We Need to Start Impeaching Corrupt Judges by Tim Shilling

If a judge in Pennsylvania is acting in bad behavior he cannot hold office according to the Pennsylvania constitution.

The 11th amendment constitutional right of judicial Immunity is killing this country it is allowing bad judges to commit crimes and get away with it.

Bad judge need to be held accountable this is not happening they should not have a immunity it is quite simple if they follow the Constitution and the law they have nothing to worry about, therefor immunity needs to be stricken.

Why is it the 11th amendment constitutional right to commit crimes overrides the entire constitution.

Wake up Pennsylvania before you find yourself in front of a bad judge and there’s nothing you can do about it.

We find it intolerable that one Constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another;Simmons v United States,390 U.S.389(1968.

The 11th amendment of the United States Constitution provides immunity to all state entities from federal claims in state court.Alden v Maine,527 U.S.706,754-58(1999);See Also Kincel v Department of transportation.,867 A.2d 758,764(Pa.Cmwlth.2005);Lombardo v Pennsylvania,540 F.3d 190,194-95(3d Cir.2008).

This immunity covers claims brought under 42 U.S.C.1983,1985 and 1986;See Quern v Jordan,440 U.S.332,340(1979);Collins v Sload, 212 Fed.Appx.136,140 n.5(3rd Cir.2007).
So when litigants sue Judges in their respective official capacities only, the claims like in Pennsylvania are really against the court of common pleas when you are suing against a family court Judge. The reason is because a suit against a individual (judge) in his official capacity is actually against the entity he (A judge)is part of.Hafer v Melo,502 U.S.21,26(1991).

The 11th amendment immunizes The court of common pleas because the court is a commonwealth entity.See Pa.Const.Art,V,1,5;42 Pa.C.S.A.102 (Commonwealth government includes the courts);42 Pa.C.S.A.301(4)(stating that the court of common pleas are part of the unified judicial system);See Russo v Allegheny Co.;125 A.3d 113,116-17(Pa.Cmwlth.2015)(holding that court of common pleas our state entities),aff’d,150 A.3d 16(Pa.2016);Chilcott v Erie Co. Domestic Relations,283 Fed.Appx.8,10(3d Cir.2008).

The 11th amendment bars requests for not only monetary relief, but also request for declaratory and injunction relief as well, unless there is an ongoing violation of federal law.See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth v Metcalf & Eddy,Inc,506 U.S.139,145-46(1993). So in other words if the litigant fails to file on record or in pleadings of the continuous ongoing violations by a Judge; the Judge will be protected by the 11th Amendment Constitutional right of immunity;See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth.,506 U.S.at 146.

Pay particular attention to this because many Targets have tried to show the truth and now they are bared or gaggle ordered from filing any pleadings on court docket.

This is known to be official oppression and it is a clear violation of due process and equal protection under the law.

This is also a violation of the United States 1 Amendment right to speech and the Pennsylvania 7 Amendment,always remember according to case law you shall not be sanctioned or punished for protecting your constitutional rights.

Pennsylvania has not waived its 11th Amendment immunity;See 42 Pa.C.S.A.8521(b).

When litigants file claims against Judges they are usually solely from the Judges actions and Judges rulings,but according to case law the Judges are judicially immune and bars the claims.

The Judicial immunity doctrine provides protection to judicial officers from both lawsuits and damages for their judicial actions;See Guarrasi v Scott,25 A.3d 394,405 n.11(Pa.Cmwlth.2011)(citing Mireles v Waco,502 U.S.9,11(1991);Beam v Daimler,767 A.2d 585,586(Pa.Super.2001).

Even when determining whether immunity is appropriate against a Judge the fact still remains that it doesn’t matter, because the Judge is allowed to commit grave procedural errors,can act in a informal manner and can have ex parte Communications,the Judge will not be accountable even when actions were unfair or controversial.Gallas v Supreme court of PA.,211 F.3d 760,769(3d Cir 2005). Even when the Judge’s motives are irrelevant to the case immunity applies even if a Judge acted with malice;Guarrasi,25 A.3d At 404 n.11.

The The legislatures and senators can remove bad judge us because they are not allowed to hold term no longer than her good behavior.

Article 1, Section 24; Title and offices; The legislator shall not grant any title of nobility or hereditary distinction, nor create any office the appointment to which shall be for a longer-term then during good behavior.

Our government must guard against transgression against the people.

Article 1, Section 25; Reservation of powers in people; To guard against transgression of the higher powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Judges need to be removed by the people when they are acting badly. And if elected officials refuses to remove a bad judge for their misconduct they to need to be removed because they are not protecting the people.

The Declaration of Independence

We hold that these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are empowered by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, depriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long establishment should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable then to write themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably The same object evinces a designed to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Pennsylvania impeachment for Bad Judges in Pennsylvania
Powers and Duties;

Article V, §18(b)(5) of the Constitution provides that, upon the filing of charges
with the court by the Judicial Conduct Board, the court shall promptly schedule a hearing to determine whether a sanction should be imposed against the judicial officer. The Constitution provides that the court shall be a court of record and all proceedings shall be a matter of public record. All hearings shall be public proceedings conducted pursuant to rules adopted by the court and in accordance with the principles of due process and the law of evidence. Parties appearing before the court shall have a right to discovery pursuant to rules adopted by
the court and shall have the right to subpoena witnesses and to compel the production of documents. The charged judicial officer shall be presumed innocent and the Judicial Conduct Board shall have the burden of proving the charges by clear and convincing evidence.

Article V, §18(d)(1) provides that a judicial officer may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for conviction of a felony; violation of Section 17 of Article V; misconduct in office; neglect or failure to perform the duties of officeor conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting
in a judicial capacity or is prohibited by law; or conduct in violation of a canon
or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. In the case of a mentally or physically disabled justice, judge or magisterial district judge, the court may enter an order of removal from office, retirement, suspension or other limitations on the activities of the justice or judge as warranted by the record. Upon a final order of the court for suspension without pay or removal, prior to any appeal, the justice or judge shall be suspended or removed from office; and the salary of the justice or judge shall cease from the date of the order.

The Constitutional Amendment, at Article V, §18(d)(2), empowers the Court
of Judicial Discipline to issue an interim order prior to a hearing directing the suspension, with or without pay, of any judicial officer against whom formal charges have been filed with the court by the board, or against whom has been filed an indictment or information charging a felony.

On appeal, as mentioned, the Supreme Court’s review of the decision of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board has been de novo. The 1993 Amendment imposes a much more narrowly defined scope of review. Article V, §18(c)(2) provides that on appeal the Supreme Court shall review the record of the court as follows: on the law, the scope of review is plenary; on the facts, the scope of review is clearly erroneous; and, as to sanctions, the scope of review is whether the sanctions imposed were lawful. The Supreme Court may revise or reject an order of the court upon a determination that the order did not sustain this standard of review; otherwise, the Supreme Court shall affirm the order of the court.

There appear to be no decisions that interpret the term “reasonable cause.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has referred to address as a method of removal only once, in Com. ex rel. Duff v. Keenan, 347
Pa. 574, 33 A.2d 244 (1943). In that case, the attorney general of the Commonwealth filed a petition in mandamus seeking to compel the performance of judges in Westmoreland County who had allegedly failed to issue decisions in a timely manner. In dicta, the court noted that “[a]ny judge who either by his “sale”, his “denial”, or his delay of justice destroys or prejudices a suitor’s rights subjects himself to removal from office under either of the two methods prescribed in Article VI, §4 of the Constitution of 1874. Id. at 583, 33 A.2d at 249.

[2] Former Article V, §3 of the Constitution placed with the Supreme Court the king’s bench powers. See Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird, 360 Pa. 94, 61 A.2d 426 (1948). In that case the Supreme Court noted “[i]nherent in the Court of the King’s Bench, was the power of general superintendency over inferior tribunals ... .”

[3] The legislature retains its authority to remove by the impeachment process, Pa. Const., Article VI, §§4- 6, and the trial courts retain their authority to remove upon conviction of “misbehavior in office or for any infamous crime,” Pa. Const., Article VI, §7.

[4] This is known as a “one-tier” system where all functions are the responsibility of one body.

[5] Brief History of the Formation of the Court of Judicial Discipline 1993 – 1994 is available upon request.

[6]Sometimes, despite the confidentiality of the proceedings, there is speculation in the media that a particular judicial officer is under investigation by the Judicial Conduct Board. In such cases the judicial officer may wish to waive confidentiality and confirm that an investigation is underway in order to publicly confront the speculative reports.

Article VI, Pennsylvania Constitution
Pennsylvania Constitution
Seal of Pennsylvania.svg.png
Preamble
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • Schedule 1 • Schedule 2
Article VI of the Pennsylvania Constitution is entitled Public Officers and consists of seven sections.

Section 1
Text of Section 1:
Section of Officers Not Otherwise Provided for in Constitution

All officers, whose selection is not provided for in this Constitution, shall be elected or appointed as may be directed by law.

Section 2
Text of Section 2:
Incompatible Offices

No member of Congress from this State, nor any person holding or exercising any office or appointment of trust or profit under the United States, shall at the same time hold or exercise any office in this State to which a salary, fees or perquisites shall be attached. The General Assembly may be law declare what offices are incompatible.

Section 3
Text of Section 3:
Oath of Office

Senators, Representatives and all judicial, State and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before a person authorized to administer oaths. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity." The oath or affirmation shall be administered to a member of the Senate or to a member of the House of Representatives in the hall of the House to which he shall have been elected. Any person refusing to take the oath or affirmation shall forfeit his office.

Section 4
Text of Section 4:
Power of Impeachment

The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 5
Text of Section 5:
Trial of Impeachments

All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose the Senators shall be upon oath or affirmation. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

Section 6
Text of Section 6:
Officers Liable to Impeachment

The Governor and all other civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misbehavior in office, but judgment in such cases shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under this Commonwealth. The person accused, whether convicted or acquitted, shall nevertheless be liable to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.

Section 7
Text of Section 7:
Removal of Civil Officers

All civil officers shall hold their offices on the condition that they misbehave themselves well while in office, and shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office or of any infamous crime. Appointed civil officers, other than judges of the courts of record, may be removed at the pleasure of the power by which they shall have been appointed. All civil officers elected by the people, except the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, members of the General Assembly and judges of the courts of record, shall be removed by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.

Judges Have Taken A Oath Of Office To Uphold And Support The Constitution
When a constitutional violation has occurred a Judge has taken a sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution(not wage war against the Constitution)this falls under 5 U.S. Subchapter II-3331. Oath of office.An individual. Except the President. Elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or on uniformed services, shall take the following oath;

I AB do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true Faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purposes of invasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

In Pennsylvania JoJos have taken an oath of office pursuant to

CHAPTER 31
SELECTION AND RETENTION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS
3151. Oath of office.
Each judicial officer shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before a person authorized to administer oaths:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
Any person refusing to take the oath or affirmation shall forfeit his office. A judicial officer shall be sworn upon his appointment or election, and after each retention election, and thereafter need not be sworn in any matter referred to him.

A Judge Who Does Not Comply With His Oath Of Office Violates The Constitution
It can be relied upon that any Judge with in the United States, including but not limited to the Commonwealth, who does not fully comply with his or her oath to the United States Constitution (See Article V, 6) Wars against the Constitution and engages in acts that violate the supreme law of the land, the only conclusion to the fact is that he or she has committed an act of treason.

No Judge can violate the Constitution
Cooper v Aaron,358 U.S.1,78 S.Ct.1401(1958) No state legislature or executive or judicial officer can wage war against the constitution without violating his/her undertaking to support it.

Scheuer v Rhodes,416 U.S.232,94 S.Ct.1683,1687 (1974) when a state Officer acts under a state law in a man or violative of the federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the Superior authority of the 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.

Judges Shall Not Engage In Any Activity That Is Prohibited By Law Or Violate Any Code Of Canon.

The code shall constitute the canon of judicial ethics referenced in Article V section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which States in pertinent part, Justices and Judges shall not engage in any activity prohibited by the law and shall not violate any canon of legal or judicial ethics prescribed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania Criminal Codes That Apply To Most Cases When A Judge Is Violating the law.

Theft by way of extortion 18 Pa.C.S.3921, Theft by unlawful taking or disposition and 18 Pa.C.S.3922 theft by deception describes the events that occurred and specifically according to the Pennsylvania statutes under;

18 Pa.C.S.3923 extortion is a theft related offense;(a) offenses defined; A person is guilty if he intentionally obtains or withhold property from another by threatening to;
(4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action.
(6) testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to the legal claim or defense of another.
(7) inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor.

18 Pa.C.S.4114 securing execution of documents by deception; A person commits a misdemeanor of the 2nd degree if by deception he causes another to execute any instrument affecting or purporting to affect or likely to affect the pecuniary interest of any person.

18 Pa.C.S. 4702; threatens and other improper influence in official and political matters;(a) offenses defined; A person commits an offense if he:
(1) threatens unlawful harm to any person with intent to influence his decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official or voter.

18 Pa.C.S. 4703; retaliation for past official action; A person commits a misdemeanor of the 2nd degree if he harms another by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything lawfully done by the latter and the capacity of the of public servant.

18 Pa.C.S.5101 obstructing administration of law or other governmental function; A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree If he intentionally obstructions, impairs or prevents the administration of the law or other governmental function by force, violence, physical interference or obstruction, breach of official duty, or any other unlawful act, except that there’s section does not apply to flight by a person charged with a crime, refusal to submit to arrest, failure to perform a legal duty und if he intentionally obstructs, impairs or prevents the administration of the law or other governmental function by force, violence, physical interference or obstruction, breach of official duty, or any other unlawful act, except that there’s section does not apply to flight by a person charged with crime, refusal to submit to arrest, failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions.

18 Pa.C.S. Crimes and offenses, abusive office section 5301 official oppression; A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity he commits a misdemeanor of the 2nd degree if, knowingly that his conduct is illegal, he;
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, deposition,assessment, lean or other infringement of personal or property rights;or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

Judges has no immunity when the Judges acts as a trespasser of law.

By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge acts not as a judge, but as a private individual(in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge lose the subject matter jurisdiction and the judge's orders are not voidable but void, and have no legal force or effect. 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 of the constitution, and he is in the case stripped of his official or representative character and his subject it in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impair to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States Scheuer v Rhodes,416 U.S.232,94 S.Ct.1683,1687(1974). Due process is a requirement of the US Constitution. Violation of United States Constitution by a judge deprived that person from acting as a judge under the law. His/Her acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge and therefore has no jurisdiction.

The 11th Amendment is being used for improper purpose.

The 11th Amendment was not intended to afford Judges freedom from liability in any case where, under color of law.To grant Judges such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened.Public agent must be liable to the law, unless they are not to be put above the law.See Old Colony Trust Co. v Seattle ET Al,271 U.S.426,70 L.Ed.1019,46 S.Ct 522,Supreme Court (1926).

Judge is not immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act. State officials such as Judges acting in their official capacity should not be immune.If a Judge is in absence of their lawful authority, generally are held to act under Color of law. This is because such officials are cloak with the authority of state law, which gives them power to Perpetrate The very wrongs that Congress intended section 1983 to prevent. Ex parte Virginia,100 U.S.339,346-347(1979).

Judges are not immune for their non-judicial activities,i.e., activities which are ministerial or administrative in nature. Santiago v City of Philadelphia,435 F.Supp.136(1977).

Judges took an oath of Office to support The Constitution, Judges are Officers of the court that have no immunity when violating a Constitution right.For they are deemed to know the law.Owen v Independence,445 U.S.622(1980).Therefore Judge can be held liable.

We should not, of course, not protect a member of the judiciary who is in fact is guilty of using his power to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public good.Gregoire v Biddle,177 F.2d 579,581.

When Judges act as if they are above the law and Judge may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of rights on the strength of the title 18 U.S.C.241 and 242.Imbler v Pachtman,422 U.S.409;96 S.Ct.984(1976).

If you have been judicially terrorized and victimized by the court system you would know that the Judges are not being held liable or being punished for their clear misconduct.

West Virginia started impeaching judges for their bad behavior now it’s time for Pennsylvania to do the same.

 Actually I do gather evidence and do an analysis.

That’s exactly what I’m describing up above.

Why should parents have to prosecute crooked judges?

I’ve showed how to impeach a judge in Pennsylvania now it’s up to the Pennsylvania people to decide what they wanna do.

Try to prosecute a judge which may take years of your life thousands of dollars that you don’t have and probably won’t win anyhow.

Force legislation and the senators to start impeaching bad judges it happened in West Virginia,it can start happening around the country.

I’m tired of seeing parents getting destroyed by bad judges they’re losing their children, their property rights and sometimes their lives because of these bad judges that need to be impeached.

The government needs to start doing their job that they was paid for doing in the first place parents should not have to do their job.