PA Supreme Court Decision Should Be the Basis to Challenge Judicial Immunity and Self-Recusal

Pennsylvania is the state to watch, with its ongoing  major challenges  to  jurisdiction in our courts,  through what apparently started as a political agenda, against  the State Attorney General Kathleen Kane.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the first  and oldest in the country- the birthplace of democracy, with the most precedent set.   It is ironic that it is also the venue of one of the worst cases of judicial corruption in the country- The Kids for Cash Scandal;  and now that same Judicial Branch is  imposing its dubious power to try to  exceed their jurisdiction, and retain control of the government.

The major cause  of the decline of our democracy,   has its roots in the claims of “judicial independence” and the self-regulated judiciary.  There is just no one to go to when the law is being broken by judges- who use “discretionary” rule to deny  due process in violation of  civil rights. The concurring opinions are highly  hypocritical-  in the rulings issued today regarding  Attorney General  Kane.  In the ruling which precipitated this appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it was held by  lower court  Judge Carpenter, of Montgomery County,  that the Attorney General cannot investigate herself.  However,   judges get to decide every day if they should recuse themselves, and they control their own disciplinary process, and that of lawyers.

Below are the concurring and dissenting opinions from today – on the Attorney General’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the courts – who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate her. Prosecution is the jurisdiction of her office – not the courts. According to the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary does not have the power to appoint a prosecutor.  Below are the links to the rulings.

Hopefully, Attorney General Kane will challenge the constitutionality of this in the Federal courts, and begin to address the mass of complaints their office receives regarding lack of judicial integrity.  The only one that got it right, is the only woman on the bench – Madame Justice Todd- who wrote the dissenting opinion:

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (opinion announcing the judgment of the court)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-1.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (concurring)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-2.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (dissenting)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-3.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

 

Bar Association Claims of Non Profit Doubtful

THE PRO BONO MYTH

The biggest problem litigants often have is Pro Se (representing oneself) discrimination.  We often hear that people lose their homes and life savings from lawsuits.  The illusion here is that one party in a lawsuit loses, and has to pay the other party.   The fact is that people are financially devastated from attorney’s fees- not from the opposing parties.  Without a lawyer, no matter how skilled you are at writing and research, you will be victimized by unavoidable bias and collusion.  This is inevitable in a system that allows judges to serve in courts where they have already worked for decades. Continue reading “Bar Association Claims of Non Profit Doubtful”

Judicial Merit Selection Will Not Work

The merit selection is definitely NOT the answer to ending judicial corruption and ensuring impartial tribunals.  Merit selection will not stop backroom deals and other favors to get on the bench. The only thing that will rescue the justice system in Pennsylvania, from the clutches of the organized crime family that controls it today- is intense oversight in every county.
Ombudsman or civilian advocates, paralegals or other trained individuals who have NO AFFILIATION with the local bar associations,  must be given the power to carry out the control over the rogue judges that are wreaking havoc on innocent victims- especially in the realm of the family court system.  Racketeering by judges and attorneys, in places like the Montgomery County, Delaware County and Allegheny Courts of Common Pleas, supported by their brethren in the Appellate level- has run rampant and unchecked for years.  Having their buddies in the General Assembly put them in office will only make political favors even more lucrative.
Mechanisms that will alleviate the massive fraud and theft now being perpetrated  at the county level- would be limiting all cases to 12 to 18  months. Family court is where the most abuse takes place. Any case that gets protracted longer than that would trigger an automatic review by the oversight committee- who should be given the power to impose monetary fines both on the judges and the lawyers for extorting funds from vulnerable litigants. These fines  should go to the litigants who have had  assets extorted from them by these common methods now being used by lawfirms, and facilitated by the judges that they put on the bench.  Here are some more no brainers: Continue reading “Judicial Merit Selection Will Not Work”

Judge Claims Attorney Generals Cannot Investigate Themselves – But Judges Can?

crownblackThere is an excerpt  below from an article in the Nation’s oldest legal publication, the Legal Intelligencer, that is now owned by Apax Partners LLP, a UK-based private equity and venture capital firm, headquartered in London, England. It appears we are still a colony run by the monarchy.  This is also probably why our court venues are still modeled by the archaic system in England, from which we supposedly separated in 1776.  Our system still includes “sovereign immunity” in the form of “judicial immunity” taken from the concept that “the king can do no wrong.” So always consider your sources. That said please read on.

Pennsylvania Judge William R. Carpenter states that he appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations against the State Attorney General, because “Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.

 This is evidence of the hypocrisy with which our judiciary has been operating for far too long. Judges targeted with motions for their recusals, demanded by litigants, do in fact, investigate themselves.  They do not have to refer to any type of democractic process to determine if their actions violate their Judicial Canons or civil rights violations under the U.S.  or PA State Constitutions. We have a self-recusal system, that was put in place by the judges themselves, and not by legislature or a public referendum. The only alternative is to complain to the Judicial Conduct Board – that is also made up of judges and lawyers.

The Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch and is in charge of criminal investigations.  Therefore, Judge Carpenter has exceeded his jurisdiction in assigning a prosecutor to investigate Attorney General Kane, whose job it is to appoint prosecutors. These conflicts have been going on for decades in Pennsylvania, since the amendment to the State Constitution with Article V Section 10, whereby the courts interpreted that “administrative” self-regulation, gave them the power to block all oversight by the legislature and the public. They used this power to exempt themselves from the Open Meeting Laws in 1978.

Hopefully, the harrassment of AG Kane, will start a public dialog to address these issues, which have been denying due process, resulting in false imprisonment and extortion of assets by attorneys in collusion with judges, for decades…

AG Kane’s Case Highlights Justices’ March Arguments                

Lizzy McLellan, The Legal Intelligencer  March 10, 2015

Ethical issues in the public sector are set to take the stage next week as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is scheduled to hear several cases dealing with state officials—including an important one for Attorney General Kathleen Kane—as well as government agencies and funds.  A court of five justices is set to hear arguments March 10 and 11 in Philadelphia.

Kane’s Challenge

In an expedited case that has garnered widespread attention, the justices agreed to hear Kane’s challenge to the appointment of a special prosecutor in an investigation of her office’s alleged involvement in a grand jury leak, in In re 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.

In an opinion filed by Supervising Judge William R. Carpenter, he said he appointed Thomas E. Carluccio as special prosecutor in the case after finding grounds for further investigation into allegations of a grand jury leak originating from Kane’s office. In support, Carpenter cited other cases in which special prosecutors were appointed to investigate grand jury leaks, and said he sought advisement from then-Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille.

“Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.

Documents unsealed by the Supreme Court show portions of a grand jury presentment recommending that Kane face criminal charges, and an opinion from Carpenter which said the grand jury recommended charges of perjury, false swearing, official oppression and obstruction.

Kane has maintained that she did nothing illegal, and that the possible charges are politically motivated.

Following the grand jury’s recommendations, the case was in the hands of Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman until the Supreme Court agreed to hear Kane’s argument.

“The Fraternity “- The Corruption of the Legal System Exposed by a Judge


john_molloy2

"The once honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.”

Justice John F. Molloy

When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls. In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.

I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.

Looking back

The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.

The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs

That was just the beginning. By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.

I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.

Disturbing evolution

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law. Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It’s called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.

Lawyer domination

When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.

When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?

When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.


Business of law

The concept of “time” has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer’s time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.

The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.

Bureaucratic design

Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system’s process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.

The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.

The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served. Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?

This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it’s engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.

It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers. By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly. It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.

Surely it’s time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.

A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona Judge’s Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and disquieting truths. (Photo courtesy of Paragon House)

Copyright 2004, Paragon House



From an Internet released preview of the book by John Fitzgerald Molloy, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2004. Reprinted in accordance with the “fair use” provision of Title 17 U.S.C. § 107 for a non-profit educational purpose.


U.S. Department of Justice Claims No Due Process for Self-Represented

Due process is a right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  However, anyone that has been involved with the courts, and represented themselves, already knows that pro se discrimination is real and its a crime that goes unpunished.  If you are not a paying member of their club i.e. the bar association- you will receive no justice- because essentially you are cutting into their profits by not paying a  lawyer.  But now here it is in writing.. hard proof. .  From the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.  HERE IS THE PHONE NUMBER OF ROBERT MOOSSY – WHO’S IS LISTED ON THIS LETTER AS THE CHIEF OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE…

Please call and ask for an explanation of this letter..202-514-3204

High Conflict Divorce or Stalking By Way of Family Court?

The Empowerment of a Wealthy Abuser in Family Court Litigation

View  Original Article

 Introduction

Virtually all coverage of high-conflict divorce assumes both parents are the source of the conflict.[1] Blame is assigned solely and equally to the parents in essentially all cases without much analysis. However, if one party is abusive and sufficiently wealthy to fund on-going litigation, the Domestic Court may be ideally suited to the spurned mate’s agenda.[2] The systematic assertion of ‘dominion and control’ via Family Court litigation would superficially mimic a high-conflict divorce because there would be ongoing Continue reading “High Conflict Divorce or Stalking By Way of Family Court?”