“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”
U.S. Supreme Court Opinion -MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
For too long, the Pennsylvania Rules Committees have been allowed to twist and pervert the procedures to obstruct citizens access to hearings and jury trials.
The rules need to be reviewed by the legislature as to their constitutionality – greedy lawyers are concocting procedures purely to rip-off the public –especially pro selitigants. I know of no pro se litigants that have … Continue Reading ››
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee: My name is Roger Pilon. I am a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies. I want to thank Chairman Hyde of the committee and Chairman Coble of the subcommittee for their invitations to me to testify on the important issue of "Judicial Misconduct and Discipline."
The Legal Intelligencer has just reported that the head of the Right to Know office has been reinstated in Pennsylvania. New Governor Tom Wolf had removed him as soon as he was elected this year, on a campaign platform of government transparency. This ruling obviously is related to incriminating cell phone records being released in Centre County that exposed improper communications between two judges and a district attorney.
What the majority of Americans may not understand is how dangerous the doctrine of judicial review is, which has allowed … Continue Reading ››
Pastor Manning (black) describes how black people have never built a city in all of Africa, due to low IQ, or Laziness. Though incorrect in saying white men...
The below case regarding a current employer being accused of retaliating for a whistleblower's past employer (from the Legal Intelligencer article of May 26, 2015,) has the potential to set precedent that can be used outside of whistleblower actions. However, the allegations may not go quite far enough, as currently when you sue an employer for discrimination, the federal courts immediately post it on their website. The implication here is that the courts themselves are guilty of creating this situation.
As most employers run background checks by googling an applicants name, it can … Continue Reading ››
