PETITION
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF
JUDGE WILLIAM HENRY,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
JEFFERSON 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 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,
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 William Henry, Common Pleas Court Judge of Jefferson County,
Pennsylvania. The statements made in this Affidavit are based on my
personal knowledge.
(4.)
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.
(5.)
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.
(6.)
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.
(7.)
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.
(8.)
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.
(9.)
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.
(10.)
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):
(11.)
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).
(12.)
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.
(13.)
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.
(14.)
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].
(15.)
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.
(16.)
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).”
(17.)
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)]
Commentary
Disciplinary measures may include reporting a judge’s or lawyer’s misconduct to an appropriate disciplinary body.
(19.)
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 ).
(20.)
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.
(21.)
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.
(22.)
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.
(23.)
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).
(24.)
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)
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 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.
(25.)
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.
(26.)
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.
(27.)
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).
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.
(28.)
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.
(29.)
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.
(30.)
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.
(31.)
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.
(32.)
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.
(33.)
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.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
____________________________
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: _______________