In today's Citizens Voice Michael Sisak writes a great piece about the silence out of the Luzerne County DA's Office over the juvenile detention center scam. The only problem I see with his piece is why he and the media did not ask questions sooner.
Take a look at my post from January 26, 2009 titled "DA Jackie Musto Carroll- Lets Ask You A Question". My post asked the questions at the time of the arrests. Here is a repost.
The Juvenile Law Center released a press release on April 28, 2008 that stated "Luzerne County is Worst Violator of Youth Civil Rights- Juvenile Law Center, a Philadelphia-based public interest law firm, filed a petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today requesting immediate, emergency relief on behalf of Luzerne County youth who have been the subject of delinquency hearings without counsel since October 1, 2005 when Pennsylvania adopted the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure."
The Center issued another press release on June 17,2008 titled "JLC Petitions PA Supreme Court for Extraordinary Relief for Hundreds of Youth Tried Without the Benefit of Lawyers". In the body of the release it states "The Luzerne County District Attorney and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) filed briefs on behalf of the Juvenile Court urging the Supreme Court not to take jurisdiction. JLC filed a response."
A second request was placed before the Supreme Court by the Juvenile Law Center in December. DA Musto-Carroll filed a brief against the Juvenile Law Center's efforts.
DA Musto-Carroll's argument to the court contained the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."
Oh really???
On page 14 of the indictment against Ciavarella and Conahan it reads "It was further a part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, on numerous occassions, accused juvenile offenders were ordered detained by the defendant Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. even when Juvenile Probation Officers did not recommend detention. The defendant Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., at others operating at his behest, also exherted pressure on staff of the Court of Common Pleas to recommend detention of juvenile offenders. On some occassions, probation officers were pressured to change recommendations of release to recommendations of detention.
Tom Corbett, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania supported the Juvenile Law Center's efforts to secure Supreme Court review. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare filed a similar brief supporting a Supreme Court review. Yet, DA Musto-Carroll chose otherwise.
In today's press conference DA Musto-Carroll isquoted as saying "I think this is the beginning of the end of the darkest days of our county. We can look at this as a bright spot that things have been turned around and no longer will these sorts of things be tolerated."
Her brief filed in opposition to the Juvenile Law Center demonstrates an acute ignorance of the investigation going on around her. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear children's complaints of massive rights violations in Luzerne County demands public outrage at the arrogance of the court in light of this indictment.
DA Musto-Carroll- Were you not aware of an investigation into PA ChildCare to the extent that you foiled attempts to protect children from long range mental problems over injustice?
From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 at the bottom of page 4- "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.
Her statments in today's Citizen's Voice article. “Nobody knew the judge was committing any crimes at the time,” Musto Carroll said. “The judge was considered a zero-tolerance, very strict sentencing judge. There was nothing to indicate the judge was doing anything out of the ordinary.”...“We now know what was happening in Judge Ciavarella’s courtroom and our office is committed to seeing that justice is served,” Musto Carroll said.
I asked similar questions on January 27, 2009 of Judge Lupas when he was District Attorney.
Showing posts with label Juvenile Law Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Juvenile Law Center. Show all posts
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Initial Recommendations Reportedly Made In Luzerne County Juvenile Court Case Review
According to Michael Rubinkam of the Associated Press,(someone who I met personally) Berks County Senior Judge Arthur Grim assigned to review the juvenile court cases in Luzerne County has submitted his recommendations to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The high court appointed Grim last month to review thousands of juvenile cases handled by Luzerne County President Judge Mark Ciavarella dating back to 2003.
Grim's preliminary review included cases of low-level offenders who appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom without lawyers. He declined to say what he recommended, but said he believed the first batch of cases numbered in the hundreds.
Grim, who is chairman of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission, which establishes standards for the administration of juvenile justice in the state, said he was appalled by the conduct of Ciavarella and Conahan.
"When you work in a system that's generally acknowledged to be among the very best juvenile court systems in the United States, it's particularly upsetting to see a situation where it appears as though the rationale for the juvenile court system has been lost along the way," he said.
"The goal of this court is to determine whether the alleged travesty of juvenile justice occurred, and if it did, to identify the affected juveniles and rectify the situation as fairly and swiftly as possible," the justices said in a statement last month.
The high court appointed Grim last month to review thousands of juvenile cases handled by Luzerne County President Judge Mark Ciavarella dating back to 2003.
Grim's preliminary review included cases of low-level offenders who appeared in Ciavarella's courtroom without lawyers. He declined to say what he recommended, but said he believed the first batch of cases numbered in the hundreds.
Grim, who is chairman of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission, which establishes standards for the administration of juvenile justice in the state, said he was appalled by the conduct of Ciavarella and Conahan.
"When you work in a system that's generally acknowledged to be among the very best juvenile court systems in the United States, it's particularly upsetting to see a situation where it appears as though the rationale for the juvenile court system has been lost along the way," he said.
"The goal of this court is to determine whether the alleged travesty of juvenile justice occurred, and if it did, to identify the affected juveniles and rectify the situation as fairly and swiftly as possible," the justices said in a statement last month.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
A Closer Look At The Rights Violations
A deeper look into the juvenile rights case against former Judge Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan paints a clearer picture about the Juvenile Law Center's efforts. After you read this information one has to wonder why the Supreme Court dimissed their first and second requests for review. View this PowerPoint presentationto glean a glimpse of what was passed on to me by law enforcement.
A look at our Constitution will provide one of the answers concerning the charges against Ciavarella and Conahan. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel and other rights designed to ensure that an accused individual receives a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Apparently the former judges violated the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights(along with the Fourteenth Amendment which made the Sixth Amendment apply to states). Although Ciavarella and Conahan sat on the bench in Luzerne County they were under the jurisdiction of the state.
Here are two important rules of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission
42 Pa.C.S. §6337 (right to counsel) and Rules 150-152, Pa.R.J.C.P. (counsel).
§ 7-2 Attorney Representation-Juveniles are entitled to representation by counsel at every stage of a delinquency proceeding; those who are “without financial resources or otherwise unable to employcounsel” are entitled to court-appointed counsel. The first time a juvenile appears before thecourt unrepresented, the judge must inform him of these rights in plain language.
It should be remembered that not all juveniles understand the term “counsel,” or even “attorney,” and that even apparently sophisticated ones may not fully grasp the need for an advisor and advocate in the situation in which they are placed. The basic points to be impressed uponeach juvenile are that having a lawyer in court (1) is expected, (2) is free, and (3) helps the system function as it should. The court may continue proceedings at any time to enable anunrepresented juvenile to obtain counsel. If an attorney is to be assigned, the assignment must occur prior to the detention hearing if the juvenile is detained, or otherwise prior to the adjudication hearing. Once an attorney has been assigned or has entered an appearance on behalf of a juvenile, representation continues until court supervision is terminated and the case closed, unless the attorney is permitted to withdraw.
Waiver of Counsel- A juvenile may waive the right to counsel, but only if the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary and the court has tested its basis by means of an on-the-record colloquy with thejuvenile (see sidebar “A Recommended Waiver Colloquy”). In general, as a matter both of law and of fundamental fairness, the court should be extremely reluctant to accept a juvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel. The JCJC Standards Governing Hearing Procedures provide that a juvenile may not waive his right to counsel “unless he has had the opportunity to consult with an interested and informed adult” who is “primarily interested in the welfare” of the juvenile and aware of the rights guaranteed to him under the constitution. Judges should be extremely reluctant to accept ajuvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel.
Pre-Adjudicatory Procedures § 7-3 Judges should not only be skeptical regarding attempts to waive the right to counsel, but alert to the possibility of interfamilial conflicts of interest in this area. The right to counsel is a personal one, and may be waived only by the juvenile, not by the juvenile’s family. Where there is reason to believe that a parent’s interests may be in conflict with the juvenile’s, and that the juvenile has been induced to waive his right in the service of a parental interest, it may be necessary to conduct separate colloquies regarding the positions of the family members—with the juvenile’s occurring out of the hearing of his parents. The court may assign “stand-by counsel” whenever a juvenile waives representation. In any case, the waiver applies only to the hearing for which it is made. Not only may it be revoked at any time, but the court must inform the juvenile of the right to counsel again at each subsequent hearing in the case.
However, the former judge is not the only culprit in this scheme. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Judge Arthur E. Grim of Berks County to review Luzerne County juvenile court proceedings that may have been tainted by the criminal allegations against former judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan. It is my information that juveniles who took a lawyer to court will not have their cases reviewed by Judge Grim. Their remedy might be instituting a malpractice case against the lawyer who prevented proper representation before Ciavarella.
Look at this statement which appeared in the Times Leader.
The Supreme Court’s order directs Grim to identify juveniles who were not represented and those who were committed to the two juvenile centers in question.
What a "grim" prospect for those parents who had representation. I know, I know.
A look at our Constitution will provide one of the answers concerning the charges against Ciavarella and Conahan. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel and other rights designed to ensure that an accused individual receives a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Apparently the former judges violated the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights(along with the Fourteenth Amendment which made the Sixth Amendment apply to states). Although Ciavarella and Conahan sat on the bench in Luzerne County they were under the jurisdiction of the state.
Here are two important rules of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission
42 Pa.C.S. §6337 (right to counsel) and Rules 150-152, Pa.R.J.C.P. (counsel).
§ 7-2 Attorney Representation-Juveniles are entitled to representation by counsel at every stage of a delinquency proceeding; those who are “without financial resources or otherwise unable to employcounsel” are entitled to court-appointed counsel. The first time a juvenile appears before thecourt unrepresented, the judge must inform him of these rights in plain language.
It should be remembered that not all juveniles understand the term “counsel,” or even “attorney,” and that even apparently sophisticated ones may not fully grasp the need for an advisor and advocate in the situation in which they are placed. The basic points to be impressed uponeach juvenile are that having a lawyer in court (1) is expected, (2) is free, and (3) helps the system function as it should. The court may continue proceedings at any time to enable anunrepresented juvenile to obtain counsel. If an attorney is to be assigned, the assignment must occur prior to the detention hearing if the juvenile is detained, or otherwise prior to the adjudication hearing. Once an attorney has been assigned or has entered an appearance on behalf of a juvenile, representation continues until court supervision is terminated and the case closed, unless the attorney is permitted to withdraw.
Waiver of Counsel- A juvenile may waive the right to counsel, but only if the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary and the court has tested its basis by means of an on-the-record colloquy with thejuvenile (see sidebar “A Recommended Waiver Colloquy”). In general, as a matter both of law and of fundamental fairness, the court should be extremely reluctant to accept a juvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel. The JCJC Standards Governing Hearing Procedures provide that a juvenile may not waive his right to counsel “unless he has had the opportunity to consult with an interested and informed adult” who is “primarily interested in the welfare” of the juvenile and aware of the rights guaranteed to him under the constitution. Judges should be extremely reluctant to accept ajuvenile’s waiver of the right to counsel.
Pre-Adjudicatory Procedures § 7-3 Judges should not only be skeptical regarding attempts to waive the right to counsel, but alert to the possibility of interfamilial conflicts of interest in this area. The right to counsel is a personal one, and may be waived only by the juvenile, not by the juvenile’s family. Where there is reason to believe that a parent’s interests may be in conflict with the juvenile’s, and that the juvenile has been induced to waive his right in the service of a parental interest, it may be necessary to conduct separate colloquies regarding the positions of the family members—with the juvenile’s occurring out of the hearing of his parents. The court may assign “stand-by counsel” whenever a juvenile waives representation. In any case, the waiver applies only to the hearing for which it is made. Not only may it be revoked at any time, but the court must inform the juvenile of the right to counsel again at each subsequent hearing in the case.
However, the former judge is not the only culprit in this scheme. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Judge Arthur E. Grim of Berks County to review Luzerne County juvenile court proceedings that may have been tainted by the criminal allegations against former judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan. It is my information that juveniles who took a lawyer to court will not have their cases reviewed by Judge Grim. Their remedy might be instituting a malpractice case against the lawyer who prevented proper representation before Ciavarella.
Look at this statement which appeared in the Times Leader.
The Supreme Court’s order directs Grim to identify juveniles who were not represented and those who were committed to the two juvenile centers in question.
What a "grim" prospect for those parents who had representation. I know, I know.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Look At The Latest Defendants In The Juvenile Law Center Lawsuit
The Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia has jumped into the foray over the Luzerne County juvenile court scandal by filing a class action lawsuit against parties involved according to the Times Leader.
The following defendants are named in the suit: MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR.; MICHAEL T. CONAHAN; ROBERT J. POWELL; ROBERT MERICLE; GREGORY ZAPPALA; CINDY CIAVARELLA; BARBARA
CONAHAN; MERICLE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; MIDATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES; PA CHILD CARE, LLC; WESTERN PA CHILD CARE, LLC; PINNACLE GROUP OF JUPITER, LLC; VISION HOLDINGS, LLC; BEVERAGE MARKETING OF PENNSYLVANIA,INC.,Defendants.
Item 636 of the document is interesting in that it seems to elevate the allegations.
In particular, the defendants intentionally conspired and agreed to acquireor maintain interests in and control of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as described in Count VI. Additionally, the
defendants intentionally conspired and agreed to conduct and participate in
the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity, as described in Count V.
I am particularly intrigued by this statement in the lawsuit. The defendants knew that their predicate acts were part of a pattern of racketeering activity, and the defendants agreed to the commission of those acts to further the schemes described in Counts V and VI. It will be interesting to see the facts that will be presented to the court to support that allegation.
Again I want to stress that these are allegations that will most likely be defended against. No one should infer liability at this point. Please keep in mind that the defendants can petition the court to be dropped from the lawsuit at a later date. It is a civil action that will need to work its way through the court system.
I am sure this action will not be the last we see in this
The following defendants are named in the suit: MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR.; MICHAEL T. CONAHAN; ROBERT J. POWELL; ROBERT MERICLE; GREGORY ZAPPALA; CINDY CIAVARELLA; BARBARA
CONAHAN; MERICLE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; MIDATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES; PA CHILD CARE, LLC; WESTERN PA CHILD CARE, LLC; PINNACLE GROUP OF JUPITER, LLC; VISION HOLDINGS, LLC; BEVERAGE MARKETING OF PENNSYLVANIA,INC.,Defendants.
Item 636 of the document is interesting in that it seems to elevate the allegations.
In particular, the defendants intentionally conspired and agreed to acquireor maintain interests in and control of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as described in Count VI. Additionally, the
defendants intentionally conspired and agreed to conduct and participate in
the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity, as described in Count V.
I am particularly intrigued by this statement in the lawsuit. The defendants knew that their predicate acts were part of a pattern of racketeering activity, and the defendants agreed to the commission of those acts to further the schemes described in Counts V and VI. It will be interesting to see the facts that will be presented to the court to support that allegation.
Again I want to stress that these are allegations that will most likely be defended against. No one should infer liability at this point. Please keep in mind that the defendants can petition the court to be dropped from the lawsuit at a later date. It is a civil action that will need to work its way through the court system.
I am sure this action will not be the last we see in this
Monday, February 23, 2009
Lack Of Oversight of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Why does Pa. Supreme Court tread so lightly around juvenile-rights tangle? And so asks John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News.
I ask Chief Justice Ron Castille what took so long. "We had to wait for everybody else to answer," he says.
That would be the county court, the local D.A., and so on. Plus, Castille argues, Judge Ciavarella, within weeks of the April filing, pulled himself off juvenile cases and issued new written notices to charged kids and their parents about right-to-counsel.
Since nothing was alleged about kickbacks at that point (the judges were charged Jan. 26), Castille felt that the right-to-counsel issue was resolved and saw no need for Supreme Court intervention. What about the statistics, I ask? Didn't they cause you concern?
"Well, you know statistics. . . . There are lies, damn lies and statistics," he says.
(I hope he's kidding; government policy is built on statistics.)
Questioned further, he says, "We are not an investigative agency."
When I ask if he'd considered referring the statistics to an investigative agency, he says: "They weren't our statistics."
I start to sense a circular argument. What about possible public perception that since detention facilities in question are owned by Greg Zappala, son of former Chief Justice Stephen Zappala, the court might be, uh, slowed or swayed?
He laughs, calls me a cynic and says:
"No, Greg Zappala is a legitimate businessman, as far as I know."
Zappala is not charged, and reportedly is not a target of the probe.
Lack of judicial oversight allows such smugness in the answers to this reporter's questions. It almost legitimizes the label of ruling elite. Judge Castille, should not your judiciary be held to a higher standard than what we would accept in the private world? Why have judicial cannons if suspected behavior isn't reported to the proper investigative agencies?
We cannot let Jackie Musto-Carroll off the hook in this matter. She was co-operating with the FBI in their investigation of the corruption at the Luzerne County Courthouse. In the face of that co-operation she wrote a brief to the court containing the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."
From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.
I ask Chief Justice Ron Castille what took so long. "We had to wait for everybody else to answer," he says.
That would be the county court, the local D.A., and so on. Plus, Castille argues, Judge Ciavarella, within weeks of the April filing, pulled himself off juvenile cases and issued new written notices to charged kids and their parents about right-to-counsel.
Since nothing was alleged about kickbacks at that point (the judges were charged Jan. 26), Castille felt that the right-to-counsel issue was resolved and saw no need for Supreme Court intervention. What about the statistics, I ask? Didn't they cause you concern?
"Well, you know statistics. . . . There are lies, damn lies and statistics," he says.
(I hope he's kidding; government policy is built on statistics.)
Questioned further, he says, "We are not an investigative agency."
When I ask if he'd considered referring the statistics to an investigative agency, he says: "They weren't our statistics."
I start to sense a circular argument. What about possible public perception that since detention facilities in question are owned by Greg Zappala, son of former Chief Justice Stephen Zappala, the court might be, uh, slowed or swayed?
He laughs, calls me a cynic and says:
"No, Greg Zappala is a legitimate businessman, as far as I know."
Zappala is not charged, and reportedly is not a target of the probe.
Lack of judicial oversight allows such smugness in the answers to this reporter's questions. It almost legitimizes the label of ruling elite. Judge Castille, should not your judiciary be held to a higher standard than what we would accept in the private world? Why have judicial cannons if suspected behavior isn't reported to the proper investigative agencies?
We cannot let Jackie Musto-Carroll off the hook in this matter. She was co-operating with the FBI in their investigation of the corruption at the Luzerne County Courthouse. In the face of that co-operation she wrote a brief to the court containing the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."
From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Judge Lupas- Lets Ask You Questions
The PHILADELPHIA based Juvenile Law Center filed the suit to overturn juvenile cases before President Judge Mark Ciavarella because the children didn't have lawyers.
As former District Attorney for Luzerne County why did your office and the Luzerne County Public Defender's Office ignore the constitutional rights of 500+ CHILDREN while they were allegedly violated? The Indictment details these allegations as part of the federal investigation.
Former President Judge Mark Ciavarella allegedly admitted that he ERRED by not reciting the LEGALLY REQUIRED questioning of juvenile defendants asking them ON THE RECORD if they knew that they had a right to legal counsel. Ciavarella removed himself from the Juvenile Court and assigned David Lupas to take over.
Wouldn't it appear to the prudent public that An Attorney from The Luzerne County District Attorney's Office should have been present every time Ciavarella violated the constitutional rights of a juvenile defendant? The Luzerne County District Attorney Office, as Officers of the Court, were equally required to step in when Judge Mark Ciavarella did not ask the juveniles ON THE RECORD if they knew they had a right to legal counsel. To accept any other premise is unconcionable. They took an oath of office to act in the interest of justice. What reports on outcome were transmitted back to the office of the District Attorney during these alleged violations?
Every thing that Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella are now accused of doing, they did openly in full view of The Luzerne County District Attorney's Office. David Lupas did not question what was going on in Juvenile Court when he was DA.
David Lupas was head of The Luzerne County DA's Office during most of the events leading up to the current scandals surrounding Conahan and Ciavarella.
The Luzerne County District Attorney is the Defense Attorney for Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan. In any CIVIL PROCEEDING filed against Judges Conahan and Ciavarella, The Luzerne County District Attorney would immediatey file an answer to that lawsuit as THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD for Defendants Conahan and Ciavarella. In fact Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Musto-Carroll in filed a response to the petition from Juvenile Law Center ON BEHALF OF Judge Mark Ciavarella.
As former District Attorney for Luzerne County why did your office and the Luzerne County Public Defender's Office ignore the constitutional rights of 500+ CHILDREN while they were allegedly violated? The Indictment details these allegations as part of the federal investigation.
Former President Judge Mark Ciavarella allegedly admitted that he ERRED by not reciting the LEGALLY REQUIRED questioning of juvenile defendants asking them ON THE RECORD if they knew that they had a right to legal counsel. Ciavarella removed himself from the Juvenile Court and assigned David Lupas to take over.
Wouldn't it appear to the prudent public that An Attorney from The Luzerne County District Attorney's Office should have been present every time Ciavarella violated the constitutional rights of a juvenile defendant? The Luzerne County District Attorney Office, as Officers of the Court, were equally required to step in when Judge Mark Ciavarella did not ask the juveniles ON THE RECORD if they knew they had a right to legal counsel. To accept any other premise is unconcionable. They took an oath of office to act in the interest of justice. What reports on outcome were transmitted back to the office of the District Attorney during these alleged violations?
Every thing that Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella are now accused of doing, they did openly in full view of The Luzerne County District Attorney's Office. David Lupas did not question what was going on in Juvenile Court when he was DA.
David Lupas was head of The Luzerne County DA's Office during most of the events leading up to the current scandals surrounding Conahan and Ciavarella.
The Luzerne County District Attorney is the Defense Attorney for Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan. In any CIVIL PROCEEDING filed against Judges Conahan and Ciavarella, The Luzerne County District Attorney would immediatey file an answer to that lawsuit as THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD for Defendants Conahan and Ciavarella. In fact Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Musto-Carroll in filed a response to the petition from Juvenile Law Center ON BEHALF OF Judge Mark Ciavarella.
Monday, January 26, 2009
DA Jackie Musto Carroll- Lets Ask You A Question
The Juvenile Law Center released a press release on April 28, 2008 that stated "Luzerne County is Worst Violator of Youth Civil Rights- Juvenile Law Center, a Philadelphia-based public interest law firm, filed a petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today requesting immediate, emergency relief on behalf of Luzerne County youth who have been the subject of delinquency hearings without counsel since October 1, 2005 when Pennsylvania adopted the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure."
The Center issued another press release on June 17,2008 titled "JLC Petitions PA Supreme Court for Extraordinary Relief for Hundreds of Youth Tried Without the Benefit of Lawyers". In the body of the release it states "The Luzerne County District Attorney and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) filed briefs on behalf of the Juvenile Court urging the Supreme Court not to take jurisdiction. JLC filed a response."
A second request was placed before the Supreme Court by the Juvenile Law Center in December.
DA Musto-Carroll's argument to the court contained the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."
Oh really???
On page 14 of the indictment against Ciavarella and Conahan it reads "It was further a part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, on numerous occassions, accused juvenile offenders were ordered detained by the defendant Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. even when Juvenile Probation Officers did not recommend detention. The defendant Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., at others operating at his behest, also exherted pressure on staff of the Court of Common Pleas to recommend detention of juvenile offenders. On some occassions, probation officers were pressured to change recommendations of release to recommendations of detention.
Tom Corbett, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania supported the Juvenile Law Center's efforts to secure Supreme Court review. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare filed a similar brief supporting a Supreme Court review. Yet, DA Musto-Carroll chose otherwise.
In today's press conference DA Musto-Carroll isquoted as saying "I think this is the beginning of the end of the darkest days of our county. We can look at this as a bright spot that things have been turned around and no longer will these sorts of things be tolerated."
Her brief filed in opposition to the Juvenile Law Center demonstrates an acute ignorance of the investigation going on around her. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear children's complaints of massive rights violations in Luzerne County demands public outrage at the arrogance of the court in light of this indictment.
DA Musto-Carroll- Were you not aware of an investigation into PA ChildCare to the extent that you foiled attempts to protect children from long range mental problems over injustice?
From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 at the bottom of page 4- "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.
The Center issued another press release on June 17,2008 titled "JLC Petitions PA Supreme Court for Extraordinary Relief for Hundreds of Youth Tried Without the Benefit of Lawyers". In the body of the release it states "The Luzerne County District Attorney and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) filed briefs on behalf of the Juvenile Court urging the Supreme Court not to take jurisdiction. JLC filed a response."
A second request was placed before the Supreme Court by the Juvenile Law Center in December.
DA Musto-Carroll's argument to the court contained the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."
Oh really???
On page 14 of the indictment against Ciavarella and Conahan it reads "It was further a part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, on numerous occassions, accused juvenile offenders were ordered detained by the defendant Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. even when Juvenile Probation Officers did not recommend detention. The defendant Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., at others operating at his behest, also exherted pressure on staff of the Court of Common Pleas to recommend detention of juvenile offenders. On some occassions, probation officers were pressured to change recommendations of release to recommendations of detention.
Tom Corbett, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania supported the Juvenile Law Center's efforts to secure Supreme Court review. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare filed a similar brief supporting a Supreme Court review. Yet, DA Musto-Carroll chose otherwise.
In today's press conference DA Musto-Carroll isquoted as saying "I think this is the beginning of the end of the darkest days of our county. We can look at this as a bright spot that things have been turned around and no longer will these sorts of things be tolerated."
Her brief filed in opposition to the Juvenile Law Center demonstrates an acute ignorance of the investigation going on around her. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear children's complaints of massive rights violations in Luzerne County demands public outrage at the arrogance of the court in light of this indictment.
DA Musto-Carroll- Were you not aware of an investigation into PA ChildCare to the extent that you foiled attempts to protect children from long range mental problems over injustice?
From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 at the bottom of page 4- "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
And Justice For All= M.C. and His Hammer
The Supreme Court decided to take up an appeal by a death prisoner on the issue involving the right to a lawyer. As reported yesterday Jessey Jay Montejo will have his case heard before the Supreme Court on the right to a lawyer during an interrogation after asking for one. What does this case have to do with Pennsylvania?
In two separate instances the Juvenile Law Center petitioned the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court take immediate jurisdiction over more than 500 criminal cases involving juveniles before President Judge Mark Ciavarella. A Pennsylvania Child Welfare Agency had previously joined in the Petition as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania' Attorney General.
The JLC wanted emergency relief granted to these cases alleging that Judge Ciavarella forced these juveniles through the system without proper representation.
Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Musto Carroll urged the state Supreme Court to reject the petition from the JLC demanding reforms in the county’s juvenile court system. "Musto Carroll and Barletta said the Juvenile Law Center did not adequately establish the identities of the juveniles it claimed were wronged, other than the two whose cases were the impetus for the petition.."
It is interesting that the Attorney General for Pennsylvania and the department charged with licensing juvenile facilities support the JLC while the Luzerne DA opposes the effort.
Ciavarella has also been accused of failing to conduct a colloquy – a legal term that refers to in-depth questioning judges are required to perform to ensure defendants understand what rights they are giving up when they opt to waive their right to an attorney. As support for her position Musto Carroll noted that on the summons juveniles receive they are notified of the right to an attorney. Musto Carroll should revisit this position in light of the seriousness of the allegations.
This issue brought back memories of an all time favorite movie- "And Justice For All" starring Al Pacino. It's a brilliant performance. Yes, it appears Judge Ciavarella is "out of order."
In two separate instances the Juvenile Law Center petitioned the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court take immediate jurisdiction over more than 500 criminal cases involving juveniles before President Judge Mark Ciavarella. A Pennsylvania Child Welfare Agency had previously joined in the Petition as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania' Attorney General.
The JLC wanted emergency relief granted to these cases alleging that Judge Ciavarella forced these juveniles through the system without proper representation.
Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Musto Carroll urged the state Supreme Court to reject the petition from the JLC demanding reforms in the county’s juvenile court system. "Musto Carroll and Barletta said the Juvenile Law Center did not adequately establish the identities of the juveniles it claimed were wronged, other than the two whose cases were the impetus for the petition.."
It is interesting that the Attorney General for Pennsylvania and the department charged with licensing juvenile facilities support the JLC while the Luzerne DA opposes the effort.
Ciavarella has also been accused of failing to conduct a colloquy – a legal term that refers to in-depth questioning judges are required to perform to ensure defendants understand what rights they are giving up when they opt to waive their right to an attorney. As support for her position Musto Carroll noted that on the summons juveniles receive they are notified of the right to an attorney. Musto Carroll should revisit this position in light of the seriousness of the allegations.
This issue brought back memories of an all time favorite movie- "And Justice For All" starring Al Pacino. It's a brilliant performance. Yes, it appears Judge Ciavarella is "out of order."
Monday, December 22, 2008
Juvenile Law Center Files Second Request To Review Luzerne County's Juvenile Court Procedures
On the heels of my December 20th post about the Juvenile Law Center comes this press release in the Times Leader. It appears the JLC is reiterating its request to the State Supreme Court for review of juvenile cases that occurred without representation in Luzerne County's Juvenile Court. I, for one, want to know the number of children sent to detention since Judge Lupas took over Juvenile Court.
If you want to read about an incredible case I first noticed two years ago click here. I asked the Times Leader for a follow up to the story but haven't read it yet.
After the outlandish punishment issued by the Judicial Conduct Board against Judge Lokuta one would think that denial of due process rights would rank much higher on the court's agenda.
Or maybe, just maybe as in the Blagojevich case where the U.S. Attorney asked Obama to delay releasing the results of his own internal investigation, maybe the U.S. Attorney or the F.B.I. has asked the State Supreme Court to wait until their investigation is finished.
If you want to read about an incredible case I first noticed two years ago click here. I asked the Times Leader for a follow up to the story but haven't read it yet.
After the outlandish punishment issued by the Judicial Conduct Board against Judge Lokuta one would think that denial of due process rights would rank much higher on the court's agenda.
Or maybe, just maybe as in the Blagojevich case where the U.S. Attorney asked Obama to delay releasing the results of his own internal investigation, maybe the U.S. Attorney or the F.B.I. has asked the State Supreme Court to wait until their investigation is finished.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Petrilla & Co. Fire Back At Ciavarella
In response to an injunction granted against the Luzerne County Commissioners and the Luzerne County Salary Board, Commissioner Petrilla and her colleagues fired back with an emergency petition to the State Supreme Court. Their attorney used an extraordinary but rarely used action called "Kings Bench Jurisidiction." The term eminates from England where the king actually sat on the court.
In this case the Supreme Court is viewed as "a supervisory tribunal to keep other jurisdictions within their proper bounds". Its civil jurisdiction is against the officers or ministers of the court entitled to its privilege.
What is ironic is the fact that Ciavarella is telling the court irreparable harm will come to the courts if their funding is cut. However, he has no study or factual information to back up his assertion. I guess he feels that no irreparable harm will come to Luzerne County or the taxpayers if he is given a blank check.
In a twist to this story the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania plans to submit a brief in support of Luzerne County's efforts.
"Association Executive Director Doug Hill said Friday the timing of Luzerne County’s legal battle is "ironic" because the association earlier this month filed a motion asking the state Supreme Court to force the state to honor a 1996 Supreme Court order to fund county courts."
If Ciavarella was truly concerned about his funding why didn't he petition the State Supreme Court to enforce its order? He likes to pick the low hanging fruit. If it involves work he tries to sidestep it.
Anybody remember the lawsuit filed by the Juvenile Law Center against Judge Ciavarella to intervene on the juvenile court cases where the children had no legal representation. That is what I call irreparable harm.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not accept all cases that are brought before it. However, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett each filed briefs to convince the Court to take jurisdiction in this matter.
A bigger question is why isn't the mainstream media taking Ciavarella to task on these issues? Peter seems to have a grasp on the magnitude of Luzerne County Court problems.
In this case the Supreme Court is viewed as "a supervisory tribunal to keep other jurisdictions within their proper bounds". Its civil jurisdiction is against the officers or ministers of the court entitled to its privilege.
What is ironic is the fact that Ciavarella is telling the court irreparable harm will come to the courts if their funding is cut. However, he has no study or factual information to back up his assertion. I guess he feels that no irreparable harm will come to Luzerne County or the taxpayers if he is given a blank check.
In a twist to this story the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania plans to submit a brief in support of Luzerne County's efforts.
"Association Executive Director Doug Hill said Friday the timing of Luzerne County’s legal battle is "ironic" because the association earlier this month filed a motion asking the state Supreme Court to force the state to honor a 1996 Supreme Court order to fund county courts."
If Ciavarella was truly concerned about his funding why didn't he petition the State Supreme Court to enforce its order? He likes to pick the low hanging fruit. If it involves work he tries to sidestep it.
Anybody remember the lawsuit filed by the Juvenile Law Center against Judge Ciavarella to intervene on the juvenile court cases where the children had no legal representation. That is what I call irreparable harm.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not accept all cases that are brought before it. However, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett each filed briefs to convince the Court to take jurisdiction in this matter.
A bigger question is why isn't the mainstream media taking Ciavarella to task on these issues? Peter seems to have a grasp on the magnitude of Luzerne County Court problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)