FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF

                                    JUDGE  HIRAM A. CARPENTER,
                                    COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

                                    BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

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 Hiram A. Carpenter,  Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Blair 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 Hiram A. Carpenter of malfeasance 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 violative of statutory and constitutional protections and liberties; and,

When warranted, to indict said Honorable Hiram A. Carpenter for malfeasance 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 February, 2002.

                                  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 Hiram A. Carpenter, Common Pleas Court Judge of Blair County, Pennsylvania. The statements made in this Affidavit are based on my personal knowledge.

I am petitioning the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to redress grievances against Judge Hiram A. Carpenter, who has misused his office and abused his power to criminally conceal and abet the abuse of a minor child by Blair County Children and Youth Services and other court appointed appendages; and to illegally and unconstitutionally prevent and preclude this Petitioner from frequent and continuing contact and a family relationship with his natural, biological daughter.

I am the Plaintiff 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.

Judge Hiram A. Carpenter was appointed to the above referenced case in May 1998,  pursuant to the filing of a petition for a De Novo hearing  filed by and through this respondent's former attorney, Donald Speice.

Judge Carpenter's tenure as presiding judge in the above matter began in May 1998 spanning to January 2002.   In August 1998, Judge Hiram Carpenter held the first of what began a strung out series of evidentiary hearings.  After a lengthy interim period, the evidentiary hearings resumed in February 1999.  On February 3, 1999, the parties attorneys entered into a necessitated shared physical and legal custody agreement due to the severe emotional regression of the litigant's minor child daughter.  On February 4, 1999, Judge Carpenter signed into order the agreement.
On or about July 1999 this Petitioner asked his attorney to file a Custody Modification Petition for full primary custody of his daughter for reasons not relevant to this matter hereto.  In anticipation of additional hearings,  this Petitioner asked his attorney to have produced,  transcripts of the February 1999 hearings.  Upon this Petitioners review of those transcripts he and other witnesses discovered numerous modifications, deletions and insertions of material statements, primarily in the testimony of Children and Youth Service caseworkers.  The errors were so egregious there was no doubt they were the work of a saboteur.  (For example; deleted from the record, ---CYS caseworker supervisor Kay Englebret testified and made reference to this Petitioner ( father) and his entire family as being religious fanatics;  radicals, and persistent.  

Being fearful and suspicious that any further adjudication by Judge Hiram Carpenter would lead to the judicial injury of this Petitioner and his daughter, he requested  his attorney to have Judge Carpenter recuse himself from further involvement with his case.  

On October 26, 1999,  a Petition for Custody Modification was filed by this Petitioner's attorney.  Responsively,  a Blair County judge,  Norman Callan,  scheduled a pre-hearing conference for January 2000.  
For reasons more fully set forth below this Petition for Impeachment resulted from Judge Hiram Carpenter's numerous violations of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct,  violations of Pennsylvania Criminal Code which encompass tampering with public records, criminal conspiracy, and subornation of perjury, inter alia.

By mid March 2000, my daughter was nearing a complete mental breakdown,  which incited this Petitioner to file a pro se Emergency Relief Petition.  This time Judge Carpenter responded by setting a pre-hearing date for March 31, 2000.

The March 31, pre-hearing resulted in several things;  (1.) The exchange of several documents for exhibits, and a witness list for an evidentiary hearing, and (2.) Five days for litigants to prepare a case and subpoena a proximate dozen professional witness to attend the evidentiary hearings starting on the short notice date of April 5.  

As scheduled the evidentiary hearings commenced on April 5, 2000 and concluded on May 16, 2000. By the closing of the second hearing on April 6  the testimony of several professional witnesses was so preposterously shocking that Judge Carpenter openly made an observational and perceived prejudicial statement on the record such as "Mr. Kearns I am beginning to grasp what had been going on here.  I can see that the doctors were not listening to you.  I see the system has not treated you fairly.  I know you have no respect for the system and you probably don't have any respect for me either."

In preparation of the scheduled hearings this Petitioner lawfully compelled the testimony of numerous witnesses to testify through the issuance of subpoena duces tecum. The first hearing of April 5,  Judge Carpenter excused the subpoenaed witness Dr. Nancy D. Baker court appointed counselor for litigant's daughter from testifying citing she was too ill to take the witness stand.  Judge Carpenter's capricious logic in this instance seemed to be that she was too ill to give testimony but not too ill to continue the ongoing weekly counseling of  litigant's daughter.  He further concluded that the court accumulated enough testimony from Doctor Baker from previous hearings years earlier and he did not believe she could offer anything new or relevant to the matter. Another subpoenaed witness to testify on April 5 was a Children and Youth Services caseworker.  In a matter of five minutes into her testimony it came to this Petitioner's attention that she willfully and defiantly failed to bring any case file reports to the witness stand as was directed through the subpoena.  When the witness was confronted about the dereliction Judge Carpenter never raised an eyebrow and inappropriately defused the matter by offering that the witness may simply supply him with the reports so he may review them privately in  chambers.  On April 6 another expert witness (a psychiatrist) who this Petitioner subpoenaed to appear and produce his records testified via telecommunication that he could not answer some questions with certainty since he failed to bring his records with him nor did he provide the court and litigants with copies of those records.  On April 9 an incident had arisen that warranted this Petitioner to subpoena the Defendants mother on April 15 to testify at the scheduled April 20 hearing.   In response to the subpoena Defendant wrote a letter to Judge Carpenter requesting that her mother be excused from testifying in the matter.  The Defendant further bargained with the court that she will substitute a brother to testify in place of the subpoenaed mother.  On April 20 the Defendant's mother who was properly subpoenaed by this Petitioner to testify brazenly failed to appear in court and the Defendant resubmitted her proposal to Judge Carpenter that Defendants brother will testify as an alternative for him excusing Defendants mother from taking the witness stand.   Judge Carpenter granted Defendant's request to substitute this Petitioner's subpoenaed witness with Defendant's witness of choice that better suited her agenda.   Judge Carpenter's  bending or relaxing of the rules was in violation of  the (Rules of Civil Procedure}{Business of Courts}Rule 234.3--Notice To Attend, Notice to Produce) sections (a) and (c). and (Rule 234.5 Failure to Comply with Subpoena, Notice to attend Or Notice to Produce)  sections (a) and (b)  and violations of {Codes of Judicial Conduct}[Canon 1.]   [Canon 2.--section A.] and  [Canon 3.--section A. subsection (1)]

At the conclusion of the May 16, 2000, hearing Judge Carpenter directed that the parties enter into the record any pertinent documents in support of their respective cases.  Accordingly, the new court appointed guardian ad litem accommodated Judge Carpenter and distributed the copies of case exhibits between the parties.  Approximately two weeks later this Petitioner discovered as part of the exhibit exchange,  the GAL performed a slight-of- hand magic trick by  incorporating an unverified and unapproved doctors report into CYS's daily casework sheets (which in themselves were subpoenaed and never produced as exhibit during the hearings nor did the parties have opportunity to review those files or cross examine witnesses as to the document's contents or conclusions, thereof).  The daily case work sheets and doctor's report were not a part of the record when Children and Youth Services testified on April 5, or April 20 and were never moved into evidence by any  party of record.  The obvious conclusion is Judge Carpenter and the GAL colluded to unlawfully establish a semblance of credence to CYS testimony by willfully, deceitfully and stealthily entering the CYS work sheets and accompanying doctor's report,  "produced after the fact,"  into the record as evidence without the knowledge of this Petitioner.   Judge Carpenter's actions denied this Petitioner Due Process of Law and violated rules of submitting evidence as in Pa.R.E. Rule 101. paragraph (a). and Pa. R.E. Rule 102, and Petitioner's right to object to the evidence prescribed in Pa.R.E. Rule 103 paragraph (1) ); and demonstrate clear violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,  [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A],  [Canon 3--section A--subsection (1)].    

As part of the defendant mother's case, she was entering into the record a letter that this Petitioner's daughter allegedly wrote.  When the GAL asked if the parties had any objection to the letter, this Petitioner asked that the letter's authenticity be verified by his daughter first.  All parties had agreed to the stipulation.  After Judge Carpenter and the GAL "privately interviewed" litigant's daughter in chambers, Judge Carpenter asked if there were any objections to entering the letter into the record as evidence.  Having assumed the letter was verified by the litigant's daughter as hers, this Petitioner agreed.  The following day it came to this Petitioner's attention the letter was not confirmed or verified by his daughter. On May 17, 2000, this Petitioner sent Judge Hiram Carpenter a letter objecting to his daughter's alleged hand written letter being entered into the record as evidence.  When this Petitioner received the final custody order dated July 14, 2000, Judge Carpenter used  the contents of Petitioner's objection letter negatively and adversely against him and attached the physical letter into his order as evidence "albeit after the record had been declared closed."  Judge Carpenter's actions denied this Petitioner Due Process of Law and violated Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence prescribed in Pa.R.E. Rule 101. paragraph (a). Pa.R.E. - Rule 102; and denied Petitioner right to object to the evidence set forth in Pa.R.E. - Rule 103. paragraph (1);  and denied this Petitioner's right as pro se counsel to cross-examine 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)].    
On June 20, 2000, a hearing unrelated to the custody litigation was held.  Judge Carpenter expressly stated on record that the issue before him was narrow and the custody issues will not be raised, since the record has been marked "closed."  In Judge Carpenter's order of July 14, 2000,  he violated procedural guidelines and his own declarations of June 20 and incorporated testimony from the June 20 hearing into the record of the custody proceedings and his final custody order.  Judge Carpenter entered evidence into the custody record and subsequent order after the record was "closed"  in blatant violation of Petitioner's right's to Due Process of  Law and Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, Pa.R.E. Rule 101. paragraph (a). Pa.R.E. - Rule 102.,  and right to object to evidence set forth in Pa.R.E - Rule 103. Paragraph (1); and Code of Judicial Conduct,  [Canon  1],   [Canon 2--section A],  [Canon 3--section A --subsection (1)].    

On July 15, 2000, this petitioner received an order from Judge Carpenter dated July 14, 2000, that ran awry from  legal maxim or human decency.  Judge Carpenter's untimely filing of his opinion and order was in violation of  [Pennsylvania Code Chapter 1915.  Actions for Custody, Partial Custody And Visitation of Minor Children--Rule 1915.4 Prompt Disposition of Custody Cases].  Additionally the opinion and order were in direct contradiction of Superior Court rulings and case law which have upheld that the child's short term happiness must be considered even with the chance of the possibility that it may lead to long term happiness.  Instead, Judge Carpenter reversed the Superior Court's rationale citing that although the father's daughter may be happy with him short term, he must consider the long term which only the mother is willing to achieve through mental hospitals, psychotropic medications and counseling.  Judge Carpenter further contradicted judicial maxims that no law shall be enacted that will cause injury to a person, yet he acknowledges in his July 14, order that by removing the father from his daughter's life the "court" will expect to cause the child further mental regression. Absent just cause, Judge Carpenter limited Petitioner's contact with his daughter and ordered that he may engage in supervised visits with his daughter one hour per week.  In the same order Judge Carpenter set out to ostracize that minuscule contact with Petitioner's daughter by issuing a threat punitive in nature putting the father in catch-22.  Judge Carpenter wrote if any reports from supervised visits or other collateral reports as a result of those visits indicate this Petitioner has caused his daughter emotional difficulties he will eliminate the father's parental involvement with his daughter permanently.

During the period in which Judge Hiram Carpenter presided over the above case, he made numerous findings of fact completely unsupported or uncorroborated by the evidence; ignored and subornated blatant perjury; entertained inconsistent and contradictory testimony from professional expert witnesses; 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; entered an order which violated Petitioner's constitutional right to free association and his liberty interest in his family relations;  among other offenses.  

Recognizing that Judge Carpenter's July 14 order lacked and abandoned congruity with the evidence in the record;  this Petitioner filed a timely notice of  appeal on August 9, 2000, before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and giving written notice to the court reporters to produce transcripts.  ( It should be noted that this Petitioner verbally attempted to acquire hearing transcripts from court reporters on several occasions beginning as early as May 17, 2000). On or about August 14 this Petitioner was informed by one of the court reporters that she just resigned her position with Judge Carpenter after producing only 40 pages of  the first transcript.  Following her resignation came a litany of delays and excuses for transcript production that had eventually accumulated to an additional 108 delinquent days.  Judge Carpenter reasoned with Superior Court that the delays were simply a matter of understaffed reporting personnel.  Judge Carpenter's actions in paragraph 21 are violative of  Code of Judicial Conduct,  [Canon 3- section B, subsection (1) and (2)]; and  Rules of Appellate Procedure. [Rule 1922. Transcription of  Notes of Testimony--paragraph (a)].

Upon the completion of each hearing transcript during the 108-day delinquency period, this Petitioner would purchase and review each transcript in search of specific material statements made by the various professional expert witnesses.  In every instance this Petitioner, his family, and other court room observers were finding the transcribed testimony had been sabotaged with egregious deletions, revisions, and amplification of old testimony; or insertions of new testimony.

By the end of the 108-day delinquency period this Petitioner had a completed compilation of hearing transcripts that in effect expunged the rampant court sanctioned abuse of his child and the damaging and self-incriminating evidence of Children and Youth Services, and other professional witnesses.  The discovered material and factual "errors" or adjustments were so extensive they had filled 29 type written pages tallying to several hundred corrections.

Prior to filing a petition to correct the record this Petitioner had brought to the attention of the court reporters his objections to numerous material and factual errors he found in the transcripts.  One court reporter advised this Petitioner that she would independently and privately review the audio tapes of the proceedings and could make any corrections to transcripts that this Petitioner may indicate to be in error.  This court reporter further suggested she would take responsibility of reviewing and correcting the work product of Judge Carpenter's new court reporter who allegedly transcribed testimony from the electronic recordings produced by the court reporter who resigned.  On December 20, 2000, this Petitioner telephoned the court reporter complaining of additional transcript discrepancies in the final hearing transcript and requested that she disclose the audio tapes of the hearings for this Petitioners review.  In turn this Petitioner was put on hold until the court reporter discussed his request with Judge Hiram Carpenter.  When the court reporter returned to the phone she insisted that the transcripts were totally accurate and neither she nor Judge Carpenter ever heard of disclosing audio tapes for  review for the purpose of correcting transcripts; and this Petitioner will not be given access to the tape recordings regardless of any motions that he may file with the court to correct the record.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure [Chapter 19.--Preparation and Transmission of Record and Related Matters]. [Rule 1922. Transcription of Notes of Testimony-- subsection (a)],  this Petitioner filed a petition in the Common Pleas Court to correct the trial court record with the benefit of having the court reporter disclose the audio tapes of the procedures for review.  By court order of January 17, 2001, Judge Carpenter denied the Petition to Correct Transcript; rejected Petitioner's contention that  the record contained errors; and denied the disclosure of the hearing audio tapes, (which is a public record and routinely disclosed upon request of  litigants or counsel of record) see exhibit A, and directed that the case file be immediately transported to Superior Court with no corrections to be made.  In part Judge Carpenter justified his refusal to correct the record claiming that his July 14 final order did not contain any citations from the hearing transcripts. [It should be noted that a petition to correct transcripts normally should include specific statements in error, which Petitioner did not include for obvious reasons.  Due to the court reporters uncooperative position in this matter and given the voluminous criminal alterations in the transcript, this Petitioner's citing of any specific transcript error would have been futile and snubbed by Judge Carpenter simply ruling in favor of the court reporter's alleged corrections or certification of the record as accurate].  A ruling such as this would have severely prejudiced and clouded Petitioner's position before the Superior Court. In essence Judge Carpenter and his court reporters colluded to cover each others back to conceal the crime of altering court records. Judge Carpenter's adversarial and confrontational  actions violated Petitioner's rights to Due Process of Law and Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 1931. [Transmission of The Record--Time for Transmission section (A) ].  Rule 1922. [ Certification and Filing section (C)]; and Code of Judicial Conduct [Canon 1.] [Canon 2.-section (A)] and  [Canon 3.-Administrative Responsibilities section (B.), paragraphs (1) and (2)].

The post hearing actions of Judge Carpenter were violative of this Petitioner's Constitutional Due Process Rights and state appellate procedure rules.  By design his January 17 court order was an artifice to stone wall this petitioner's legal rights and processes; cover up the crime of record tampering and criminal conspiracy to commit the act; and to ultimately undermine, impede, and circumvent this Petitioner's chances of a successful appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.  

Two days prior to Judge Carpenter's January 17 order this Petitioner had the opportunity to examine the packed case file in the prothonotary's office poised to be transported to Superior Court.  It was discovered by this Petitioner and accompanying witness that at least two pieces of crucial physical evidence (photographs) had been stolen or purposely removed from the case file.

Evidence introduced in the above hearings prior to being tainted had clearly exposed a criminal conspiracy to eradicate this Petitioner's relationship with his daughter; and had been in the works since April 1997, when a child psychologist Dr. Nancy Baker was appointed by the court to "counsel" the litigant's daughter."  At the time of the appointment of Dr. Baker, it was established common knowledge with judges, lawyers and personnel in the Blair County Court that Dr. Baker was not only biased against fathers, but was also exhibiting symptoms of mental illnesses of her own.  Additionally, it was evidenced that Dr. Baker had intentionally misdiagnosed Petitioner's daughter's mental health and emotional condition to sway the primary custody of litigant's daughter in favor of the mother; through fraudulent and biased reports.   Through Dr. Baker's professional charisma she was able to recruit or suck into her conspiracy,  Blair County  judge, Jolene Kopriva, Children and Youth Services and a court appointed guardian ad litem.  Further, documentary and testimonial evidence presented in hearings revealed that this Petitioner's daughter was in fact violently kidnaped at knife point on the night of the family breakup.  As mandated,  Judge Carpenter  failed to report evidence of  "these crimes" discovered during litigation to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Consequently, Judge Carpenter's actions had aided and abetted the physical and emotional abuse of a child for a period of  four years.  While this Petitioner is aware that judges have self-imposed and rarely challenged broad discretion in Family Law, tampering with court records and evidence do not fall under this purview.  In making a determination that affected the health and welfare of a defenseless minor child, Judge Carpenter did not only demonstrate poor judgment by ignoring or misreading evidence,  he wantonly and callously adjusted and fabricated evidence to fashion a case record in support of his final custody order that virtually covered up the contributory child abuse and professional negligence of court appointed psychologist (Dr. Nancy Baker) and Children and Youth Services.   Judge Carpenter's divergent order violated Petitioners 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 noncustodial 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 Hiram Carpenter, 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 Carpenter committed various criminal acts in violation of Pennsylvania Code: (1.) 18 Pa C.S.A. 4911.-- tampering with public records. (2.)  18 Pa C.S.A. 4910.-- tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. (3.) 18 Pa C.S.A. 4304.-- endangering the welfare of children.  (4.) 18 Pa C.S.A. 903.-- criminal conspiracy to commit the first three.

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).      
  The judicial misconduct averred too in (paragraph 30) of this petition was sufficiently brought before the District Attorney of Blair County, Pennsylvania on January 3, 2001.  Contrary to federal law, the District Attorney inappropriately dismissed the criminal charges wholesale on January 3, citing that Judge Hiram Carpenter and his court reporters enjoy judicial immunity.  {See exhibit B}. This Petitioner raised the same allegations in a formal complaint with Pennsylvania's Judicial Conduct Board on March 26, 2001. This Board is empowered under the Pennsylvania Constitution; Article V, Section 18, to investigate the charges of judicial misconduct.  Subsequently the Board assigned complaint number 01-115, which was dismissed on July 25, 2001.  On or about July 30, this Petitioner contacted the Boards investigator Bob Garrity and questioned him as to whether the Board disclosed the audio tapes of the hearings.  He answered that this Petitioner's request for tape disclosure was made part of his investigative report, but he could only assume the Board actually reviewed the tapes.  He further stated that even if the JCB had the audio tapes they would not provide this Petitioner with a copy. It should also be noted that at no time were any witnesses or parties from those hearings interviewed.  The obvious conclusion is the JCB did no investigation of the allegations and made an all out effort through their secret proceedings to keep covered up the judicial misconduct of Judge Hiram A. Carpenter.

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.
Judge Carpenter entered a punitive and retaliatory order for supervised visitation and reducing parenting time (July 14, 2000), contrary to numerous professional witnesses observations, and contrary to weight of evidence and repeated testimony that father was appropriate with daughter at all times;  and his daughter's best behavior and emotional stability were most favorable and pronounced when in the company of her father; and in spite of compelling evidence that Mother was the cause of perceived emotional regression of the daughter while in her care or custodial abode.

Judge Carpenter'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 his altering, manipulating, and selectively weighing of evidence, ignoring of credible and tangible rebuttal evidence against allegations which were themselves not supported by evidence, and blatant statements such as "this court is done with the experimental stages in this case and I am going to remove one of the parents from the child's life."  And doing so knowing this Petitioner was never afforded equal opportunity or equal protection of the law (same as granted to the mother) to raise his daughter in a primary custodial environment where his daughter was observed as being emotionally content.  By her own testimony living with dad was where her heart desired to be. Judge Carpenter's felonious conduct and inept legal rationale exceed any definition of plain error. Judge Carpenter's conduct throughout the referenced custody proceeding demonstrates an extreme gender bias, and inability or unwillingness to correctly, impartially and fairly apply the laws of Pennsylvania, severely prejudicing this Petitioner father's standing as an active, involved parent in his daughter's life.

As a consequence of Judge Carpenter's gross mishandling of the above custody case, Petitioner's daughter, now age 14, continues to pull out her hair, has no eyelashes, and suffers daily. She is continuing extensive and aggressive mental health treatment, has virtually no contact with her father and paternal family with whom she emotionally bonded with or resembling any normal circumstances of a normal environment. After 20 months of isolation from her father she is continuing to be brainwashed,  indoctrinated and alienated against the father by the mother, and is experiencing ongoing diminished contact with her father and family. Judge Carpenter's directive to limit Petitioner's contact with his child has so been so protracted and so methodically executed,  this Petitioner's daughter stated at a supervised visit on November 5, 2001 that she feels "she is a prisoner." Judge Carpenter had legally, and morally failed to protect Petitioner's daughter in this case.

Judge Carpenter's rationale of this 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 the court appointed psychologist for her bias, malpractice and gross incompetence; (d) having protested the bias and mishandling of this custody case in front of the courthouse and news media.  

Judge Carpenter's continuing malfeasance 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 Carpenter's predatory nature on the judicial bench destroys families and people's lives and should be impeached by the Pennsylvania State Legislature immediately.

In light of the recent events taking place throughout the world and America, we must not lose our vision and principles for which America was founded, fairness and justice for all.  Letting our guard down or turning our backs to any domestic enemy acting under the color of law is a formula for a national disaster from within. Wherefore, I am humbly asking Pennsylvania's State Legislature to set a refreshing example for Pennsylvania and America by restoring and rededicating the Constitutional protections that are being trampled into the ground under the ruse of judicial process.  I am asking that 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 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

February, 2002, by Affiant ____________________________________.

Witness my hand and official seal. ______________________________________.

My commission expires: _______________