Below is only one example of opinions and judgments filed on the record in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, that appears to be written by Joseph D. Seletyn Esq, who indicates his title only as “Prothonotary.” I have found several other similar documents on the record . Who is this man and what authority does he have to be making life-altering decisions? While Chief Counsel of the Judicial Conduct Board, Robert Graci, claims that the Order is just certified ad filed by this person, as these documents are signed, it appears as if he wrote it. There is nothing to refute this. It clearly is not signed by any judge. No one is accountable for the decision besides a prothonotary employee.
I find this very disturbing. I would think that all citizens would find this equally outrageous. In my own experience, over the last eight years of being trapped in the courts, I have had appeals at this court continually quashed “per curiam,” which means they were not “eligible” for appeal.
In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously. In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision, but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed. However, most orders are issued without any justification at all.
Watch this video produced by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. It is littered with inconsistencies and vagueness, as to the duties of the law students and clerks that work in what is known as the “Central Legal Staff.”
It appears that this has been a hoax on the public. This is not in any way acceptable. It is a good example of the effect of judges policing themselves. There is simply no oversight and no accountability in our courts. It is evidence as to why the court rules should not be enacted and interpreted unilaterally by the Judicial Branch, without legislation or the “consent of the governed.” I can see no provision in this rule below, for staff to act in place of judges. The courts have been seriously overstepping their jurisdiction to make secret decisions such as this.
Title 210 – Appellate Procedure CHAPTER 65. OPERATING PROCEDURES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT –65.7. Central Legal Staff. Central Legal Staff is an office of the Court created for the purpose of assisting the Court in reviewing and processing motions, preparing memos for the Court as directed, screening cases, certifying cases to advise the Court of apparent conflicts, preparing a newsletter to inform the Court of recent Supreme and Superior Court decisions, and accepting such other responsibilities as may be assigned by the Court or the President Judge.
In June 2013, I was given a meeting with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board. They invited me to resubmit two complaints that were again dismissed; however, 30 days later, the judge recused. Her discipline is in the 2013 Annual Report of the Judicial Conduct Board. I know they are referring to her because it is almost verbatim to my complaint, where both cited that she failed for years, to report the disposition of my long overdue emergency motions, according to PA R.C.P. Rule 703.
Thanks to this judicial misconduct, that went unpunished, there has been no appellate review of my case in eight years. Although the Conduct Board was negligent in not acting on the first complaint four years ago, I was informed by Chief Counsel Robert Graci, that the Board has no mechanism for restitution, for the massive amount of financial damage that resulted.
I now have an application for a King’s Bench Petition, my second, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which I am sure will be quashed before review, as have all of my other valid complaints of civil rights violations. The likelihood that they are being dismissed by other than a judge, has me even more livid.
The “independent” judiciary, is in reality a “rogue” judiciary that is operating as a crime syndicate. Judicial immunity, self-regulation, coupled with unregulated attorney hourly billing and the human condition, is just an invitation for racketeering. Judges and lawyers clearly cannot police themselves and make their own rules.
Governor Shapp saw this impending decay of the justice system and tried to stop it. The Supreme Court needs to review two items – 42 Title § 1703 – which the Supreme Court Justices struck down as unconstitutional in 1978- exempting itself from the Open Meeting Laws. The other is 482 PA 522 (1978), which is letter that the Supreme Court Justices wrote to the Governor, declaring themselves outside of public and legislative oversight.
As Thomas Jefferson predicted in the 1800’s – “judicial review,” which is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary, has been a disaster. It is the judiciary which needs to be under review of the other two branches of government. This is not a democracy- it is an oligarchy. Having the oldest Supreme Court in the country, at over 300-years, in this state, has just given it that much more time to decay. We are way ahead of the rest of the country in that respect.
118total visits,3visits today