PETITION
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF
THE HONORABLE ALAN M. BLACK
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Pursuant to The Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article V, Sections 15, 17 and 18, and Article VI, Sections 4, 5, and 6, Petitioner hereunder petitions the Pennsylvania House of Representatives as follows.
To investigate the charges made and brought hereunder by the undersigned Petitioner against The Honorable Alan M. Black, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lehigh, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as more fully set forth in the Petitioner's Affidavit in support of this Petition, attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth, [implicating] charging him with malfeasance in office; misfeasance of office; violating Pennsylvania's Code of Judicial Conduct; conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system; failure to uphold his sworn duties as protector of the Constitutions of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failure to uphold the laws of the Nation and the State; and failure to uphold and enforce the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This petition contains charges against Judge Black [and the court] that include criminal and judicial misconduct for altering court records; subornation of perjury by an officer of the court; and conduct that deprives petitioner of his constitutional right to a full and fair hearing on the merits of his case.
Petitioner alleges that court records were altered. The act of altering court records is a crime in violation of Pennsylvania statutes 18 Pa C.S.A. 4911 -- tampering with public records; 18 Pa C.S.A. 4910 -- tampering with or fabricating physical evidence; and 18 Pa C.S.A. 903 -- criminal conspiracy to commit the above crimes; and ?? Pa C.S.A. ???? - Obstructing Justice.
If true, the allegations set forth and made more specific in the attached Affidavit, warrant the indictment for the impeachment of said Alan M. Black pursuant to Article VI, Sections 4 and 5 of Pennsylvania's Constitution for misfeasance and/or malfeasance in office, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and for conduct rendering him unfit for office, and to bind him over for trial before the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on impeachment from office at the earliest possible time.
Petitioner raised several of these allegations in a formal complaint with Pennsylvania's Judicial Conduct Board in April of 2001. This Board has a duty under the Pennsylvania Constitution; Article V, Section 18, to investigate the charges. To date, the Board has assigned file numbers (01- 108, 01-109, and 01-110) only. It has taken no investigative action to my knowledge. Petitioner is therefore obliged to seek relief via impeachment proceedings in accordance with Pennsylvania's Constitution and laws.
To the extent that governmental immunity is available to elected officers of the court, Petitioner contends that engaging in criminal misconduct waives the general immunity granted to persons in this rank. Petitioner further demands that the officer of the court accused of perjured testimony be investigated, and that, when the allegations are supported, appropriate actions be initiated against that individual.
Petitioner relies on settled Pennsylvania law that establishes the standard that the court(s) maintain a higher standard of integrity such that even the appearance of impropriety is avoided.
In demanding the impeachment of this jurist, petitioner cites Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. (Attorney General) Preate, who was impeached and convicted of criminal misconduct for which he served a jail sentence for lesser crimes than these.
The court, under Judge Black, operates with capricious disregard for the fundamental rights of due process and equal protection of law that are supposedly secure under the U.S. Constitution.
The criminal acts complained of undermine the integrity of the judicial system and the protections allegedly guaranteed to Americans for a hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal.
Petitioner contends that the covert act of altering records of court proceedings constitutes a greater danger to the welfare of this Nation and the rule of law than the heinous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1821
This State legislature has a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including checks and balances against the judicial branch of the government.
Petitioner asks this legislature to stand up for the Constitution of the United States of America, and to conduct an honest investigation into the corrupt and criminal activities perpetrated in this Pennsylvania court.
Petitioner prays to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to suspend Judge Alan M. Black from occupying the bench during the period of this investigation. And then, to issue an indictment for the impeachment of Alan M. Black from the Court of Common pleas of Lehigh County for a trial before the Senate of Pennsylvania.
DATED this ___________________ day of January, 2002.
| RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
PETITIONER
__________________________________________ FAROUK Z. HAMOUI
|
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR IMPEACHMENT
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA | ) | ) ss. |
| COUNTY OF | ) |
Affiant, Farouk Z. Hamoui, being duly sworn, upon oath, does hereby depose and state as follows:
I am a legal resident of the City of Allentown, County of Lehigh, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I am the respondent (defendant) in a civil action for child support in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County; Ternigan v. Hamoui, case number 89- DR-1459, PACSES No. 907002114.
I now petition the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for a redress of grievances against Judge Alan M. Black of the above-named court. Judge Black has misused his office and abused his power in order to illegally and unconstitutionally prevent and preclude me from obtaining equal justice in the court, thereby affecting an unlawful taking of property to the detriment of me, my wife and our children. Judge Black acted contrary to statutory and settled law and in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
I previously filed a formal complaint with Pennsylvania's Judicial Conduct Board, pursuant to Pennsylvania's Constitution, Article V, Section 18. Other than assigning file number(s) [JCB 01-108, 01-109, and 01-110, see Attachment 1], the Board has taken no investigative action in the past nine months, requiring that relief for these grievances be sought in Pennsylvania's General Assembly.
I execute and submit this affidavit in support of my Petition for the Impeachment of Judge Alan M. Black, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
The statements made in this Affidavit are based on my personal knowledge -- as follows:
Judge Alan M. Black was appointed to the above titled case on or about July, 1999, pursuant to my demand for a de novo hearing on appeal from an interim order of the domestic relations section of the court dated June 14, 1999.
During the period that Judge Black presided over the above case, he violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. He acted with capricious disregard of the Constitution of the United States, Pennsylvania's Constitution, statutes and settled law, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence. He made numerous findings of fact completely unsupported or uncorroborated by the evidence. He entered prejudicial and restrictive orders in manifest violation of my due process rights. He abused his discretion in the misapplication of law, and he provides a safe harbor for criminal misconduct by the court. Judge Black intentionally misrepresented facts in his written opinion of the matter, and generally conducted the proceedings in a manner that demonstrates extreme prejudice and bias, undermines the integrity of the judicial process, and demonstrates a lack of fitness for the office he holds. His conduct constitutes malfeasance and misfeasance of office.
Judge Black improperly applied the amended child support guidelines ex post facto, depriving petitioner of his rights under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 10, and Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1968, Article I, Section 17.
Judge Black failed to follow statutory and case law guidance in the application of Pennsylvania's child support guidelines, Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1910.16 et seq., which provides for a deviation from the guideline amount when the circumstances of the parties so demand.
The Pennsylvania child support guidelines are unconstitutional under the facts and circumstances of this case, having a disparate impact on the children of second families in all multiple family cases when the plaintiff has the higher income. In such cases, the presumption that the guideline amount is correct is rebuttable. Judge Black disregarded the disparate impact on petitioner's family, the inapplicability of the support guidelines, then, to further penalize petitioner, misapplied the rule of law for the determination of net incomes for both parties.
This legislature must impeach Judge Black for malfeasance and misfeasance of office, for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, and for abusing his discretion and acting unlawfully when he:
Judge Black demonstrated a bias and prejudice so compelling that he has virtually drafted a completely new interpretation of Pennsylvania's child support guidelines; Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq. The bias and prejudice of this court disregards the most fundamental protections for litigants in a court of law.
The following statements document specific acts complained of:
One of the fundamental requirements for a hearing on the merits in domestic relations matters is that both parties must testify, and that each party must be subject to cross-examination by the other party. Pennsylvania law holds that when both parties do not testify, a hearing on the merits has not been conducted. Keating v. Keating, 595 A.2d 109 (Pa.Super. 1991).
The United States Supreme Court has established that "The right of a litigant to an in-court presentation of evidence is essential to due process." and further, "In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011 (1970).
Judge Black conducted a pseudo-hearing where plaintiff did not testify, and was not available for cross-examination. Contrary to Pennsylvania rules for a de novo hearing, Judge Black accepted facts not in evidence from the domestic relations hearing officer report.
In a blatant demonstration of the prejudice in the courtroom, the domestic relations hearing officer (an officer of the court) attended a portion of the hearings, and consulted with plaintiff's Title IV-D attorney. The Code of Judicial Conduct commands a court to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Petitioner contends that the consultation between the hearing officer and the Title IV-D attorney constitutes an ex parte communication between the court and an attorney, and evidences the inappropriate relationship between the court and the Title IV-D attorney.
The record shows that petitioner demanded the right to cross-examine the hearing officer. Judge Black denied petitioner's demand. Petitioner demanded the right to cross-examine plaintiff. Judge Black denied petitioner's demand. In so doing, Judge Black deprived petitioner of a full and fair opportunity to present his case, violating my due process rights.
Income and assets are fundamental elements of evidence for a child support hearing. Judge Black obstructed my right to discover the amount of plaintiff's husband's income. He also obstructed my right to discover plaintiff's other assets, including any amounts in savings or trust for the dependent child.
After closing the hearings, Judge Black conducted a post-hearing off-the- record telephone conference with the attorneys, from whence he determined that my Earned Income Tax IRS tax refund is "income" while the overpayment IRS tax refund of the opposing party is NOT income. He adjusted my net income accordingly. His ruling stands in direct contradiction to Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence and child support guidelines, denying me the equal protection of the law.
In support of his determination, Judge Black authored an opinion that contains statements so blatantly false as to raise the question of the integrity of this jurist, and his fitness for office. Facts material to the outcome are misstated. Judge Black improperly reframed issues raised by my attorney. When a court frames the issues, a litigant is denied due process. The fact that one issue was framed using language submitted by the Title IV- D attorney raises a question of collusion between the court and opposing counsel. The issue reframed by the court alters the issue that was claiming a deprivation of a fundamental due process requirement.
In his opinion, Judge Black states that defendant's petition to modify raised the question of increased income of plaintiff (mother). Judge Black failed to state that the basis for the petition also includes the issue of a second income in mother's household. This failure to accurately represent the basis of petitioner's claim is to tell a half-truth, which is, therefore, to lie. My demand for a de novo hearing attempted to raise the issue of mother's additional assets, including financial assets of the dependent child. Judge Black first denied my requests to discover this information, then intentionally misrepresented or omitted these facts from his opinion in an effort to color the issues appealed, thereby limiting the probability of success on appeal. This action violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, and stands contrary to the court's express objective to seek the truth.
His written opinion states that petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present his case. The record shows that plaintiff did not testify, and was not subject to cross-examination, thereby depriving petitioner of due process. When due process is denied, a full and fair opportunity has not been afforded.
These errors of law and misrepresentation of facts to an appellate court constitute egregious violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, so as to render this judge unfit for office.
Judge Black committed egregious violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct when he disregarded Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence (PRE) as follows:
This court employs criminal acts to preserve and protect the miscarriage of justice. The electronic (audio tape) recordings of proceedings are altered, a criminal act that obstructs justice.
Judge Black is aware of the alteration of records. He exercised capricious disregard of the Code of Judicial Conduct to rule that petitioner could not take steps to protect the integrity of the record. He contends that his rulings were made to prevent my attorney from altering the records then later advancing a claim that the court records are incomplete and inaccurate.
Judge Black's argument is without merit, essentially contending that he is protecting my lawyer from committing a criminal act. Affording this protection is not the duty of the court. The court has a duty to protect the fundamental liberty interests of all parties. This court and Judge Black fail in that duty.
Judge Black thwarted petitioner's efforts to correct the record in accordance with Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, PRE 201(d).
Post-trial Proceedings
Petitioner moved the court for a reconsideration of the order. Judge Black knew that if reconsideration were granted -- plaintiff would be subject to cross-examination, her IRS tax refund would be raised as an issue for income, my Income and Expense Statement would be amended, and the basis for applying the support guidelines and the court's recommended support order would be successfully rebutted. Judge Black denied the motion on his own discretion.
Petitioner demanded that the court correct the court's "opinion" filed in the matter, offering proof of errors material to the outcome. Judge Black denied the motion on his own discretion, contrary to Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, PRE 201(d).
Petitioner demanded that domestic relations produce plaintiff's prior year 1040 tax filing. Each party is required to produce this document for the court ordered hearing. (See Attachment 3). The documents are part of the court's record in the matter. The Title IV-D attorney, acting on behalf of domestic relations[2], countered with a motion for protective order. Judge Black granted the protective order, and denied my attorney access to relevant information.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that dual representation by a solicitor constitutes a deprivation of due process. Horn v. Hilltown Twp., 337 A.2d 858, 461 Pa. 745 (Pa. 1975). The Horn holding is applied to domestic relations cases in several lower court decisions. My due process right to a hearing before fair and impartial court is denied because of the susceptibility to prejudice by the court.
After receiving a copy of the transcribed record, petitioner filed a motion to correct the record, noting instances where judicial notice of errors should be corrected and instances where the record was altered to delete or obscure evidence that supports my claim on appeal. Altering the record is a criminal act.
Petitioner also entered a motion to review or receive a copy of the audio tape of the entire proceedings of October 20, 1999. This is a public record. Judge Black denied the motion without reason.
During the first hearing on the motion to correct, Judge Black stated that petitioners counsel has 'no credibility' in his court, thereby authenticating a claim of prejudice and bias against this petitioner, showing a lack of impartiality and a lack of dignity, courtesy, and tolerance. He refused to take "judicial notice" to correct the record as mandated under PRE 201(d) when proof is offered. His actions constitute a violation of Canon 3.A.(3) of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct.
During the second hearing on this motion, Judge Black surprised petitioner by calling his court reporter as a witness. He admits to acting as a lawyer in the matter in controversy. This action constitutes a violation of Canon 3.C.(1)(a) or 3.C.(1)(d)(ii) of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct.
At this hearing, Judge Black was confronted with responsibility for the alteration of the audio tapes of hearings. The chain of custody was broken when passing the tapes from the court reporter to the judge. Upon this assertion before the court, Judge Black appropriately recused himself from the matter. These allegations of criminal wrongdoing clearly raise substantial questions of Judge Black's fitness for office and his lack of impartiality.
After "consultation with my colleagues" (see Attachment 3), Judge Black inappropriately withdrew his recusal over the objections of my lawyer. His action constitutes a violation of Canon 3.C.(1) of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct.
During the third hearing on the motion, the court reporter returned as a witness and lied under oath. Judge Black was aware of the perjured testimony, and took no action. Petitioner believes that the judge and his reporter conspired as to her testimony, intending to misstate facts for the record. False testimony undermines the integrity of the judicial system. When offered by an officer of the court, such testimony gives rise to a claim for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. See 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.
Petitioner contends that Judge Black abuses his authority to prevent my lawyer from obtaining evidence that supports the claim that the audio tape records of hearings were altered. Such conduct by the court constitutes abetting a criminal act, evidencing malfeasance of office.
This petitioner twice attempted to file criminal charges against this court for the alteration of the records. I was turned away by the District Attorney's office on two separate occasions. I contend that Judge Black had knowledge of my effort to file criminal charges, and was instrumental in thwarting an investigation.
SUMMARY
Judge Black's administration of this matter constitutes an exercise of the most egregious violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His personal conduct throughout these proceedings demonstrates a level of arrogance and lack of integrity unworthy of a judge in this Commonwealth.
Canon 3.A.(4), Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct states:
A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, must not consider ex parte communications concerning a pending procedure.
During pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings, Judge Black unlawfully denied petitioner access to specific court records.
Judge Black's conduct throughout the support proceeding demonstrates a predisposition for an outcome favorable to plaintiff (mother). His egregious violations of law or statute, his failure to protect my constitutional rights, and his disregard of case law all evidence an ingrained and rampant bias and prejudice against one party (father). His selective weighing of evidence, adept admission/exclusion of evidence, disregard of competent testimony, accepting facts not in evidence, misapplication of the support guidelines exceeds any definition of plain judicial error. In conducting a hearing under a cloud of the appearance of impropriety and susceptibility to prejudice, and in authoring an opinion rife with misrepresentation, Judge Black exposes the prejudice and bias of the court.
Judge Black exhibits an inability or unwillingness to apply the law with fairness and impartiality, violating Canons 1., 2., and 3 of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct.
Petitioner avers that the audio tapes of hearings in this family court are criminally altered. Petitioner contends that Judge Black is aware of the alteration of the records, and acted to thwart petitioner's pursuit of justice.
The alteration of court records constitutes a criminal act that undermines the integrity of the judicial system. This criminal act is so despicable as to demand a full and independent investigation to determine where and by whom the crime(s) is(are) committed.
Arguably, the act of undermining the integrity of the judicial system is a greater threat to the preservation of the American form of government than the heinous acts of terrorism inflicted against our Nation on September 11, 2001. The actions by this court compare with judicial acts perpetrated by judges in the Third Reich more than 60 years ago. Such blatant disregard of the rule of law must not be tolerated.
Judge Black's malfeasance and misfeasance of office violates the Constitutional rights of me, my wife, and our children. His conduct in this matter undermines the protections provided by federal and state Constitutions and state rule of court, and is repugnant to any person with respect for the rule of law. His conduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses.
This legislature has a duty to investigate the charges herein, and if found to be true, to bring an indictment for the impeachment of Judge Black before the Senate of Pennsylvania.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
| _____________________________ Affiant - Farouk Z. Hamoui |
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ___________ day of ___January___, 2002,
by Affiant ____________________________________.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: _______________
-----------------------
[1] Both witnesses testified to deletions from the record for substantive challenges to constitutional issues where the court deprived me of my rights under the constitution.
[2] The Title IV-D attorney is serving as "solicitor" for the county when presenting this motion, thereby strengthening petitioner's argument that she enjoys a improper intimate relationship with the court. This attorney represents "County of Lehigh" in other actions before this same family court.