It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. — VOLTAIRE
Coming soon ... -- ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE -- Case #123 DB 2004
On July 17, 2003, Judge Alan M. Black of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County filed a formal complaint against Eugene A. Wrona, J.D., with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The complaint is retaliatory for the attorney's irreverent candor in reporting inappropriate conduct of Judge Black and his judicial colleagues over the prior seventy (70) months. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mr. Wrona “knowingly” makes false accusations against the court and its officers. Alan Black wanted to "shut up" the attorney.
Retaliatory action by a public officer, e.g., a judge, is prohibited under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4953, which makes it a "crime".
Since December of 1997, Attorney Wrona has charged the court with criminal alteration of court audio records, stating publicly and privately that the court, through its minions, illegally edits the audio tapes of court proceedings. Judge Black answers the accusations with a non-denial denial and a counter-charge that Mr. Wrona has not suggested a reason why the court, or anyone, would alter the audio tapes. Judge Black is a LIAR.
Altering court records, audio or documents is criminal behavior under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4911 Tampering with public records ....
Black has not suggested any reason, reasonable or otherwise, why Mr. Wrona would make false accusations against such solidly entrenched members of the legal community. His answer does not acknowledge that credible witnesses testified under oath that the transcribed records are inaccurate.
Black’s complaint charges Mr. Wrona with breaching the confidentiality of Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board by announcing that a JCB complaint was filed against him. Black's complaint does not specifically deny the allegations contained in the JCB complaint. Instead, his answer to the JCB contains an acute case of judicial discretionary “spin”, a.k.a. "weasel words", grounded in unsupported presumptions and intended to mislead the investigator.
Black’s interpretation of judicial discretion reminds the Administrator of a routine created by Bill Cosby about the Revolutionary War. The routine went something like this.
Before the War, the Captains for both Armies met for a coin toss.
REFEREE: British, as the Visiting Army, you get to call the toss. Please make the call while the coin is still in the air.
[ flips a coin ] What do you call?
BRITISH: I call “HEADS”!
REFEREE: It is “TAILS”. Americans, You win the TOSS! You win The Toss! American Captain, what is your choice?
AMERICAN: We choose that the British shall wear Red Coats, march in a straight line behind a marching drum corps. They shall fight from open positions on roads, or in clear fields. They may not hide in doorways or seek other cover. The British shall not enlist any allies, other than native Americans.
The Americans shall wear buckskin or other camouflage clothing, shall hide behind rocks and trees, and shall attack from ambush and without warning. The Americans may enlist foreign and native allies. They may disperse into the communities when a battle is concluded.
The Red Coats shall reassemble and march back to their barracks, during which march they may be subject to additional attacks from ambush.
REFEREE: Okay armies, do you both understand the rules of engagement?
How is Cos’s routine relevant to current events?
The COURT assumes the role as “Winner of the Coin Toss”. It calls the rules of engagement; something like this.
COURT: The court shall publish a set of rules for all engagements. It shall conduct hearings according to these rules, except when a rule may be inconvenient to a desired outcome, upon which the Court may vacillate under the set of rules in order to issue orders without fact or law to support them.
To assure affirmation of its orders on appellate review, the court shall provide minimal information needed to support its decisions, and shall withhold information that supports a different ruling. The court may distort the facts.
To assure that no mitigating or contradictory information reaches the appellate review, the court may alter the records of proceedings.
All actions by the court or its officers shall be cloaked in a veil of secrecy. i.e., Records may be "sealed".
Court Officers shall enjoy absolute immunity from any and all charges of wrongdoing.
The “LOSING PARTY” may appeal any decision of the court, but it may not contest the integrity of the record or of the Court or its officers. It may not accuse the court of violating any rules of engagement, and may not demand any clarification of those rules.
The LOSING PARTY shall “graciously” accept defeat, and pay whatever fines or other financial obligations as set by the court, which may include costs of engagement with the court.
Should a LOSING PARTY be unable to pay the fines or other financial obligation as ordered, the Court may arrest and incarcerate the deadbeat.
Should the LOSING PARTY file a formal complaint with any overseeing body that the Court has violated the rules, that body may dismiss the complaint without even a cursory investigation. The Court may then initiate disciplinary action against the LOSING PARTY.
LOSING PARTY: Does this mean that "WE have NO RIGHTS”?
COURT: It means what it means!
This page contains the story of how the Supreme Court of Pensylvania exercises ruthless and despotic power for the
purpose of quelling criticism of corrupt actions in Pennsylvania courts. The Supreme Court intimidates and polices the
legal profession through “THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT”, a corrupt arm of a corrupt judicial system. Publication of an attorney discipline case [123 DB 2004] reveals how tyrants attempt to control by oppression, expecting the victims of their tyranny to fade quietly into the night.
The Disciplinary Board took action to silence Attorney Eugene A. Wrona in order to quell criticism of the courts and his accusations of egregious criminal corruption. The Disciplinary Board knowingly violated the First Amendment rights of the accused, contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings.
... speech cannot be punished when the purpose is simply "to protect the court as a mystical entity or the judges as individuals or as anointed priests ..."
Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 291-292 (1941) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
Wrona was denied his rights under the Sixth Amendment as well. The Disciplinary Board panel upheld its counsel to prevent subpoenaed witnesses from testifying. These witnesses include judges Wm. E. Ford amd Edward D. Reibman, District Attorney James Martin and judge Ford's law clerk, Licia Ano, who was identifed by judge Ford as having had custody of the audio tape prior to it having been transcribed. Further, judge Ford omitted the fact that HE ALSO had possession of the audio tape during that period. His letter appears intended to discourage a criminal investigation by the Office of District Attorney. Judge Ford LIED by Omission of a material fact.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Exodus 20:16
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. John 8:32
Attorney and Judicial Disciplinary Procedures in Pennsylvania are employed in two capacities:
ONE – to excuse JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT administered from the bench;
TWO – to silence attorneys inclined to expose corrupt practices in Pennsylvania courts.
Discipline for judges is essentially non-existent in Pennsylvania. The Judicial Conduct Board will not review cases of judicial misconduct taking place in the courtroom. The Judicial Conduct Board is a whitewash committee to exonerate judges who trample the rights of litigants, trash the Constitution, commit Crimes Against the People and engage in other criminal acts violative of their oath of office.
The Disciplinary Board of the SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA operates to discipline attorneys who have offended judges. This Board is considerably more active than the Judicial Conduct Board, operating through an Office of Disciplinary Counsel which violates the Rules of Professional Conduct that it supposedly adheres to in the administration of disciplinary cases. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
The Board, through its operatives, engages in CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT to persecute whistle-blowers within the legal profession. The "official" record of proceedings in case #123 DB 2004 was edited, a third-class felony. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911.
Disciplinary Board rules intentionally deny respondent attorneys of constitutional rights including First Amendment rights and the "presumption of innocence". The Hall of Shame is [will be] populated by members of the Disciplinary Board and others involved in the malicious prosecution of 123 DB 2004, DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. EUGENE ANDREW WRONA.* The disciplinary action against this attorney is retaliatory, and should have been barred under Moore.
Government officials are barred from bringing charges they would not have pursued absent retaliatory motive, regardless of whether they had probable cause.
MOORE v. HARTMAN,
No. 03-5241 (D.C. Cir. November 09, 2004).
This discipline case presents compelling evidence that the Third Reich had nothing on the courts of Pennsylvania. Attorney Wrona suffered the wrath of the judicial system for exposing criminal corruption in lower courts, especially the criminal acts of illegal edits of audio records of court hearings. The Disciplinary Board violates its own rules in order to impose "discipline" on maverick attorneys.
The Supreme Court cannot deny knowledge of the disciplinary proceedings against attorney Wrona, or its own "arbitrary and capricious" conduct to violate Wrona's constitutional right of appeal. The Supreme Court and DISCIPLINARY BOARD violate every principle of American Justice including the “presumption of innocence”. Their objective, as confirmed by the actions of Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille (March 22, 2007), is to have a chilling effect on any attorney who might criticize the court or the government.
Wrona was DENIED the 6th Amendment right to call witnesses in his favor, among which were judges William E. Ford and Edward D. REeibman, and District Attorney James Martin.
Wrona charges the BOARD with malicious and false prosecution, perjury, criminal alteration of the “official record” of his disciplinary hearing and other despicable acts. The BOARD's attorney(s) violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and every principle of legal ethics. The charges brought against the Disciplinary Board attach to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania under respondeat superior.
Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court revealed the ‘behind the scenes’ conduct of Supreme Court justices when he threatened Attorney Bruce Ledewitz, Law Professor at Duquesne University, with retaliatory “disciplinary action” for calling the Supreme Court “corrupt”. Justice Castille, a legitimate Viet Nam war hero, seems to have forgotten why he fought for his country. Castille's letter to Duquesne is available for review.
Professor Ledewitz is correct, the Court is corrupt, but Ledewitz did not tell the whole truth. He bases his accusation on the Court’s actions involving a 2005 legislative pay raise which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Public outcry resulted in rescinding the raise. Voter outrage caused one justice to fail a “retention” vote. More voter outrage is needed.
Professor Ledewitz stopped short of accusing the justices of criminal misconduct, merely accusing the high court of being more corrupt than the legislature. Is it possible to actually distinguish "corrupt" from "more corrupt"?
Attorney Wrona accuses the Supreme Court justices -- en banc -- of corruption in several instances. See Black's Law Dictionary for the definition.
Wrona maintains that the justices, in collusion with the Disciplinary Board, intentionally violated his constitutional and civil rights, “a crime” under 18 USC 242. He accuses the Supreme Court of judicial and criminal misconduct in the handling of his disciplinary case. He challenges the "fitness for office" of each Supreme Court justice and invites a point-for-point rebuttal of his accusations.
The Legislative and Executive branches of the Pennsylvania government may claim to be unaware of judicial corruption. Their argument is untenable.
* The disciplinary case, 123 DB 2004, is under development. Check back to review updates.