes  a “fraud on the court” that occurs too frequently in American courts.

Where Justice is Denied, FREEDOM is Stolen!

     This page presents cases with compelling, if not conclusive evidence that outcomes of cases in Pennsylvania courts [especially family courts] are pre-determined. In all cases, our courts must be Open to the Public. Public review of the judicial process is essential to ensure integrity in our courts.
[Several cases appearing here may still be “Open” on a court docket.]

“The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.”  Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 98 S.Ct. 1535, 435 U.S. 829, 56 L.Ed. 2d 1 (U.S. 1978). 

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”  – Martin Luther King Jr.

Criminals are Running OUR Courts!

ABUSE OF OFFICE: Dauphin County, PA,

See also, Montelione: Subtitle I, Abuse of Office

     Pennsylvanians have a right to know of Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Lawrence F. Clark’s use of state resources in pursuing his personal litigation against Claudia Monetelione, her daughter, Francesca S. Montelione and the Recorder of Deeds of Luzerne County. The matter arose when Francesca, who held Power of Attorney for her mother while Claudia was illegally incarcerated in Dauphin County Prison, recorded an Affidavit at the courthouse in Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County. The Affidavit demanded that the Respondents, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Judge Lawrence F. Clark and Warden Dominick DeRose either show how their imprisonment of Claudia did not violate the federal criminal code and Pennsylvania statutes or release her. Without any of the Respondents answering the Affidavit, thus indicating their agreement with its claims, Judge Clark took exception to the public filing of the Affidavit. He sued to have it removed using state paid attorneys and more than likely, public resources for all of the administrative services necessary in pressing litigation: Preparation and typing of documents; making copies; mailing expenses, etc.

      The other ethical defect in Judge Clark’s action is the fact that the case of Lawrence F. Clark, et al v. Claudia Montelione, et al, [CP-22-MD-0000453-2008] was brought while Claudia was in prison upon Clark’s Order following an illegal court action he had presided over [presumably 2008 CV 875 EQ see page 3 of 4 Docket Number: CP-22-MD-0000453-2008] in March of 2008. Claudia asserts that she knew nothing about the case against her in Luzerne County and was only aware of it when the final Order was served upon her in Dauphin County Prison on September 15, 2008. It was no surprise that the case was decided in Clark’s favor by Judge Ann Lokuta who was subsequently removed from the bench. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. who was President Judge at that time, is presumed to have had full knowledge of the case. He apparently didn’t see anything wrong with the main defendant not knowing there was a case against her and a search of public dockets through The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania’s website to link Claudia’s name to this alleged Luzerne County case is not found. What has been found is a “Sealed Order by Atty General’s Office”.

 The U.S. Constitution is
The Supreme Law of the Land.

   Judges are charged with the DUTY to administer Law in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers intended the Bill of Rights (1791) to secure individual rights for “We the People” against the tyranny and oppression of a Government which is supposed to serve the People and to protect those rights. Every statute and every ordinance in every state is required to pass a “Constitutional” muster. A court that fails to preserve the civil and constitutional rights of all litigants commits CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE; i.e.,   JUDICIAL ATROCITIES.

Within the PA judicial system, there remain pockets of disagreement:

“Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, see ya around. … We don’t have to worry about the rights.” Massachusetts municipal judge Richard Russell at a judges’ training seminar.
 

 “The family court is the most powerful branch of the judiciary.
The power of family court judges is almost unlimited.” 

Robert Page, presiding judge family court, Superior Court of New Jersey.

     Other cases submit irrefutable evidence of a court [ i.e., judge ] assuming jurisdiction where none exists for the purpose of a “criminal prosecution” against an innocent citizen. Assumption of jurisdiction can not be explained as an honest mistake by the judge.
      “Assuming jurisdiction” is an abuse of office administered knowingly and intentionally to the detriment of the defendant who has unknowingly become a VICTIM of domestic terrorism at the hands of a rogue, renegade court. See Jurisdiction.

The judge becomes the “criminal”.
     It is not the duty of a witness [to a crime] to determine the “motive” for a renegade court to commit crimes against We the People, but a pretty good guess might direct an investigator to ask who has what to gain from these egregious malicious prosecutions.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Pennsylvania Bar Assoc. (“PBA“) stands as the [unnamed] party with the most to gain for many reasons to be discussed elsewhere on this site.

Pennsylvania Rules of Court command that lower courts shall resolve disputes based on the “intent of the Supreme Court” of PA. But what happens when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disregards its own Rules and performs as a renegade court?
Federal statutes identify crimes against the People for which judges should be held accountable; 
i.e., deprivation of civil and Constitutional rights. See 18 U.S.C. 241, 242 et al and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

     Isn’t it TRUE that We the People have an “intangible right to honest services” from our government?   Schware, supra.

     … and isn’t it also TRUE that our courts have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all the constitutional rights of the People must be preserved via a fair and impartial exercise of the judicial functions of the courts?

     … and isn’t it also TRUE that these fiduciary responsibilities fall upon the judges and prosecutors under the Pennsylvania Constitution and Pennsylvania Rules of Court?

     Is it possible that Pennsylvania courts provide the same illicit services to the State government that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides for corrupt federal administrations?   

     We shall examine several examples of courts’ disregard of Court Rules, especially Pa.R.C.P. Rules 127 — Intent of Supreme Court Controls and 128 —Presumptions in Ascertaining the Intent of the Supreme Court.

   Judges use their courtrooms as their personal domain, ignoring their “fiduciary responsibility” [legal duty] under their Oath of Office to “support, obey and defend the Constitution …”. Many judges acting in their “Judicial Capacity” intentionally violate the Law, their Oath of Office, and the Code of Judicial Conduct in violation of their fiduciary responsibility under the Public Trust. Their actions, conduct and determinations are “arbitrary”. 
See Black’s Law definitions for “arbitrary” and “arbitrary and capricious”.

     These judges are unfit to occupy that office. See Hall of Shame.

     Frequently, outcome of court cases are pre-determined; i.e., the matters have been “fixed”. The rights of the disfavored party are systematically denied by judges whose intentional disregard for the rights of litigants raises legitimate questions about the professional and personal integrity of the judge. In some courts, official records are criminally altered to preserve the arbitrary and prejudicial decisions of the court. e.g., Lehigh County, PA.

Review CASES that contain examples of Crimes Against the People; State-Sanctioned Stealing; False Arrest/Imprisonment; Subornation of Perjury; Trespass Against the Law; Intentional Deprivation of Constitutional rights (Due Process, etc.); Criminal Alteration/Tampering of Court Records; Perjury [by judges]; Malicious Prosecution; Fraud on the Court; etc.

     These cases clearly establish judicial misconduct and intentional Distribution of Injustice via pre-determined outcomes. i.e., cases are FIXED. Official oppression, malicious prosecution and other coercive tactics [intimidation] are often employed to obtain submission of the victim. Systemic denial of civil and constitutional rights are tools [weapons] of corrupt judges and corrupt prosecutors.

      Each case described in Pa Court Injustice identifies PROBLEMS within the judicial system and suggests REMEDIES to restore integrity to our courts and, where appropriate, reparations to the injured party. Several examples expose judges who administer Law in order to advance a personal agenda or to act for the benefit of one party over another. Black’s Law calls this CORRUPTION.

     We the People need to demand protection from Government oppression that deprives us of rights secured under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other amendments. See Jefferson QuoteHOME page.

     One egregious example of Government oppression from within the court system occurred in Pennsylvania. Kids For Cash, supra.

     In 2009, a federal investigation of Luzerne County courts unveiled a pattern and practice of criminal behavior from the bench supporting a scheme of State-Sanctioned Stealing and State-Sanctioned Kidnapping of minors. 

     A federal investigation exposed judges and others operating from within the courthouse engaging in egregious criminal misconduct; Domestic Terrorism. Their crimes involved depriving juveniles of due process of law and then sentencing them to juvenile detention camps; State-Sanctioned Kidnapping.

     After one of the juvenile victims committed suicide, prompting an investigation by federal authorities, an extensive scheme involving monetary kickbacks to the judges was uncovered. The owners and operators of the juvenile detention camps were working in concert with the judges.

     Two judges,  Judge Mark Ciavarella and President Judge Michael T. Conahan, pleaded guilty in federal court accepting sentences of 84 months in prison in exchange for full cooperation with investigators. The court later withdrew the sentence from one judge on the grounds that the promised cooperation was withheld. This demonstrates that even the ‘word’ of some judges cannot be trusted.
So much for the “integrity” of our judicial system.

     More than a dozen court officers or employees were later indicted for crimes related to the Kids For Cash scandal.

     Federal investigators must not be content with cleaning up Luzerne County courts.  The federal investigation must be extended throughout this Commonwealth to expose other practices of criminal misconduct from within the judicial branch of government. In some counties, the Office of District Attorney is involved in the criminal misconduct.

     This Administrator addressed the issue of corrupt courts in a 2004 letter to [then] Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Criminal alteration of court hearings records from within the courthouse is asserted and remains unanswered: a NON-Denial denial.

     The Administrator invites comments and / or rebuttal from any and all judges and prosecutors who object to the content of this site and this page. It becomes your moral “duty” to answer.

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak
  or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297.

Dauphin County, PA

     Domestic Terrorism is a familiar weapon for Dauphin County prosecutors and judges who employ tyrannical misconduct with oppressive practices to intimidate and incarcerate innocent citizens over whom Dauphin County has No Jurisdiction. Both judges and prosecutors violate their Oath of Office in breach of their fiduciary responsibility to perform the duties of their office and to support and defend the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions. 

     Based on the criminal cases of Cmwlth. v.  Montelione and Cmwlth. v.  Wrona, a reasonable suspicion would involve the legal profession; a.k.a., the Pennsylvania Bar Association, of complicity in the malicious prosecution and related events that constitute one source of “domestic terrorism” via the Penna. judicial system and Dauphin County.

     The Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania is involved in violating Rules of Court in order to bring false charges against a Pennsylvania resident, and to effectuate a “change of venue” as an exercise of “judge-shopping”* to insure a favorable outcome.

* On the bright side, this offers the public some hope that not all Pennsylvania courts are corrupt. Otherwise, there would be no Need for judge-shopping.

     Edward Marsico, Dauphin County DA, prosecutes criminal charges under a statute that is not a crime …  in Pennsylvania or any other state. See 42 Pa.C.S. 2524. The U.S. Supreme Court and Restatement of law declare that the practice of law is an occupation of common right, ergo, the “unauthorized” practice of law cannot be a crime.

     The PBA is in the process of establishing committees among its districts to prosecute “unauthorized practice of law” as a crime. Pennsylvania judges act in concert with the PBA in a criminal conspiracy to “criminalize” the exercise of a constitutional right.

      Under settled Pennsylvania Law, “unauthorized practice of law” is not a crime. The Administrator invites the PBA, the Attorney General or any county District Attorney to rebutt this statement of fact. See Tweel, supra.

     Efforts to obtain a Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Mandamus are currently before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which entered a PER CURIAM ORDER to DENY both Writs.

Are PER CURIAM ORDERS of Court unlawful?

     A demand for ReArgument and an Appeal have been filed in the highest court for Pennsylvania. 
NOTE: On Saturday, 18 May, 2013, the Prothonotary for the Supreme Court returned the original + 8 copies of the Notice of Appeal with the transmittal and the check for the filing fee. This action by the Court must be sufficient to preserve the Right of Appeal.

See Wrona case. [ still WIP ]

       Other cases report other egregious examples of how courts abuse their office to the detriment of We the People.

Review MISSIONDeclaration of Truth for Averment of Administrator. 

3 thoughts on “Judicial Atrocities

  1. C.F. Miller

    Dear Administrator:

    Would you be so kind as to let me know the specific instance in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared the practice of law is an occupation of common right. That court has recently DENIED (without explanation) my writ of certiorari questioning the constitutionality of unauthorized practice of law statutes or regulations. No doubt a law clerk, and not any one of the judges, issued the “unsigned” denial. I appreciate your efforts to “cleanup” the rat-infested den of thieves dressed in their halloween costumes and masquerading as judges. In all honesty, however, my experience has taught me that the task of cleaning up or breaking up this “cartel”, “monopoly”, “gang” and “clique” of lawyers and judges who have conspired together to protect only their own selfish interests will be a very difficult task to accomplish. And it will be very difficult for the simple reason that, the very individuals (judges) to whom WE must go for relief, are in fact, closely knit members of the same cartel. I shall await your response. Respectfully yours, C.F. Miller, Belle VErnon, PA.

    Edward Marsico, Dauphin County DA, prosecutes criminal charges under a statute that is not a crime … in Pennsylvania or any other state. See 42 Pa.C.S. 2524. The U.S. Supreme Court and Restatement of law declare that the practice of law is an occupation of common right, ergo, the “unauthorized” practice of law cannot be a crime.

    Reply
    1. Administrator

      Sir / Madam;

      See SCHWARE v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) 353 U.S. 232

      SCHWARE v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS OF NEW MEXICO.
      CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO.
      No. 92.
      Argued January 14-15, 1957. Decided May 6, 1957.
      Schware is a SCOTUS Opinion.
      I hope this helps …

      See also … Restatement of Law … which cites Sims v. Ahern and distinguishes one practice from another …

      Reply
    2. Administrator

      Thank you for your Comment Mr./ Mss. Miller.
      The info you request may be found in Restatement of Law (UPL) which refers to several cases. I believe one of them is Sims v. Ahern, and the SCOTUS cite is Schware v. Board of Examiners. All 3 identify the practice of law as an “occupation of common right” which is “supposed to be secured” and respected by the courts as, at the very least, a property interest.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *