Attorney Discipline

“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”   — VOLTAIRE

See  ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE —  DBSC Docket  #123 DB 2004

 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

This page reports the events of how the “Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court” (a.k.a. “DBSC”) exercises ruthless and despotic power for the purpose of quelling attorney criticism of corrupt actions in Pennsylvania courts on behalf of the Supreme Court (“SCOPa”).

Article V, Section 10 (c ) of the Constitution of PA appears to grant authority to SCOPa to regulate the practice of law. However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits ‘licensing’ the practice of law which renders that portion of Article V, Sect. 10 (c) to be unconstitutional, ergo, a nullity. Nevertheless, SCOPa delegated authority to enforce the regulation to DBSC.
DBSC  polices the legal profession through the corrupt enforcement arm of a corrupt judicial system. Intimidation and harassment are two of their weapons. When necessary, deceit and criminal misconduct may be employed.

 

This publication of an attorney discipline case [123 DB 2004reveals how DBSC tyrants attempt to control by oppression, expecting the victims of their tyranny to fade quietly into the night. DBSC resorts to “criminal misconduct” where necessary. 

This Administrator, Eugene A. Wrona [a.k.a. “Respondent”], reported the “criminal” editing of court audio tapes prior to being transcribed; violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911. Tampering with public records or information.  After several attempts to report the crimes to the State Attorney General, he was compelled to file criminal charges in the [Lehigh] county court where the crimes were committed.
As a lawyer, Respondent was acting at all times in compliance with Pa. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct. Respondent was denied immunity under the 1st Amendment and “whistleblower” protection laws.  Clearly. Lehigh County judges and the District Attorney, James B. Martin, breached their fiduciary responsibility to investigate or report the criminal activity to a higher authority; e.g., U.S. Attorney. One can argue that each of those court officers are “criminals” under 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of Felony.

“… 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, 292-292 (1941). (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

This Administrator accuses the court of egregious criminal conduct that compromises the integrity of the entire judicial process. DBSC acted in “retaliation” against a “whistleblower” who was exposing “criminal misconduct” within the courts. DBSC took action to silence Wrona in order to quell his criticism of the courts and to deflect accusations of egregious criminal corruption. DBSC joined with county court officers (“criminals”) to fabricate Professional Misconduct charges against Respondent, making DBSC an “accessory” to a fraud.   DBSC and Lehigh County court knowingly violated the First Amendment rights of the accused, contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings.

Respondent was charged with making false statements about a judge, Alan M. Black, who served in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (“LCCCP”). Black filed the formal complaint without specifying which statements by Respondent are FALSE. The failure to identify the alleged “false statements” renders the entire ‘complaint’ against the accused to be False for failure to establish “probable cause”.

Respondent maintains that whatever he said about Alan M.Black is either in writing or on the record, and is TRUE and without challenge by Mr. Black.
DBSC joined with Black in the fraudulent campaign to fabricate charges that Respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct. The charges begin with Rule 8.2 (a) – Statements concerning judges …, and end with a potpourri of charges conjured out of Rule 8.4, a vague collection of actions that may be construed as “violations” by a prejudicial [corrupt] Disciplinary Board.
DBSC skipped over Rule 8.3  —  Reporting Professional Misconduct, to wit, Rule 8.3(b) which requires Respondent to report criminal misconduct by a judge. 

The disciplinary action against Respondent is brought in “Retaliation” for Respondent’s perseverance to bring criminal charges against LCCCP judges for neglect of their duty to investigate the criminal alteration of audio records of court hearings. Judicial neglect violates their duty under the Code of Judicial Conduct and clearly raises questions as to the  fitness for office of the judges involved.
By the time Black filed the formal complaint against Respondent, Respondent had identified audio tapes which had been corrupted (edited) in the courtrooms of three LCCCP judges;  William E. Ford, Edward D. Riebman and Alan M. Black. The altered records issue was raised before each of them.
During a Motions hearing to question the integrity of the transcribed record in Black’s court, Black “recused” himself, and then violated the Code of Judicial Conduct when he subsequently “withdrew his recusal”. Black’s formal complaint fails to identify which, if any, statements by Respondent about him are FALSE. Respondent maintains that he never made any “false” statements about Black or any other LCCCP judge.
During the Disciplinary Hearing, DBSC failed to produce any evidence of a false statement by Respondent about any judge, especially Alan M. Black.  Under Pa. Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (“RDE”), a judge may charge a lawyer with making false statements about the judge, and the charge is presumed to be True. The respondent then has the burden of proof to show that his statements were true.
In the matter of 123 DBSC 2004, the complaint fails to identify any false statements, a de facto deprivation of the “due process” rights of an accused. The accused’s due process rights are further DENIED because without knowledge of which statements are alleged to be false, the accused cannot possibly meet the burden of proof to show that the statements are TRUE. To further obstruct justice, the DBSC hearing panel determines what evidence shall be admissible.

 

Respondent was denied his rights under the Sixth Amendment as well.  The DBSC panel upheld DBSC counsel’s objections to prevent subpoenaed witnesses from testifying. These witnesses include judges William E. Ford and Edward D. Reibman, District Attorney James B. Martin and judge Ford’s law clerk, Licia Ano, who was identified by judge Ford as having had custody of the audio tape prior to it having been transcribed. Court rules demand that Court Administration shall maintain “exclusive” custody of court records.
Further, judge Ford omitted the fact that HE ALSO had possession of the audio tape during that period. Ford’letter appears intended to discourage [“obstruct”] a criminal investigation by the Office of District Attorney. According to an investigation report of Asst. District Attorney Douglas Reichley*, it appears that the Title IV-D attorney Susan G. Maurer also had custody of the audio tape in question during the period in question. 
Judge Ford LIED by Omission of a material fact to an investigator of criminal misconduct in a rogue court.
*  Reichley now serves on the bench as a judge in Lehigh County.   

This case was brought to light in June of 2014 by the New York  Times which published an article exposing the PA Supreme Court efforts to Silence WhistleBlowers. Lawyers who speak out against rogue courts have been routinely singled out for “retaliation”* by members of the Pennsylvania BAR Association.  Respondent found himself answering to a “formal DBSC complaint” filed by judge Alan M. Black of Lehigh County.
*  Retaliation is a crime under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953.

DBSC willingly collaborated with judge Black to fabricate charges that Respondent made  false statements about a judge in violation of Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. DBSC offered no evidence (because there is none) that Respondent made any “false” statements about judge Black.   DBSC included a copy of a  Flyer  that  it claimed contains “false statements” about judge Black. However, DBSC failed to enter that document into evidence, and OBJECTED when Wrona attempted to move it into the record as evidence.  The DBSC panel upheld the objection to prevent Respondent from presenting “evidence” that every allegation in the Flyer is the TRUTH, supported by facts in the record. 

DBSC intentionally overlooked RULE 8.3(b) that requires a lawyer to “inform the appropriate authority” upon knowledge that a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct raises  a substantial question of the judge’s fitness for office. In the matters involving the charges against Wrona, three judges, Ford, Reibman and Black all presided over court hearings where the audio records of the hearings has been unlawfully edited. 18 Pa.C.S. §  4911 makes it a crime to edit audio records of court proceedings.
Wrona attempted to report the crimes to the Superior Court who directed  him to the Attorney General who re-directed him the District Attorney for Lehigh County. 

 U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas stated that mandatory state bar associations had the potential to become goose-stepping brigades. Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 884 (1961). Most importantly, Justices Douglas and Black were concerned that mandatory state bar associations would be used to control lawyers, prohibit challenges to the establishment, and cover up misconduct by powerful interests.

 

Disciplinary Procedures

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 (“DBSC”) acts under the constitutional delegation of authority of the SCOPa. Article V. Section 10(a) Judicial Administration.
There is no specific instruction or authority to establish a disciplinary board under this section. Nevertheless the Supreme Court assumes constitutional authority to appoint a secretary a chief counsel and other members of the DBSC. to operate 
under color of law.
Article V, Section10(c) is a rambling 165 word sentence that grants SCOPa arbitrary and capricious powers “to prescribe general rules …” etc., plus the following 19 word enforcement caveat. “All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.”   
This website proceeds under the “rebuttable presumption”  that all actions of DBSC are taken consistent with the Intent of the Supreme Court as expressed in Pa.R.C.P. Rule 128. To wit, all constitutional rights of an accused “respondent” will be honored  and DBSC will be held to the same strict code of conduct as expressed in Schware v. Nevada. See Home Page. Should the DBSC engage in any “criminal misconduct”, as appointees of SCOPa, responsibility for the criminal actions of DBSC individuals transfers to SCOPa under the “legal doctrine” of “respondeat superior”. We will expand this issue below.

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.

DBSC, through its operatives, engages in CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT to persecute whistle-blowers within the legal profession. The “official” record of proceedings in DBSC Docket #123 DB 2004 was unlawfully edited, a third-class felony. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911.

 

Black’s interpretation of judicial discretion reminds the Administrator of a comedy routine created by Bill Cosby about the Revolutionary War. The routine went something like this.

Before the War, the Generals 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!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 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

 

Disciplinary Procedures

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 (“DBSC”) acts under the constitutional delegation of authority of the SCOPa. Article V. Section 10(a) Judicial Administration. There is no specific instruction or authority to establish a disciplinary board under this section. Nevertheless the Supreme Court assumes constitutional authority to appoint a secretary a chief counsel and other members of the DBSC. Art. V, Section10(c) is a rambling 165 word sentence that grants arbitrary and capricious powers to a subdivision of the Supreme Court under color of law, plus the following 19 word enforcement caveat. “All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.”
This website proceeds under the “rebuttable presumption”  that all actions of DBSC are taken consistent with the Intent of the Supreme Court as expressed in Pa.R.C.P. Rule 128. To wit, all constitutional rights of an accused “respondent” will be honored  and DBSC will be held to the same strict code of conduct as expressed in Schware v. Nevada. See Home Page. Should the DBSC engage in any “criminal misconduct”, as appointees of SCOPa, responsibility for the criminal actions of DBSC individuals transfers to SCOPa under the “legal doctrine” of “respondeat superior”. We will expand this issue below.

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.

 

DBSC, 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.

 

   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

2 thoughts on “Attorney Discipline

  1. nursing home injuries attorney

    Hmm it seems like your site ate my first comment (it
    was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I had
    written and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.

    I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to the whole thing.
    Do you have any poiints for rookie blog writers? I’d
    definitely appreciate it.

    Reply
    1. Administrator

      I do not consider this site a blog. It was created to expose judicial corruption in our courts.

      Should you choose to enter this arena, be aware that you will become a “target” of the BAR Assoc.,
      judges, District Attorneys and other corrupt agencies that support criminals running our courts.

      As to “writing” … write ONLY the Truth … Good Luck!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>