Are Judges and Lawyers Around the Country Finally Realizing Its Game Over?

 While most mainstream media outlets are still on the judicial bandwagon, it appears that rather than get caught in the crossfire, some are starting CYA campaigns.   More journalists are exposing each day, that the lives of millions of Americans over the last fifty years, have been destroyed because of abuse of power and collusion by judges and attorneys.  A shadow government appears to have formed  in the judicial branch via what is essentially a lawyers union, -the American Bar Association with its state and county subsidiaries- that have continually manipulated court rules to block all avenues of protection and restitution against judicial misconduct.  It is estimated that 40,000 Americans are falsely imprisoned, and millions have had assets extorted by lawyers and judges  through intentional complicating of cases to increase legal fees, with nowhere to turn for help except  judicial conduct boards populated by these same bar members.   Americans are often essentially trapped for years, once they get involved in the court system.
Continue reading “Are Judges and Lawyers Around the Country Finally Realizing Its Game Over?”

Was the Federal Court Responsible for a Whistleblower Losing His New Job?

The below case regarding a current employer being accused of retaliating for a whistleblower’s past employer (from the Legal Intelligencer article of May 26, 2015,) has the potential to set precedent that can be used outside of whistleblower actions.   However, the allegations may not go quite far enough, as currently when you sue an employer for discrimination, the federal courts immediately post it on their website. The implication here is that the courts themselves are guilty of creating this situation.

As most employers run background checks by googling an applicants name, it can be presumed that they will shy away from anyone who has sued a past employer.  These cases should automatically be sealed, but thus far the federal courts have refused to do so, and continue to jeopardize the chances for people exercising their rights in court, to get further employment. What good are civil rights laws if people are being intimidated out of using them?

This brings to mind the President Obama’s 2009 Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which has not received enough recognition for the bold statement that it really delivers.  In effect, it calls out the U.S. Supreme Court for colluding with corporations, and is an example of the failings of the entire legal system.  The Act states: 

“The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs statutory protections against discrimination in compensation that Congress established and that have been bedrock principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the intent of Congress…”The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.”


Judge Certifies False Claims Act Retaliation Issue

A federal judge has certified for immediate appeal the first-impression issue of whether anti-retaliation provisions in the False Claims Act apply to an employee who filed a whistleblower suit against a former, unrelated employer. 

Although U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ motion to dismiss a retaliation claim brought by a fired Mylan employee, who had pursued a qui tam action against his previous employer, Cephalon, she further decided to certify the issue for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Among other things, Conti said that there was substantial ground for a difference of opinion on whether the anti-retaliation language in the FCA applied only to an employer that was the subject of a whistleblower action, or if it also related to an employer that fired an employee after discovering the employee was a whistleblower against a former, unrelated employer.

“While the plain text of Section 3730(h)(1) [of the FCA] does not restrict liability to employers that are the target or related to the target of the FCA investigation, the controlling precedent in this circuit holds that as a ‘general rule,’ the employer must be on notice of the ‘distinct possibility’ of FCA litigation against the employer,” Conti said in Cestra v. Mylan, which was issued May 22. “The parties have not identified, and the court’s research has not yielded, any authority in which a court has held that the anti-retaliation provision of the FCA applies to an employer that fires an employee for engaging in protected conduct against an unrelated entity.”





Centre County, PA is Just the Tip of the Iceberg


Pennsylvania’s Governor  Tom Wolfe is still battling the “Right to Know”  with the Courts. The continual manipulation of the law, by the amending of court “rules” by the members of the American Bar Association, has been solely to assist court employees in defrauding the citizens of this Commonwealth.  There are serious questions as to the integrity of the entire state court system. As the members of the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court are all members of the nonprofit, private corporation of the American Bar Association, and its Pennsylvania Bar Association, all such members have an immense inherent conflict of interest in having authority in any rule-making of the courts.

Further exacerbating this situation, is the majority of the members of the legislature are also members of these bar associations. They amended the Pennsylvania State Constitution to exempt themselves as holding dual state offices, as they are, as lawyers, officers of the court, and previously would not have been allowed to also serve in the state legislature.

Below is just one example of the disasterous condition of our entire legal system.  The Judicial Conduct Board of the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, has the same inherent conflict of interest, which has been exposed through the events in Centre County, the Kids for Cash Scandal and thousands of complaints by citizens against judges, that are systematically dismissed without any due process for the citizens. In the case below, two judges were caught red-handed, having ex parte communications with assistant district attorneys, when two attorneys subpoenaed and received the cell phone records of the judges. The judges filed for an injunction and to have the cell phone records destroyed.

 It can only be imagined what will be uncovered should the Right to Know laws continue to be allowed as they were intended – to expose corruption.  This is especially important in the judiciary, where thousands if not millions of citizens are being defrauded out of their assets and unfairly incarcerated, because of racketeering by judges and lawyers. It is estimated that at least 40,000 innocent people are in prison because of prosecutorial misconduct.  The family courts are a $50 Billion dollar a year industry, when in fact it is not morally or ethically conducive to being an industry at all – it is supposed to afford justice, not profit.


Centre County to Appeal Injunctions on Records Requests

Lizzy McLellan and Max Mitchell, The Legal Intelligencer

May 26, 2015

A question of Right-to-Know Law procedure in Centre County is likely bound for the appellate courts, putting on hold several cases related to alleged improper contact between members of the judicial branch and the district attorney’s office.

In three similar orders, a Huntingdon County senior judge has issued a preliminary injunction precluding the Centre County government from responding to judicial records requests relating to three plaintiffs—two judges and a district attorney—who have sued over the release of phone records.

Mary Lou Maierhofer of Margolis Edelstein, one of the attorneys for Centre County, said her client is planning to appeal all three orders to the Commonwealth Court. She said the Right-to-Know Law does not prohibit disclosure.

But Kimberly M. Colonna of McNees Wallace & Nurick, an attorney for the two judge plaintiffs, said the case centers on the processes within the RTKL. She said the county “infringed on the judiciary’s role” in that process.

“This is still a young law,” Maierhofer said. “There’s a lot of ambiguity and there’s unclear terms and responsibilities.”

In March, Magisterial District Judge Kelley Gillette-Walker and Centre County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jonathan D. Grine both filed complaints against Centre County and attorneys regarding right-to-know requests. Grine’s complaint named attorney Theodore C. Tanski of the McShane Firm, while Walker’s named Sean McGraw and the Shubin Law Office.

Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller also filed a complaint against the county and other defendants, including the Shubin firm and attorney Bernard F. Cantorna.

Huntingdon County Senior Judge Stewart L. Kurtz signed an order May 13 enjoining Centre County from responding to requests for judicial records related to the district attorney. Any such requests, the order said, should be redirected to “the appropriate official.”

He signed similar orders May 5 granting Walker’s injunction petition, but granting Grine’s only in part. They granted the portions relating to Centre County, specifying that requests for judiciary records related to the plaintiffs should be redirected to the county prothonotary.

But Kurtz also denied in part Grine’s request for a preliminary injunction against the McShane Firm and Tanski. Kurtz said he would not enjoin publication of information already obtained, as the lawyer’s First Amendment rights also required consideration.

“In this case, plaintiff is a public person; the documents were lawfully obtained; the content of the private communications is not implicated; and, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, there is public concern about the judiciary,” Kurtz said. “Accordingly, we cannot conclude that plaintiff has sustained his almost impossible burden of establishing a likelihood of success in his case against the McShane Firm.”

Parks Miller’s attorney, Bruce L. Castor Jr. of Rogers Castor, said the rulings were “a complete and total victory for District Attorney Parks Miller.”

Noting that the county commissioners are seeking reelection, Castor said he was not surprised that the decision will be appealed.

“If they don’t appeal, it’s tantamount to admitting they were wrong,” Castor said.

According to Colonna, who is representing Grine and Walker, along with Kathleen Duffy Bruder of the same firm, Walker had also sought to enjoin the Shubin firm from releasing communication records, but she dropped that request upon discovering those records had already been published online.

Colonna said her clients have alleged violation of privacy and are seeking monetary damages.

Maierhofer said the county plans to appeal all three of Kurtz’s orders, and already has two appeals filed with the Office of Open Records.

“The county records they released were in [the county’s] possession,” Maierhofer said. “It was financial information. The taxpayers paid for it and, under the Right-to-Know Law, it was proper.”

Maierhofer added that the records released contained no information that was private or would implicate criminal proceedings. She also said that if the judiciary received a request for the records like the ones in question, it would have to obtain them from the county.

But Colonna said the judiciary should make the decisions on its own records. Based on Frazier v. Philadelphia County Office of the Prothonotary, she said, the district attorney is included in the judiciary. That case said judicial entities include any office of the Unified Judicial System.

“I think the court correctly ruled that the records that were in question are records of the judiciary, which are treated differently under the Right-to-Know Law than other governmental records,” Colonna said. “The county can’t make judgment calls about what judicial records can be released.”

Maierhofer said the RTKL was intended to aid in transparency, so a release of the records should not constitute a violation of the law. But she and Colonna seemed to agree that the law could use some clarification.

“It’s an important issue, but it is almost a process issue,” said Colonna. “I hope that it helps everyone to understand what the right process is for the Right-to-Know Law.”

RTKL Requests

As the open records questions await a final answer, the issues underlying the RTKL requests involving Grine, Walker, Parks Miller and others also await resolution.

Louis Glantz, the solicitor for Centre County, said the May 5 and 13 orders are “unfortunate” because requests like those at hand raised “serious questions” about the propriety of communication between the district attorney’s office and Judge Bradley Lunsford.

“I think [the order] says there’s no right to know when it comes to the judiciary or the district attorney, because they’ve already expressed their opinion that they think phone bills are not subject to public requests,” Glantz said.

Castor denied that any improper communication took place and said the messages were all discussing legitimate issues, including arranging wiretaps. The defense bar, according to Castor, used the messages to create innuendo for political reasons.

Various sources have said the Office of the Attorney General is investigating Parks Miller and the Judicial Conduct Board is looking into Lunsford, who happens to be running for retention this year.

But due to the length of such investigations and the other litigation involved, Glantz said, “unfortunately for the public, it’s going to take literally years for this to all play out.”

Lizzy McLellan can be contacted at 215-557-2493 or at Follow her on Twitter@LizzyMcLellTLI.

Max Mitchell can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or Follow him on Twitter@MMitchellTLI.

 Copyright 2015. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Posted under 17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use



Stamp Out Government Corruption – It Starts with the Courts

[su_row class=””][su_column padding=”20″ size=”1/2″ class=””]


The Judicial Branch controls the government.  Under the doctrine of “judicial review” they have the final say in healthcare policy, taxes, education, banking.. everything.  Judges.. i.e. lawyers, are the only profession not licensed by the government.  The American Bar Association has that authority. The Judicial Branch is also the only branch that self-regulates.. there is no checks and balance system in place with the other two branches since the 1970’s.  This has resulted in an epidemic of corruption.

Mail this to your legislators

Removing the monetary incentive in the system is key. There should not be a price on justice. Currently, judges are complicit with the prolonging of cases, to maximize hourly billing in repayment to lawyers who have contributed to their judicial campaigns, either individually or through PACs organized by the bar association. The changes in the table below, will most certainly interfere with this racketeering practice. 

If you are not familiar with the legislative process, it is not as democratic as most people imagine.  Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have Judiciary Committees.  A bill can start in either committee, however, each committee has a Chairman.  The Chairmen actually filter what bills the other committee members will even see.

 [/su_column][su_column padding=”20″ size=”1/2 ]

For example in Pennsylvania, Senator Stewart Greenleaf has been in control of all of the court reform introduced by the Senate, for approximately 25 years.  In the House, Representative Ron Marsico controls which proposals for court reform, will be presented to the other Representatives.  As a result, there has been no meaningful reform and the courts continue to deteriorate in every way. This process itself is ripe for change; this is way too much power in the hands of just two people. 

In addition, we do not have royalty in this  country. All evidence has shown that judicial immunity is a negative factor in the integrity of our government, and it needs to be abolished. The current Judicial Conduct Board has been ineffective and does not represent the public, although half of the members are supposed to be a cross-section of society. Instead, it is staffed with lawyers, judges, magistrates, police officers and people that have contributed to political campaigns

Its Up to You – For the Next Generation

The current system is not a justice system – it is a commerce system.  It does not provide due process. The below is a list of reforms that will drastically reduce the injustices now being inflicted on the public by court personnel, judges and officers of the court (attorneys). Inform your elected politicians that you expect similarly focused House and Senate bills to be introduced, to end the unjust incarcerations, and the racketeering currently rampant,  by opportunistic lawyers being enabled by judges.

Your local Senators and Representatives need to know you are aware of the problems emanating from the Judicial Branch.   These changes will maximize the integrity of our courts. There are many other changes that need to be made, but the below is a good start to putting our elected officials on notice, that the public is retaking control of our third branch of government. It only takes a stamp. [/su_column][/su_row]

Please sign and print this out , and send to your State Representatives and Senators –

or make an appointment with them and hand it to them personally.