Overview — Criminality in Our Courts

 and Crown Thy Good with Brotherhood …

WIP  … Work In Progress

Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all
when he lives without law, and without justice.  —  Aristotle

“Justice is a machine that, when someone has once given it the starting push, rolls on of itself,”  —  John Galsworthy

     Conversely,  “INJUSTICE”, the product of justice derailed (by those entrusted with its care), will roll on of itself … UNLESS  …  the People demand  restoration of JUSTICE!  

    This site is developed for the express purpose of identifying “Justice” and demanding its restoration in America.

     “Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
      — Thomas Jefferson

Patriot. one who loves his country and zealously supports its authority and interests.
See Black’s law –  Patria potestas: paternal authority; the paternal power…

     Patria potestas in pietate debet, non in atrocitate
“Paternal power should consist (be exercised) in affection, not in atrocity.”
Tyrant: A despot; a sovereign or ruler, legitimate or otherwise, who uses his power unjustly and arbitrarily to the oppression of his subjects.
Criminal:  is any person who commits a crime against the People where the crime is defined by statute, state or federal.  Immunity from liability, “absolute or qualified”, notwithstanding.

     Anyone accepting “taxpayer dollars” as compensation for employment (e.g., “public servant”) should AUTOMATICALLY WAIVE their alleged Constitutional (5th Amend.) right “to remain silent”. After all,  “trustees” are under contract (Constitution is the Contract) to serve We the People … “trustees” have a “fiduciary responsibility” to provide We the People with our “intangible right to honest services” pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.101. Silence that conceals information is DISHONESTY, violating the “honest services” provision. Breach of that duty constitutes a “conflict of interest CRIME”. This applies to all members of Congress, as well as appointees (and others) employed in other government agencies.
NOTE: A presidential “pardon” does NOT absolve the perpetrator of the Crime! e.g. Wm. Jefferson Clinton. 


   Led by the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, the PA Supreme Court supervises and administers Pennsylvania’s judicial branch of government.

   To assist it, the Supreme Court appoints the court administrator of Pennsylvania, a position established in Pennsylvania’s Constitution. The “court administrator” is responsible for the prompt and proper disposition of the business of all courts and leads the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC). A detailed list of the responsibilities of court administrators and AOPC  may be found in the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration 501-506. With principal offices in Harrisburg and Philadelphia, significant responsibilities of the AOPC include:

  • Ensuring accessible and safe courts for all citizens
  • Recommending court system improvements and program innovations directly or collaboratively
  • Representing the court system to citizens, at all government levels, and with the media and providing all with reliable information
  • Reviewing operations, providing policy guidance and assisting 60 president judges and district court administrators in local court management
  • Developing and maintaining information technology, such as case, financial and administrative management systems
  • Providing legal services and, when appropriate, legal representation to system personnel
  • Managing administrative functions, including finance and human resources
  • Conducting statewide continuing education programs for judges and staff

    The court administrator of Pennsylvania is assisted by the deputy court administrator, the assistant court administrator and various administrative directors.

    Not listed among the “responsibilities” of AOPC are the tasks to protect criminally corrupt judges and other officers of the Court, and to provide AOPC witnesses to “testi-LIE” in court for the condemnation and conviction of honest, innocent citizens who are accused by the BAR Association of accusing the courts (judges and prosecutors) of “criminal misconduct”. …
Perhaps I “missed” identifying that “responsibility” among those “listed” above.
…  or perhaps I am confused by #3 “Representing the court system to citizens, at all government levels, and with the media and providing all with reliable information.
My interpretation of “reliable information” infers “honest statements of fact” without embellishment intended to mislead the courts.   e.g., (AOPC’s) A. Taylor Williams “testilying” to the court in Commonwealth v. Montelione.  Williams testilied about a document, which “bonds” the action under the UBC, and that “prosecutors” failed to produce, claiming “It was Lost!”  Without producing the “bonding document”, the COMMONWEALTH is unable to establish prima facie evidence of “probable cause”!
Do we suspect “deprivation” of due process??? … among other crimes by the Commonwealth?
That corrupt Dauphin County court proceeded to TRY Claudia “criminally” , and without “assistance of counsel”. SHAME ON DAUPHIN COUNTY!
When A. Taylor Williams testified “falsely”, she perjured herself and perpetrated a “FRAUD ON THE COURT” which, automatically “forfeits” the jurisdiction of that court. ALL CHARGES AGAINST CLAUDIA MONTELIONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
   Pennsylvania courts “neglect” to recognize and enforce any provisions of Law that may benefit the Public, especially one that requires compliance of the court and/or prosecutor:  e.g., the Uniform Bonding Code. (UBC). Under the UBC, court jurisdiction for Commonwealth v. Montelione correctly belonged in a federal court.
The Commonwealth claimed the document was “bogus”; a knowingly FALSE claim, then “failed” to produce the document central to their allegations.   In order to convict Claudia, the Commonwealth had to “misplace” the document, to which A. Taylor Williams “conveniently” testilied to the jury to the contrary.
This has all the appearance of a “criminal conspiracy” OF THE COURT!  …  18 PaCS § 903.

The CRIMES!   

“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 Brandeis: Olmstead v. U.S.

 Overview — Criminality in Our Courts

      It is incumbent upon the oppressed to distinguish between Patriots and Tyrants before advancing any recommendations and efforts to restore integrity to a government, and as here, to the government (Commonwealth) of Pennsylvania.
       The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by and through the “judicial” branch exercises its patria potestas in atrocitate.  In collusion with the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court (DBSC et al), the Pennsylvania government (courts) commits crimes against the citizenry, crimes against the Pennsylvania Constitution, violations of due process  and other egregious departures from the Rule of Law.

 Pennsylvania Court Watch
       A group known as Pennsylvania Court Watch (“PCW”) engages in monitoring the conduct in Pennsylvania courts with the patriotic intention of judicial reform, to rid Pennsylvania courts of prejudices, corruption and judicial misconduct. According to PCW, the extent of these malignancies exceeds the estimates of the most liberal student of government corruption.
      In an effort to introduce public awareness of the problems in our courts and to initiate legislative action for Judicial Reforms,  for , PCW has developed a list of “proposals” for public approval and public demand for legislative action.  PCW groups the ‘proposals’ into 3 categories:  Reform Judicial Powers;  Misconduct Management;  and “Transparency …”.

      Lest we think that the efforts of PCW are just a fringe element attempting to raise a complaint, the attached document, How to Save Our Courts, written by Sandra Day O’Connor, former Associate Justice of  SCOTUS, affirms the PCW position.

Anti-Trust violations

    The Sherman Anti-Trust Act  is intended to prohibit development of monopolistic schemes whether in the private sector or the Public Sector.

     This issue is under development. SCOTUS will be rendering a decision on this issue shortly. See NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, v. FEDERAL TRADE  COMMISSION, No.  13-534: No. Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC
     On March 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted for review /North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission/, Case No. 13-534, where it will decide whether a state agency that consists of professionals who regulate their own profession qualifies as an arm of the state, or whether it is more akin to a private actor that must meet the “actively supervised” requirement to enjoy antitrust immunity.
     The issue before the court was whether the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners could face personal liability under anti-trust law for blocking non-dentists (unlicensed by the N.C. Board …) from engaging in the commercial practice of “tooth-whitening”. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the FTC that such actions violate anti-trust laws for restraint of trade. The FTC and the court agreed that state immunity protections did not attach to the Board of Dental Examiners.
       The case is MUCH larger than it appears on the surface, because ‘restraint of trade’ is a fixture in the legal profession. Dentistry and the practice of law have one thing in common, both are determined to be “occupations of common right”; protected activities which the state may not license. Both “professions” claim to be self-policed for integrity to the public. However, when the “policing” blocks entries into a commercial ‘trade’ or service, anti-trust alarms go off and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act enters.
     Sherman is used to determine whether or not the actors on behalf of the ‘trade’ have state-sanctioned immunity from personal liability suits under anti-trust actions.
     Joining the N.C. Board of Dental Examiners on a joint venture ‘amicus brief’ before SCOTUS in opposition to the FTC are the North Carolina State Bar, the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners, the West Virginia State Bar, the Nevada State Bar and the Florida Bar, as amici curiae.
In support of the 4th Circuit decision are the Pacific Law Foundation and CATO Institute.
  It is not by accident that these bar associations entered into this fray. State bar associations employ the same tactics to “police” their ranks. Only their “mission” is different. State bar associations employ “disciplinary actions” to discredit, disbar and eliminate lawyers who “break ranks” with the bar association and expose the corruption and criminal misconduct within the courts and the legal profession. T

    The punishment for these turncoat attorneys is almost always permanent disbarment. The means employed by bar associations is as criminal as the actions reported by the turncoat.
The accused attorney is denied “due process of law” and other constitutional rights.

     The Bar associations of several states, including Pennsylvania, masquerade as agents of the government and claim “immunity” from Sherman Act prosecution as ‘acting’ in behalf of the  government. These Bar Associations exercise monopolistic pseudo-authority to prosecute the subject “under color of law” and to disbar any attorneys who dare expose criminals within the judicial system. The victims of Bar Association disbarment proceedings are denied “due process of law” throughout the proceedings.
Violations of Anti-Trust laws is a Criminal Operation. Courts are run by judges, administrators and prosecutors. Judges and prosecutors are “members” of the Bar; Administrators have “associate” membership to the BAR . Rogue Judges and prosecutors act with reckless disregard for the “rights” of citizens and those arrested “under color of law”.

     How did the courts acquire the omnipotent authority to commit crimes against the People with impunity?
This question is discussed in “External Influence: ABA”.    

Criminals are running our Courts!




3 thoughts on “Overview — Criminality in Our Courts

  1. David Johnson

    Presently in a battle against the Pennsylvania courts.
    See: Johnson v. Allegheny County Court Of Common Pleas, et al.
    About fraud on the part of the state and federal courts.

    1. Administrator Post author

      Mr. Johnson, many of us are, or have been “at war” with Pennsylvania courts.
      I will be happy to publish facts about your case, but need your assistance.
      It would be of great help if you could write a synopsis or a concise review of your case and then I could ask questions to understand the issues. Fraud is commonplace in our courts, but when the court or prosecutor is the perpetrator, the situation becomes a federal issue … like “Kids For Cash”.

      I am unable to research everyone’s case, so I must depend on them for facts and details.
      I look forward to hearing from you so we can establish email correspondence.
      Thank You for your cooperation.


Leave a Reply

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