In 2025, American judges, including federal judges, admitted that members of their staffs were caught using artificial intelligence (AI) to draft court orders that proved to be factually inaccurate. Senate hearings confirmed this.
On December 15, 2025, patriot Carrie Hahn filed a document with a Pennsylvania court at 4:23pm. At 4:37pm, she received a PACFile email notifying her that the filing was rejected as “not permitted – subsequent applications requesting reconsideration of the prior order is not permitted (Pa.R.A.P. 2147).”
She verified that the correspondence was not recorded on the PACFile dashboard.
Somehow “Pa. R.A.P. 2147 does not exist,” she noted. “The App. for Reconsideration reference in the email (filed on 12/3) is different from what I file today which explicitly stated was not a reconsideration.”
“As a matter of law, an application to vacate a void order is not reconsideration, even if it targets the same order,” she continued. “The gate keepers of the PA Supreme Court have been hard at work obstructing justice.”
Facts in a 2014 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case, “HAHN v. WILMINGTON, TOWNSHIP LAWRENCE COUNTY, seem to support the old adage that “something is wrong” in Pennsylvania.
Hahn filed a request under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) in March 2021 for various invoices and request logs from the Wilmington Township solicitor’s office.
The Township complied only partially, providing some records with redactions and claiming no other records existed.
Hahn appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), which issued a final determination in June 2021, ordering the release of unredacted documents.
In December 2021, Hahn petitioned the trial court to enforce the OOR’s determination, indicating the Township had not complied.
The Township countered that it had provided all responsive documents and suggested Hahn’s petition was moot. But the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. They subsequently ordered the Township to provide additional unredacted records and to pay court costs.
The Township claimed to have complied with the trial court’s order. Hahn moved for reconsideration. She filed an appeal before the trial court could rule on her motion.
The case progressed to the Commonwealth Court, where Hahn challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction and the court’s appellate jurisdiction.
The issue was whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to enforce the OOR’s final determination. Another consideration was whether the appeal was moot due to the Township’s compliance.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Hahn’s petition. The appeal was moot because the Township had complied with the court’s order.
The rule was that a requester may seek enforcement of a final determination from the Office of Open Records through a civil action in mandamus in the court of common pleas.
The court noted that the action taken by Hahn met the factual prerequisites for mandamus and found that the trial court properly directed the Township to fulfill its duty to follow the OOR’s order.
Courts Kafkaesque?
“Someone must be telling lies about Joseph K. He knew he had done nothing wrong but one morning, he was arrested”. So begins a well known novel by author Franz Kafka.
The main premise revolves around the protagonist, K, who is arrested out of nowhere. Made to go through bewildering processes, without being told the reason for his conviction or making the judicial proceedings clear.
This sort of scenario is so characteristic of Kafka. Philosophers have described anything resembling his ideology with the word “Kafkaesque”.
Kafkaesque has entered the vernacular to mark out any situation that is unnecessarily complicated or draining. In this case, being forced to navigate a twisted bureaucracy.
IN GOD WE TRUST
Thanks for supporting independent true journalism with a small tip. Dodie & Jack
CLICK HERE for GREEN PASTURE BENEFITS
Use Code CLEVER10 for a 10% discount on Green Pasture products today!
☆☆☆☆☆
Books
☆☆☆☆☆
Clever Journeys 