At all times during this child support case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania receives a federal incentive of 10% for every dollar collected under 45 CFR § 304.12 and § 302.55, Child Support Enforcement Program. The monies are distributed to “political subdivisions”, i.e., county courts. Additional financial incentives are available for every non-custodial parent incarcerated for contempt of court for non-payment of child support — a conflict of interest.
Child support payments under docket PACSES #907002114 have now been terminated because the child has reached the age of Majority.
Hamoui: PACSES #907002114
Hamoui is a Child Support case in which a pre-determined outcome was administered by DRS, and affirmed by two corrupt judges in collusion with a dishonest, i.e., corrupt Title IV-D attorney (solicitor) over a period of four years and before three judges. See Black’s Law for a definition of “Corruption”.
The case features criminal misconduct involving systemic deprivation of civil and constitutional rights and material and criminal alteration of audio records of court hearings supported by unrefuted evidence that the “chain of custody” of the audio records was broken. Physical custody of the audio records was transferred to the trial judge prior to the records being transcribed, giving an appearance of “pattern and practice”.
The Hamoui case reports judicial abuse of discretion, deprivation of rights, criminal misconduct, false imprisonment and obstruction of justice by the Lehigh County court. The administration of this case is a manifestation of corruption and EVIL, the heavy-handed exercise of judicial misconduct that permeates Pennsylvania “family courts”.
One of the most egregious acts of misconduct is the “pattern and practice” of judicial “delegation of authority” that permits “ORDERS” for child support to be Entered into the record without the signature of a judge acting under his/her Constitutional Delegation of Authority.
In many ‘child support’ courts, the Domestic Relations section of the court is in possession of a “rubber stamp” signature of a domestic relations court “judge”. This situation occurred to Mr. Hamoui, confirmed as a result of a hearing before William E. Ford, judge.
The Title IV-D attorney, Susan Maurer, informed the court, “on the record” , that issues raised on behalf of the non-custodial parent (“ncp”) had previously been “heard” by a judge and the matter was decided (res judicata). A request for the transcribed record for that “fictitious” hearing revealed that the judge never heard the case, and his “signature stamp” had been affixed by a domestic relations section employee.
Hamoui was DENIED “due process” as a result of misconduct by the Title- IV-D attorney and the by the “court”.
Efforts to correct the record, via a Motion”, were stonewalled by the Title IV-D attorney and Edward D. Reibman, the Common Pleas court judge whose signature was ‘stamped’ on the Order.
Similar 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”. 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 supports 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 their absence are any references to “Per Curiam” or “Non-Precedential” orders. It cannot be “unreasonable” to resume 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.
This case will appear in detail in three segments. Hamoui’s rights were TRAMPLED and the Constitution was TRASHED in all three Phases by the court.
The Hamoui case provides a compelling basis for allegations that outcomes of ‘family court’ cases are “fixed” and that Criminals are Running our Courts.
Phase 1 reports the case as heard by judge William E. Ford from September 1997 through February 1999. Hamoui is a non-custodial parent and defendant in child support. Judge Ford upheld the DRS recommended support award which includes an unlawful “imputed” earning capacity for defendant. Ford then ruled that Hamoui, who was in full compliance with the support order was in contempt of the order.
The Hamoui case introduced the PACOURTINJUSTICE Administrator to the corrupt and criminal administration of court proceedings in Lehigh County family court. Audio records of the court hearing were criminally edited. Judge Ford LIED to obstuct a criminal investigation into the corrupt activities in his court. The District Attorney joins the court as co-conspirator in the criminal act of Tampering with court records. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911.
Phase 2 [Coming soon] reports the continuation of the child support action before Alan M. Black who is already nominated to the Hall of Shame. Audio records of hearings on four separate dates in Black’s court have been criminally edited. This criminal conduct achieves the level of “pattern and practice” and is so extensive that the question arises: “Should the family court be investigated under Racketeering Influenced Criminal Operations — RICO statutes?”
Phase 3 [Coming soon] reports a collateral action to disqualify Susan G. Maurer, Esq., the Title IV-D attorney and “solicitor” for Lehigh County Domestic Relations. Maurer made false representations to the court of material facts; a “fraud on the court”. Two separate attempts were made to disqualify Maurer; one before judge Ford, and a second time before judge Edward D. Reibman. The court and Maurer are intimately involved in the criminal misconduct, so it should come as no surprise to find the court “circling the wagons” to take care of its own.
These judges misapplied the law so egregiously that they LIED to the appellate courts to support the pre-determined outcomes of the matters before the bench, and to cover their tracks. Black solicited perjury from staff members to conceal criminal misconduct. Subornation of perjury is another act of moral turpitude; a corrupt practice. The crimes are criminal alteration of audio tapes of court hearings. 18 Pa.C.S § 4911.
Lying to an appellate court [or a District Attorney] should be seen as the same “contumacious conduct ” which cost William Jefferson Clinton, a sitting President, his license to practice law for 5 years. [ to review Clinton case, see Document List], In this case, we witness “fraud on the court” by the lower court.
|The three judges, Ford, Reibman and Black engaged in egregious acts of judicial and criminal misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system.
||The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)|
If “All men are equal before the Law“, then should not each of these judges be brought before a “judicial conduct” disciplinary board and held in “contempt” for their egregious judicial misconduct which in each case involves criminal misconduct.
Immediately following the hearing before Ford in 1997, the issue of criminal editing of court audio records was raised and vigorously pursued. Efforts to discredit the “whistle-blower” commenced. Judges Reibman and Black are well aware of the charges of criminal misconduct brought against the Ford court. With the arrogance of tyrants who believe they are above the law, audio records in both their courts continued to be criminally edited.
PACOURTINJUSTICE invites the judges named above, or any other Pennsylvania judge who disagrees with the content of this website to respond in Affidavit form as prescribed in MISSION: Declaration of Truth.
Failure to respond “under oath” constitutes acquiescence to the truth of every accusation and allegation published.
The unlawful practices administered in Lehigh County are practiced in other Pennsylvania courts. If you have been subjected to similar treatment in your county, please contact us to have your case published on this site.