05.07
The judiciary enacted rules which affect the jurisdiction of the courts. You may think that’s their business. It’s not.
The jurisdiction of the courts is the responsibility of the Legislature. The PA Constitution specifically indicates the limits to the judiciary’s rulemaking authority…
| PA Constitution Article V Section 10(c) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. |
There are people who believe that the next phrase in Article V Section 10(c) permits the judiciary to enact their rule and it immediately usurps all other law. (Perhaps if we read it backwards?)
| All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. |
That’s silly. Because that sentence only applies to ‘things’ which have survived those prior exclusionary statements. Otherwise, that phrase would have completely usurped the Legislature.
Now, back up to that other phrase just before jurisdiction.
| if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant. |
When a litigant is denied their constitutional rights by a court, the rules instruct in how to appeal to the higher court. The higher court labels the lower court decision as interlocutory and indicates their lack of jurisdiction substantiated by the procedural rule. By rule, a litigant must wait until a FINAL ORDER is issue by the lower court before any appeal will be reviewed. There are rare exceptions which are most often not applicable.
Review of the lower court decision could dismiss the entire matter and end the litigation, but instead the rules require you to endure through all processes and proceedings until every lower court decision is decided and FINAL. At that point, the review of the earlier specific issue is often moot.
Where the review by the appellate court could have served to prevent the prolonged adjudication of the matter, a defendant required to defend has had his constitutional right to liberty, and other rights denied. Should the FINAL determination by a lower court be overturned based on the previously documented issue, the Defendant has been denied constitutionally protected rights. This has occurred because of a Rule, not a Law.
The applicable rule having been demonstrated as having an unconstitutional affect, either collaterally or directly, is unconstitutional.
The rulemaking authority of the judiciary does not permit the rules to “abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant” so the rule is improperly enacted.
There is no branch of government responsible to review the constitutionality of rules enacted by the judiciary. A conflict of interest exists preventing the judiciary from any review of rules enacted under Article V Section 10(c).
It is the constitutional responsibility of General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court. The rulemaking authority of the judiciary may not “affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court“.
The right of appeal indicated in PA Constitution Article 9 provides no indication regarding interlocutory or final decision status having any affect on the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The jurisdiction of the appellate court is prevented by RULE. That RULE affecting the jurisdiction of the court has been improperly enacted by the judiciary where it “affects the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.”
SO… HOW DO WE GET THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADDRESS THE OVERREACH BY THE JUDICIARY?
(And how do you do it when ALL LAWYERS must maintain confidentiality?)
No Comment.
Add Your Comment