Blog

Attorney Joshua Harshberger has been representing Bruce Hexter in a legal matter that has raised significant ethical and legal questions. His involvement in a case that many argue has no legal foundation and is violating the rights of a mother and her children has brought his professional conduct into sharp focus. Below are 10 pointed questions that demand answers, especially given the potential review by a conduct board. These questions aim to uncover why Harshberger

Judge Christopher Menges is at the center of a highly controversial legal case that has now gained international attention raises serious questions about his judicial conduct. Despite overwhelming evidence suggesting that the case has no legal standing, that his decisions are infringing on the rights of vulnerable children, and that his actions may be violating legal and ethical standards, Judge Menges continues to preside over the proceedings. Below are 10 crucial questions that demand immediate

In a baffling turn of events, Bruce himself provided evidence of him lying to law enforcement officers and withholding critical proof that the children’s mother, Sara, was supposed to have custody of her children. Despite eventually being compelled by law enforcement to hand over the children, Bruce’s actions amount to multiple alleged felonies under Pennsylvania law. To add to the unusual nature of this case, Bruce reportedly included the police report detailing his own misleading

As a society, what are we doing? What are our priorities, and how have we reached a point where we seem to have lost sight of the fundamental responsibility to protect the vulnerable? The legal system, a cornerstone of justice, exists to uphold fairness and shield the weak, but when it fails to do so, who pays the price? It is the children—the very individuals who rely on us for guidance and safety—who suffer the

Sara’s case in York County, Pennsylvania, has brought to light an alarming pattern of judicial misconduct and child abuse facilitated by the court system. What began as one mother’s fight to protect her children from an abuser has evolved into a much broader issue, with people from all over the country reaching out to share their own similar experiences. These cases bear striking resemblances to Sara’s, suggesting that what is happening in York County is

When it comes to appeals, one expects clarity, logic, and adherence to the facts of the case. After all, the judiciary’s role is to provide a reasoned evaluation based on evidence and legal principles. However, in a baffling turn of events, Judge Christopher Menges delivered a response to an appeal that can only be described as incoherent, contradictory, and wholly detached from the reality of the case at hand.For anyone reviewing Judge Menges’s written response,

In a world where justice should be blind, there’s one judge who seems to have forgotten his glasses — Judge Menges. Or, as Sara’s children so aptly call him, “Mango.” And no, it’s not because he’s a fan of tropical fruit (though that would be a delightful twist). No, they call him Mango because, as they put it, “he does stupid things, so he needs a stupid name.” And honestly, can you blame them? If

For three long years, Judge Menges presided over a case that has now reached an unprecedented turning point. His failure to meet the appellate court’s deadline for a response is more than a procedural misstep—it’s a glaring acknowledgment of unresolved questions about his jurisdiction. This case, marked by vague justifications and unanswered challenges, underscores a troubling judicial pattern that has left many wondering if Menges ever truly had the authority to act.The Jurisdictional DilemmaAt the

The role of a judge is to ensure justice, protect the vulnerable, and uphold the integrity of the legal system. Yet, when patterns emerge suggesting a judge consistently prioritizes the rights of abusers over the safety of victims, particularly children, it demands public scrutiny. This is the troubling legacy of Judge Menges—a legacy built on decisions that appear to shield abusers and neglect those in need of protection.A Pattern of ConcernIn case after case, Judge

We want to take a moment to express our heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has been following Sara’s story. To know that readers in 21 different countries are engaging with these updates is both humbling and inspiring. Your attention to Sara’s journey has elevated this case to an international platform, shining a much-needed light on the truth.While we know there may not be much that can be done directly by those reading these posts, your

Sometimes, real-life drama reads like the most absurd comedy sketch. Picture this: a self-styled “Lord” (thanks to a $40 novelty certificate he probably ordered during a late-night existential crisis) files a request so ludicrous, you’d think it was part of a satirical TV show. Yes, Lord Kristoffer Hexter—convicted child sex offender—wants a psych evaluation… but not for himself. Oh no, he’s pointing fingers at the mother of the children he’s harmed. Why? Because she refuses

Sara’s case has taken another troubling turn as Judge Menges continues to defy established legal procedures and undermine the appeals process. Judge Menges has not ruled on the stay Sara filed. Instead, he has scheduled another trial—an action that raises serious questions about his adherence to judicial authority and jurisdiction. So as a result of his improper actions an emergency petition to stay has been filed with the Superior Court, Jurisdiction During Appeal: The Law

In the world of legal petitions, there are plenty of options to choose from. But one of the most powerful tools at a litigant’s disposal is the King’s Bench petition. But what exactly is a King’s Bench petition, and how does it relate to Sara’s ongoing battle?A King’s Bench petition is an extraordinary legal remedy available in certain jurisdictions, especially in Pennsylvania. It allows a party to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to intervene directly

Tomorrow, Sara returns to court, where the chaos orchestrated by Judge Menges reaches its next act. It’s a story riddled with judicial overreach, intimidation tactics, and a blatant disregard for the rights and safety of an abuse survivor. Judge Menges seems bent on punishing her for daring to fight back. This time, the stakes are higher, the intimidation more blatant, and the injustice more glaring. Let’s break it down.The Partial Stay: A Small Victory Amidst

If you’re looking for a case study on judicial bias, procedural failures, and a complete disregard for law, let me introduce you to Judge Menges and his courtroom antics. Spoiler alert: it’s as absurd as it is infuriating. Let’s dive in.1. Judge Menges: “I’m Not Biased, I Promise!”Judge Menges denied a motion for recusal, claiming he’s as impartial as they come. Really, Judge? This is the same guy who:Repeatedly mentioned his status as a grandfather

Yes, sometimes, your weak attempts at control win. I will not deny that. You might manipulate systems, exploit vulnerabilities, and temporarily silence those who stand against you. But sometimes, the opposite happens.In some victims, a shift occurs. A breaking point is reached, and instead of remaining the person you pushed around, you awaken something far more dangerous to your agenda: the fight.It’s no longer about surviving your abuse; it becomes about exposing it, dismantling it,

In the ongoing battle for justice in Sara’s case, there’s been an unexpected but telling development: Harshberger’s “non-response” response. Rather than filing a formal defense or argument in opposition to the King’s Bench petition, Harshberger chose silence. But what does this silence mean, and how might it impact the case moving forward?The Absence of a Response: What Does it Signal?When Harshberger filed his “no response” letter, it was more than just a lack of engagement—it

Not much to report in this week’s episode of “Sara vs. Judicial Shenanigans”, but here’s where we stand:King’s Bench Petition: Over at the Supreme Court, both the trial court and opposing counsel opted for silence with no responses. Maybe they figured the chaos speaks for itself?Contempt Appeal Brief: Harshberger was supposed to file his brief by the 17th, but it’s MIA. Guess he’s working on Harshberger Standard Time, which apparently runs slower than the actual

Folks, I’ve read some bad legal briefs in my time, but this one? This one belongs in a museum of incompetence. Let’s talk about Harshberger’s latest masterpiece—a brief so lacking in substance that I half expected it to end with “Just take my word for it, your honor.”The “Final” Order That Wasn’t FinalHarshberger’s biggest flex in this brief? Repeating, over and over, that the June 2nd order was totally final. Just trust him, bro. No

Harshberger responded late to the contempt appeal.We just saw it.And—hahahahahahahahaha!Yet another case of the classic “trust me, bro” rebuttal.He’s still stuck on this bizarre idea that the June 2 order was final (it wasn’t), but now he’s throwing in another random date (May 9) for good measure. He’s actually arguing that September 6 is interlocutory (which it is), while either deliberately lying or completely misunderstanding that June 2 is also interlocutory—because September 6 was a