I raised a violation of the officers Statutory Due Process violation that occurred during the incident in question. The officer(under oath) stated that the specific statute that I was referring to(the one that gave the officer the authority to tow my vehicle) "Only applied to Cities of First Class such as Philadelphia." I argued that it applied to the whole state and the clause that applies to "cities of first class" is the very last clause of the statute. The judge took the officers side and ruled against me in a clear and biased manner. He showed me that cops can break the law and have zero accountability. I appealed his ruling and the next judge(paperwork said Shurtlef but it didn't look like him) stated in open court on the record that he didn't care about Due Process arguments. He stated that I only appealed one part of my argument and I showed that my appeal included and argument against the officer violating my Due Process and the judge changed to another reason why he doesn't want to hear what I have to say and why it doesn't matter in his courtroom. I even requested the court transcript from the reporter by sending and email to the court reporter. I was told that I needed to provide the requested transcript on a form and provide all of the information and payment. I informed her that I was granted In Forma Pauperis for my appeal and that I am not responsible for the fees if they are used to further my case. I have also since looked into it and have discovered that my email had the necessary information required to constitute a proper lawful request. The office with the information requested is supposed to fill out the form from your information. The duty is not on the people to follow policies of the court that violate the RTKL or FOIA. It is my belief that it is lazy public servants that do not like to actually earn their check. I also believe that our county might be largely engaging in a conspiracy to deprive the public from their rights for profit. I have lost all faith in our legal system when they openly deny protected rights on the record. Since I have no money for a lawyer, I have access to a fair chance. I go to the courthouse and ask them anything about what I can do, they can't give advice. "Talk to a lawyer, we can't help you." essentially only allowing real proper justice to the ones that can afford to pay the fee. Legal Knowledge: Pa Title 75 §6309.2 is very clear. I only ask one question: If the "risk to public safety" that allowed the officer to immediately tow my vehicle (without providing me the mandatory 24-hour immobilization for me to see a magistrate and fix the issue before seizure of my private property) was me driving it unregistered, why does the statute not just say tow immediately? why does it give an opportunity to fix any problems? someone please explain that to me. if they immobilized my car, there was no threat. No liquids were falling, no sharp edges, no impedance of traffic or in anyway way. The officer retaliated because I threatened to sue one of his officers for harassment and false claims. Fairness & Impartiality: He was clearly biased when he took the officers interpretation of 6309.2 as fact and ignored me completely. The judge also collects a check from the same entity that benifits if I am found guilty. Judicial Temperament: He got angry with me when I tried to prove my point and ignored the facts from my side. I was not treated with respect. I was treated like property. Timeliness: His office will do everything last minute