There is an excerpt below from an article in the Nation’s oldest legal publication, the Legal Intelligencer, that is now owned by Apax Partners LLP, a UK-based private equity and venture capital firm, headquartered in London, England. It appears we are still a colony run by the monarchy. This is also probably why our court venues are still modeled by the archaic system in England, from which we supposedly separated in 1776. Our system still includes “sovereign immunity” in the form of “judicial immunity” taken from the concept that “the king can do no wrong.” So always consider your sources. That said please read on.
Pennsylvania Judge William R. Carpenter states that he appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations against the State Attorney General, because “Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.
This is evidence of the hypocrisy with which our judiciary has been operating for far too long. Judges targeted with motions for their recusals, demanded by litigants, do in fact, investigate themselves. They do not have to refer to any type of democractic process to determine if their actions violate their Judicial Canons or civil rights violations under the U.S. or PA State Constitutions. We have a self-recusal system, that was put in place by the judges themselves, and not by legislature or a public referendum. The only alternative is to complain to the Judicial Conduct Board – that is also made up of judges and lawyers.
The Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch and is in charge of criminal investigations. Therefore, Judge Carpenter has exceeded his jurisdiction in assigning a prosecutor to investigate Attorney General Kane, whose job it is to appoint prosecutors. These conflicts have been going on for decades in Pennsylvania, since the amendment to the State Constitution with Article V Section 10, whereby the courts interpreted that “administrative” self-regulation, gave them the power to block all oversight by the legislature and the public. They used this power to exempt themselves from the Open Meeting Laws in 1978.
Hopefully, the harrassment of AG Kane, will start a public dialog to address these issues, which have been denying due process, resulting in false imprisonment and extortion of assets by attorneys in collusion with judges, for decades…
AG Kane’s Case Highlights Justices’ March Arguments
Lizzy McLellan, The Legal Intelligencer March 10, 2015
Ethical issues in the public sector are set to take the stage next week as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is scheduled to hear several cases dealing with state officials—including an important one for Attorney General Kathleen Kane—as well as government agencies and funds. A court of five justices is set to hear arguments March 10 and 11 in Philadelphia.
In an expedited case that has garnered widespread attention, the justices agreed to hear Kane’s challenge to the appointment of a special prosecutor in an investigation of her office’s alleged involvement in a grand jury leak, in In re 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.
In an opinion filed by Supervising Judge William R. Carpenter, he said he appointed Thomas E. Carluccio as special prosecutor in the case after finding grounds for further investigation into allegations of a grand jury leak originating from Kane’s office. In support, Carpenter cited other cases in which special prosecutors were appointed to investigate grand jury leaks, and said he sought advisement from then-Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille.
“Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.
Documents unsealed by the Supreme Court show portions of a grand jury presentment recommending that Kane face criminal charges, and an opinion from Carpenter which said the grand jury recommended charges of perjury, false swearing, official oppression and obstruction.
Kane has maintained that she did nothing illegal, and that the possible charges are politically motivated.
Following the grand jury’s recommendations, the case was in the hands of Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman until the Supreme Court agreed to hear Kane’s argument.