Orie Melvin Guilty!

Jury finds Orie Melvin guilty on all but one count A jury found suspended Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin guilty on all but one counts today. Her sister, Janine Orie, was found guilty on all counts. The sisters are charged with misapplication of government funds, theft of services and conspiracy for allegedly using the justice's former Superior Court staff and the legislative staff of a third sister, former state Sen. Jane Orie, to run campaigns for the Supreme Court in 2003 and 2009. The jury was hung on one count of official oppression against Joan Orie Melvin. Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-state/jury-deliberating-orie-melvin-public-corruption-case-close-to-verdict-676334/#ixzz2LYpnD1MC

SOP Recognizes The Supreme Court's Wisdom?? Well Interpretations Anyway

In a prior post Article II Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution was cited as reason for unjust compensation to our legislators. After reviewing this decision by the Supreme Court we stand almost corrected.

What is meant by that statement? It is clear in their decision that the right of the voters to correct language that seems to be clear to Mom and Pop rests at the ballot box. Legislators in Harrisburg are using the system and decisions of the court to validate their actions to ingratiate themselves. It is up to the voters to correct their actions at election time.

Witness this article relating to those elected legialtors who didn't survive the midnight raid attempt at increasing their salaries.

That means at least 62 of the 119 representatives and 16 of 27 senators who voted for the ill-fated 2005 pay raise legislation will no longer be holding those seats. The House has 203 members; the Senate, 50.

Exercise your right this election cycle to send a clear message to the legislature and the courts about ignoring the citizens' pocketbook.

Supreme Court Vacates Juvenile Convictions Back To 2003

Times Leader Photo
According to a Times Leader article out of Harrisburg Pennsylvania's Highest Court has vacated all of the juvenile cases heard before disgraced ex-Judge Mark Ciavarella since 2003. Its order also disallows retrial of all the cases but a handful.

In issuing the ruling, the high court said it agreed with Grim's assessment that Ciavarella had shown a "complete disregard for the constitutional rights of juveniles who appeared before him."

"We conclude that the record supports Judge Grim's determination that Ciavarella knew he was violating both the law and the procedural rules promulgated by this court applicable when adjudicating the merits of juvenile cases without the knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel by the juveniles," the court wrote.

Grim had also recommended that Luzerne County District Attorney's office be barred from retrying all but a handful of cases based on the double jeopardy statute, a constitutional prohibition against trying a person twice for the same crime. Grim based that recommendation on his finding that Ciavarella engaged in intentional conduct meant to deprive juveniles of their rights. That triggered the double jeopardy statute, he said.

The Supreme Court agreed with Grim that the vast majority of cases cannot be retried, but declined to adopt Grim's reasoning regarding the double jeopardy statute. The court instead said it was granting that relief solely "in the interest of justice."

SOP believes this order is far reaching and Judges in Pennsylvania should take note. In reading the court's order it is an indictment of actions by a judge that would introduce an element of prejudice by a judge.

The transcripts reveal a disturbing lack of fundamental process, inimical to any system of justice, and made even more grievous since these matters involved juveniles.

During the hearing conducted by President Judge Platt in Joseph v. The Scranton Times, 19 MM 2009, Ciavarella admitted under oath that he had received payments from Robert Powell, a co-owner of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care facilities, and from Robert K. Mericle, the developer who constructed the juvenile facilities, during the period of time that Ciavarella was presiding over juvenile matters in Luzerne County. It is a matter of record that Ciavarella routinely committed juveniles to one or another of these facilities. It is also a matter of record that Ciavarella failed to disclose his ties to Powell, much less the financial benefits he received in connection with the facilities to which he routinely committed Luzerne County juveniles. Ciavarella’s admission that he received these payments, and that he failed to disclose his financial interests arising from the development of the juvenile facilities, thoroughly undermines the integrity of all juvenile proceedings before Ciavarella. Whether or not a juvenile was represented by counsel, and whether or not a juvenile was committed to one of the facilities which secretly funneled money to Ciavarella and Conahan, this Court cannot have any confidence that Ciavarella decided any Luzerne County juvenile case fairly and impartially while he labored under the
specter of his self-interested dealings with the facilities.

At a federal hearing yesterday Mark Ciavarella had "No comment." FINALLY!

Jack Panella- Where Were You When We Needed You?

Press Release from Republican Party of Pennsylvania:

October 28, 2009 Contact: Michael Barley
For Immediate Release (717) 234-4901



PA GOP: Jack Panella Ignored Luzerne County Judicial Misconduct Complaint



HARRISBURG – Republican Party of Pennsylvania Executive Director Luke Bernstein and Spokesman Michael Barley attended a press conference hosted by Luzerne County Republican Chairman Terry Casey to recount Jack Panella’s ties to the Luzerne County “Cash for Kids” judicial scandal.

“Jack Panella had an opportunity to stop Pennsylvania children from being harmed by corrupt judges in Luzerne County and he chose not to,” Bernstein said. “Panella was a member of the Judicial Conduct Board in 2006 when a complaint was filed against former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan and Panella and the Board chose not charge this corrupt judge. Those are the facts and they are indisputable!

“As a native of Luzerne County, I am outraged that Jack Panella and the Judicial Conduct Board had an opportunity to put an end to this scandal, but instead chose to ignore our children who were being unfairly punished in this ‘Cash for Kids’ scandal.”

According to the Judicial Conduct Board’s Mission Statement, “The Board investigates every allegation made against a Pennsylvania judge. Each complaint that is filed with the Board is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by the staff as well as the twelve Board members. This procedure is an essential safeguard in the integrity of and public confidence in the judicial process.” (Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Web Site, http://www.judicialconductboardofpa.org/MissionStatement.html, Accessed 10/22/09)

Spokesman Michael Barley continued, “The Judicial Conduct Board’s Mission Statement leaves no doubt that Jack Panella saw the 2006 complaint that was filed against disgraced Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan. If Panella didn’t see the complaint, then he wasn’t doing his job. Panella had an opportunity to protect innocent children in Luzerne County and he let down all of the Pennsylvanians who were counting on him to protect us from corrupt judges.

“Jack Panella failed Pennsylvania as the biggest case of judicial misconduct in our nation’s history was taking place right under his nose and now he wants a promotion he doesn’t deserve. I urge anyone concerned with real judicial reform to join me in voting for Judge Joan Orie Melvin for Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009.”

Maybe my buddy Gort will rethink his assessment.

Altoona Decision May Have Implications For Luzerne County Judges

A story that appeared in today's Altoona Mirror by Phil Ray may have implications regarding the juvenile court cases filed against the disgraced judges in Luzerne County.

State office:?Man can’t sue Drug Court judge

HOLLIDAYSBURG - The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts said an Altoona man cannot sue the administrative judge in charge of Blair County Drug Court over a decision to fund an abortion for a program participant.

The state court's office replied by asking that Bowers' petition be dismissed because of the concept of "sovereign immunity."

It is also contended that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the only entity that has the power to investigate "the practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts."

Bowers also filed a right-to-know request to view the minutes of the review team. That request was denied because judicial records are not subject to the new state law, Sullivan said.

I thought there was a lesson learned in Luzerne County with regards to secrecy and the courts. The Supreme Court should not hold itself higher than the people it represents.

In today's Allentown Morning Call Chief Justice Ron Castille opines about the Luzerne County judges' situation.

As leader of the Pennsylvania court system, my top goal is for the citizens of this commonwealth to trust their judges, and for judges at every level to deserve that trust.

The Supreme Court also is gravely concerned about broad damage to the court system and is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to restore public confidence in the judicial system in Luzerne County.

Your honor, respectfully, don't hide your records. It would be a start towards regaining trust. Next, explain how Richard Sprague can be the President Judge of the Court of Judicial Discipline, be an attorney in private practice who may have to go up against judges he may have to face when brought before him in that capacity and represent lawyers charged with crimes. Why didn't he need to recuse himself during Judge Ann Lokuta's trial when it was alleged he represented PA ChildCare and Robert Powell? It may be entirely within the parameters of the system but you need to explain it to the non-legal professionals so that it makes sense.

Legal Mess Fallout From Juvenile Detention Center Debacle

Michael Rubinkam and Mark Scolforo Of The Associated Press write an article featured in the Allentown Morning Call regarding the legal mess that will remain in reviewing the juvenile cases of Luzerne County's court fiasco. Judge Grimm was ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review some 2,500 cases to determine if there is a remedy needed for lack of legal representation when juveniles appeared in the courtroom of former disgraced Judge Mark Ciavarella.

As Rubikam and Scolforo explain that task will not be an easy one.

The judge handling the matter for the state Supreme Court now faces the more daunting task of figuring out how to restore the legal rights of children convicted of serious offenses without endangering the public's safety or creating new problems of restitution or sentencing.

''It's going to be an extraordinarily difficult matter to conclude,'' Berks County Senior Judge Arthur E. Grim, appointed to review thousands of cases handled by a disgraced Luzerne County judge dating to 2003, said Friday. ''At this point, I'm not prepared to tell you what the answer will be, because I don't know.''

Restitution plays an important role in Pennsylvania's juvenile courts and will factor into how the court disposes of the Ciavarella cases, said Jim Anderson, executive director of the state Juvenile Court Judges' Commission.

Also, a juvenile offense can raise the minimum sentence that an adult defendant gets in Pennsylvania, so any conclusions about expungement could, in some cases, result in early release of state prison inmates.

''Juvenile adjudication may prevent someone from being hired for certain kinds of jobs, may prevent someone from owning a firearm, all kinds of things,'' Anderson said.

Grim, who is chairman of the Juvenile Court Judges' Commission, said Friday that in some cases, a new trial might be the best solution. But that raises another problem -- Pennsylvania law prevents retrial of anyone who is at least 22 years old as a juvenile.

What cannot be lost in this process are that some of those cases involve juveniles justly sentenced for offenses like car theft, drug dealing, and assault. And more importantly we cannot lose sight of the affected victims of juvenile offenders in this process.

BREAKING NEWS:Justices Dispensing A Sign Of Justice

ABCnews.com is reporting that hundreds of juvenile cases in Luzerne County have been overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania's highest court on Thursday overturned hundreds of juvenile convictions issued by a corrupt judge who took millions of dollars in kickbacks from youth detention centers.

The state Supreme Court ruled that former Luzerne County President Judge Mark Ciavarella violated the constitutional rights of youth offenders who appeared in his courtroom without lawyers between 2003 and 2008.

"Today's order is not intended to be a quick fix," Chief Justice Ronald Castille said in a statement. "It's going to take some time, but the Supreme Court is committed to righting whatever wrong was perpetrated on Luzerne's juveniles and their families."

Previous reports state Berks County Senior Judge Arthur Grim turned over his preliminary findingsin this case. Evidently the court acted on those findings.

BREAKING NEWS: ANN LOKUTA'S SEAT REMOVED FROM BALLOT

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has halted the election to fill former Judge Ann Lokuta's judicial seat on the Luzerne County Court. Joe Holden of the WBRE newsteam broke the news on this evening's newscast.

The Supreme Court also ordered the Court of Judicial Discipline to consider whether it should reopen Lokuta's case. That's because three of the witnesses against her pleaded guilty in an ongoing federal corruption probe at the Luzerne County Courthouse.

Judicial Conduct Board Chief Counsel Joseph Massa previously argued in court documents about her appeals after her removal from the bench. From an article written by Coulter Jones in the Citizens Voice.


“(Lokuta) has consistently claimed there was a conspiracy of individuals to fabricate evidence of misconduct about her,” Massa wrote. “The fact that certain individuals who testified as part of the board’s group of 31 witnesses have been charged with independently committing crimes, or have been found to have financial connections to each other, does not simultaneously support that they conspired to fabricate evidence of judicial misconduct about (Lokuta).”

Massa wrote that Conahan and Ciavarella were only “two witnesses among a total pool of 31 who testified as part of the board’s case,” and their testimony was no more “key” than any of the other witnesses. Massa also disputed that Lokuta’s appeal is any more complicated than other appeals of this nature.

Lokuta had also objected that Richard Sprague, who served as president judge during her trial, didn’t recuse himself even though a potential conflict existed since he had represented Robert J. Powell and other potential witnesses from the Powell Law Group, P.C. According to court documents filed by federal prosecutors last month, Conahan and Ciavarella took $2.6 million in kickbacks from two individuals — Powell is believed to be one — tied to Pennsylvania Child Care LLC, a company whose juvenile detention centers earned nearly $30 million from county contracts.

Massa argued that during Lokuta’s trial, only one witness from the Powell Law Group, Prothonotary Jill Moran, testified and that didn’t necessitate Sprague stepping down.

You can read about Sprague's 225 page Opinion against Lokuta by clicking here.

That relationship wasn't the only one she raised in her defense. Dave Janoski in the Times-Tribune wrote this information in July, 2008.

Judge Lokuta had asked the court, which is considering sanctions against her, to dismiss the charges or reopen the case because of a recently revealed financial relationship between a key prosecution witness, county Senior Judge Michael T. Conahan, and the chairman of the state board that filed the charges, and local auto parts executive Patrick Judge Sr.

Mr. Judge and Judge Conahan are co-investors in a local ambulance company and a Florida real-estate firm. Mr. Judge was chairman of the state Judicial Conduct Board when it approved charges against Judge Lokuta in October 2006. Last year, he was named to the seven-member Court of Judicial Discipline, which has two members who are neither judges nor lawyers.

The one-sentence order denying Judge Lokuta’s request did not give a reason for the denial. Philadelphia attorney Richard Sprague, one of three members of the Court of Judicial Discipline who presided over Judge Lokuta’s 12-day trial, signed the order. He did not return a phone message seeking comment.


Her fight is not over but I have to give Ann credit. She is staying her course.

BREAKING NEWS- State Supreme Court Wants Monthly Progess Reports From Muroski

The Citizen's Voice is reporting that the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania has asked Luzerne County President Judge Chester B. Muroski to submit monthly progress reports on improvements being made in the county court system.

"What has happened in the recent past is disheartening to all of us as jurists at every level in our Unified Judicial System," Chief Justice Castille wrote in a letter to Muroski.

A link to the letter.

BREAKING NEWS- MORE TARGET LETTERS

The I-Team at WBRE28 is reporting that target letters were sent to several law firms in Luzerne and Lackawanna counties in the ongoing corruption probe of the Luzerne County Courts. The I-Team has also reported that at least one district justice from Luzerne County has been questioned by federal agents.

In an unrelated matter the Times Leader reported that Robert Powell was once accused by another attorney where the allegation states Powell asked "a witness to falsely state he had cancelled an interview that was scheduled with the defense."

The allegations are contained in a transcript of a hearing held on Dec. 12, 2005, before Olszewski at which Carey questioned whether Powell had attempted to thwart his attempts to conduct a pre-trial interview – known as a deposition – of Dr. Clark Gerhart

According to the transcript, Carey was scheduled to interview Gerhart on Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005, but Powell advised him the day before that Gerhart had cancelled the deposition because he was in Germany and could not attend.

Carey subsequently learned that Gerhart was, in fact, in Wilkes-Barre and had cleared his schedule so that he could be interviewed, according to the transcript. He also learned that a paralegal from Powell’s office had called Gerhart’s office and asked the staff to write a letter stating it was Gerhart who cancelled the deposition, according to the transcript. The staff refused, however, because they felt they were being asked to do something that was “fraudulent,” according to the transcript.

Sources confirmed that the Disciplinary Board of the state Supreme Court investigated the case and dismissed the complaint.

The State Supreme Court track record from a PR perspective is not looking too good these days.

Look at Paul Carpenter's column in the Sunday Morning Call. He was discussing the leaks in the Louis DeNaples case.

The Supremes prevented Dauphin County prosecutors from moving ahead with DeNaples' criminal case by saying the Supreme Court had exclusive ''jurisdiction'' over all matters involving DeNaples.

The part of Tuesday's ruling that addresses grand jury leaks tells the Dauphin County Court to ''appoint a special prosecutor to conduct further inquiry into the allegations of the secrecy provisions of the investigating Grand Jury Act.''

Then comes the good part: ''This court [the Supremes] will continue to retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of completing the inquiry into the question of the alleged violations of grand jury secrecy. The retention of jurisdiction for this limited purpose shall not be construed as a stay by this court of any criminal prosecution.''

The prosecution ''stay'' lasted, I suspect, for as long as the Supremes thought they could get away with protecting DeNaples from accountability. As reporter Matt Assad revealed Feb. 1, ''DeNaples has had no preliminary hearing'' since he was charged with perjury in January of last year. Shortly after that, Assad's story noted, the Supreme Court invoked ''extraordinary jurisdiction'' at the request of DeNaples' lawyers.

The power structure of state government, including the Supreme Court, has fallen all over itself to accommodate DeNaples and other gambling industry interests.

In the case of DeNaples....the process was so obviously rotten that not even the Supremes could keep a lid on it forever.

This group of judges is the same Supreme Court that turned down the petition of the Juvenile Law Center to review the childrens' complaints of massive rights violations in Luzerne County on January 8, 2009 only to have it fly back at them with the indictment of former Judges Ciavarella and Conahan on January 26, 2009.