A Terroristic Divorce

Pennsylvania Superior Court demonstrated their fraud within their first two paragraphs of the Opinion affiming the trial court in the Kane case.

When writing the truth could have been easy, honest, ethical, moral, constitutional, just, … Judge Lazarus decided to take a different path. The path that no one might ever read the opinion she authoered in the Kane case.

She seemd like an interested, aware, understanding, cognizant, and learned person at the January 2018 Argument appearance.

Those words do not match the stupidity written in the Opinion.

By the time she had written the first two paragraphs, it is clear that she would make stuff up. There’s nonapparent reason or motivation for her actions.

In para 1:

After careful review, we affirm, in part on the basis of the trial court’s well reasoned opinion.

CAREFUL REVIEW IS A LIE. IT MUST BE A LIE. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST ANY REVIEW OCCURRED.

In para 2:

The matter inplicates constitutonal issues, the rule of law, and a fundamental tenet underlying our legal system – the truth and sanctity of testimony under oath. [Syntax: Truth, truth, misdirection, stupidity.]

Careful review of the testimony of Josh Morrow would indicate he told three or four ‘truths’. Morrow also demanded immunity for changing his story. He got it. Even on the night before his testimony, he threatened to not speak unless he received immnity.

There cannot be 3-4 differing and differing stories from the same person/perspective which are TRUTH.

“The truth and sanctity of testimony under oath” has got to be the most ridiculous and illogical made up thing.

The only reason to logocally put it in the opinion would be to demonstrate the acceptance of the lies told by Josh (probably at each inquiry.) but without being responsible for their actions.

IT MAY BE FRAUDULENT FOR A JUDGE TO MAKE UP THE CONCEPT, …

THE SIMPLE FRAUD INDICATING “After Careful Review” when there could not have been any review of Morrows different truths.

But, it’s a perjury trial. PERJURY is not telling the truth under oath. The Superior Court suggests truth is truth, and lies told under oath are truth.

Accepting the preposterous position presented, there could not have been any perjury.

The Lies are oathy. SO, THE COURT CONSIDERS THEM TRUTH.

Its been a crime for a long time…. but there seems to be very limited records indicating any perjury being prosecuted for it in Montgomery County.

1. County Commissioner James Matthews

2. Gabriele Drexler

3. Kathleen Kane

Only three?

Matthews was politically motivated. Drexler had reported being haraased and stalked by a police officer.

As disgraceful as it can be to author this stupidity, TWO OTHER JUDGES CONCURRED.

After those first two paragraphs, the true misdirection commences. All of the usual techniques appear… Or do not appear?

Two words. JURISDICTION and CONFIDENTIALITY.

TWO WORDS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT.

NECESSARY WORDS. If theres no jurisdiction, the judge lacks authority. No authority, no power, all orders are void ab ab initio.

NEXT, you may notice the failure to address the issues listed. Logic could accept the simple neglect. Another word for not disclosing and not being able to explain or substantiate is CONFIDENTIALITY.

CONFIDENTILITY may even prevent any indication of the existence of the missing information. Confidentiality may mandate non-disclosure that there is confidential information withheld.

Yes, the convoluted Confidentiality adversely affects the infegrity of the judiciary. There has been so much stealth rhetoric and disinformation by the Judiciary.

The next 7-8 pages in the opinion appear to be BAD FAITH RHETORICAL ARGUMENTATION. The information has no purpose but to distract tbe reader from noticing the flaws, fraud and deceptive writing style.

The specious statements may sound good or amusing or pleasant at first glance, but in fact it is useless or meaningless.

And one other thing, ALL references used to support / substantiate the information relies on other court opinons. There is no supporting Rule of Law provided.

You know, when it comes to jurisdiction, authority can only be provided to the judiciary by LAW. The General Assembly has reaponsibilty for jurisdiction. They also “dont get involved with issues that involve the judiciay.”. [This is the place where the ball was dropped.]

Next up will blow your mind. Rules and Laws.