Tampering with Official Government Records — the Crime >> 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911.
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. The issue raised in Lehigh County is that audio records of court hearings were/are edited. 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, William 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 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 of court hearings. These four “public servants” were subpeonaed to testify at the Disciplinary Board hearings. Three of them failed to appear to testify in violation of the law and their fiduciary responsibility. “Respondent” was DENIED the 6th Amendment right to call witnesses in his favor in a “quasi-criminal” proceeding. Further, judge Ford’s law clerk, Licia Ano, was excused from testifying. Lisa was identified as having custody of the audio tape before it was transcribed. Such custody is “unlawful”.
The Disciplinary Board Hearing Panel was Denied the exercise of their “duty” to search for truth. The testimony of these four (absent) witnesses successfully concealed the identity of the person or persons who perpetrated the criminal act of “record alteration” of audio tapes in Lehigh County courts. The extent of corruption in Lehigh County courts remains “under seal”.
DBSC collaborated with Alan M. Black, (“accuser”) to fabricate “false disciplinary charges” against the accused and to deny him “due process of law”.
The criminals in Lehigh County court and the Disciplinary Board continue to ‘scam’ the public. 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.
Respondent had hired a certified legal record maker to make a a video and audio copy of the proceedings. Permission to “record” the hearing was granted at the pre-trial conference to establish the “rules” under which the hearing would be administered. Respondent was DENIED several rights, among which is “due process”. Four subpeonaed witnesses were excused from appearing … to wit: William E. Ford, Edward D. Reibman, Lisa Ano, and Douglas Reichley (State Rep. and former Asst. District, now a Lehigh County judge). Rep. Reichley did APPEAR at the first hearing, but the panel refused to permit him to testify until after prosecutors presented their case … per Criminal Rules of Procedure. Rep. Reichley was unavailable for the 2nd hearing.
CRIMINALS ARE RUNNING OUR COURTS!
The government, a.k.a “court”, protects its criminals by inflicting irreparable harm on any 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 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 of “injustice” is carried out by judges, prosecutors (District Attorneys), court administrators, law enforcement officers and other court administration officers. These persons acting “under color of law” commit Crimes against We the People, the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions and litigants in violation of their Oath(s) of Office to support and defend those Constitutions. This Administrator reported the crimes to each of these judges, who then had (have) a fiduciary responsibility to report the crime for investigation. Otherwise, they become “criminals” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4; Misprision of Felony.
SEE § 4953. Retaliation against witness, victim or party.
(a) Offense defined.–A person commits an offense if he harms another by any unlawful act or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which threaten another in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness, victim or a party in a civil matter.
(b) Grading.–The offense is a felony of the third degree if the retaliation is accomplished by any of the means specified in section 4952(b)(1) through (5) (relating to intimidation of witnesses or victims). Otherwise the offense is a misdemeanor of the second degree.
(Dec. 20, 2000, P.L.837, No.117, eff. imd.)
§ 4953.1. Retaliation against prosecutor or judicial official.
(a) Offense defined.–A person commits an offense if he harms or attempts to harm another or the tangible property of another by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the official capacity of a prosecutor or judicial official.
(b) Grading.–The offense is a felony of the second degree if:
(1) The actor employs force, violence or deception or attempts or threatens to employ force, violence or deception upon the prosecutor or judicial official or, with the requisite intent or knowledge, upon any other person.
(2) The actor’s conduct is in furtherance of a conspiracy to retaliate against a prosecutor or judicial official.
(3) The actor solicits another to or accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary or other benefit to retaliate against a prosecutor or judicial official.
(4) The actor has suffered any prior conviction for any violation of this title or any predecessor law hereto or has been convicted under any Federal statute or statute of any other state of an act which would be a violation of this title if committed in this Commonwealth.
(5) The actor causes property damage or loss in excess of $1,000.
Otherwise, the offense is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(c) Definitions.–As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
“Judicial official.” Any person who is a:
(1) judge of the court of common pleas;
(2) judge of the Commonwealth Court;
(3) judge of the Superior Court;
(4) justice of the Supreme Court;
(5) magisterial district judge;
(6) judge of the Pittsburgh Magistrate’s Court;
(7) judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court;
(8) judge of the Traffic Court of Philadelphia; or
(9) master appointed by a judge of a court of common pleas.
“Prosecutor.” Any person who is:
(1) an Attorney General;
(2) a deputy attorney general;
(3) a district attorney; or
(4) an assistant district attorney.
(Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1245, No.159, eff. 60 days; Nov. 30, 2004, P.L.1618, No.207, eff. 60 days)
2004 Amendment. Act 207 amended subsec. (c). See section 29 of Act 207 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to construction of law.
1998 Amendment. Act 159 added section 4953.1.