The Commonwealth Court was established in 1968 and is unique to Pennsylvania. It is one of Pennsylvania's two statewide intermediate appellate courts. The Commonwealth Court is primarily responsible for matters involving state and local governments and regulatory agencies. It also acts as a trial court when lawsuits are filed by or against the Commonwealth.
And if the case started out in Commonwealth Court, i.e, the court was acting as a trial court, that means a state agency filed the suit - perhaps Dept. of Treasury or Revenue? The AG's office? The plot thickens.
Basically it is outrageous enough for a court to hide the identities of an entity (business or charity)which would have to be registered with the state, but to hide the identity of the state or governmental agency as well? It is a very dangerous precedent. Separate rules of court for the rich, powerful & politically connected? Talk about the One Percent! I don't think it is remotely comparable to protecting the identities of minor parties in court proceedings.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20101123.html
Should Juvenile Plaintiffs Who Fear Reprisals Be Able to Keep Their Identities Secret? The Question Divides the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
By JULIE HILDEN
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
On March 2d of this year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court judge's ruling that juvenile plaintiffs in a controversial lawsuit could not remain anonymous. The juveniles' attorney then sought en banc rehearing (that is, review by a larger panel of the Circuit's judges).
On November 8th, en banc rehearing was denied. But there were two dissents to the denial of en banc rehearing-- penned by two of the Circuit's most well-respected judges, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Judge Stephen Reinhardt. These dissents opined that the juveniles' identities should have been kept secret, as they had asked.
Interestingly -- and ironically -- anonymous Internet threats against the young plaintiffs were among the pieces of evidence that convinced Kozinski and Reinhardt that the plaintiffs' names should not be disclosed. The verbal attacks against the juvenile plaintiffs were -- and have remained -- anonymous, but the juvenile plaintiffs themselves cannot continue to hide their identities, according to the courts' rulings.
In this column, I'll consider the arguments of both the original appellate panel, and Judges Kozinski and Reinhardt, and contend that the anonymity issue should have been reheard en banc.
Talk about a secret government! It is even worse and more hidden from public view than the storied Star Chamber proceedings in merry olde England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law who sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (ca. 1641), and was composed of Privy Councillors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
Court sessions were held in public, although witnesses and defendants were examined in secret.[1] Defendants were given prior notice of the charges against them, and had the right to be represented by an attorney.[2] Evidence was presented in writing. Over time, the Star Chamber evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and its courts
And finally it is antithetical to the public accountability and transparency required by the Rule of Law:
http://worldjusticeproject.org/what-rule-law
What is the Rule of Law?
Derived from internationally accepted standards, the World Justice Project’s definition of the rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
The
government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
The laws are
clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is
accessible, fair, and efficient.
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
Where is the ACLU when you need them? What's next? The friggin' Spanish Inquisition? Well, the U.S. has tolerated Guantanamo, Abu Graib, abandonment of habeas corpus, torture and extraordinary rendition. What was that quaint song about Land of the Free?
= new reply since forum marked as read