Work In Process …   WIP!

   No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.                                         —        James Madison

PROBLEMS — Reasons for Judicial Atrocities

     This website is necessitated because Public Servants, judges and others working in County courtrooms across this Commonwealth are involved in a criminal enterprise to obtain Federal money in exchange for unjust adjudication of Child support under (PA R.C.P. 1910) and Child custody (PA R.C.P. 1915) cases. Family courts are but a small example of the corruption and criminal misconduct that appears in (nearly) “every” courtroom in the U.S. of A.
       Pennsylvania Court Injustices intends to identify the “power” behind governmental criminal misconduct that conceals the TRUE Problems that Trample the Constitutional and Civil Rights of litigants and that has stripped “INTEGRITY” from American courts. 

GOTO to view concurring videos.

View “DECONSTRUCTING AMERICA” videos; 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: faithful, the quality or state of being faithful; … ALLEGIANCE; FEALTY; LOYALTY; … faithfulness to something to which one is bound by a pledge, by duty, or by a sense of what is right or appropriate.

       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. A  frequently employed weapon of the corrupt judiciary is the ABUSE of AUTHORITY when applying a charge of “Contempt of court”! 
     Violating one’s Oath of Office constitutes a breach of Trust!  When a citizen is deprived 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 the government. Judges and prosecutors must be held to a higher standard of truth and integrity that the citizens for whom they administer the law.  18 USC § 1346. 

     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.  See Uniform Bonding Code (“UBC”

    “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”  –  “acting under color of law” conspire to DENY the Constitutional rights of litigants in state or federal courts  and knowingly and intentionally disregard the “constitutional delegation of authority” as prescribed under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.
     The atrocities reported here are 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 is one of the most serious Crimes that can occur in a court of law. Too frequently, the “Fraud” is perpetrated by the court or by “officers” in that court. Fraud upon the court denies one or both parties of “Due Process” of law which, a priori, forfeits jurisdiction of that court rendering any orders and judgments of that court to be void ab initio. See  “Crimes”.
     When fraud on the court occurs, the effect is that the entire case shall be cancelled / made void. A fraud occurs when a judge violates his Oath of Office, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and his fiduciary responsibility (duty) 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. 5 U.S.C. 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. 


TRIAL BY JURY  … excerpts from an ESSAY by Lysander Spooner [in 1852]


     For more than six hundred years — that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

     Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” — a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government — they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

     But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what is  inad- missible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [*6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them. 

     That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for  them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. 
     “The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” vs. “trial by government” — that is, by the people, as distinguished from a trial by the government.  
     It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.” 
    The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

      Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other — or at least no more accurate — definition of a despotism than this.

“Where law is uncertain, partial, or arbitrary; where justice is not impartially administered to all; where property is insecure, and the person is liable to insult and violence, without redress by law, the people are not free, whatever may be their form of government.”  —                                                                                                          —    Justice Samuel Chase

     On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

     To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. [*7] This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
     It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes, of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor — that is, with the government.
     It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And, as unanimity is require for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The 
government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, “the country,” or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the [*8] government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. 
     But all this trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial. 
     If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law. fn1 
     So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a trial by the country,” [*9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own — by their own judgments of their rightful liberties — but by a standard dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people, against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law. 
     The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are cable of being practiced under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded. [*10] 
     The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all.