DBSC: Docket # 123 DB 2004

an Exercise in Retaliation  See Profile_POPULAR


     The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (DBSC)  is a “criminal agency”  who’s only actions are both conflict of interest crimes and unconstitutional deprivations of rights of the accused “respondents”.  DBSC proceedings may be best identified as “quasi-criminal” actions, since every “disciplinary” action presumes “wrong-doing” in one form or another. DBSC “rules” are known as “Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement”, as found in the PA RULES OF COURT. They will also be found in Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Statutes. DBSC actions are intended to serve the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania  (“SCOPa”) and the Pennsylvania BAR Association, a professional trade guild.
DBSC presumes to have authority to act as an agent of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (“SCOPa”). This authority appears to arise from the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article V , § 10(c) which grants unlimited “Rule-making” authority to SCOPa. Article V , § 10(c) is in direct conflict with the Article V, § 9 of the Constitution, which “secures”  the right to a trial before a court of record.  “Due process  of Law”  demands no less than a trial and the Right of Appeal!  

     DBSC is an administrative agency, and not a “court”, ergo, its findings cannot be upheld without  hearing before a “court of record”. The Pennsylvania Constitution provides a “Right of Appeal” which is Required to comply with the fundamental elements of “due process”. DBSC administers “disciplinary hearings”  before a three-person “panel” of lawyers (not judges) who hear the matter under SCOPa rules.  The panel then “recommends” the disciplinary action against the “presumed” perpetrator. Because there is No Trial, and No Judge, a disciplinary board “hearing” cannot produce a bona fide “record” for any appellate proceeding. Ergo, the DBSC “recommendation” offends the rights of the “respondent” when it is interpreted as an “ORDER Of Court”.  Since there is “no court”, the transcribed record from a disciplinary board hearing cannot be employed as court record. …. 


Docket # 123 DB 2004 exposes an egregious prosecution of an attorney for the purpose of Retaliation (18 Pa.C.S. § 4953) by DBSC (Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Penna). DBSC acted in concert with Alan M. Black  to take action to silence Attorney Eugene A. Wrona for the express purpose to stop his specific criticism of the courts with specific accusations of egregious criminal corruption within the courtrooms of Lehigh County. The alliance between Black and DBSC constitutes a “criminal conspiracy” (18 Pa.C.S. § 903) acting “under color of law”.
DBSC acts under the delegation of authority of the Supreme Court of PA (SCOPa). Under the settled doctrine of “respondeat superior”, SCOPa bears responsibility for the criminal misconduct of DBSC. As an agent for SCOPa, DBSC has a fiduciary responsibility to support and defend the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions;  i.e., to preserve and secure the rights of a respondent to “due process of law and equal protection under the law”.  

§ 4953.  Retaliation against witness, victim or party.

(a)  Offense defined.–A person commits an offense if he harms another by any unlawful act or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which threaten another in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness, victim or a party in a civil matter.

(b)  Grading.–The offense is a felony of the third degree if the retaliation is accomplished by any of the means specified in section 4952(b)(1) through (5) (relating to intimidation of witnesses or victims). Otherwise the offense is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

(Dec. 20, 2000, P.L.837, No.117, eff. imd.)


Alan M. Black conspired with DBSC to fabricate a “Formal Complaint” charging Respondent, Eugene A. Wrona / Administrator, with making “false statements” about a judge or judges in violation of Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The fabricated “formal complaint” against Wrona must be sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of the “false statements” such that Respondent has a full and fair opportunity to formulate a defense. In short, the DBSC Formal Complaint must provide “with specificity” those false statements made about or against Alan M. Black, or any other Lehigh County judge.
The formal DBSC complaint fails to contain any specific statements by Wrona that may violate Rule 8.2.

Respondent Wrona is unable to prepare a defense against a fabricated complaint which lacks the fundamental element for “due process”; at least ONE false statement made about the “complainant” by the accused Respondent.

The final “product” of DBSC is the attached “DB Rept DB123“; a 22-page fiction and “fraud on the court” reported to and published by the Allentown Morning Call newspaper. This DBSC report is a ”fraud on the court” and will be refuted point-for-point on this site.  The MC newspaper article is a misrepresentation of facts.  Wrona’s immediate efforts to respond to the Morning Call were DENIED. The rebuttal is now available.  

This administrator invites the Allentown Morning Call. the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, Alan M. Black or any other Lehigh County, PA, judges  to refute “in writing”  and “under oath” (e.g., Notarized) the contents of Wrona’s rebuttal on or before 12 December, 2016, or forever keep silent thereby admitting the TRUTH of the Rebuttal. All bona fide responses will be published on this site.

The HOME page for this site contains two videos, “Deconstructing America” Parts 1 and 2 which add compelling and conclusive evidence in support of Wrona’s claim that the Pennsylvania judicial system has been corrupted. Viewers will have greater appreciation of this rebuttal after watching these videos; less than 8 minutes each. 

The DBSC operates “under color of law” to criminally deprive respondents of due process and equal protection of law.  By claiming to be agents of the government, employees of DBSC admit to being “public servants, and therefore, accountable under 5 USC 2635.101 for “conflict of interest crimes” . A detailed analysis of the DB Report will expose the extent of criminal misconduct  embedded within the “thuggery” agency acting on behalf of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

One can advance a compelling argument that the disciplinary board function is both “criminal” and unconstitutional.. 

DBSC neglected its “duty” as prosecutor to produce mitigating evidence that may exonerate the “Respondent”. Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct is one example of mitigating and exculpatory evidence. Rule 8.3(a) and (b) “requires” [“shall” inform the appropriate authority] a lawyer to report criminal misconduct or other violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By complying with Rule 8.3, Wrona exposed himself to false charges of violating Rule 8.2. 

To meet its prima facie requirement prior to a formal DBSC hearing,  DBSC prosecutor, Alan Davis submitted a list of exhibits, among which is a Flyer prepared by Respondent and distributed outside the courthouse by Farouk Hamoui, Respondent’s client. The “flyer” demanded the IMPEACHMENT of Alan M. Black based on a list of transgressions imposed by Black in violation of Pennsylvania law. 

 Ironically, DBSC failed to move the alleged incriminating document into evidence at the hearing. When Wrona attempted to place the Flyer into evidence, the hearing panel DENIED the Constitutional RIGHT of an accused “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;” to produce material evidence in support thereof. Further, Wrona served subpoenas on judges WillIam E. Ford and Edward D. Reibman, attorney Licia Ano (judge Ford’s law clerk), Lehigh County District Attorney James Martin and also Douglas Reichley, former Asst. DA and then State Representative in Lehigh County. *
Mr. Reichley appeared at the hearing to testify but was refused permission by Alan Davis, upheld by the hearing panel.   None of the other four subpeonaed witnesses appeared for the  hearing, presumably “excused” by court action and intervention of AOPC (Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts).
*  Reichley subsequently left the General Assembly to run for a judgeship in LCCCP, where he still serves today.  

Clearly, Wrona was DENIED rights secured by the U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI, and Article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania … among other laws.  


Wrona accuses Lehigh County courts with criminal alteration of audio records of court hearings in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911. Tampering with public records or information. Altering official records is criminal misconduct within the court.  Court administration is responsible for the integrity of these records …  the “chain of custody” if you will. Breach of this duty raises the number of co-conspirators to include court reporters and court monitors as well as the Clerk of Courts / Court Administrator.
Note: Court reporters and court monitors are admitted as “associate” members of the PBA (Pa. BAR Assoc.).

These officers are on “the front end” of the crimes. Courts insulate themselves from accusations via assistance [cover-up] on “the back end” of the crimes through negligence of the District Attorney to investigate the crimes.
We the People have an “intangible right to honest services”. 18 U.S.C. § 1346. Our courts and court officers are letting us down.

The conspiracy between Alan M. Black and DBSC is brought in retaliation against Wrona. DBSC and Alan M. Black engaged in a criminal conspiracy to advance false charges against Wrona. “Retaliation” is a crime in PA under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953.1. The criminal conspiracy extends to all officers of DBSC, not limited to its Chief Counsel and Executive Secretary.
Under the doctrine of “respondeat superior”, every justice sitting on the Supreme Court if Pennsylvania (“SCOPa) becomes an accessory before the fact; a criminal co-conspirator.  

DBSC collaborated with Alan M. Black to fabricate false charges against the Respondent. DBSC knowingly violated the First Amendment as well as due process rights of the accused, contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings. Black’s complaint accuses Wrona of making “false statements” about a judge. See Rules of Professional Conduct; Rule 8.2.
The DBSC complaint fails to identify which statements about Alan M. Black are false. Mr. Hamoui filed a Formal Complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board against the judge. He also handed out “flyers” outside the courthouse that listed many of the transgressions of Alan M. Black.
DBSC included that Flyer in its “List of Exhibits” to establish probable cause. However, this exhibit NEVER made it into evidence at the Disciplinary Hearing. When Wrona attempted to bring it into evidence, he was thwarted by the DBSC panel.

One can only surmise that the reason this “Exhibit” was not admitted into evidence is BECAUSE everything stated in the Flyer (“Leaflet”) is TRUE. There is not One FALSE STATEMENT on that Flyer. The DBSC complaint and proceedings were part of a “malicious prosecution” during which the “respondent” attorney is DENIED due process and equal protection of laws. Failure to move the Exhibit into evidence forfeits the assertion of “probable cause” without which further prosecution is “corruption” by DBSC!
The complaint is defective, a fabrication. DBSC Denied “notice” to the respondent. The formal complaint against Wrona fails to identify with specificity any examples of statements about Alan M. Black that pass the test as a “false statement” about a judge under Rule 8.2.
DBCS claims to grant due process of law to respondents. Fabricating a formal complaint that denies a respondent of “notice” sufficient to prepare a defense violates the due process rights of respondent.
A Denial of due process forfeits any jurisdiction of the tribunal.

“… 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)

Wrona served subpeonas on a number of Lehigh County court officers to establish mitigating, if not exculpatory evidence of wrongdoing in Lehigh County courts.  These witnesses include judges Wm. 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.
The DBSC panel upheld objections by its counsel, Alan J. Davis, Esq.,  to prevent subpoenaed witnesses from testifying. DBSC Denied Respondent his rights under the Sixth Amendment.

Douglas G. Reichley. former Asst. DA was also subpoenaed. Reichley had since been elected to serve Lehigh County as a Representative to the Pennsylvania General Assembly.* He appeared at the Disciplinary Hearing on Feb. 8, 2005, to testify. To the detriment of Respondent, DBSC (Alan Davis) objected to allowing Reichley to testify under fictitious “court” rules which do not apply in administrative hearings.
* Reichly has since been elected to serve a “judge” in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.

As we learned in the O.J. Simpson trial, “chain of custody” of material evidence is Critical to the outcome. Under court Rules, Court Administration [via the court reporter/monitor] is supposed to have exclusive custody of audio tapes. When a judge takes takes “custody” of original evidence (e.g., audio records), that judge is acting outside his authority …  ultra vires, which forfeits any “qualified” immunity attached to the office.
Judge Ford omitted the fact that HE ALSO had possession of the audio tape during the period in question.  According to the investigation report of Asst. DA, Douglas G. Reichley, it appears that four persons: court monitor Susan Sherry, judge William E.Ford, law clerk Licia Ano, and Susan G. Maurer, Esq.,  had custody of the audio tape in question during the period in question. Ford’s letter appears intended to discourage [obstruct] a criminal investigation by the Office of District
Reasonable minds could conclude that Judge William E. Ford LIED by Omission of a material fact for the purpose of obstructing a criminal investigation. The effect of Ford’s willful omission  is to perpetrate a “fraud on the court” by a judge.


On July 17, 2003, Judge Alan M. Black of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County filed a formal complaint against Respondent with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (“DBSC”).
NOTE: This site proclaims “publicly” and without remorse that DBSC is a corrupt “step-child” agency allegedly acting under authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Tyranny and Oppression are some of their weapons. Dishonesty, harassment and criminal misconduct ‘under color of law’ permeate their operations. The obvious question arises … “If the DBSC is “corrupt”, what can we expect from the parent; The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania?”


The complaint by Alan M. Black is retaliatory for Respondent‘s irreverent candor in reporting inappropriate conduct of Black and his judicial colleagues over the prior seventy (70) months.
Retaliatory action by a public officer, e.g., a judge, is prohibited under 18 Pa.C.S.A.  § 4953.1, which makes it a “crime“.
The gravamen of the complaint is that
Respondent “knowingly” makes false accusations against the court and its officers. Alan Black wanted to “shut up” the attorney. The complaint, fabricated in collusion with attorney(s) of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court (“DBSC”), fails to identify with any specificity any individual remarks by the accused against the judge that are “false”.
Prior to the hearings, DBSC submitted a List of Exhibits that allegedly proves that Wrona made false statements about Black. Among these exhibits is a
 Flyer  asking to Impeach Alan M. Black for UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT.
Defendant Hamoui distributed this “flyer” outside the courthouse. While exercising his 1st Amendment right to distribute this material, Hamoui was “detained” (arrested) for lack of a Permit.
During the hearings, DBSC refused (failed) to introduce the flyer into evidence. The reasons are clear.  Not one sentence or line of the “flyer” can be shown to be “false”. The DBSC charges against Respondent are knowingly FALSE!
Respondent attempted to admit the document into evidence for purposes of “proof” of innocence, and that the charges against him were knowingly FALSE, the DBSC Hearing Panel exercised their “training” to limit admissibility of evidence, thereby DENYING the Respondent his 6th Amendment Right to introduce evidence in his defense.
Respondent alleges that this Exhibit  was necessary to establish “probable cause” for the complaint. Without “probable cause”, DBSC lacks jurisdiction to prosecute a respondent.  DBSC knew at the outset that there are No False Statements or allegations contained in the Flyer. EVERY allegation and statement in the flyer is supported in the court record.  Respondent’s action to report the crimes is “required” by Pa. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3(b).  

The “disciplinary complaint” against Respondent was Retaliatory and the allegations in the Complaint are “False”.  See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4953.1. 

To this date, attorney Wrona remains uninformed about “any false statements” made about Alan M. Black and Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (LCCCP).  There were NONE.

Since December of 1997, Respondent has charged LCCCP 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 Respondent has not suggested a reason why the court, or anyone, would alter the audio tapes.
A victim of a crime has No Responsibility to provide the “reason / motive” for criminal acts.

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 accusations fail to 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.
Judge Alan M. Black is a LIAR.

3 thoughts on “DBSC: Docket # 123 DB 2004

  1. Terance

    I was curious if you were aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6?

    Rule 1.6 made it illegal to prosecute injustice in the United States. A ‘law’ in every state enacted by the state Supreme Court results in an unconstitutional loss of rights and privileges of a litigant victim when an act of injustice occurs in a courtroom. (In Civil, Criminal or Family Courts)

    The ‘law’ makes it illegal for any prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general to prosecute the crime – because it
    – would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
    – would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
    – would expose individual liability.

    The victim is left with no recourse, or escape. They are bullied and harassed by the courts until one of three possible outcomes results. Loss of EVERYTHING in their life, prison, or suicide.

    There is nothing any judge can do to address the injustice. This is not judges protecting their own. It is a violation of Rule 1.6 if the judge even tries to address the injustice. Their judicial integrity is sacrificed. This angers the judge who then seems to take it out further on the victim.

    When the act which caused the injustice is known and exposed (even in court) the damage to the victim worsens. The injustice grows each time the victim appears in court because no lawyer or judge may acknowledge or address the injustice or resolve the matter.

    The overall result is abuse of power under color of law. In criminal courts the prosecutor’s aggressive misconduct is ignored. All ‘lawful’, but unconstitutional – as they are mandated to never reveal it or they are quickly disciplined and discredited. It cannot be dealt with until the litigant has his constitutional rights restored. But the victim would have to figure out how they lost their rights – and there is NO ONE TO HELP. (They made helping the victim of injustice illegal. No lawyer may participate. If they try, they are disciplined.)

    The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.

    Each state lost the ability to address the injustice of their own courts, and mandated that no lawyer, attorney general or district attorney invite the federal government to investigate.

    Each time the Federal Government has acted to address injustice and corruption of any state court, that state’s Supreme Court has modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. This leaves a trail which exposes the corruption caused by this ‘law’ which perverts the entire justice system.

    Kids for Cash is one huge example in Pennsylvania. No one could stop it until a judge violated Rule 1.6 and reported it. Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for doing the right thing.

    A massive example is the foreclosure crisis nationwide, where a fraud upon the court – a forged and false mortgage note or deed – resulted in the actual fraud being ‘lawfully’ ignored by the court while people everywhere lost their homes. It wasn’t necessarily the banks that caused the crisis. It was the lawyers who committed the initial fraud upon the court which could not be addressed.

    The victims of injustice lost their home because of a deliberate injustice and the mandate by Rule 1.6 that no one reveal it.

    Rule 1.6 made it illegal for a lawyer to fix this crisis. It took two pro se defendants to find the needle in haystack of injustice… all deliberately and intentionally caused by the author of the ‘law’ … The American Bar Association.

    The same unconstitutional law, same number, same name, in every state.

    Read more at http://www.work2bdone.com/live 544341845_1380969403


    The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
    Eastern District of Pennsylvania # 13-4614 (2-13-cv-04614-TON)
    Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591

    Rule 1.6 refers to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION unlawfully enacted into ‘law’ by each state Supreme Court. Unlawfully enacted because it results in the denial of rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution.


    1. Administrator

      Thank you for this information. This explains quite a bit of what I am experiencing. Would you be interested in educating me further on the Challenge to the Constitutionality?

      There are others who are interested …

    2. Administrator

      Hello, Jay!

      Please forgive my TARDY response …

      I shall compose a ‘response’ to your Comments, but not today, or possibly even tomorrow … but I shall be digesting all the information it transmits, and pray that I correctly understand your meanings and directions.

      I shall at least send you an email from < esquiregen@ptd.net > … that’s also ME.
      I will COPY Bill Reil on the email, because I am confident that he will contribute or diminish the force of your message.

      Be Well … I shall be in touch shortly.

      Thank you for visiting the site, and your contributions to making it more understandable …


Leave a Reply

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