See Hamoui PROBLEMS: [ Updated Oct. 2007 ]
Narrative HAMOUI: Phase 1
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”.
Hamoui is a non-custodial parent of a child born out-of-wedlock. Child support has been a contentious issue for years. The custodial parent had the higher income throughout the period of judicial involvement.
Hamoui married in 1991, and had three children from the marriage, the third was born during the period this action took place. The custodial parent married in 1995, but the court prevented defendant from testing Plaintiff’s credibility to establish her post-marriage financial circumstances as evidence,i.e. income and expenses, other assets, etc.
Plaintiff’s financial circumstances remain concealed behind questionable legal practices with the consent and collusion of the court.
The court prosecuted and convicted defendant for “willful non-compliance” with the support order while he was in full complaince with the order.
Judge Ford had Hamoui handcuffed and incarcerated for civil contempt (willful non-compliance) even though Domestic Relations was receiving child support payments via an immediately effective Wage Attachment. Judge Ford should be held “unfit for office” until he produces proof under the strictest standard of review to support this egregious Distribution of Injustice and misapplication of law.
The support and contempt cases feature criminal misconduct involving 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 judge Ford prior to the records being transcribed. The court (judge) obstructs a criminal investigation into the editing of court audio records. The District Attorney cooperates with the court as co-conspirator.
After an unsuccessful appeal process, Hamoui again filed to reduce (modify) his support obligation. Phase 2. For this instance, the court (Black, J.) administered the law (Support Guidelines) ex post facto, resulting in an increase in the support obligation. Again the audio records were edited, and again, a judge was identified as breaking the chain of custody before the audio record was transcribed.
Once again, the court prevented defendant from testing the credibility of Plaintiff. Under settled Pennsylvania law, both parties are required to testify and face cross-examination otherwise “No Hearing Was Held.”
Judge Black TRASHES the Constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania.
For Hamoui Phase 2, the appellate court created a new interpretation of procedural rules to affirm the lower court without reaching the merits of the issues on appeal, which include 4 issues of deprivation of constitutional rights.
Appellee failed to respond to appellant’s brief. The appellate decision gives rise to a reasonable conclusion that the entire Pennsylvania judicial system has been corrupted.
A third judge, Edward D. Reibman, became involved when defendant moved to disqualilfy the solicitor (Susan G. Maurer) under a PA Supreme Court decision to protect defendant’s “due process” rights. Reibman decided that Maurer’s right to practice law is superior to Hamoui’s right of due process.Phase 3.
The primary function and responsibility of our courts is to protect and preserve the Constitutional rights of Pennsylvania citizens. Pennsylvania courts no longer provide that protection.
The corruption of the judicial system is not limited to county courts. Pennsylvania’s appellate courts violate the purpose and duty of appellate review to affirm ‘family court’ decisions nearly 100% of the time.
Hamoui petitioned (without counsel) to reduce his child support in November of 1996 when he was involuntarily laid off from his job. DRS DENIED his petition on the grounds that the reduction amount was not sufficient to change the support award.
DUH! For a non-custodial parent with two children in a second household, and a third child almost here, $2.00 A WEEK IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. That equals more than $100.00 per year.
When his Unemployment expired and he still had not found a job, Hamoui again petitioned for a reduction. Two weeks later he began part-time (maximum 32 hours / week) employment. Hamoui had NO INCOME for approximately 4 weeks. DRS unconscionably extrapolated his part-time hours (less than 30 hours / week average) to a 40-hour work week that increased his net income by 25%.
Hamoui retained counsel to appeal the DRS decision, demanding a de novo hearing. Hamoui also demanded a paternity test, which was later withdrawn.
By the time the case came before Ford, Hamoui had been accepted as a full-time employee, and received a pay raise. The solicitor used this as leverage against the appeal, and Ford hinted that he may owe more money.
Hamoui’s appeal was based on his income for the period when he had NO INCOME and his part-time wages. The court is required to produce a DETAILED accounting of his support obligation based on his ‘current’ income for that period. Ford neglected his duty.
Hamoui demanded the right to cross-examine Plaintiff, a due process issue. Ford DENIED defendant’s demand based on intentional misrepresentation of fact by the solicitor. Ford refused to reconsider his decision even after learning that Maurer LIED to the court.
Defendant raised several issues in support of a deviation from the guideline amount. Many of these were deleted or partially deleted in the criminal alteration of the audio record of the hearing. See Document List – Transcript Errors.
Ford upheld the DRS recommendation, after which Maurer, the solicitor, told Ford that Hamoui should be held in contempt for non-payment of the interim DRS support order.
Hamoui signed the wage attachment authority for DRS, which DRS withheld for several weeks before sending it to his employer. The “wage attachment” was immediately effective, putting Hamoui in full compliance with the order.
Ford found Hamoui in contempt of the support order, and ordered him handcuffed and hauled off to jail. Ford established a “purge amount” of $750.00 which Hamoui had to pay by 11:00 AM, otherwise he would be arraigned and kept overnight. Counsel contacted Hamoui’s wife who contacted his father to loan him the money to purge the contempt citation and keep him out of jail.
Plaintiff screamed in court that she did not want Hamoui put in jail. Her screams do not appear on the audio record. Plaintiff’s cries were deleted from the audio tape.
On the hearing date, Hamoui’s wife was home alone with three children; two toddlers and one nurturing infant.
Where is your conscience William E. Ford?
Hamoui appealed both Ford orders to the appellate court. When the transcribed record was produced, there were numerous and material omissions and transpositions of dialogue from what was spoken in court.
Counsel reported the discrepancies first to the court monitor [Susan Sherry] and then to Maurer who responded “This isn’t criminal court”.
Counsel Moved to correct the record, which Ford DENIED without a record hearing.
Defendant was denied access to the court, and a full and fair opportunity to present his case that the audio records of the hearing were “criminally edited”.
Sherry had previously informed counsel that the audio tape left her custody before it was transcribed, and that Ford’s law clerk, Licia Ano, had physical custody.
Counsel and Ford exchanged correspondence regarding the alteration of audio records. See Document List to review this correspondence.
Ford neglected to state that HE also took physical custody of the audio records before thay were transcribed. Did Ford intentionally LIE by omission ?
Ford’s correspondence contains “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process”. See Document List: Jones v. Clinton. Ford intended to mislead and misinform anyone who may be inclined to conduct a criminal investigation into the alteration of audio records.
MORE TO COME REGARDING THE CRIMINAL EDITS OF COURT AUDIO RECORDS.
Check back for updates.