A Terroristic Divorce

Classes and conferences provided by the American Bar Association confirm the silence and secrecy when Rule 1.6 is involved. In this conference, they look at three cases of injustice from Pennsylvania and acknowledge the failure to act only makes matters worse. Does this ABA conference acknowledge and demonstrate responsibility for the failure to act?

ABA CLE Psychology of Secrets – Flyer On the map of Pennsylvania, the municipalities of Wilkes barre, State College and Philadelphia form a triangle linking three sordid stories that collectively might be called “The Judges, The Coaches and The Priests.” Why do people believe they can keep such enormous secrets? Lawyers who work with people caught up in such scandals will speak to us about their work in ‘handling’ these cases. Why do victims stay quiet?

THE VICTIMS ARE NOT BEING QUIET, THEY ARE BEING IGNORED.

The District Attorney fails to act. The Attorney General fails to act. Law Enforcement fails to act. Why are they blaming the victims for THEIR failure to act? The involvement of professionals mandated by Rule 1.6 obstructs justice, prevents resolution and results in misdirection of the issues involved. The ABA is familiar and experienced with the psychology of secrets. (Lawyers will offer that Rule 1.6 is attorney-client privilege and negate the scope of a rule very accurately titled CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.)

The longer we ignore the “elephants,” the larger they loom because each negation sets off a deeper pit of denial.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 addresses the denial of the constitutional rights of the victims of injustice and judicial corruption. In the mid 80’s, the scandal quietly began when the state supreme court enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into LAW. Lawyers and judges have maintained the secret which required ‘convincing’ the sheriffs (the non-lawyer) that they had no authority or jurisdiction to prosecute them. The judiciary undermined the constitution of every state to conceal their conspiracy.

Why do they believe they can keep such an enormous secret? They have controlled, ignored and denied their victims of any resolution or relief for over 25 years. It is illegal for any attorney to prosecute the sedition and treason of their actions.

It is necessary for the people to become involved and for the state legislatures and the US Congress to take action to end the unconstitutional corruption of a judiciary which has arrogantly and egregiously violated the public trust. One law, Rule 1.6, has undermined state and federal law and the US Constitution. Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS.
Keep in mind, Rule 1.6 mandates that lawyers take no action which will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Law professionals will likely ignore you.

Rule 1.6 impacts a person quickly causing the loss of their rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution. No one helps. No one explains.

Rule 1.6 impacts the judiciary as the judges sacrifice their integrity without explanation – the victims learn to have no faith or trust in the judiciary.

---

INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE
So extraordinary were the circumstances that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Pennsylvania government agreed to undertake a noncriminal investigation to determine the root causes of the breakdown of Luzerne County’s juvenile justice system and to propose remedies.

As stated by Act 32, The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was to determine how the Luzerne County juvenile justice system failed, to restore public confidence in the administration of justice and to prevent similar events from occurring in Luzerne County or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

THE COMMISSION FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Here’s a few reasons / influences…

THE COMMISSIONS MEMBERS
Judge John M. Cleland	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge James A. Gibbons	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge John C. Uhler	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge Dwayne Woodruff	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Jason A. Legg, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Robert L. Listenbee, Jr. Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
George Mossee, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Darren M. Breslin, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Tod C. Allen	???
Valerie Bender	???
Ronald P. Williams	???

Witnesses who appeared before the commission:
The president judge of Luzerne County	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the former district attorney	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the incumbent district attorney	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the county public defender	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant district attorneys	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant public defenders	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
juvenile probation officials	???
former juvenile defendants	???
parents of juvenile defendants	???
school officials	???
county commissioners	???
officials of the Judicial Conduct Board	judges and lawyers mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
and others	???

Prosecutors, defenders and probation officials had witnessed and had participated in proceedings in Ciavarella’s courtroom.

The Commission finds a complex and nuanced picture in which many individuals may be seen to have shared the responsibility attributing their inaction and silence to inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.

For some, hesitation to act stemmed from a quandry: They were not sure where to turn to report concerns.

For some there was a coinciding skepticism: What good would it do?

“WHAT GOOD WOULD IT DO?” is not coinciding skepticism. It is the impact of the unconstitutional ‘law’ that caused the moral and ethical quandry where injustice and denial of constitutional rights is mandated to conceal the corruption and injustice of the judiciary.

THE COMMISSION FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED BY PERSONS WHO MUST FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?
AND THAT THE LAW MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY?
AND HAD THE CORRUPTION BEEN REPORTED TO ANY SUPERIOR, OR HIGHER COURT OR DISCIPLINARY BOARD OR JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD, THEY TOO WERE MANDATED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY?

Silence, inaction, inexperience, fear of retaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. MAYBE.
BUT, There was no ignorance of the law requiring CONFIDENTIALITY… their failure to act was deliberate and deceptive and calculating.

Rule 1.6 mandates an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
– would reveal the misconduct of the lawyers office, or
– would expose individual liability of the lawyer, or
– would negatively impact their client.

Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is…
– Public
– Government as a whole
– Branch of government in which employed
– Particular agency or department
– Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.

Rule 1.6 concealed the single point of failure… itself.

After all, Rule 1.6 was why the District Attorney did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.

After all, Rule 1.6 was why the Attorney General did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.

After all, Rule 1.6 was why Judge Ann Lokuta was removed from the bench for reporting the corruption to the FBI. The Commission failed to interview Judge Ann Lokuta. The FBI involvement was in response to HER report. While the Commission was meeting, Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined for violating Confidentiality of Information.

While the Juvenile Law Center may be credited with exposing the injustice and corruption, you must recognize that The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania didn’t care about their complaint. NOT ONE BIT. Repeatedly dismissing it in every format submitted. Rule 1.6 required that they dismiss.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s own law enacted in 1987 (effective 1988) undermined their own power to act, or take steps to rectify the situation. Rule 1.6 sacrificed the judges integrity. Rule 1.6 prevented and denied justice.

Rule 1.6 undermines and causes the loss of the constitutional rights of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Kids for Cash scandal exposes the deliberate actions of the ‘law’ and the effect on the families and the communities.

Post Operation Greylord, The ABA wanted to make sure judges could not be prosecuted for corruption and injustice… so the ABA made it possible to deny the constitutional rights of people and children leaving the victim with no other place to turn but to go to the wrongdoers and request justice – and when ignored and denied, they were forced to return again and again without mercy.

Injustice doesn’t end injustice. It extends it.

References:
Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice
Summary of Recommendations
Progress Report
Kids for Cash Final Report

Kids for Cash Luzerne County Task Force

Kids for Cash Beck Report(Life before)

Lokuta Opinion
Lokuta Sanction
Lokuta Dissent
Lokuta Opinion and Order 2nd
Lokuta Opinion 2nd
Lokuta Order 1st
Lokuta Opinion and Order