Pursuant to the Pennsylvania  State Constitution and Article V1--PUBLIC OFFICERS (Power of Impeachment -- section 4.), (Trial of Impeachment Section--5.), and (Officers Liable to Impeachment--Section 6.);  and Article V, Section 15 [Tenure of Justices, Judges and Justices of the Peace], and Section 17 [Prohibited Activities--Subsection (b)], and Section 18 [Suspension, removal, Discipline and Compulsory Retirement]-- Subsection (d): paragraph (5).  

To investigate the charges made and brought hereunder by the undersigned Petitioner against The Honorable William Henry,  Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Jefferson County, 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 Judge William Henry of malfeasance, nonfeasance and felonious conduct in office so sadistic that it strikes at the very heart of the American justice system; further implicating his failure to uphold his sworn duties as protector of the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Pennsylvania, and the laws of the State; and implicating his failure to uphold and enforce the public policy of  Pennsylvania for frequent and continuing contact between a child and both parents; and implicating his decisions to the contrary of said public policy in his official capacity as Common Pleas Court judge as violation of statutory and constitutional protections and liberties; and,

When warranted, to indict said Honorable William Henry for malfeasance, nonfeasance and felonious conduct in office, and to bind him over for trial on impeachment from office in the Senate of the State of Pennsylvania at the earliest possible time.

DATED this __________ day of June, 2003.

                                  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

                                   ROBERT G. KEARNS, JR.
                                   RR. # 3 BOX 254A1                                                                          HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA    
                               (814) 696-3022

                                      AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER


STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA )                                    
                                                   ) ss.
COUNTY OF BLAIR                   )

I, Robert G. Kearns, Jr., being duly sworn, upon oath, do hereby depose and state as follows:

I am a legal resident of Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania.

I make this affidavit in support of my Petition for Impeachment of Judge William Henry, Common Pleas Court Judge of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. The statements made in this Affidavit are based on my personal knowledge.

I am the Defendant in a post-decree civil action in the Common Pleas Court in and for Blair County, Pennsylvania. (Frederick v. Kearns) case number 96 GN 2139.

At a  March 19, 2002 Custody Conciliation hearing it was disclosed to this Petitioner and his attorney that a specially presiding judge was being considered at the instant to preside over a Custody Modification hearing in the matter of (96 GN 2139). It was further revealed by an authoritative employee of the court that all the Blair County judges (including Judge Hiram Carpenter already being the subject of an Impeachment Petition before the House Of Representatives ) were in joint meeting with the court administrator to determine what judge should replace the very same Judge Carpenter that was stepping down from this case (96 GN 2139) because of allegations of judicial misconduct.  As a result of that meeting Judge William Henry of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania was assigned as the new presiding judge.  

I am petitioning the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to redress grievances against Judge William Henry, who has misused his office and abused his power to criminally conceal, maintain and abet the judicial abuse, psychological abuse and medical abuse of this Petitioner’s daughter; and to illegally and unconstitutionally prevent and preclude this Petitioner from frequent and continuing contact and a family relationship with his natural daughter.

Judge William Henry's tenure as special presiding judge in the above matter began on or about  March 19, 2002 spanning to November 18,  2002.  On July 29, 2002 Judge Henry held a custody evidentiary hearing to address a Custody Modification petition filed by this Petitioner’s attorney; and a Petition to Suspend Supervised Visits filed on April 11, 2002 by plaintiff’s attorney.  Further, on August 19, 2002 Judge Henry held a final hearing to interview this Petitioner’s minor child daughter as required by law.

On  July 29, 2002 one witness (Psychiatrist Richard Bennett) testified for plaintiff mother. Four witnesses were to testify for this Petitioner as follows:  This Petitioner defendant, the defendant’s brother David B. Kearns and the defendant’s sister Diane J. Beiswenger and a non member of the defendant’s family.   

When this Petitioner’s non-family member witness was set to take the witness stand she was thwarted by an objection from plaintiff’s attorney Paula Aigner alleging that the witness’s testimony was hearsay.  This Petitioner and his witness thereby argued that the witness’s testimony was relevant, first hand and to the effect that this Petitioner’s daughter personally told her at a check out counter in a dollar store months prior to the hearing that she wanted to live with her (defendant) father and was embittered that her (plaintiff) mother wouldn’t let her.  Judge Henry sustained the plaintiff’s attorney’s objection citing that it was hearsay testimony.  Judge Henry’s interpretation of hearsay evidence was erroneously misleading and denied this Petitioner Due Process of Law and violated rules of submitting evidence as in Pa.R.E. Rule 101. paragraph (a).  Pa. R.E. Rule 102, and demonstrate clear violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,  [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A],  [Canon 3--section A--subsection (1)].   

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Hearsay  Evidence as:  Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he/she has heard others say.

During the course of the July 29, 2002 hearing the plaintiff’s attorney and this Petitioner entered several documents into the record as exhibits and accordingly Judge Henry directed the court stenographer to mark the exhibits for identification.

Dr. Richard Bennett was the first witness to testify and the only witness to take the stand for the plaintiff’s case. During direct examination of Dr. Bennett,  the plaintiff’s attorney had entered two letters into the record (attached hereto as Petitioners exhibits A and B) authored by Dr. Richard Bennett.  The context of the letters were in effect to impress on the court that the absolute elimination of supervised visits and any contact between this Petitioner and his daughter would be in her best interest. The letter of March 19, 2002 alleged that this Petitioner father’s wishes to re-establish contact with his daughter through supervised visitation had caused his daughter to psychologically deteriorate.  Acting on the recommendations of Dr. Bennett’s letter of March 19, 2002 the plaintiff’s attorney filed her petition on April 11, 2002 to suspend supervised visits and any future contact between this Petitioner and his daughter.  Declaring a known falsehood to be fact the plaintiff’s attorney raised the fabrication in her petition that this Petitioner’s efforts to re-establish supervised visits with his daughter during the March 19, 2002 Conciliation Conference, (in which plaintiff’s attorney attended), caused this Petitioner’s daughter who was not in attendance to deteriorate psychologically. Judge Henry’s failure to address the unsworn falsification under penalty of  [18 Pa C.S.A. Section 4904,  relating to unsworn falsification to authorities] constitutes malfeasance and nonfeasance of his judicial duties and violates Code of Judicial Conduct [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A],  [Canon 3--section A --subsection (1):

Judge Henry’s courtroom demeanor throughout the hearing was contemptuously rude and displayed a manifest bias and animosity against this Petitioner defendant when he abruptly stopped the plaintiff’s attorney during early stages of direct examination of Dr. Bennett. Subsequently, Judge Henry demanded the attention of this Petitioner’s forty-nine year old brother and verbally rebuked and embarrassed him in a hostile manner for the given reason that he was “gyrating”  in his seat and claiming it was distracting to plaintiff’s witness.  Yet, Judge Henry never raised an eyebrow at the plaintiff and her attorney making disruptive gestures, snickering, and passing notes back and forth like sixth grade school girls during this Petitioner’s direct presentation and the cross examination of Dr. Bennett .  Judge Henry’s bias towards the defendant and his family was in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct [Canon 3--section A--subsection (3)]:

In advance of the proceedings Judge Henry also displayed a manifest prejudice towards this Petitioner. Before being allowed to enter the hearing room Judge Henry had directed a sheriff deputy to discriminately electronically wand scan,  frisk when in doubt, and search the “defendant’s” scheduled witnesses and all their personal effects.  This action demonstrated an extreme preconceived opinion of this Petitioner and was in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct [Canon 3--section A--subsection (3)]:  (It should be noted that Judge Henry was making sure that no electronic recording equipment was being smuggled into the hearing room).

As part of this Petitioner’s case strategy he vigorously cross examined Dr. Bennett as to the validity of the claims in his letters and plaintiff’s petition, (inter alia) .  This Petitioner then challenged  Dr. Bennett to explain exactly how his daughter’s mental health deteriorated because of his request to re-establish visits with his daughter when in fact the only effort ever made to re-establish supervised visits was on the same day that Dr. Bennett wrote his letter of March 19th.  Dr. Bennett answered that he meant contact with the daughter not supervised visits, then suddenly blurted out that he was misinformed.  

Dr. Bennett’s inconsistent testimony and inability to substantiate facts that he alleged in his letter’s and oral presentation exposed a fraud and criminal conspiracy had been worked against this Petitioner and his daughter.  His testimony further implicated him as an abhorrent child abuser which included gross medical abuse and malpractice.  Dr. Bennett’s vain attempts to avoid detection and being exposed for his scheming with the plaintiff mother revealed that under the auspices of his professional credentials had willingly fabricated a fictitious medical condition of this Petitioner’s daughter that could only serve to circumvent and preclude this Petitioner father from re-establishing any physical contact or relationship with his daughter.

Judge Henry’s actions to ignore a crime exposed during litigation and failure to report that crime to law enforcement authorities was an obstruction of justice to maintain a crime and constitutes malfeasance and nonfeasance and violates the Code of Judicial Conduct [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A and B],  [Canon 3--section A] ; and violates Pennsylvania Code [Title18 C.S.A. 5105 (Hindering apprehension or prosecution)]. [18 Pa C.S.A. 4304.-- endangering the welfare of children].  

During cross examination of Dr. Bennett this Petitioner defendant entered into the record his first exhibit; that being a signed, emotionally moving hand written note from his daughter that was received and documented during a supervised visit.  A first attempt to enter the note into the record was objected to by the plaintiff’s attorney as unconfirmed. Judge Henry overruled the objection and admitted the note into the record as defendant’s exhibit.

The plaintiff’s attorney then called the plaintiff mother to the witness stand to testify.  As the mother was about to be sworn in Judge Henry interrupted and asked if  the plaintiff could complete her testimony before 10:30 A.M. citing he would like to take a 15 minute break at that time. The plaintiff’s attorney responded that she didn’t think it could be done and suddenly made a shift in strategy.  The plaintiff’s attorney then withdrew her client from the witness stand and decided not to answer the Custody Modification petition, but insisted she would prefer to put her client on last to address the Petition to Suspend Supervised visits.  Her illogical explanation was that the burden of proof for custody modification had lain entirely on the defendant.  Judge Henry then decided that there was still enough time left for this Petitioner to have one of his witnesses testify. At about 10:30 A.M. a 15 minute recess was called. By the conclusion of the July 29, hearing the plaintiff was never called to the witness stand. (It should be noted that as the hearing room cleared  for the 15 minute recess Judge Henry and the plaintiff’s attorney
remained behind to talk). Judge Henry’s actions in this instance and appearance of impropriety violates [Canon 2--section A and B],  and [Canon 3--section A-- subsection 4]

The courts have consistently ruled that a fundamental requirement 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).  

In fact, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has consistently stated:

“In child custody matters, the Trial Court must ensure that a full and complete record  is created when a decision as important as the welfare of a child is at issue.
Costello vs. Costello 668 A 2nd 1096, 446 Pa. Super. 371 (1995).”

This Petitioner being the last witness to testify for the defendant’s case gave testimony in part that his attorney had consummated a deal with this defendant’s daughter’s guardian ad litem; that in exchange for dropping the active appeal of Judge Hiram Carpenter’s order of July 14, 2000 he would be afforded the same previous shared physical/legal custody of his daughter, as before the order. As supporting evidence to the agreement and ensuing duplicity, this Petitioner requested the court to allow the agreement letter of May 10, 2001 (attached hereto as exhibit C) from his attorney that more fully outlined the details of said agreement be entered into the record. In response, the plaintiff’s attorney objected on the basis that the letter was not important to the defendant’s case. Again Judge Henry sustained the objection whereby denying this Petitioner Due Process of Law and in violation of rules of submitting lawful relevant evidence as in Pa.R.E. Rule 101. paragraph (a). and Pa. R.E. Rule 102,  and demonstrate clear violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,  [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A],  [Canon 3--section A --subsection (1):

Even if the Petitioner defendant’s attorney acted in good faith to reach the agreement, then it must be concluded that the agreement did not come to fruition by the solitary fraud and deceit of the guardian ad litem. Regardless of what scenario played out, it left this Petitioner in a legal void and placed in the precarious position of having no available legal recourse to deal with Judge Hiram Carpenter’s order of July 14, 2000;  and ultimately defrauded this Petitioner of his legal right to have his case judicially reviewed by the Superior Court. Judge Henry’s steadfast determination to ignore the testimony and supporting physical evidence to a crime exposed during litigation and failure to report that crime to law enforcement authorities is a glaring display of malfeasance and nonfeasance to obstruct justice and  maintain a crime in violation of Pennsylvania Code [Title18 C.S.A. 5105 (Hindering apprehension or prosecution).; and further violate the Code of Judicial Conduct [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A and B],  [Canon 3--section A--subsection (1)]: and section B--subsection (3)]
Disciplinary measures may include reporting a judge’s or lawyer’s misconduct to an appropriate disciplinary body.

On July 29th, Judge Henry questioned this Petitioner about his daughter’s guardian ad-litem Beverly Mears, and asked why she wasn’t in attendance at the hearing. The plaintiff’s attorney informed Judge Henry  that the guardian ad litem quit. (It should be further noted that she quit without petitioning for leave of the court). On August 19, 2002 Judge Henry interviewed this Petitioner’s daughter privately.  This Petitioner can only assume that plaintiffs counsel did not participate in the interview. However, it is fact that this Petitioner acting as pro se defendant was excluded from the interview.  Judge Henry’s actions denied this Petitioner's right as pro se counsel to cross-examine his daughter under Pa. Code - Rule 1915.11. Appointment of Attorney for Child. Interrogation of Child. Attendance of Child at Hearing or Conference subsection (a) and (b); and demonstrate clear violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,  [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A],  [Canon 3--section A--subsection (1)].    (It should be noted that Judge Henry directed  the plaintiff’s attorney to transport this Petitioner’s daughter to the August 19, hearing ).

For reasons more fully set forth below this Petition for Impeachment resulted from Judge Henry’s numerous violations of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, and violations of Pennsylvania Criminal Code that encompass criminal conspiracy, systematic child abuse and failure to notify law enforcement authorities of crimes discovered during the course of litigation, and the subornation of perjury to abet those crimes, inter alia.

On or about August 19, 2002 this Petitioner received an order of the court (Judge Henry) that was devoid of fact or law in the crafting of his order of the court. Additionally the order was strikingly similar and reminiscent to Judge Hiram Carpenter’s order where he had also overlooked the perjury and inconsistent testimony of multiple expert witnesses testimony during a series of custody hearings starting in April  2000.  In this instance Dr. Bennett’s expert testimony equivalently collapsed on the witness stand and certainly did not win the day for the plaintiff. What is ironic about the result of this hearing was that Attorney Anthony Zanoni had predicted and pre-warned this Petitioner in a letter (attached hereto as Exhibit D) dated April 26, 2002 that regardless of how  inconsistent, incredible, or obscure the testimony may be from the plaintiff or her expert witnesses,  Judge Henry would not consider this a viable factor to alter Judge Hiram Carpenter’s custody order of July 14, 2000. Also on April 29, 2002  I and my brother met with Attorney Zanoni at which time he told us verbally that despite the real possibility that I may very well beat the plaintiff mother’s expert witnesses at the July 29, 2002 hearing the judge would overlook any inconsistent testimony of these witnesses regardless of how controversial or damaging it might be to the plaintiff’s case; and “will” instead order this Petitioner to seek professional counseling.

 Amazingly, Judge Henry’s order of August 19th,  identically paralleled Attorney Zanoni’s scripted scenario of April 29, 2002. The order was completely unsupported and uncorroborated by the evidence,  ignored and suborned blatant perjury; and entertained the contradictory and incredible testimony of Dr. Richard Bennett as the absolute truth and decisive factor in the development of that order. In essence Judge Henry turned a blind eye to the real irrefutable tangible evidence and entered a prejudicial and restrictive order in manifest violation of due process and contrary to clear and convincing evidence contradicting the rationale of that order; which violated Petitioner's constitutional right to free association and his liberty interest in his family relations; among other offenses.  In  making an order of this narrow nature Judge Henry callously ignored Dr. Bennett’s psychiatric abuse, medical fraud, medical abuse, and blatant perjury, perpetrated against this Petitioner and his daughter. Otherwise speaking Judge Henry allowed a self incriminating felon to walk free while imposing an abusively restrictive order, highly destructive and punitive in nature, against this Petitioner and his daughter.  

In Summary:
 The court, Honorable William J. Henry, issued an order dated August 19, 2002, that insignificantly amends Judge Hiram A. Carpenter’s  court order of July 14, 2000; that in itself was constructed from fraud and both Orders of the Court violated the constitutional rights of this Petitioner and his minor child daughter, contrary to the laws of Pennsylvania and the United States of America.  The Orders of the Court deprived this Petitioner and his daughter their fundamental liberty interest as protected and secured by the U.S. Constitution and secured under settled law.  The Orders of the Court were conceived in a prejudicial forum in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and in direct disregard of the duties of the presiding judges. Judge Henry’s Order of Court failed to specify the facts or the law under which the order was crafted, and failed to support its conclusions with facts in the record. The Orders of Court constitutes an arbitrary and capricious MIS-application of law which evidences prejudice and bias of the court. And the Orders of Court deprives this Petitioner and his daughter equal protection of law, and substantive due process, thereby denying this Petitioner and his daughter fundamental fairness and substantial justice.

On June 24, 2003 this Petitioner and his brother visited the prothonotaries office at the Blair County courthouse and had requested to see the case exhibits that were entered into the record by the plaintiff and defendant on July 29, 2002.  In light of Judge Henry’s order it came as no surprise to this Petitioner that none of the exhibits appear in the record, nor were they placed on file.  Apparently, Judge Henry had no real intention of permitting any of the damaging case exhibits to remain in the record from the July 29, 2002 hearing and his actions dealing with evidence was all smoke and mirrors to fool this Petitioner.  Obviously Judge Henry not only ignored the real evidence to construct his August 19, 2002 order, but illegally destroyed or hid the physical evidence that was procedurally entered into the record. Judge Henry’s actions denied this Petitioner Due Process of Law and were in violation of rules for submitting evidence as laid out in Pa. R.E. Rule 101. paragraph (a). and Pa. R.E. Rule 102,  and demonstrate clear violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,  [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A],  [Canon 3--section A. subsection1.] and [Title18 C.S.A. 5105 (Hindering apprehension or prosecution -- section 3.) [Title 18 C.S.A. 4911 (Tampering with Public Records --section 3).

Consequently, Judge William Henry's actions had aid and abetted the emotional abuse of Petitioner’s daughter for an additional year.   In making a determination that affected the health and welfare of a defenseless child, Judge Henry did not only demonstrate poor judgment by ignoring testimony and hiding or destroying physical evidence,  he willfully and wantonly covered up for the contributory child abuse and the reckless professional misconduct of the Petitioner child’s psychiatrist (Dr. Richard Bennett).  Judge Henry’s divergent order violated this Petitioners and his daughter’s Constitutional rights to Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of the Law; and Code of Judicial Conduct. [Canon 1.]  [Canon 2.-- section A.]; and  PENNSYLVANIA CODE --DOMESTIC RELATIONS (TITLE 23)
SUBSECTION  § 5303. Award of custody, partial custody or visitation. Paragraph (a)
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure #1915.1 through 1915.18
relating to actions for custody, partial custody and visitation of minor
§ 5303. Award of custody, partial custody or visitation.
(a) General rule.--In making an order for custody, partial custody or visitation
to either parent, the court shall consider, among other factors, which parent is
more likely to encourage, permit and allow frequent and continuing contact and
physical access between the non-custodial parent and the child. In addition, the
court shall consider each parent and adult household member's present and past
violent or abusive conduct which may include, but is not limited to, abusive
conduct as defined under the act of October 7, 1976 (P.L.1090, No.218), known as
the Protection From Abuse Act.

Custody, care and control of, and any semblance of a normal father-child relationship with, this Petitioner's natural daughter has been stolen from him by judicial fiat, operating under color of law. Judge William Henry, as more fully set forth below, has violated the criminal code of  Pennsylvania on multiple occasions, and has severely prejudiced and damaged Petitioner's natural rights as a father and his daughter's right to a relationship with her father.

While acting under the color of law Judge Henry committed various criminal acts in violation of Pennsylvania Code: (1.) [Title 18 C.S.A. 4911 (Tampering with Public Records --section 3 (2.) 18 Pa C.S.A. 4304.-- endangering the welfare of children. (3.) 18 Pa C.S.A. 5105 -- Hindering apprehension or prosecution); and  (4.) 18 Pa C.S.A. 903.-- criminal conspiracy to commit 18 Pa C.S.A. 4304 and 18 Pa C.S.A. 5105.

VII Title 42 Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

  The United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66, L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).      

Federal statutes Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
 For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that officials lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/or her official duties.  Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prison guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.  It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
Despite the overwhelming evidence supportive of this Petitioner’s prayer for custody of his daughter Judge Henry alternatively entered a punitive and financially burdensome order for this Petitioner to seek independent counseling that may offer only a slight chance possibility that some future visitation with Defendant’s almost 16 year old daughter could be afforded. In doing so Judge Henry completely disregarded this Petitioner’s daughter’s own handwritten note promising to be reunited with her dad and paternal family “someday, somehow.”  Judge Henry further disregarded the evidence of 15 supervised visitation reports (that was entered into the record after testimony was completed) that indicated the father was appropriate with daughter at all times;  and his daughter expected and revered even the most limited and minuscule contact with her father.

Judge Henry’s copious and extensive violations of statute, constitutional protections, and case law mandates - and his entrenched and rampant bias and prejudice against a party (in this case, the Petitioner father) as evidenced by ignoring credible and tangible evidence. against allegations which were themselves not supported by evidence and ultimately were proven fraudulent . Judge Henry’s mishandling of this case throughout the referenced custody proceeding demonstrates an extreme gender bias, inability or unwillingness to correctly, impartially and fairly apply the laws of Pennsylvania, and demonstrated a willingness to compromise the law and his official duties when called upon, whereby severely prejudicing this Petitioner father's standing as an active, involved parent in his daughter's life.

As a consequence of Judge Henry’s gross mishandling of the above custody case, Petitioner's daughter, now age fifteen and eleven months, continues to self mutilate, and suffers daily. She is continuing extensive and aggressive mental health treatment, has literally no contact with her father and paternal family with whom she emotionally bonded with or resembling any normal circumstances of a normal environment. After 35 months of isolation from her father she continues to be psychotropically drugged, brainwashed,  indoctrinated and alienated against the father by the mother and her treating mental health care team, and is experiencing ongoing and intensified diminished contact with her father and family. Judge Henry’s order continues to limit Petitioner's contact and devalue and denigrate the natural father and daughter relationship so extensively that this Petitioner has been unable to schedule regular and frequent counseling appointments with his daughter as ordered by the court.  The emotional and judicial abuses that Judges Henry and Carpenter inflicted on this Petitioner’s daughter and entire family have been so heinous that this Petitioner’s first counselor recognized that  Petitioner’s daughter needs to see justice to begin the emotional healing.

Judge Henry’s rationale of this Petitioner father's "crimes"  to warrant his biased imposition of these malevolent and severe long-term penalties that are punitive in nature are: (a) being "angry" that his daughter was essentially stolen from him, by judicially sanctioned and condoned fraud and deceit; (b) that his daughter was psychotropically drugged by court order in an attempt to derail the daughter's natural affection and loyalties toward her father, and sway the daughter's allegiance in favor of the mother; (c) having spoken out against and accusing Judge Hiram Carpenter of tampering with and fabricating physical evidence through the altering of hearing transcripts, and; (d) having protested Judge Carpenter’s bias and mishandling of this custody case in front of the courthouse and news media.  

Judge Henry's malfeasance and nonfeasance in his judicial capacity and disregard of the laws is repugnant to the law and Code of Judicial Conduct. He has deprived the rights of this Petitioner and his daughter the protections provided by federal and state constitution and state statutes and risen to and beyond the level of impeachable offenses. He is a disgrace to and an abomination against the legislative goal of Pennsylvania, and the fundamental natural right to, preservation of the relationship between children of divorce and both parents. Judge Henry’s unlawful methods of adjudicating custody cases destroys children, families and people's lives and should be impeached by the Pennsylvania State Legislature immediately.

Unfortunately, it is a sad day in Pennsylvania when Judge Henry and Judge Carpenter’s judicial misconduct is not any longer the rare exception in our judiciary, but has become the silent rule.  It appears that as the Pennsylvania state legislature has been lulled into a comatose slumber, the judicial branch of government has worked tirelessly like a thief in the night pilfering and corrupting our system of justice destroying one child at a time until it has become a disgraceful scourge on our society.

Thomas Jefferson has warned:
(Quote) “As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam, so judges should be withdrawn from their bench, whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution.”

Frederick Douglas has warned:
(Quote) “Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact
amount of injustice and wrongdoing which will be imposed on them; and these
will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."  

Carl Schurz’s profound statement sums up this situation we face today:
(Quote) “My country right or wrong; if right , to be kept right and if wrong, to be set right.”  

I am again asking that my state legislature take heed to the warnings of these wise men. This unbridled reign of terror being inflicted on an unsuspecting Pennsylvania citizenry and its defenseless children by a self policing out of control judiciary body of our state government must be reined in through an honest and determined legislative investigation of the Blair County Court.


                                       Affiant-Robert G. Kearns, Jr.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ___________ day of

June, 2003, by Affiant ____________________________________.

Witness my hand and official seal. ______________________________________.

My commission expires: _______________