Heroes and Villains

I posted the following 'nominations' to the WBTruth Exposing Corruption site.

They presented their list of Heroes & Villains on the steps of the Luzerne County Courthouse on July 17, 2014.

---

A few nominations...

Heroes... Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy
( Working to expose an unconstitutional law (improperly enacted in every state) which robs people of their rights, and prevents lawyers, judges and law enforcement from any action to expose it.)

Villains... The Wilkes Barre Law And Library Association
(aka... The Luzerne County Bar Association) The lawyers all know they must maintain silence/confidentiality where it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Silent Complicity.

CHALLENGE... Willian Ecenbarger. Heroes do NOT conceal the actions of Villains.
I might raise the question of the investigative journalist who seems to have switched sides. It would seem that William Ecenbarger, as a NON_LAWYER aware of the lawyers MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY pursuant to Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, neglects to ever indicate the LAW which silenced the Luzerne County legal community in the face or extreme corruption. Though he is NOT mandated by law to conceal the impact of Rule 1.6, HE DID.

William Ecenbarger now conducts CLE classes for the Bar Association - The Psychology of Secrets.

I excuse Lourdes Rosado, Juvenile Justice Center, for failing to expose the impact of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality in the SILENCE surrounding corruption. As an attorney, she is mandated BY LAW to maintain the 'dirty little secret' of Rule 1.6.

The efforts of the Juvenile Justice Center exposed that the failure of the judiciary to recognize the damage they have caused extends to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It was the PA Supreme Court who enacted Rule 1.6. An act of unconstitutional magnitude which was made irreversible at the time it was enacted. Lawyers cannot reveal the damage caused by the law. Two non-lawyers could. AND, Healy and Krautheim did.

Villain... Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice - The commission failed to see themselves among “those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act.” The commission fails to address their silence, while misdirecting blame to include public officials and private citizens who did speak and were ignored; who did act and were dismissed.

THE COMMISSION failed to indicate any impact of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information.

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 - - - - ALL mandated to follow Rule 1.6.

Silence, inaction, inexperience, fear of retaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. MAYBE.

BUT, There was no ignorance of the law requiring CONFIDENTIALITY… the Commission's failure to act was deliberate and deceptive and calculating.

BTW, Rule 1.6 has a far broader effect than Attorney-Client Privilege. The mandate of confidentiality extends beyond a lawyers death.

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.

THE COMMISSION CONCEALED THAT BIT OF INFORMATION.
- As a result, they took no true step towards preventing another scandal.
- They failed to protect the people.
- They failed to protect the judiciary from further corruption.

Far more frightening, these lawyers now know how to do it... and how to get away with it.

Ciavarella and Coonahan went to jail ONLY BECAUSE they were inept at money laundering.

Everyone can be a victim of Rule 1.6 - Terrorism

An unconstitutional law enacted by the judiciary without any review during construction for constitutionality is further excluded from any 'checks and balances' because ONLY THE COURTS can decide constitutionality which causes judicial corruption and injustice to be ignored while denying basic constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that lawyers take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the court.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that an Attorney General not expose corruption within the OAG, by state officials or other state agencies.

Rule 1.6 mandates the victim to be abused and terrorized within the courts made destitute, homeless or incarcerated until their suicide.

Rule 1.6 is so powerful that lawyers, attorneys general and judges will deny law, constitutional rights, human rights, and facts to conceal the corruption and injustice which it causes.

Kids for Cash corruption concealed the crimes of Judge Ciavarella. Judges, lawyers, prosecutors, district attorneys, attorneys general, public defenders, Supreme Court Justices, Judicial Conduct Boards, Disciplinary Boards,... THEY ALL CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL THAT A JUDGE WAS TRAFFICKING CHILDREN INTO A JAIL FOR KICKBACKS FOR YEARS. EVEN THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE HOW IT HAPPENED, AND HOW TO PREVENT IT FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN CONCEALED RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY FROM THEIR REPORT. (They were all lawyers and judges. They all knew.)

Judge Ann Lokuta who contacted federal authorities was disciplined for violating Rule 1.6 and removed from the bench. She may never hold judicial office again.

It only requires a judge and lawyer commit misconduct. The resulting injustice will overwhelm. Whether aware of the injustice's existence or not, the target experiences the loss of rights and the denial of the protection of the law. Even if the initial injustice is discovered, there is no method by which a victim may recover or survive. There is no possibility of regaining your rights where they have been deliberately denied by the judiciary.

The victim knows what it means to be terrorized. Any attempt to survive requires the court and judiciary to address the denial of rights. They don't. They won't. Ever. It's their law.

The law was deliberately written without opportunity for escape. It's intent was destruction. It has been allowed to foreclose on millions of people's homes. It has thrown innocent children in jail. It has denied parents of their children. It has thrown innocent people in jail.

Homeless. Destitute. Suicide. Incarceration. THE ONLY CHOICES UNDER RULE 1.6. Perseverance is self-torture. Survival is futile.

Rule 1.6 destroys HOPE last. Hope is requisite for justice - even where you know justice will be denied. There is no alternative. You must return to the corrupt court seeking justice that won't come... ...until you are dead.

If you have been involved in litigation and the following description fits. then you are a victim of Rule 1.6. "I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS… NO ONE HELPED… "

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 continues to persevere on behalf of the survivors and to help further victims. BUT, I am exhausted... fighting the misinformation and corruption art every level of the courts. It proves my case against Rule 1.6, while it consumes my life and terrorizes every moment since 2006. There are no vacations, no breaks, no relief, ever... I understand why people break.

It has annihilated my life. Every minute of every day of every week of every year form over 9 years. Not one moment of relief during that entire time. Destitute. Property destroyed. No protection of the law. Constant technology intrusions and attacks. Tech attacks against any friends or supporters - they disappear. Constant fraudulent litigation. Court orders issued without lawful jurisdiction. Ignored Appeals. Further harassing litigation without jurisdiction. Court Records denied and prevented from the appeals court. Somehow I have survived when I would have preferred suicide. I find Rule 1.6 which causes the situation. Only to discover it was intentionally written and enacted to destroy people, children, families,... Destruction without any empathy or mercy. Rule 1.6 is the purest most vile form of evil I have ever encountered in my life.

Please Persevere. I understand. Terror, destruction and isolation is no life.

Every. Person. Matters. JUSTICE IS COMING.

Kids for Cash... The deliberate failure to see Rule 1.6 impact

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