|
One nice things about the courts in Pennsylvania; you never need
to worry about justice - you ain't gettin' any here, Charlie!
The conduct of the courts and of the toadie judges ensure that
we and the public will continue to hold the whole Pennsylvania
just-us industry in complete contempt.
Sadly, it's temperamental,
biased and tainted.
The ordinary citizen who most needs justice
doesn't have a hope.
The Pennsylvania courts, especially the appellate courts dole
out favors as if they were feudal patrons.
It's based on the
rank and power of the litigant.
The worst of the civil courts
(as opposed to the criminal courts) is Pennsylvania's disgraceful
Commonwealth Court, a handful of wraths, rascals and
marionettes.
They award boons to the powerful at the expense
of the weak and needy.
Justice has no home in the intrigues of
its Byzantine theater of the absurd.
Most (but not all) of its
eminent judges have the integrity and self-image of Elizabethan
courtiers.
As the Republicans, conservatives and Christian crazies have
driven the country more toward totalitarianism, the modern Nazism,
our rights and liberties have gone to hell.
The mania to steal our liberties is rife in the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court.
What was once a Constitutional guarantee is
now regarded as a mere suggestion.
What was once a right is now
a mere hope.
What was once law is now mashed potatoes to be forked
into any shape the judge want's to twist.
Let It Be a Warning Lesson to You Or, the Rules Be Damned! In November my wife, Sandra Feigley, who with me founded this website in 1996, was again scheduled to appear before the honorable (their term, not mine) Rochelle S. Friedman of the Commonwealth Court. This was for the trial of a suit brought by a gang of Philadelphia lawyers (and I mean that in the worst sense) on behalf of the prison guards. It was against her and our now very successful website for publishing things they didn't like. From the beginning the suit was an effort to censor the website. The guards don't like the things we report and the opinions we express. In modern America that means that, since they have a huge and powerful union, they can censor us. And the Commonwealth Court is right there to help them. Prison guards are, by and large, bullies and thugs so the first strategy was to bully and intimidate us, to wear us down and frighten us into signing away our Constitutional rights of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. And the Commonwealth Court was right here to help them. To their chagrin the first unexpected consequence was to greatly increase our readership. The week before the trial the website was getting 8064 hits a day; not too shabby! We proved to be annoyingly steadfast in proclaiming our rights. We didn't roll-over to the bullies. That seemed to irritate the "court." The old girl seemed to feel we should learn our place and kiss ass like proper second-class citizens. But now the "honorable" Rochelle had another concern. The guards obviously had no case and it was certain that we were going to go on and appeal to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the only reason that the guards' suit had gotten so far was that I'd made a mistake. I hadn't taken the un-American suit seriously. I should have promptly removed it to federal court. There's a little more chance of justice there. Some woman named Williams who claimed to be a lawyer representing the guards' union appeared no less astonished that there was a Constitution protecting liberties. She seemed to feel that it was a platitude that she'd ignored since elementary school civics. To us she seemed an unsavory, unfeminine person with the personality of a befouled Pampers and the temperament of an egomaniacal, besotted manipulator. Frankly, we pity her "domestic partner" (if any) and her poor Pomeranian (if any). But she was an ideal choice to represent prison guards. They share much in common. At the trial, my wife complained that she was entitled to a trial by jury, the rules say so. The "honorable" Rochelle had a different idea of justice. The rules be damned! My wife complained that she had been improperly served with a subpoena to force her to testify, the rules say so. The "honorable" Rochelle had a different idea of justice. The rules be damned! My wife asserted that she had a Constitutional right of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The "honorable" Rochelle had a different idea of justice. The rules be damned! My wife complained that technical questions cannot always be answered "yes" or "no," the rules say so. The "hQnorable" Rochelle had a different idea of justice. The rules be damned. Everybody recognized that the guards had no case. The idea was to get my wife to say something, anything on which the Williams person could invent an issue. And the Commonwealth Court was right there to help her. In apparent desperation Williams obsessed over our published report of a former hearing. We mentioned how scared the poor guard Brucie Facer said he was. Williams became vociferous over the fact that a writer had used the name "A. Williams." Maybe she figured that it was a copyrighted appellation reserved for second-rate legal want-a-bees. She was equally vitriolic that there were things on the website that she didn't like. "Alaine," that's what the Williams person claimed her first name was, was most irate over my wife's "motivation" for wanting to republish the official listing of state employees. She seemed to think that we had to justify the exercise of our right of free press. It seemed to elude the Philadelphia lawyer that no justification is required for us, or for you, to enjoy a Constitutional liberty, at least not yet. What ever the Pennsylvania legislature's motivation was in requiring that the list be published, that's our motivation in wanting to republish it. Frankly, you, the public should know who the guards are and what they're costing you. Rebecca thought that the Williams woman was rather comical in an overpriced sort of way. I opted more for pathetic. But the Commonwealth Court was right there to help her. If you get the idea that the court is biased and that the ordinary citizen doesn't stand a chance, you're not far wrong. If you attempt to use the Commonwealth Court, lookout for the kangaroos, they come is gaggles! I mean, they want the second highest court in Pennsylvania to micro-manage what name a prison guard can display and they want to conceal the identities of the public employees that you pay. We're going to try to start a PAC called "RTB" "Tar is not a plaything" You are welcome to use or republish
any of our material.
|