2018
05.30

I have learned that when it comes to the opinions of the judiciary, it is what they avoid, neglect and obfuscate (hide) that exposes the deception and corruption of the justice problem.

In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania – Commonwealth v Kathleen Kane Opinion dated May 25, 2018

As such, the Superior Court has failed in their task. The Superior Court BLEW THE OPPORTUNITY to indicate that some rules mandate a person to violate the LAW. WHY? It’s simple. A rule requires the Superior Court to participate in the problem, to exacerbate the injustice and to neglect actions which could lead to resolution.

Obstructing the administration of law, CHECK.
Official oppression, CHECK.
Criminal conspiracy, CHECK.

The Superior Court has committed those crimes as defined by LAW. But, their actions are mandated by RULE.

Their cowardly act sends the issue back to the PA Supreme Court which previously avoided, neglected and obfuscated the issue presented in May 2014.

In January 2018, the judges on the panel had questioned why a definitive answer had not been provided by the Supreme Court on March 31, 2015. z
That answer is confidential?

[PANEL: Lazarus, Ott and Ransom. The Opinion offers no explanation regarding Judge Platt replacing Judge Ransom.]

The May 25, 2018 Opinion reads like a document drafted accurately and sincerely,…
… BUT THEN EDITED TO REMOVE THE THINGS WHICH THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DISCLOSE…
… AND THEN EDITED AGAIN TO REMOVE ANY COLLATERAL REFERENCE WHICH COULD LEAD TO DISCLOSURE…
… THEN, THE COPY FROM WHICH THEY PLAGIARIZED IS ATTACHED IN SUPPORT.
(The edits are clearly visible… along with the addition of unnecessary phrases – misdirection.)

They seem to lack the self respect required to write their own opinion Carelessly indicating a loss of integrity without pretending to be ashamed. Their disdain and disrespect for litigants civil, constitutional and human rights for which they are not held accountable. In an age where people lose their careers after a single thoughtless sentence on Twitter, the court’s integrity (mandated by law) won’t sink much lower. They don’t even try to care or seem interested.

Against all hope for the proper resolution, the Opinion follows the established standard “avoid, neglect and obfuscate” from the Superior Court.

“This matter implicates constitutional issues, the rule of law, and a fundamental tenet underlying our legal system.”

“The truth and sanctity of testimony under oath” is not a fundamental tenet. They added that phrase. BUT, they never met Josh Morrow.

JURISDICTION is a real tenet. Jurisdiction is a necessity. The 23 page opinion does NOT include the word jurisdiction. Find & Replaced by “determined”, “authority”, “power”, “wielded”, “concluded”… The Superior Court only has jurisdiction for appellate review of decisions of the Trial Court. For the Trial Court to render any decision, the trial court must have jurisdiction in the matter.

When the Trial Court lacks jurisdiction to render a decision, the decision is without merit or authority. The result causes the Superior Court to lack jurisdiction to review the Trial Court decision. The Superior Court should set aside or strike the trial court decision. Instead, each pretends to have the authority to act, when they don’t… Judicial integrity takes another hit because of the farce they perform and perpetuate. Should the issue be presented to the PA Supreme Court, the farce will continue the injustice. The reason being that by now the litigant has been deprived of his freedom to live without the unlawful interference of the government. Deprived of a right protected by the US Constitution. THEY WILL NEVER ADMIT THEIR MISTAKE.

If you think this thinking is not correct… Over 40 million people were affected by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, over 3000 children and their families were affected by Kids For Cash scandal, for years the Sandusky (Penn State) case was not prosecuted, and there is a moratorium on executions in death penalty cases… THE JUDICIARY DOES NOT SELF CORRECT. NEVER. THE JUDICIARY IGNORES THEIR ERRORS – though judicial immunity is provided based on the concept that decisions can be appealed.

A judiciary exempted from any accountability or responsibility for their own corruption has improperly and unconstitutionally enacted laws which serve to deny the rights of the people. They know what they have done is wrong. Perpetuating injustice triumphs. Telling Americans that since 1983 their justice system has been collapsing because of something which occurred once. Once in each state. Rolling slowly from 1983 to 2009 to escape notice. Slipped through federally on an appropriations bill. One organization deliberately has caused a nationwide constitutional crisis.

The first president elected who is not a member of that organization is Donald Trump. The entire membership of the organization would rather remove an elected president than be exposed for their overthrow of the government – the federal government AND EACH STATE GOVERNMENT.

TRUTH and Sanctity of testimony under oath … is completely unimportant as evidenced by the three-peat of Josh Morrow. He testified to the Grand Jury.

Then, Josh Morrow changed his story again WITH IMMUNITY.

AND THEN, on the eve before he was to testify at the trial, Josh Morrow changed his story again and refused to testify at the trial unless he was granted immunity AGAIN. I’d say Josh’s testimony (the FINAL VERSION) which followed the DA’s script in form, structure and chronology contained so many lies that he was nervous that the DA would prosecute him should he not recite his lines as written.

TRUTH IS EASY TO RECALL. BAD MEMORY AND RECALL MAKES FOR BAD LIARS.

Careless liars ought to be removed and have all statements examined and verified. For example, at the end of the trial when Kevin Um Steele lied about Cosby owning a plane; making him a flight risk; and seeking immediate incarceration. Some liars just don’t know when to quit. Shameful behavior. Steele’s neglect for facts never stopped his malicious characterizations of his target. Remember his grandiose righteous indignation when accused of concealing information reports and documents.. …that he eventually produced.

Lawyers are not even required to be sworn in. Are they?

JURISDICTION is not only fundamental… JURISDICTION IS A NECESSITY…
There is no more destructive power than a court acting without jurisdiction. Prevented from addressing their own corruption, the courts exacerbate the injustice and perpetuate a mandate of silence to protect the integrity of courts which lack integrity.

Two words missing from the Opinion of the Superior Court… JURISDICTION and CONFIDENTIALITY

Also missing from the Opinion of the Superior Court is any reference to the LAW which applies and substantiates their opinion.

To support their Opinion, they plagiarize and then submit “the trial court’s well reasoned opinion” so you can see their edits. Laughably obvious misdirection. The failure to cite ANY LAW is hidden by a long (and repetitive) litany of opinions issued by other Pennsylvania courts.

The Rule of Law may be a tenet. The outdated and conflicting opinions from completely different types of cases – Surel;y this cannot be a tenet as well?

LAWS are enacted by the Legislative Branch and signed by the Executive branch. LAWS are reviewed for constitutionality by the Judicial branch.
 
RULES have no review, no oversight, no enforcement, no check for constitutionality outside the Judicial branch. The judicial branch controls every aspect of a lawyers professional life. Disciplinary offices within the Supreme Court handle enforcement issues (confidentially.)

There should be a LAW which provides for JURISDICTION of Judge Carpenter’s actions appointing a Special Prosecutor. There’s not. There was one years ago, BUT the General Assembly took deliberate and intentional actions to NOT continue that LAW and it lapsed.

There is no LAW which provides the Judiciary any power to ignore the deliberate and intentional actions and decisions of the General Assembly and usurp jurisdiction to take any action. The PA Constitution is very specific in this regard. Article V Section 10(c). The RULES of the Judiciary may not “affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.”

BTW, SEVERAL RULES ENACTED BY THE JUDICIARY DIRECTLY AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. The Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly provide their standard “We do not get involved in issues involving the judiciary” response to their constituents. The negligence of Senators and Representatives does NOT delegate their constitutional responsibilities to another branch or agency.

The word JURISDICTION was not used in the Superior Court Opinion. NOT EVEN ONCE. This action to “avoid, neglect and obfuscate” prevents any member of the General Assembly from being reminded of their responsibilities which could be triggered by using the word JURISDICTION – a collateral reference. Yes, the Judiciary is informed and aware of their problem. Their statements are deliberate, intentional and precisely formed.

When the court lacks jurisdiction, it has no authority. When the court acts without jurisdiction, the appellate courts deliberately fail to address the lower court’s lack of jurisdiction. This will often be substantiated by a RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE which neglects to address the actions of the lower court. The supporting RULE indicates the lack of jurisdiction of the Appellate Courts.

WHOA! The supporting RULE “affect(s) the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.” and violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. The RULE is improperly enacted and unconstitutional.

Where the RULE prevents a prompt and timely end to the litigation in the lower court, the litigants are denied rights provided by the US Constitution. An unconstitutional RULE which requires attendance at judicial proceedings denies the freedom of a litigant to live without unnecessary interference of the government. The US Constitution.

Judiciary RULES must be consistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution. “if such rules are consistent with this Constitution” The RULES ARE IMPROPERLY ENACTED.

Judiciary RULES may “neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant.” Substantive rights are protected by the PA Constitution AND provided pursuant to the US Constitution. The RULES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PROBLEM:
IMPROPERLY ENACTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULES enacted by Judiciary

NO OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW:
Judiciary cannot review the constitutionality of rules that THE JUDICIARY HAS ENACTED.
1. Conflict of Interest
2. No authority for review by Executive or Legislative branches.
3. Another RULE mandates the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION by all lawyers where disclosure will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Disclosure that the judiciary has improperly enacted unconstitutional rules which undermine the constitutional rights of litigants WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

THE LAWYERS SILENTLY PARTICIPATE because an improperly enacted and unconstitutional CONFIDENTIALITY LAW prevents disclosure (and resolution) and must be abided until it is declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.

In August 2013, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION was served to Kathleen Kane and the attorneys general of the United States. As lawyers, they silently participated as required by rule. Every state defaulted in the matter. Rule 1.6 was unconstitutional.

Lawyers mandated to non-disclosure obfuscated the matter in the federal courts.

Where Kathleen Kane had the first hand involvement and responsibility as Attorney General along with the information to recognize the improperly enacted and unconstitutional rules affecting a litigant in Montgomery County, the issue was ripe for resolution and all involved had been informed of the situation.

In May 2014, there was a proceeding which occurred before Judge William Carpenter. The transcript had subsequently been provided to the PA Supreme Court within a document from Judge Carpenter. Copies were distributed to those involved including employees of the Office of Attorney General.
Upon learning of the transcript being distributed, anyone who had seen, read, reviewed, or learned of the transcript of that proceeding has been ordered by Judge Carpenter to forget they had any knowledge of the proceeding, the transcript, or the information in the document.

(Bill Cosby, Yes. Judge Carpenter issued an order to UNRING A BELL.)

In the next few months, Kathleen Kane additionally received two confidential court orders from unidentified courts ordering her to PERSONALLY neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General. Making the order PERSONAL prevented disclosure to the Legislature and the Governor who could be informed where the secret order interfered with the LAW which established the Office of the Attorney General. Appeal was prevented where Kathleen Kane could not seek relief because she was not a party with injuries. The order was mandating her continued non-disclosure of the unconstitutional Confidentiality rule. Where the unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality had fallen, it was re-caste as a court order with specificity to continue to deny the rights of Americans.

(President Donald Trump. Yes. Attorney Client Privilege is dead. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information includes attorney client privilege within its broader confidentiality mandates.)

Two words that the Superior Court failed to use. JURISDICTION and CONFIDENTIALITY.
The silent mandatory participation of lawyers in a system of justice which is BROKEN.

Bill Cosby may not even be aware that he had been contacted through other channels regarding disclosure of a confidentiality which has caused and perpetuated the CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN THE USA. Check the timeline. Montgomery County began pursuing Cosby’s destruction before a single meeting had occurred.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has caused this problem. If non-disclosure is mandated by rule, then the issue may not be disclosed. It’s the thing left unaddressed (by all parties) which indicates the problem. THE PROBLEM WITH CONFIDENTIALITY IS THAT IT IS CONFIDENTIAL.

2018
05.07

The judiciary enacted rules which affect the jurisdiction of the courts. You may think that’s their business. It’s not.

The jurisdiction of the courts is the responsibility of the Legislature. The PA Constitution specifically indicates the limits to the judiciary’s rulemaking authority…

PA Constitution Article V Section 10(c) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose.

There are people who believe that the next phrase in Article V Section 10(c) permits the judiciary to enact their rule and it immediately usurps all other law. (Perhaps if we read it backwards?)

All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.

That’s silly. Because that sentence only applies to ‘things’ which have survived those prior exclusionary statements. Otherwise, that phrase would have completely usurped the Legislature.

Now, back up to that other phrase just before jurisdiction.

if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant.

When a litigant is denied their constitutional rights by a court, the rules instruct in how to appeal to the higher court. The higher court labels the lower court decision as interlocutory and indicates their lack of jurisdiction substantiated by the procedural rule. By rule, a litigant must wait until a FINAL ORDER is issue by the lower court before any appeal will be reviewed. There are rare exceptions which are most often not applicable.

Review of the lower court decision could dismiss the entire matter and end the litigation, but instead the rules require you to endure through all processes and proceedings until every lower court decision is decided and FINAL. At that point, the review of the earlier specific issue is often moot.

Where the review by the appellate court could have served to prevent the prolonged adjudication of the matter, a defendant required to defend has had his constitutional right to liberty, and other rights denied. Should the FINAL determination by a lower court be overturned based on the previously documented issue, the Defendant has been denied constitutionally protected rights. This has occurred because of a Rule, not a Law.

The applicable rule having been demonstrated as having an unconstitutional affect, either collaterally or directly, is unconstitutional.

The rulemaking authority of the judiciary does not permit the rules to “abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant” so the rule is improperly enacted.

There is no branch of government responsible to review the constitutionality of rules enacted by the judiciary. A conflict of interest exists preventing the judiciary from any review of rules enacted under Article V Section 10(c).

It is the constitutional responsibility of General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court. The rulemaking authority of the judiciary may not “affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court“.

The right of appeal indicated in PA Constitution Article 9 provides no indication regarding interlocutory or final decision status having any affect on the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The jurisdiction of the appellate court is prevented by RULE. That RULE affecting the jurisdiction of the court has been improperly enacted by the judiciary where it “affects the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.”

SO… HOW DO WE GET THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADDRESS THE OVERREACH BY THE JUDICIARY?
(And how do you do it when ALL LAWYERS must maintain confidentiality?)

2018
05.07

George Washington may have used different words to describe the current quagmire in Washington DC, but, he seems to have addressed many of the issues of the current times. There is one message which resounds throughout his address. America requires the attention of the people.

He warns about political parties, fake news, influences from outside countries, how other nations may react to government actions (and how that will affect Americans from those other nations), the corruption that can occur when persons have too much power and authority.

He warns that the government branches must stay within their constitutionally appointed boundaries or the balance of power can result in the government being undermined.

In 1796, George may have just been giving humble advice on government aspect which required attention. The things which can cause problems.

In 2018, the advice of the first American President has been clearly ignored for quite some time. George Washington listed the current Headlines and why they occurred.

The American Government stopped listening to the People, because the People stopped paying attention. The government became so powerful that it was no longer accountable to the people. The balance of power was tilted to the judicial branch. The people failed to reject the ridiculous decisions of the judiciary. The judiciary targeted people to prevent further challenge to their authority. The judiciary grew stronger. The judiciary enacted laws to maintain their power. While only the Legislature could enact laws, the judiciary called theirs RULES.

LAWS enacted by the Legislature and the Executive can be review by the judiciary for constitutionality.

RULES enacted by the judiciary have no review. NONE. The conflict of interest would prevent any review of their own ‘laws’.

One RULE known as 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION required the silence of the lawyers where disclosure would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Exposing an unconstitutional rule would definitely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

There are lawyers in the Legislatures in each state. Each mandated by Rule 1.6 and further, any actions which they undertake to prevent exposure are also held confidential.

The problem with an improperly enacted and unconstitutional confidentiality rule is CONFIDENTIAL.

Washington definitely did NOT see this one coming.

Friends and Fellow Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

United States
19th September, 1796

Geo. Washington

2018
05.01
Hon. William R. Carpenter May 1, 2018
Court of Common Pleas  
Montgomery County  
Norristown, PA 19404  
  RE: Faux Representation/Corruption
RE: #3151-2015  

Please allow this letter to inform you that I will no longer submit myself to further abuse absent any rule of Law which serves to deny every constitutional right.

Authority – The right or power to make decisions, to give orders, or to control something or someone.

Due Process – The fundamental, constitutional right to fair legal proceedings in which all parties will be given notice of the proceedings, and have an opportunity to be heard.

Trial – A formal presentation of evidence before a judge and jury for the purpose of determining guilt or innocence in a criminal case, or to make a determination in a civil matter.

Any statement from the court relating how the defect in jurisdiction has been perfected by ignoring the problem for years has yet to be received or filed with any court, appellate court or Supreme Court.

The repeated scheduling of appearances with less than 24 hours notice serves to prevent the Defendant from being informed, knowledgable or prepared for the appearance. It is a violation of Due Process.

The assignment of COURT ASSIGNED NEGLIGENT LAWYERS has deliberately and intentionally served to prevent the Defendant from being heard in any manner. It is a violation of Due Process.

Permitting the entry of Fraudulent documents during the ‘faux trial’ has only served to misinform a jury who was prevented from defense evidence by a COURT ASSIGNED INCOMPETENT LAWYER.

Responses are pending as failure to adjudicate any and all pre-trial motions, mid-trial motions, and post-trial motions where motions have been forwarded to an INCOMPETENT LAWYER ASSIGNED BY THE COURT just two minutes before the trial was to commence.

The court has failed to hear the defendant, or permit the defendant to be heard,
– by assigning lawyers to prevent the filing of statements
– by assigning lawyers to prevent Discovery
– by assigning lawyers to prevent investigation
– by assigning lawyers to neglected and prevent the presentation of ANY defense.
– by assigning lawyers to sabotage the appellate process
– by conspiring with the lawyers assigned seeking to deny the defendant of any protection of the law
– by conspiring with the lawyers assigned seeking to deny the Defendant of any constitutional rights
– by conspiring with lawyers to prevent the scheduling of witnesses
– by conspiring with the District Attorney to cancel the appearance of witnesses notified of the trial.

Note: EVERY LAWYER ORDERED TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO MEET, COMMUNICATE OR FILE ANY DOCUMENT ON THE DEFENDANT’S BEHALF OF IN THE DEFENDANT’S INTEREST.
It should also be noted that the fraud by the District Attorney relating to the relationship between purported victim/witnesses and the Warrington Township Police Chief has been exposed. The Miller family lived in Abington, PA at 1568 Marian Road. The entire family attempts to be obscured through the use of a variety of aliases.

The botched false suicide intervention by Warrington Township Police remains before the Bucks County Court. The police officer has admitted that he did not prepare the paperwork. The four police officers involved all neglected to turn on their body cameras. Doylestown Hospital has deleted their video. The violation of constitutional rights by all persons, agencies and organization involved is clear. The corruption and obstruction attempted by the Bucks County commissioners has only begun to be exposed.

Clearly, the defendant’s presence in Montgomery County Court is only required in order to further abuse, slander, defame, bully, threaten, or submit further cruelty in a forum and by a judge without jurisdiction.

Where the court has neglected to address the defects in jurisdiction raised at every ordered appearance. Each ordered appearance since February 2015 where the District Attorney was NOT prepared to proceed resulting in a continuation rescheduling an appearance and yet another threat of a bench warrant.

Statement of Defendant on June 10, 2015
Statement of Defendant on August 10, 2015
Statement of Defendant on September 16, 2015
Statement of Defendant on October 14, 2015
Statement of Defendant on November 18, 2015
Statement of Defendant on January 27, 2016
Statement of Defendant on March 30, 2016
Statement of Defendant on May 4, 2017
Statement of Defendant on January 2, 2018
Statement of Defendant on January 23, 2018

And multiple appeals to the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Clearly, the court lacks jurisdiction and lacks the integrity required to admit it’s own corruption… and is deliberate and intentional in it’s exhaustive and aggressive efforts to thwart the exposure of an unconstitutional rule enacted by the judiciary in direct violation of Article 5 Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which serves to undermine the United States Constitution and the rights of every American.

Terance Healy
Defendant
…since 2007