MaryAnn Petrilla- Stick To County Business

Times Leader Photo

It looks like the "good-ole-boy" network just grew by one of the opposite sex. In today's edition of the Hazleton Standard Speaker Luzerne County Commissioner Maryann Petrilla states she wrote a letter to the Department of Environmental Protection over Hazleton Creek Properties application to mix pulverized construction fill and debris with dredge at its mine reclamation site in Hazleton. Her letter mirrors EXACTLY the objections raised by Todd Eachus and Paul Kanjorski. One would think that they would at least be original in their letters to DEP rather than copy Todd Eachus's "homework".

MaryAnn Petrilla is the same person who had Todd Eachus manage her campaign for County Controller when she ran against Steve Flood and lost. She was elected Luzerne County Controller in 2006. She has yet to explain her possible complicity in the Kids-For-Cash scheme through malfeasance acts while in office. She reminds me of a Nandu in Uraguay.

“This is the same former Democrat controller who failed to raise any red flags regarding the web of corruption that has surrounded the Luzerne County government.

“It was, after all, under Maryanne Petrilla’s watch, that debit cards were being misused and no-bid contracts were being handed out as political favors. Frankly, her inability to report these glaring problems with our county government while serving as an elected official makes her incompetent at best.”

Todd Eachus, the leading opponent, claims the project will create a combination of materials that has never been used before in mine reclamation in the United States . Of course once again the Mr. Eachus is following is cohort, Paul Kanjorski, and stretching the facts. Out in Chicago there is an innovative project using clean construction demolition debris(CCDD).

Maryann claims she was "threatened" by Judge Conahan in her testimony to the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice. Well, Maryann, were you pressured when he gave you a $5,000.00 donation on December 24, 2003? During your testimony did you let the Commission know about the donation?

Maryann, where you under the same pressure by Todd Eachus to send this letter to DEP??

Tensions Are Rising In And Around The Luzerne County Courthouse

The Legal Intelligencer's Peter Hall wrote an article that can be found here concerning the rising tensions inside the Luzerne County Courthouse over the expanded investigation into uninsured and under insured motorist cases(UM/UIM).

The FBI subpoenaed about 80 case files April 2 from the Luzerne County Courthouse as part of the agency's investigation into allegations regarding a possible scheme to inflate uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist arbitration awards by having plaintiff-friendly neutral arbitrators assigned to their cases.

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. handled 12 of the neutral arbitrator appointments -- more than any of the other nine judges on the list except Conahan and Toole.

Of the remaining 27 cases, nine were handled by former judge Ann H. Lokuta, who was removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline last year for reasons unrelated to any criminal investigation; seven were handled by Judge Hugh F. Mundy; six by Judge Joseph M. Augello; two by Judge David Lupas; and one each by Judge Thomas F. Burke and President Judge Chester B. Muroski. One case on the list did not include the name of a judge assigned to handle it.

The Law Weekly first reported rumors that federal authorities were investigating alleged case fixing in UM/UIM arbitration cases in February. In the wake of that story, Muroski launched a review of the court's procedures to appoint neutral arbitrators.

Sources later confirmed the FBI's investigation was ongoing.

Well, you know you can click on the link to read the entire article. However let me highlight the following:

According to court records examined by the Law Weekly involving a selected group of 10 major auto insurance companies, plaintiffs lawyers filed petitions to appoint neutral arbitrators on 43 occasions between 1995 and 2008.

In 29 of those cases, the same six law firms represented the plaintiffs. In 13 of the 43 cases, attorneys from the same six firms, all of which market themselves as plaintiffs firms, were also appointed as neutral arbitrators. Twice, there were no records for plaintiffs attorneys. The names of the appointed arbitrators were not recorded in seven cases.

In 22 of the 43 cases, the judge was either Conahan or Ciavarella. There was no record of a judge in two of those cases.

The outcome of arbitration in which the lawyers named participated is not a public record. There is no evidence to suggest that the result of arbitration in the cases examined was improper. Nor is there anything to suggest plaintiffs law firms did anything improper to be appointed neutral arbitrators. Ciavarella and Conahan have not been charged with anything related to allegations of fixing UM/UIM cases.

More Information On Alleged Case-Fixing That May Be Target of Luzerne County Probe

As I stated the Legal Intelligencer has more than their ear to the ground on the Luzerne County corruption probe. Here is more information from their outstanding reporting about suspected case-fixing that makes for very interesting reading.

One insurance defense lawyer who works in-house for a major insurance carrier in Luzerne County said the effort to control the appointment of neutral arbitrators was more regimented. He claimed to recall that in about 2003 an order was printed in the Luzerne County Register, a weekly publication of the Luzerne County Law and Library Association, that directed all petitions to appoint neutral arbitrators to be brought before Conahan, who was then president judge. Later, a similar order was allegedly published directing such petitions to Ciavarella, who was elected president judge in 2006.

"If I knew what I know now, I should have saved those and bronzed them," the attorney said.

Leo Strupczewski and Peter Hall of The Legal Intelligencer took a closer look at the docket.

According to court records examined by The Legal Intelligencer involving a selected group of 10 major auto insurance companies, plaintiffs lawyers filed petitions to appoint neutral arbitrators on 43 occasions between 1995 and 2008.

In 29 of those cases, the same six law firms represented the plaintiffs. In 13 of the 43 cases, attorneys from the same six firms, all of which market themselves as plaintiffs firms, were also appointed as neutral arbitrators. Twice, there were no records for plaintiffs attorneys. The names of the appointed arbitrators were not recorded in seven cases.

In 22 of the 43 cases, the judge was either Conahan or Ciavarella. There was no record of a judge in two of those cases.

The outcome of arbitration in which the lawyers named participated is not a public record. There is no evidence to suggest that the result of arbitration in the cases examined was improper. Nor is there anything to suggest plaintiffs law firms did anything improper to be appointed neutral arbitrators. Ciavarella and Conahan have not been charged with anything related to allegations of case fixing UM/UIM cases.

In one of the cases reassigned from Lokuta to Ciavarella, Pockevich v. Lindstrom, a jury returned a $352,500 verdict that included no economic damages. The verdict included $250,000 for past and future emotional distress, $75,000 for loss of life's pleasures and $27,500 for pain and suffering. The verdict came after Ciavarella granted a plaintiff's motion to preclude a defense psychiatric expert from testifying.

The lawyer with the Philadelphia defense firm said he often perceived the appointment of neutral arbitrators to be predetermined, even when he had a chance to weigh in.

"I've submitted lists of 25 to 30 names of extraordinarily qualified judges and lawyers as arbitrators," he said. "They'd all be rejected."

The in-house lawyer said he has also grown accustomed to reasonable suggestions being rejected.

"I've recommended [former] Supreme Court Justice [Russell M.] Nigro and they've rejected him," he said. "I've recommended these guys who are fairer than the day is long and they've rejected them."

"It's beyond coincidence that these guys constantly got each other as neutrals," the lawyer said.

If there have been improprieties in the conduct of Luzerne County insurance arbitration, it would be very difficult to prove, the lawyer with the Philadelphia firm said.