The December 26 Philadelphia Inquirer has this story about more ethical problems with the Pennsylvania court system. The story says that the state’s Judicial Conduct Board, which is supposed to investigate ethics problems with state court judges, does not do its job and is intent on keeping its actions secret from other government agencies that are also trying to help fight corruption in the state judiciary. Thanks to HowAppealing for the link.
Pingback: Major media outlet publishes story about ethical problems with Pennsylvania court system | Independent Political Report
For those that say Judges are immune why not utilize this law??
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he “comes into conflict with the superior authority at Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”
Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge’s connivance with, aiding and abeting, another judge’s criminal activity
For those that question what should happen to the orders written by these judges in Kids for Cash cases, the law states:
When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are void, of no legal force or effect
Under Federal law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
Is there a name or law for when a State (judge) or Executive officer does not follow the law?
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS STATED THAT “NO STATE LEGISLATOR OR EXECUTIVE OR JUDICIAL OFFICER CAN WAR AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT VIOLATING HIS UNDERTAKING TO SUPPORT IT.”. COOPER V. AARON, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.CT. 1401 (1958).
WHENEVER A JUDGE ACTS WHERE HE/SHE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ACT, THE JUDGE IS ENGAGED IN AN ACT OR ACTS OF TREASON. U.S. V. WILL, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.CT. 471, 66 L.ED.2D 392, 406 (1980); COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. (6 WHEAT) 264, 404, 5 L.ED 257 (1821)
What is the law on Judges and attorneys that knew about situations like Civarella and Cohahan, (Kids for Cash), but failed to report it. Are they liable?
ANY JUDGE OR ATTORNEY WHO DOES NOT REPORT THE JUDGES FOR TREASON AS REQUIRED BY LAW MAY THEMSELVES BE GUILTY OF MISPRISION OF TREASON, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 2382. (Punishable by up to seven years in prison!)
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law and are engaged in treason
Judicial Responsibility, Misprison of treason and Fraudulent Concealment.
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in
an act or acts of treason.
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Any judge or attorney who does not report judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.
What if you found information about your case years after time is tolled that was concealed and you want to possibly sue? Has my time run out?
In case of fraudulent concealment, it is the rule in most jurisdictions that if the one who practices the fraud conceals material facts and thus prevents discovery of his wrong or of the fact that a cause of action has accrued against him, the limitations period will not begin to run until the facts are discovered, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 US 392, 397, 66 S Ct 582, 90 L ed 743 (1946). “This equitable doctrine is read into every federal statute of limitations”; 51 Am. Jur. 2d § 147.