Letter sent to the Allentown Morning Call in response to the story that was published on May 17th.
Dear Madam;
On May 17th, the Morning Call wrote an article titled "Sheriff Halts Protest at Courthouse". The article contains certain inaccuracies which misleads the reader as to the purpose and the grounds for the protest. As the attorney for the protestor, Farouk Hamoui, I submit this article to appear as "Another View" or an Op-Ed piece to clarify the facts for the public. I understand that neither the protest or this characterization are "politically correct". However, it has always been my belief that "truth shall prevail". This is only possible if the truth is brought out into the light.
Please direct this article to the appropriate section of the Call for consideration in the Editorial section, or for publication as a "Letter to the Editor".
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the truth.
Eugene A. Wrona
Op-Ed Response to Morning Call Article (May 17, 2002) sent along with the text above.
The Morning Call reported (Sheriff Halts Protest … 5/17/02) that Sheriff Ronald Rossi stopped a man from carrying a placard in front of the courthouse on Thursday (5/16/02). The news article subtitle misstates the reason for the protest. The article publishes, without inquiry, the explanation by Sheriff Rossi as the grounds for his actions.
The public is entitled to the truth.
Hamoui protested to raise public awareness of the present state of the judicial system in Pennsylvania, and to encourage the public to stand for, or against, judicial abuse of the Constitutional rights of the public. Mr. Hamoui has earlier filed for the Impeachment of Judge Alan M. Black. The Impeachment currently rests with the PA House Judiciary Committee. Hamoui also filed a formal complaint with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, which swept the complaint under the rug. In other words, he pursued all avenues available for redress of his grievances before resorting to a public protest.
Your readers should know and appreciate the courage of Mr. Hamoui to walk in public calling for the impeachment of an elected official in this county. His actions took much more courage than the actions of our sheriff, who used the power of his office to intimidate and harass Mr. Hamoui, and to enlist the police department of Allentown for enforcement of a phantom law.
The subtitle in the Morning Call misconstrues the facts. Hamoui's protest is NOT about airing a child support claim. His protest is against the deprivation of his constitutional rights by a judiciary run amok. The grounds for impeachment are clearly stated in the flyer. They are based on Judge Black's systematic deprivation of Hamoui's civil and constitutional rights in court proceedings, including pre-trial, post-trial and the support hearings. Hamoui's post-trial motions deal with his effort to have the record corrected.
A judge can not and should not be impeached for inadvertently misapplying the law. A judge should be impeached for intentionally disregarding the Constitution and rules of evidence and for harboring criminal misconduct within the judicial system. These are actions that violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is an impeachable offense.
"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." -
These words were written in 1821 by Thomas Jefferson, 2nd President of these United States, and acclaimed as the author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the chief architects of our Constitution. We should heed his advice, more so today than at any time in this Nation's history.
Our Constitution includes the following, which Sheriff Rossi ignores. Amendment I. [1791] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment XIV expressly prohibits the States from making or enforcing any law which shall (or may) abridge those and other individual liberties and privileges secured under the Constitution. Mr. Hamoui was peacably petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
I invite any Lehigh County judge to confirm this interpretation, and to advise Sheriff Rossi that if he persists in interfering with any individual's right to exercise his First Amendment rights, he is opening himself, and the State to an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Deprivation of civil rights under color of law.
Sheriff Rossi would be well disposed to apologize to Mr. Hamoui and to the public for his actions on the morning of May 16th. He exceeded his authority and abused the power of his office when he created a confrontation in this matter. His job is to enforce the law. He cannot use police power to enforce a phantom "policy". I contend that the policy Sheriff Rossi spoke of to the press does not exist in the either county or city laws or ordinances. Such a policy would be unconstitutional on its face, violating the 14th Amendment.
The nearest "policy" that Mr. Hamoui violated was the unwritten policy that "Thou shalt not criticize the local government in Lehigh County - no matter how corrupt that government may be."
Hamoui's protest to impeach Judge Black is a courageous exercise to bring these issues before the public. His efforts to resolve them within the judicial system have been stonewalled, or otherwise covered up. Mr. Hamoui's complaint to the JCB and the petition to impeach are founded on egregious actions by the courts that violate his constitutional rights and violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. Further, Hamoui alleges criminal misconduct by the court. These charges were not raised without considerable thought to repercussions. The career of Judge Black and others will be affected. Mr. Hamoui does not take this lightly.
Judge Black has an opportunity to respond to these charges and is invited to exercise that right. To date, Judge Black has been content to allow the system to provide "cover" for conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process - which, by the way, is the reason former President William Jefferson Clinton was sanctioned, and had his license to practice law suspended.
Judge Black has no obligation to answer publicly, but to clear his name, he should demand an investigation of the charges in the House of Representatives. If they are true, he deserves to be impeached. The media should hold the candle to Judge Black to answer several of the more egregious allegations. For instance, are the audio records of court hearings unlawfully edited? Was Hamoui deprived of his constitutional rights? Did he obstruct Hamoui's access to public records? Did he administer a support hearing that fails to meet the minimum requirements for a hearing "on the merits"? And, did he recuse himself, and then withdraw his recusal over Hamoui's objection, violating the Code of judicial Conduct?
The public has a right to know what is going on in our judicial system. A court of law is the last bastion for individual rights under our Constitution. If the court tramples on individuals' rights with impunity, then the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a vapor, without substance.
As to the Call's reporting of the incident, there are several errors. The sub-title about a child support complaint inappropriately misleads the public by deflecting the serious nature and purpose of Hamoui's protest. Mr. Hamoui's protest expresses his outrage with the judicial system, and the deprivation of his constitutional rights by a prejudicial judge. No mention of child support appears with any of the materials relevant to the protest.
Regarding misquotations: The Call's article reported that I said "Is this what America is all about - or is this al-Qaeda?"
This is an inaccurate misquote and transposition of my words. To the rhetorical question "Is this what America is about?" I drew a comparison to the thugs who enforced "laws" in western Europe 65+ years ago.
My reference to the Al-Qaeda was an statement of my outrage over domestic terrorists who undermine the integrity of the judicial system. I contend that perpetrators of covert acts against our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are more despicable than the overt acts of aggression perpetrated by Al Qaeda on September 11th.
Americans need to become more involved with their government. They should demand personal and professional integrity from every elected official. This is "our" government.
Here is my commentary on the events of May 16th in front of the courthouse.
The ferocity of Sheriff Rossi's confrontation with Mr. Hamoui was totally out of proportion with the purported "reason" to confront Hamoui and to order him from the public land. His actions were not the actions of a police officer enforcing a law in the performance of his duty. They more closely resemble the action of a female carnivore protecting her den.
What is it that Sheriff Rossi is protecting? Mr. Hamoui's protest does not threaten the public, or the Constitution. Just what threat does Mr. Hamoui pose? Clearly, he poses no threat UNLESS he is telling the truth!
Mr. Hamoui's protest is the "appetizer" for a multi-course meal that will create a feeding frenzy greater than the media attacks on perversion within the priesthood. The issues are not nearly as salient, but they directly concern many more people, and the rudimentary values of our Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson cautioned about the unfettered power of the judiciary. We, the People need to act in conformance with the courage and patriotism of our fathers and their fathers. We need to question whether the integrity of the judicial process has been compromised, and whether a fair trial is available in any court of law in this state.
The media needs to investigate court proceedings, then to ask the questions that will restore justice to our courts. The evidence, a smoking gun, is in the possession of the courts. To date, the court has been successful in concealing that evidence. With the help of the media, we can right this ship, and restore the constitutional rights of disenfranchised litigants.
I submit this article in response to a Morning Call article published Friday, May 17, 2002, under the caption "Sheriff halts protest at courthouse" to clear up points where the MC misleads, misquotes or otherwise misstates the facts or my contributions to this story. [Eugene A. Wrona is the attorney for Farouk Hamoui, whose political protest was interrupted on Thursday (5/16/02) by Sheriff Ronald Rossi.]
The City does have a Permit Code, Article 311 of its Codified Ordinances. One need only read the first two sections to realize that Article 311 does not address political protest marches. If one reads the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, he/she will realize that the sheriff, supported by the Allentown police, was blowing smoke. There is no Ordinance that purports to address Mr. Hamoui's legitimate exercise of political protest.
Mr. Hamoui's flyer, distributed to several persons before the sheriff's unlawful interference with his protest, enumerates the charges against Judge Black, and is restricted only to events in the administration of Hamoui's case. We provided The Call with a copy of the flyer. >>
Eugene A. Wrona Allentown, PA
