The constitution is very clear and concise about the authority of the sheriff.

The problem arose when the Rules of Professional Conduct were enacted into law by the court, without the legislature and or the governor.

Efffective 4-1-88, there was no lawful way to prosecute injustice or judicial misconduct in Pennsylvania. The rules made it unlawful for a District Attorney or Attorney General to do so. This was intentional and deliberate – protecting the integrity of the court by mandating a conspiracy of confidentiality and ignoring their crimes.

It was made very clear in KIDS FOR CASH – when no one stopped the judge and everyone knew what he was doing was wrong. The immorality and lack of ethics demonstrated by judges and lawyers was shameful.

A fly in the ointment. The sheriff had constitutional authority to prosecute AND was not required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. SO… the judges and lawyers and courts diminished the authority of the sheriffs through litigation and case law. Basically removing all of the sheriffs constitutional power, BUT not doing it in the Constitution where people would notice.

The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county. NOT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY who usurped the power.

from the Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association
The Sheriff is empowered to appoint deputies, and the deputies have the same powers as the Sheriff when performing their duties. the Sheriff is also invested with the power of the “posse comitatus” (the power or force of the county), which is the power to call upon “the entire population of the county above the age of fifteen, which the Sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases, to aid him in keeping the peace, and in pursuing and arresting felons.”

Today, the Sheriff, like all law enforcement officers, is faced with unprecedented challenges. However, if history is a guide, there is little question that the Office of Sheriff will adapt, grow, and change to meet the needs of modern law enforcement. The Office of Sheriff is an integral part of the American law enforcement system; a descendant of an ancient and honorable tradition.

Office of Sheriff in Pennsylvania The office of the sheriff was recognized in the earliest reports of English law. Throughout history, the sheriff was recognized as the chief law enforcement officer in his shire or county. This status remains today, unless it has been changed by statutory law. The sheriff is also given authority to appoint deputies which are necessary in order to properly transact the business of his office. The requirement for training of deputy sheriffs is specifically provided by stature, i.e., the Deputy Sheriffs’ Education and Training Act (1984 P.L. 3 No.2). However, based upon a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, a deputy sheriff needs training similar to police officers to enable a deputy sheriff to enforce specific laws of Pennsylvania.

A review of statutory law provides little guidance in addressing the issue of the duties, power, and authority of a sheriff. THE PA CONSTITUTION refers to the Sheriff as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County.

Case law provides that, although a sheriff’s primary responsibilities are to the courts, the sheriff retains all arrest powers he/she had at common investigation of crime.

CASE LAW is NOT law. It is how the courts have applied the law. It can be proven that the courts acted to diminish the authority of the sheriff to avoid their own arrest for sedition, undermining the state and federal governments, abusing the power of their office under color of law, in a conspiracy where they have denied and prevented the constitutional rights of the people.

More importantly, since the sheriff retains all arrest powers he/she had at common law, he/she has the authority to enforce the criminal laws as well as the vehicle laws of Pennsylvania.

The Rules of Professional Conduct once made law included a major problem… when victimized by an injustice, the target has no escape, no equal protection under the law, and no recourse. Returning to the courts to address the court’s injustice is an exercise in futility. Unfortunately, the victim must exhaust the state courts and be further victimized until being able to file in the federal courts… where the same failure of ethics and integrity requires appeal and escalation. It is understandable that these matters usually end in homelessness, prison or suicide. It was designed to be corrupt by the American Bar Association.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is a case which is doing just that. The sacrifice of judicial integrity is embarrassing to the judicial branch of government in the state and the federal levels. They just spew back stupidity by making false, irrelevant and unsubstantiated and unsupported statements. And the next level of accountability does the same.

scumbagjudgeThe issue is fully documented on the court record. Common Pleas Court. Superior Court. PA Supreme Court. Eastern District Court. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Even a cursory review of the Challenge and the supporting cases demonstrate the problem AND THE DELIBERATE FAILURE OF THE COURTS TO ADDRESS THE INJUSTICE WITHIN THE JUDICIARY.

The victim has no choice but to persevere and continue to pursue the case in higher courts… with each court shamefully acting by embarrassing itself in their opinions and briefs. The courts clearly demonstrate their lack of any ethics, morals or integrity and their complete disdain for the US Constitution.

The Challenge is now heading before the US Supreme Court and the US Congress. The ABA undermined the judiciary and usurped the power of the legislatures in every state and federally. JUSTICE IS COMING

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: