The legal industry designed for themselves, a faux Judicial Conduct Board whose operating procedures make no mention of protecting the public from judicial criminality. It states their only responsibility is to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a crooked sanctuary state that harvests votes of illegal aliens; no judge has ever been removed or prosecuted for damages against an individual citizen. The "government," which is just people with their own agenda, deliberately omitted a mechanism for restitution for victims of judicial corruption. There are thousands of people bankrupted … Continue Reading ››
The below testimony is in regard to the deceptive means of funding bloated, unsustainable government budgets, by repulsively extorting assets from unsuspecting citizens through the sham of the family court system. The "court" does nothing but impoverish families and convert personal property into lavish lifestyles of greedy judges, public officials and government employees .
This Act Is A Response By The Citizens Of The State Of Pennsylvania To The Unconstitutional Exceeding Of Power And Jurisdiction By The Pennsylvania Judicial Branch, That Has Resulted In Immeasurable Incidents Of Denial Of Due Process, False Imprisonments, Undue Deprivation Of Personal and Real Property, And Civil Rights Violations Of The People Of This State. The Provisions Contained Herein Seek To Remedy The Deficiencies That Have Emerged In The Pennsylvania Court System As A Result Of The Absence Of Such Provisions Over The Last Several Decades.
AN ABUSE OF POWER: How the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Uses Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution to Dominate Procedural Law-Making and Why Pennsylvania Should Amend This Constitutional Provision
Jason Bologna, Esq. Copyright (c) 1998 Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
(Jason Bologna is now an Assistant U.S. Attorney, based in Philadelphia, PA. He works for the U.S. Attorney General's office based in Washington DC. He was unable to get clearance to speak with me on this article he wrote 17 years ago.)
Article V Section 10(C) was put on a referendum to the voters in 1968. It was supposed to give the Pennsylvania Supreme Court "administrative" power over the Judicial Branch. However, the text of the amendment was somewhat ambiguous, and the manner in which the Judiciary began to use this power, exceeded that which the Executive and Legislative Branches had intended.
The Governor at the time, Milton Shapp, signed a law, (cited on the … Continue Reading ››
Asset-stripping is the agenda of family court. It is NOT a social service as it claims to be. It is a criminal organization designed by criminals beginning in the 1970s... and has operated unconstrained because of the kleptocracy that has consumed Pennsylvania- which has F- regarding its courts according to the Center for Judicial Integrity.
One person, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, has instituted a challenge to end this racketeering, without an attorney, against the entire Pennsylvania Court system and its agencies, with allegations based upon unlawful deprivation of personal property.
Judicial Accountability Advocacy
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove
The legal industry designed for themselves, a faux Judicial Conduct Board whose operating procedures make no mention of protecting the public from judicial criminality. It states their only responsibility is to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a crooked sanctuary state that harvests votes of illegal aliens; no judge has ever been removed or prosecuted for damages against an individual citizen. The "government," which is just people with their own agenda, deliberately omitted a mechanism for restitution for victims of judicial corruption. There are thousands of people bankrupted … Continue Reading ››
Article V Section 10(C) was put on a referendum to the voters in 1968. It was supposed to give the Pennsylvania Supreme Court "administrative" power over the Judicial Branch. However, the text of the amendment was somewhat ambiguous, and the manner in which the Judiciary began to use this power, exceeded that which the Executive and Legislative Branches had intended.