The Impact of Retellings

We are meeting with local politicians and presenting the issue of Rule 1.6 undermining the American Judicial system. To accomplish this requires the repetition of the experience, the facts, the results - homelessness, incarceration and suicides.

It requires me to do something I have tried avoiding. The retelling of my experience causes me to relive the stress and emotion. The purpose of the web site was so that i did not have to explain the details to people who wanted to know more - or who couldn't imagine surviving the truth of the story.

A person who has lost their rights can best be identified by the following statement:

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 HELPED…

NO ONE COULD HELP… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

The message is getting out... Those we have spoken to have been emotionally moved. Those who refuse to meet and discuss the problem can be categorized and described in one word - LAWYERS.

The lawyers know what has happened. The law prevents them from any action to resolve the situation UNTIL THEY RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STAND UP LIKE AN AMERICAN AND FACE THE MESS THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS CREATED.

The non-lawyers need to rescue the US before the divisive tactics of those who seek the country's destruction succeed.

We are Americans. We don't allow injustice to persist. We can fix the mess created and resolve the damage done to millions of Americans stripped of their Constitutional Rights.

Through countless retellings, I persevere. 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