Try Your Luck! Lawyers Fund For Client Security

Share

lawyers fundOne of the lesser known provisions of the U.S. legal system is a “safety net” called Lawyers Fund for Client Security, which comes under the The National Client Protection Organization, Inc.   There are branches in almost every state in the country.   These funds are supposed to provide restitution for theft perpetrated by attorneys, but it would be very un- American if you didn’t have to jump hoops for any chance of recovery. 

As with everything in our capitalist regime, experience has shown these funds to lean more towards another revenue generating machine for the Judiciary, with a duel purpose to allow lawyers to operate outside the law.  While the Judiciary consistently proclaims their “independence” from outside discipline is necessary for their integrity,   one has to wonder if that is working so well, why do they need such a fund?  It  appears to be  hard evidence of lawyers stealing tens of thousands of dollars and most of them never see the inside of a prison cell.  

In the world of the Judicial Branch of our government, it is called “conversion;”  for the rest of us it is called grand larceny.  One attorney in Pennsylvania, according to their 2013-2014 annual report, had 64 claims against him, before the Pennsylvania Attorney Disciplinary Board decided to act.  As with the Judicial Conduct Board, another black hole of impunity, that will open for any litigant trying to escape the courts unscathed.  

The United Nations “Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity”  it  as: “Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.”

Investigations into complaints of the “conversion” of money entrusted to lawyers, through various functions such as estate or escrow management of retainers, are by their own rules, conducted in secrecy. As an example according to Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement  Rule 521. Investigation and payment of claims. it states that the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board  “shall preserve the confidential nature of any information which is required to be kept confidential under these rules.”  While normal citizens are paraded in front of the media for theft, the people never know which lawyers are most likely to steal their money, until it is too late.  

It is very difficult to get a claim approved.  Since 1982, only 800 attorney-actions resulted in payouts from the fund, even though in 2014 alone, Pennsylvania had over 4100 misconduct complaints. Only 84 of those resulted in disbarment or suspension.  Not only is the Disciplinary Board reluctant to find fault with their own, but in reviewing these claims, by lawyers themselves, it appears that they will not provide restitution for misconduct outside of acts regarding trust or escrow accounts. Although the Attorney Disciplinary Board in the State of Pennsylvania had over 4000 complaints during 2014, the Pennsylvania Lawyer’s Client Security Fund claims that only 394 claims were received.  This is likely because they do not advertise the existence of the fund. They paid out on less than half of those claims.

The money they receive from lawyers gradually making repayments for their theft, goes into these funds.  This “nonprofit” organization, who  are supposed to oversee repayment, shows on their IRS 990 form that Pennsylvania generated  $614, 230 in investment income and showed over $10,000,000 in assets, from their fund in 2014.  The Board spent $26,000 for traveI and close to $50,000 for bank fees.

The annual report in Pennsylvania does not report how much was actually stolen and only paid out approximately $3,000, 000 in restitution. Approximately 77% of restitutions were provided to people who had estate and trust accounts, and were most likely already wealthy, for a total of $1,814,094. Less than 10% of the awarded claims were for non-performance and fraud, which totaled approximately  $250,000.  The remainder went to claims for theft of lawsuit awards never reaching the parties.  If your lawyer over-billed you or intentionally complicated and prolonged your case, caused your home to go into foreclosure or your business to close down,  they will most likely not approve your claim. 

In Pennsylvania it states under Rule 514.   Reimbursable losses.

(a)  General rule. For the purposes of this subchapter, reimbursable losses consist of those losses of money, property or other things of value which meet all of the following requirements:

   (1)  The loss was caused by the Dishonest Conduct of a Covered Attorney when acting:

     (i)   as an attorney-at-law;

     (ii)   in a fiduciary capacity customary to the practice of law, such as administrator, executor, trustee of an express trust, guardian or conservator;

     (iii)   as an escrow agent or other fiduciary, having been designated as such by a client in the matter in which the loss arose or having been so selected as a result of a client-attorney relationship

One advantage these funds do provide, is in their annual reports, some states actually publish a list of the miscreant attorneys, that may be found at the links above.  It has only been since 2007, that Pennsylvania has published these attorneys names in their reports which can be found  here.  In researching the list of names in the 2013-2014 report, only the most egregious of cases could be found under federal criminal dockets at pacer.gov, whereby there were multiple victims before the Disciplinary Board took actions.  In all fairness, it must be taken into account that law firms for too long in our rogue legal system, have been allowed to impose profit quotas on attorneys, creating pressure to rip-off clients to retain their employment. You may be able to find reports on your state through here.   

The public is not allowed to participate in any disciplinary actions against lawyers or judges- they are completely self-regulatory. Not even the Governor or Congress has been allowed to intervene since the late 1960’s when the lawyers managed to change the State Constitutions, and then in  1996, the U.S. Constitution to reinforce immunity for the legal profession. 

In many cases, the lawyers merely have to pay back a portion of what they “converted”- and may take years to do so.  If you robbed a bank and got caught, it is doubtful that by giving the money back, you would avoid prosecution.  Some lawyers are even allowed to continue to practice law.  In theory, restitution is to be provided to the victims, however, they do not necessarily recover all of their money-the fund has a general cap of $100,000 per victim.  And the attorney maybe reinstated to the practice of law, after they pay the fund back only for the amount that the fund paid out to the victim, whether or not it was the full amount that they stole. 

The ABA put out this directory in 2010, which may or may not allow you to find such a fund in your state. Go ahead- try  your luck. I tried it.. I still have my hand- but that’s about it. 

 

 

 

 

 

America Wakes Up To Find Its Judicial Branch Infiltrated By Organized Crime

Share

An epidemic of government  corruption in America has led to economic decline, and social unrest.  Evidence increasingly points to a major source as the Judicial Branch – the most powerful part of the government,  expected to have the most integrity.   It is no longer just conjecture, as citizen complaints of racketeering and misconduct by members of the Judiciary, are rampant across social media.  A study published by Yale University Law School  supports this reality, that  judicial corruption is a major U.S. problem.

Over the course of decades, the American Judiciary has been replaced by a ruthless legal industry, structured strikingly similar to a tightly networked criminal enterprise. The most incomprehensible element  is the judges managed to get control of their own disciplinary process, making the participants in this widespread corruption, virtually untouchable. In retrospect, allowing the privilege of judicial immunity, with the independent “confidential” self-disciplinary process –  was a train wreck waiting to happen.  

The Judiciary members claimed these provisions are necessary to maintain their independence from outside influences, while simultaneously espousing that  campaign contributions do not interfere with their “independence,”  even though most of the money comes from attorneys that appear before them, creating an obligation for some form of repayment. The appointed federal judges are not above the moral bankruptcy, as their lifetime tenures are gifted after years of being teamplayers in this decayed system. Add the pretzel logic of allowing self-recusal for conflicts of interest,  with unregulated hourly attorney fees and you have the perfect crime syndicate.  Abused litigants will have identical descriptions of how judges cooperate with lawyers to drain personal savings, by facilitating masses of unnecessary filings, that go on for years- and often decades, to maximize legal fees. The outcome of the cases rarely have anything to do with the law- but more to do with the amount of dollars that will ultimately be dispersed to members of the legal profession.

Capitalism Does Not Mix with Justice

As what some refer to as the  black-robed mafia, there have been reports of judicial ties to businesses such as private prisons,  and the inmate food and email services. As covered in the nationally debuted documentary DivorceCorp, they turned the family court system into a $50 billion dollar a year industry nationwide, which has its own cottage industries of guardian ad litems, counselors and mediators, run through the law firms.  Lawyers incite child custody battles to extort money from parents, which often results in their homes being forced into foreclosure as revenue for county courts.  Class action lawsuits are a mere self-serving device which funnel millions of dollars to law firms, while the damaged parties receive miniscule percentages of the awarded compensation.

While the FBI is currently the only recourse, they impotently try to tackle the massive systemic fraud – one judge, one lawyer, one legislator at a time – as people struggle to survive being trapped in the court system, their lives and assets being wasted away. The Department of Justice reported that the court system in Ferguson, Missouri, was focused on revenue production rather than justice, in their investigation of its courts after the angry protests in that city. A task force was initiated in Connecticut, consisting of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, resulting from massive complaints of family court extortion and abuse.  In Orange County, California- a judge  disqualified 250 prosecutors– citing a total infestation of corruption in their criminal justice system.

But perhaps no State has had more indictments of its judiciary members than Pennsylvania.  America only has to keep their eyes on Attorney General Kathleen Kane, to see just how difficult it is to remove the corruption from the system.  She has become a target of this ”good old boys network” and veritable crime syndicate, after she exposed them via release of thousands of pornographic and racist emails, and as seen in this  interview  aired nationally on CNN:

Over the last decade, Pennsylvania has had three Supreme Court Justices removed or forced to resign.  One was sentenced to  prison for campaign fraud, and two others have resigned for their involvement in what the media has coined  “Porngate,”  Two County judges are in prison for the well-known Kids for Cash scandal, after seven years of kickbacks for sending thousands of children to a private prison, and the entire Philadelphia traffic court bench was fired.  Another Pennsylvania County Judge resigned when he was caught texting with a District Attorney during litigation.

When citizens feel they are victims of judicial misconduct, the only remedy in most states is a judicial conduct or review board. However, the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board had also apparently been compromised, as thousands of legitimate citizen complaints were ignored for decades.  Just recently  the Chief Counsel of the Board was found to have concealed his part in the election campaign of the Supreme Court Justice  implicated in the Porngate scandal, and taking part in the dismissal of that complaint.  There is a complete lack of oversight to the entire system.

The Decline In To Pay to Play

The mafiaesque courts focus solely on the distribution of money, and not the delivery of Justice. Court filing fees have become excessive. As an example, it costs over $400 to file a claim, and $500 for an appeal in Pennsylvania federal court. There seems to be no basis for this when the employees are already paid through your taxes. Just to view a docket online there are unexplainable fees. Recently a lawsuit was filed against PACER, the company that runs it.

The deterioration of the courts appears to have started in the late 1960’s.  The lawyers unionized through the American Bar Association, forming local branches in every state and county, and proceeded to obstruct access to appeals and jury trials.   Substitution of the word “shall” with the word “may” in every court rule, gave judges unbridled discretion. This allows them to make arbitrary decisions with no basis in the law- to rig the outcome of every case. The edited procedural court “rules,” are nothing more than a “Catch 22”- so people become trapped in litigation, that only ends when they are depleted of all of their funds. 

Contributing to this denigration of the Judiciary, was the exemption of lawyers, from the Constitutional provision the precluded them from serving in public office, contrary to the principles of the United States Constitution. (See A Case in Point Below for an example)

Much of this was accomplished outside of legislature by redesigning the procedural rules. Changes to increase “judicial discretion” has practically eliminated  jury trials,  putting the public  at the mercy of one judge.  Unless you can afford the “graft” i.e.  a campaign contribution or pay an expensive law firm, you will receive no justice.

The government will never announce a systemic problem, because that would open up the flood gates for demands for retrials and restitution that go back decades.  The lesson here is that the existence of a justice system based on profit has destroyed the integrity of the U.S. government.    Only by the efforts of  private citizens is there any shred of  hope that order will be restored to America.

Clearly, the Judicial Branch cannot police itself.  The checks and balances between the three branches of government needs to be restored.   Lawyers cannot serve in the Legislature, as they have a conflict of interest.  The local county bar associations must be demolished- they serve no purpose other than for devising conspiracies and collusion.   Next time you see a judge, think of the photo above – this is really what many of them are at the present time.  It is up to the citizens to take action, or it will remain this way for future generations.

A Case in Point:  The Systematic Manipulation of Pennsylvania Courts

The reason why the U.S. Constitution in effect, prohibited anyone from holding two public offices, was specifically to prevent relationships between branches of the tripartite government.  As Officers of the Court, lawyers were not eligible to serve in Congress. It is in two places in the Constitution – :

 Article VI  § 2.  Incompatible offices.        No member of Congress from this State, nor any person holding     or exercising any office or appointment of trust or profit under     the United States, shall at the same time hold or exercise any     office in this State to which a salary, fees or perquisites     shall be attached. The General Assembly may by law declare what     offices are incompatible.     (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)

However, in Article II at some point attorneys were exempted. It is not in the original constitution of 1776.

6. Disqualification to hold other office.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which     he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or perquisite is attached.     No member of Congress or other person holding any office (except     of attorney-at-law or in the National Guard or in a reserve   component of the armed forces of the United States) under the     United States or this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or     perquisite is attached shall be a member of either House during     his continuance in office.     (May 16, 1967, P.L.1036, J.R.2)

In 1968, Article V Section 10(c) was amended to the PA Constitution, forming the “Unified Judicial System”- essentially giving the courts administrative power.    A power play ensued between then Governor Milton Shapp and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in their interpretation of just what the Judiciary administrative power should be. They proclaimed exclusive, non-reviewable rule-making authority. This is contrary to the functioning of every other goverment agency – which has outside review of their rules for constitutionality. Fascinatingly, a current U.S. Assistant District Attorney wrote a very extensive research article warning about the danger of Article V Section 10(c) back in 1998.

They blocked all review of their rules for constitutionality, including from the Department of Justice and  the public, adding Section 1702 (below).  This was challenged by Governor Shapp in 1978 in an attempt to restore democracy- as you can see below in Section 1703 where he signed an Act mandating the courts comply with the Open Meeting Law (aka The Sunshine Act).  The PA Supreme Court unilaterally repealed this Act, which would have ensured oversight by the public to the rule-making, by claiming it was “unconstitutional.”

Title 42  § 1702.  Rule making procedures.

(a)  General rule.

Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), the Supreme Court and all agencies or units of the unified judicial system when exercising the power to adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of regulations pursuant to the authority of the Supreme Court under section 1721 (relating to delegation of powers) shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.769, No.240), known as the “Commonwealth Documents Law,” and shall be subject to all of the provisions of such act except section 205 (relating to approval as to legality).   All such general rules and orders shall be published pursuant to Part II of Title 45 (relating to publication and effectiveness of Commonwealth Documents).

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)

§ 1703.  Meeting procedures.

The Supreme Court and all other agencies and units of the unified judicial system when exercising the powers to recommend or adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of regulations shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)

1978 Amendment.  Act 53 added section 1703.

Constitutionality.  Section 1703 was declared unconstitutional on November 14, 1978, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a letter to the Governor and the General Assembly. See In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d 444.

References in Text.  The act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law, referred to in this section, was repealed by the act of July 3, 1986 (P.L.388, No.84), known as the Sunshine Act. The Sunshine Act was repealed by the act of October 15, 1998, (P.L.729, No.93). The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 7 of Title 65 (relating to open meetings).

They have gone so far as to promulgate a rule to discriminate against people who attempt to represent themselves in court, and interfere with their profitable racketeering:

Rule 233.1. Frivolous Litigation. Pro Se Plaintiff. Motion to Dismiss.

 (a)  Upon the commencement of any action filed by a pro se plaintiff in the court of common pleas, a defendant may file a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that:

(1)  the pro se plaintiff is alleging the same or related claims which the pro se plaintiff raised in a prior action against the same or related defendants, and

(2)  these claims have already been resolved pursuant to a written settlement agreement or a court proceeding…

The provisions of this Rule 233.1 adopted March 8, 2010, effective April 8, 2010, 40 Pa.B. 1490.

 Governor Shapp’s Attempt to Restore Democracy:

SimplifiedFlowChart

America on the Edge – How to Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again

Share

750pxthreedumpties

But just what happened to bring America to this point?Without a legal system, a country doesn’t have anything,  just as without independent media you cannot have a free society.  Those two crucial elements are missing in America at this time in history,  If the former is put back into condition, the latter will follow. 

The U.S. took a wrong turn after it did something very right.  In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, the elite of society may have felt threatened. Either by deliberate design or just  foolish decisions,  the following actions resulted in the decay of our democracy, that has brought us to this point of an epidemic of corruption, economic decline, unemployment and social unrest.

Every single statute which provided safeguards for the civil rights of the public has systematically and unilaterally been removed by lawyers through  their dominance of the Judicial Branch,. Since 1967,  millions of Americans have had their lives destroyed, their assets stolen, and been incarcerated because of these insidious actions by self-reaching government officials. 

Unfortunately, if the public does not act loudly and quickly, those who instituted these injustices will begin to quietly make corrections, as this increasingly makes its way into mainstream media.  They will do this very discretely, so they do not have to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes. Then  they will take credit for  fixing it and give each other awards and promotions.

There is no doubt that this has happened throughout the country- as they all belong to one union organization – the American Bar Association. The demise of the U.S. began way before we were attacked by terrorists.  If a large amount of citizens do not become proactive – all will lose their right to restitution for these crimes. 

Pennsylvania is good example.  It is also one of the states that has waived their right to absolute sovereign immunity and there are ways to sue the government for torts.Through constitutional amendments. and many more by  joint resolution, unbeknownst to the public, first they changed the law allowing lawyers to serve in Congress, then they took exclusive jurisdiction over their own disciplinary actions, bolstered iudicial immunity, and then concocted rules obstructing  jury trials and appeals. They even went so far as to promulgate a rule to discriminate against people who represent themselves, and interfere with their profitable racketeering.  It is beyond outrageous that this rule has existed for five years and gone unchallenged:

Rule 233.1. Frivolous Litigation. Pro Se Plaintiff. Motion to Dismiss.

 (a)  Upon the commencement of any action filed by a pro se plaintiff in the court of common pleas, a defendant may file a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that:

   (1)  the pro se plaintiff is alleging the same or related claims which the pro se plaintiff raised in a prior action against the same or related defendants, and

   (2)  these claims have already been resolved pursuant to a written settlement agreement or a court proceeding.

(b)  The court may stay the action while the motion is pending.

(c)  Upon granting the motion and dismissing the action, the court may bar the pro se plaintiff from pursuing additional pro se litigation against the same or related defendants raising the same or related claims without leave of court.

(d)  The court may sua sponte dismiss an action that is filed in violation of a court order entered under subdivision (c).

   Official Note

   A pro se party is not barred from raising counterclaims or claims against other parties in litigation that the pro se plaintiff did not institute.

(e)  The provisions of this rule do not apply to actions under the rules of civil procedure governing family law actions.

Source

   The provisions of this Rule 233.1 adopted March 8, 2010, effective April 8, 2010, 40 Pa.B. 1490.

All lawyers, being members of the American Bar Association, and/or their local subsidieries, began by changing the statute which prohibited lawyers, as officers of the court,  from  being able to hold office in our legislature under the laws of the Pennsylvania Constitution,  until they subversively changed that ORIGINAL law  which is  here :

 Article VI  § 2.  Incompatible offices.        No member of Congress from this State, nor any person holding     or exercising any office or appointment of trust or profit under     the United States, shall at the same time hold or exercise any     office in this State to which a salary, fees or perquisites     shall be attached. The General Assembly may by law declare what     offices are incompatible.     (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)

Right before the 1968 Constitutional Convention was held lawyers changed the Constitution without the consent of the public through a Joint Resolution to :

6. Disqualification to hold other office.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which     he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or perquisite is attached.     No member of Congress or other person holding any office (except     of attorney-at-law or in the National Guard or in a reserve   component of the armed forces of the United States) under the     United States or this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or     perquisite is attached shall be a member of either House during     his continuance in office.     (May 16, 1967, P.L.1036, J.R.2)

  At this link you can see the history of the subversive mutilation of Title 42 by members of the American Bar Association that – giving the Judges unchecked power. These actions began after 1968 after Article V Section 10(c) created the Unified Judicial System.  A miniscule four line, misleading, ambiguous referendum was listed on the ballot box and put to vote to an uneducated public, presenting proposals by an elite group that held a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  This initiated the destruction of the tripartite system of government as designed by the founders of this country. The Judicial Branch  no longer had oversight by the other two branches of government – and in fact – the Judicial Branch is criminally ruling over the Executive and Legislative Branch. This was challenged by Governor Shapp in 1978 – as you can see below in Section 1703 where he signed an Act- that the PA Supreme Court unilaterally repealed. 

Title 42 

CHAPTER 17

GOVERNANCE OF THE SYSTEM

§ 1702.  Rule making procedures.

(a)  General rule.

Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), the Supreme Court and all agencies or units of the unified judicial system when exercising the power to adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of regulations pursuant to the authority of the Supreme Court under section 1721 (relating to delegation of powers) shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.769, No.240), known as the “Commonwealth Documents Law,” and shall be subject to all of the provisions of such act except section 205 (relating to approval as to legality).  All such general rules and orders shall be published pursuant to Part II of Title 45 (relating to publication and effectiveness of Commonwealth Documents).

(b)  Scope.–The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply only to a rule or order adopted pursuant to the following provisions of this title or which is otherwise based in whole or in part upon authority conferred by any provision of this title or by other statutory authority:

Section 503 (relating to reassignment of matters).

Section 1722(b) (relating to enforcement and effect of orders and process).

Section 1722(c) (relating to time limitations).

Section 1725 (relating to establishment of fees and charges).

Section 1726 (relating to establishment of taxable costs).

Section 1728 (relating to recognition of related organizations).

The provisions of subsection (a) shall also apply to other rules and orders to the extent prescribed by general rule.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)

After they blocked all review of their rules from the other branches of government, they then excluded not only all other officials from interfereing in their rules committee meetings, but they banned the public, by repealing Governor Shapp’s attempt to restore democracy by signing this below Act.  You can see in the Act where they Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices declared his Act unconstitutional.

§ 1703.  Meeting procedures.

The Supreme Court and all other agencies and units of the unified judicial system when exercising the powers to recommend or adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of regulations shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)

1978 Amendment.  Act 53 added section 1703.

Constitutionality.  Section 1703 was declared unconstitutional on November 14, 1978, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a letter to the Governor and the General Assembly. See In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d 444.

References in Text.  The act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law, referred to in this section, was repealed by the act of July 3, 1986 (P.L.388, No.84), known as the Sunshine Act. The Sunshine Act was repealed by the act of October 15, 1998, (P.L.729, No.93). The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 7 of Title 65 (relating to open meetings).

Fascinatingly, a current U.S. Assistant District Attorney wrote a very extensive research article warning about the danger of Article V Section 10(c) back in 1998.  By clicking the red and white pdf symbol at the top of the page, you can make a copy.  Sign it and send it with a very adament cover letter, to your legislators, the governor and the U.S. President, and demand there be an immediate joint resolution to restore the Constitution to its pre-1967 status- every inch of it. Now that there is social media, and a more informed public – it would be very difficult for this to ever happen again.  These acts were seditious and treasonous, by what is in effect, organized crime. It is up to the citizens to take action, or it will remain this way for future generations.

 Governor Shapp’s Attempt to Restore Democracy:

SimplifiedFlowChart

Legal Intelligencer: Former U.S. Attorney Calls To Stop Kane Investigation and Focus on Judicial Corruption

Share

Supreme Court: Address the Real Problem With AG Staff Emails
Peter F. Vaira 09/15/2015

vairaThere have been numerous legal filings concerning the actions of state Attorney General Kathleen Kane, including criminal charges against her. In addition, there have been many disclosures that employees and former employees of the Attorney General’s Office have been sending and receiving obscene emails with many others, including members of the judiciary. Many of the senders were employees on staff of the attorney general prior to Kane taking office.

In this flurry of charges and counter-charges, the bar and the courts have side-stepped a major issue. There is substantial evidence that employees of the attorney general have been communicating privately with the judiciary. This includes attorney general personnel and judges involved in both civil and criminal cases. A number of people have been dismissed from employment, or have retired. There are many others still employed in the Attorney General’s Office or in other prosecutors’ offices. What was the extent of these communications? How many attorney general personnel and members of the judiciary were involved? These figures, and the identity of the people involved, have never been fully disclosed. The fact that such people may no longer be employed by the attorney general or are no longer a member of the judiciary should not be a reason for not making an inquiry. What effect has the private communications had on what should be the arm’s-length relationship between the prosecutor and the court?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted swiftly in response to the allegations involving former state Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery. Since then there has been no reaction from the judiciary. This is not a one-event situation. These communications have been continuing for several years. This has surely affected the separation of powers between the executive branch and the judiciary. The executive branch may have polluted and seriously affected the judiciary.

Former Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, in an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News, “said the emails, if judges exchanged them, could cause problems two ways under the state’s Judicial Code of Conduct. First, using state computers to exchange the emails would violate that code. A conflict of interest is also possible if a judge exchanged explicit emails in private with a prosecutor who also appeared in his court to argue cases.” Castille told the Daily News, “If you’re emailing back and forth with the Attorney General’s Office as a judge it might show you have a conflict that will require you to recuse yourself from these cases.”

The Supreme Court has the power and the duty to assure the bar and the public that the judiciary will remain independent, and not suffer from such compromise. Presently there is no reaction from the bench or bar; they all seem to be awaiting the outcome of the Kane prosecutions. The Kane prosecution should not prevent the Supreme Court from cleaning up the situation caused by these questionable private communications. The Supreme Court must determine the relationship between the senders and the recipients, and what effect those private relationships have had on the independence of the courts, and what effect those relationships had on civil and criminal cases in which those individuals were involved. What other private relationships exist aside from the sending of pornographic material? Criminal and civil defendants, and civil claimants, are entitled to a fair shake, and entitled to a prosecutor who is only dealing with the merits of a criminal or civil prosecution, and is dealing on an arm’s-length relationship with the court. This includes the grand jury process, which is very vulnerable to relationships developing between the prosecutor and the grand jury judge. It is time to stomp out these informal private relationships.

I urge that the Supreme Court take steps as it did in the McCaffery affair, but to go further and appoint a special counsel to examine what effect these private communications had on cases before the courts. The special counsel would have the power to empanel a grand jury, summon witnesses, and make findings that would assist the Supreme Court. The special counsel should have the mandate and power to interview the senders and the recipients of these emails, and determine what other private relationships exist.

I do not suggest that the special counsel cause a grand jury report to be issued. These reports are simply a judicial fiction, are written by the prosecutor, and should be abolished by the legislature. The Supreme Court should hear an unvarnished report from its appointed special counsel, be able to speak and communicate with that person on a lawyer-to-client basis, and not be confined to a grand jury report.

I suggest that the special counsel position be given to an attorney with a demonstrated reputation for investigative skill and independence, preferably from outside of Pennsylvania. I also suggest appointing a judge with the reputation of skill and courage as a supervising judge as required by the statute. Many jurists have not lived up to the requirements of supervising judge.

It is time for the Supreme Court to put this tawdry affair to rest, move beyond the allegations and counter-allegations of the Kane prosecution, and address a major issue: the corruption of the judiciary.

Peter F. Vaira is a member of Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores. He is a former U.S. attorney, and is the author of a book on Eastern District practice that is revised annually. He can be contacted at p.vaira@gpeff.com. 

Copyright 2015. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Posted in  compliance with 7 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use: For educational, non-profit purpose only.

Former U.S. Attorney Calls Out the Corrupt Judiciary

Share

Supreme Court: Address the Real Problem With AG Staff Emails

Peter F. Vaira 09/15/2015

Formerly of the U.S. Attorney Generals Office - Peter Vaira, Esq.
Formerly of the U.S. Attorney Generals Office – Peter Vaira, Esq.

There have been numerous legal filings concerning the actions of state Attorney General Kathleen Kane, including criminal charges against her. In addition, there have been many disclosures that employees and former employees of the Attorney General’s Office have been sending and receiving obscene emails with many others, including members of the judiciary. Many of the senders were employees on staff of the attorney general prior to Kane taking office.

In this flurry of charges and counter-charges, the bar and the courts have side-stepped a major issue. There is substantial evidence that employees of the attorney general have been communicating privately with the judiciary. This includes attorney general personnel and judges involved in both civil and criminal cases. A number of people have been dismissed from employment, or have retired. There are many others still employed in the Attorney General’s Office or in other prosecutors’ offices. What was the extent of these communications? How many attorney general personnel and members of the judiciary were involved? These figures, and the identity of the people involved, have never been fully disclosed. The fact that such people may no longer be employed by the attorney general or are no longer a member of the judiciary should not be a reason for not making an inquiry. What effect has the private communications had on what should be the arm’s-length relationship between the prosecutor and the court?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted swiftly in response to the allegations involving former state Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery. Since then there has been no reaction from the judiciary. This is not a one-event situation. These communications have been continuing for several years. This has surely affected the separation of powers between the executive branch and the judiciary. The executive branch may have polluted and seriously affected the judiciary.

Former Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, in an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News, “said the emails, if judges exchanged them, could cause problems two ways under the state’s Judicial Code of Conduct. First, using state computers to exchange the emails would violate that code. A conflict of interest is also possible if a judge exchanged explicit emails in private with a prosecutor who also appeared in his court to argue cases.” Castille told the Daily News, “If you’re emailing back and forth with the Attorney General’s Office as a judge it might show you have a conflict that will require you to recuse yourself from these cases.”

The Supreme Court has the power and the duty to assure the bar and the public that the judiciary will remain independent, and not suffer from such compromise. Presently there is no reaction from the bench or bar; they all seem to be awaiting the outcome of the Kane prosecutions. The Kane prosecution should not prevent the Supreme Court from cleaning up the situation caused by these questionable private communications. The Supreme Court must determine the relationship between the senders and the recipients, and what effect those private relationships have had on the independence of the courts, and what effect those relationships had on civil and criminal cases in which those individuals were involved. What other private relationships exist aside from the sending of pornographic material? Criminal and civil defendants, and civil claimants, are entitled to a fair shake, and entitled to a prosecutor who is only dealing with the merits of a criminal or civil prosecution, and is dealing on an arm’s-length relationship with the court. This includes the grand jury process, which is very vulnerable to relationships developing between the prosecutor and the grand jury judge. It is time to stomp out these informal private relationships.

I urge that the Supreme Court take steps as it did in the McCaffery affair, but to go further and appoint a special counsel to examine what effect these private communications had on cases before the courts. The special counsel would have the power to empanel a grand jury, summon witnesses, and make findings that would assist the Supreme Court. The special counsel should have the mandate and power to interview the senders and the recipients of these emails, and determine what other private relationships exist.

I do not suggest that the special counsel cause a grand jury report to be issued. These reports are simply a judicial fiction, are written by the prosecutor, and should be abolished by the legislature. The Supreme Court should hear an unvarnished report from its appointed special counsel, be able to speak and communicate with that person on a lawyer-to-client basis, and not be confined to a grand jury report.

I suggest that the special counsel position be given to an attorney with a demonstrated reputation for investigative skill and independence, preferably from outside of Pennsylvania. I also suggest appointing a judge with the reputation of skill and courage as a supervising judge as required by the statute. Many jurists have not lived up to the requirements of supervising judge.

It is time for the Supreme Court to put this tawdry affair to rest, move beyond the allegations and counter-allegations of the Kane prosecution, and address a major issue: the corruption of the judiciary.

Peter F. Vaira is a member of Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores. He is a former U.S. attorney, and is the author of a book on Eastern District practice that is revised annually. He can be contacted at p.vaira@gpeff.com. 

Copyright 2015. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Posted in  compliance with 7 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use: For educational, non-profit purpose only.