This has created a rogue judicial system, and a police state. This is how judicial immunity and their power increased. What happened described herein, spread to every state across the nation, beginning in the 1970’s, facilitated through the American Bar Association. If you do not live in Pennsylvania, the law was still most likely changed in the same manner in your state.. This was the self-exemption through the Supreme Court using the power of judicial review, from the Open Meeting Laws by the Judicial branches. The Open Meeting Law is related to the Sunshine Act, and titled differently throughout the country. The Judiciary is also exempt from the Sunshine Act, however, the exemption from the Open Meeting Laws has been much more damaging to our democracy.
What is an Open Meeting Law?
To protect transparency in government, every state in the United States has some variety of law mandating that all government business be conducted in open meetings to which the public has access. These are sometimes referred to as “sunshine laws,” open government laws, or, in California, the Brown Act. The Oklahoma Court’s decision in Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. State (1978) gives a clear statement of why open meetings are important: “If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed.”
The Sunshine Act is the Open Records Law aka Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), from which the Judiciary has also exempted itself in most states.
You can research your state here, for both the Open Meeting Law and Sunshine Acts. If your state legislature has rule making power over the courts, you can research the courts authorities of your state here. You can also contact your state Supreme Court and see if you can attend their rule-making committee meetings or if court rules must pass through your state Senate and House of Representatives for approval. If the Open Meeting Law for your state does not mention the Judiciary, ask your representative if they are considered an “agency” under the law.
Why Does It Matter?
A crucial element of our democracy, that is inherent in the U.S. Constitution, is the principle of “checks and balances” between the three branches of government. Even the Legislature has been blocked from interfering with the rule making authority of the courts. Before the 1968 Amendment, there was no constitutional provision for rule-making designated to the courts in Pennsylvania.
When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, was allowed to interpret the meaning of “rules” without agreement by the executive and legislative branches, the deterioration of the democracy began. Lawyers, through the bar associations, are enacting laws without legislation- labeling them “court rules” and “civil procedures.” And here is the problem with this.. it lies in “rule-making.”
If you have never been involved with the courts, do not wait to find out just how disasterous this has been. Half of all marriages end in divorce, and chances are someone close to you will become a casualty of our courts. This is directly related to all of the government corruption we have been seeing in the media. This systematic exclusion of the public and the legislature, from the oversight of our third branch of government, removed the “checks and balance” in noncompliance with the principles of the U.S. Constitution. We now have a “rogue” judiciary – and not an “independent” legal branch, as judges like to call it.
Pennsylvania Version – Investigate Your State
Article V Section 10(C) was put on a referendum to the voters in Pennsylvania 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 below) – Title 42 Section 1703 – in 1974, after having Attorney General Israel Packel review the change proposed by the Judiciary, in an attempt to bring the Judicial branch under control within the Open Meeting Law, and maintain the checks and balance system of the democracy.
However, using the principle of “judicial review” (which Thomas Jefferson had warned about), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in an act of defiance – unilaterally repealed the Governors law, exempting themselves from having to open their meetings and processes to the other two branches of government and to the public. They did this in a letter (READ HERE) admittedly to avoid the publicity of a trial.
And please do not miss reading this research article by a current Assistant U.S. Attorney- who works under Erik Holder.. he predicted all of this.
Title 42 § 1703. Meeting procedures.
The Supreme Court and all other agencies and units of the unified judicial system when exercising the powers to recommend or adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of regulations shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)
1978 Amendment. Act 53 added section 1703.
Constitutionality. Section 1703 was declared unconstitutional on November 14, 1978, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a letter to the Governor and the General Assembly. See In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d 444.
References in Text. The act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law, referred to in this section, was repealed by the act of July 3, 1986 (P.L.388, No.84), known as the Sunshine Act. The Sunshine Act was repealed by the act of October 15, 1998, (P.L.729, No.93). The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 7 of Title 65 (relating to open meetings).
In 1986- Pennsylvania the above law was replaced with the below – but continues to completely exempt the Judicial Branch:
These current laws completely omit lawyers from all outside public oversight.