The Constitution guarantees every citizen equal access to justice, but that promise is meaningless, if judges and court officials refuse to uphold their duties. This stark realization drove me to file judicial conduct complaints against two federal judges and the Clerk of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. What began as an attempt to challenge Pennsylvania’s restrictive public records law devolved into a systematic effort by the judiciary to evade constitutional review, culminating in procedural irregularities that have irreparably compromised my right to a fair appeal.
The misconduct started in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson and District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson employed tactics that delayed, dismissed, and ultimately obstructed my constitutional claims. Over ten months, I filed 25 motions. Of the 19 key rulings, every one favored the government respondents. Carlson improperly raised procedural issues like venue transfer without cause, granted undue leniency to government respondents, and ignored or mischaracterized my substantive objections. Wilson compounded these issues by failing to conduct a required de novo review of my objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), instead rubber-stamping Carlson’s recommendations. Their actions left my constitutional claims unanswered, demonstrating a troubling pattern of judicial bias and procedural evasion.
When I appealed these rulings to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, I hoped for a fair opportunity to present my case. Instead, the misconduct escalated. Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk of the Third Circuit, issued an unauthorized directive staying the briefing schedule and listing my case for summary disposition—a procedural step normally requiring judicial oversight. Despite my timely objections and motions to retract this directive, no judges have been assigned to the appeal, and the court has failed to respond for over 30 days. This inaction perpetuates the procedural irregularities that began in the district court and now infect the appellate process.
The connection between the district court’s actions and the Third Circuit’s inaction is clear: the judiciary, at both levels, has avoided engaging with the constitutional issues at the heart of my case. The procedural barriers erected by Carlson and Wilson have now been reinforced by the clerk’s overreach and the appellate court’s failure to intervene. Together, these actions convey a stark message: the Constitution is powerless, if those tasked with enforcing it choose, instead, to obstruct it.
My case challenges the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s public records law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, with implications for government transparency nationwide. The judiciary’s resistance to this challenge reflects a broader failure to uphold the principles of accountability and justice. Judges and court officials are not above the law—they are bound by it. Yet, when procedural shenanigans and systemic delays prevent constitutional claims from being heard, the judiciary undermines its role as the guardian of constitutional rights.
Filing these complaints is not just about addressing the wrongs in my case; it is about confronting a pattern of judicial misconduct that threatens the integrity of our courts. The Constitution depends on judges who are willing to uphold its principles, even when doing so challenges government actors or exposes institutional failures. Without accountability, the judiciary risks becoming complicit in eroding the very rights it was designed to protect. My complaints aim to restore that accountability and ensure that the Constitution remains more than just words on paper.
#ShowMeTheBallots