THE STATE OF IN-JUSTICE By E. Squire
As I browse through the websites, the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts
stands out as one of the most prolific abusers of the civil and constitutional
rights of fathers and children via an arrogant and unjust family court system.
Are there any competitors on the horizon for the dubious distinction as
operating the most corrupt family courts in the United States?
The nominations are open, folks.
So far, complaints are arriving from several states, but few charge the court
with being corrupt. However, rising in the East we have
"PENNSYLVANIA".
In that Keystone State, a charge has been levied against a judge asking that
the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board investigate claims of egregious
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and criminal misconduct by the
court, altering the records of hearings, similar to one of the complaints in
Massachusetts.
However, the Judicial Conduct Board (JCB) has apparently opted to disregard
its duty under Pennsylvania's Constitution, and has not even interviewed the
complainant.
After nearly 10 months of inactivity by the JCB, complainant, Farouk Z.
Hamoui of Allentown, PA, exercised his right under PA's Constitution to file a
petition to impeach the judge in an effort to obtain relief.
If we are truly a Nation of Laws, then it becomes imperative that the Rule of
Law apply equitably to all persons in every court. Appellate courts are supposed
to provide procedurals safeguards against the abuses (and errors) in lower
courts. When appellate courts align with the trial courts, Justice (like Elvis)
has left the building.
The administrators of the Rule of Law are called Judges. These are people,
just like you and I, who have been awarded one of the greatest honors available
to men (and women); to sit in judgment over the affairs of men. However, with
that honor comes responsibility.
There exists a presumption that every judge will faithfully execute his oath
of office and administer every proceeding according to law. That is, that every
litigant receives equal justice under the law.
When a judge, or a court, manipulates the process to effect a particular
predetermined outcome, the process has been corrupted. Such conduct in a court
of law undermines the integrity of the judicial process, and renders moot any
claim of "justice for all".
In Pennsylvania, and probably some other states, the courts do manipulate the
process. In so doing, these courts are acting outside their authority under the
supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and other laws. Further, the judges
may, as in Pennsylvania, be violating the law.
An attempt at remedy through the judicial process is readily thwarted in the
appellate courts. In Mr. Hamoui's case, the opposing side failed to file a brief
in response to the appeal. Most legal scholars would agree that Mr. Hamoui must
therefore be successful at the appellate level.
Not so in Pennsylvania.
In order to affirm the lower court decision, the appellate panel constructed
a new interpretation of a Rule of Appellate Procedure that deprives litigants of
their legal right to appeal in cases where a judge administers the proceedings,
controls the admissibility of evidence, and decides the outcome - where he
serves as judge, inquisitor, and jury.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1821: "The germ of destruction of our nation
is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity
by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing
its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall
render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as
venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -
Clearly, this is the problem. The motive for these evil acts will be
discussed at a later time, and with a proposed solution.
The problem is manifested not only in the trial court, but in the appellate
courts as well. The PA Supreme Court denied Mr. Hamoui's application for an
Allowance of Appeal without so much as an inquiry into the substantial questions
of deprivations of his constitutional rights.
So, what now? The matter rests with the PA House Judiciary Committee to
decide whether to investigate the charges of egregious judicial misconduct and
criminal misconduct by the court.
If this body decides that no investigation is warranted, then Massachusetts
must clearly take a back seat to Pennsylvania as to which state has the most
corrupt courts - and the most corrupt judicial process.
If, however, Pennsylvania's House Judiciary Committee investigates the
charges, perhaps Massachusetts can retain the honor. --- However, nominations
are still open and welcome.
