2014
06.01

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

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: