PETITION
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,
PETITIONER:
__________________________________________
ROBERT G. KEARNS, JR.
RR. # 3 BOX
254A1
HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA
(814) 696-3022
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR IMPEACHMENT
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
) ss.
COUNTY OF BLAIR )
(1.)
I, Robert G. Kearns, Jr., being duly sworn, upon oath, do hereby depose and state as follows:
(2.)
I am a legal resident of Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania.
(3.)
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.
(4.)
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.
(5.)
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.
(6.)
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.
(7.)
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.
(8.)
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.
(9.)
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.
(10.)
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.
(11.)
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.
(12.)
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.
(13.)
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.
(14.)
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."
(15.)
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)]
(16.)
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)].
(17.)
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)].
(18.)
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)].
(19.)
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.
(20.)
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.
(21.)
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)].
(22.)
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.
(23.)
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.
(24.)
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.
(25.)
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)].
(26.)
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.
(27.)
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.
(28.)
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.
(29.)
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)
CHILDREN AND MINORS.
CHAPTER 53 - CUSTODY
SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL PROVISIONS
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
children.)
.
§ 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.
(30.)
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.
(31.)
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.
(32.)
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).
(33.)
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.
Citations
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.
(34.)
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.
(35.)
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.
(36.)
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.
(37.)
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.
(38.)
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.
(39.)
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.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
____________________________
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: _______________