Morning Call – Rebuttal

Allentown, Morning Call ( MC )
Lawyer response: ( begin Rebuttal )

State Supreme Court disbars Allentown lawyer for breaking rule
Report says he falsely accused judge of “domestic terrorism.’
August 06, 2006|By Tina Peng Of The (Allentown) Morning Call

The following text is included as irrefutable evidence that the “reporting media”  have their own agenda, and are probably “paid off” by the highest bidder, in this case, “The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”, by members of the judicial branch, or the PA BAR Association.
Below is an example of dishonest reporting! The text in blue was published by the Allentown Morning Call (MC) via “reporter” Tina Peng. Mss. Peng contacted Mr. Wrona by telephone before publishing the false article, Mr. Wrona requested the opportunity to review the report that Mss. Peng RELIED upon. Wrona’s request was DENIED!  Technically, under the LAW, Wrona was Denied an Opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time, a Denial of DUE PROCESS!

Responses by attorney Eugene A. Wrona appear in maroon. The Morning Call (MC) refused to publish the “rebuttal” by Wrona. 

Ironically, 10 years later, an important man stands behind a dais and calls reporters “the most dishonest people in the World!” 
In my experience, it would be easy to concur with President Donald J. Trump, However, Pres. Trump neglects to note that many “false” newspaper stories must be ‘approved” by an editor. The reporter(s) may not be totally to blame.  This is small compensation for an aggrieved victim.  

The Article:    State Supreme Court disbars Allentown lawyer for breaking rule
Allentown lawyer Eugene Wrona has been disbarred by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for falsely accusing a judge of “domestic terrorism” and fixing the outcome of a child support case, according to court documents.

Lawyer response:
FALSE! 1st — Wrona is “allegedly” disbarred for violating Pa Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically, Rule 8.2 Statements concerning judges and “criminal editing of audio records” … which infers Rule 8.1(a) knowingly making a false statement of material fact; …
TRUTH! —- Wrona properly Reported Criminal Misconduct under Rule 8.3(b).
Wrona acted in complete “compliance” with Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct. Wrona correctly reported “criminal misconduct” in Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas ( LCCCP ) … “criminal editing” of audio tapes. 18 Pa.S.C. 4911.
For reporting the TRUTH, Alan M.Black conspired and colluded with the DBSC (Disc. Bd. of the Supreme Court) in retaliation for Wrona’s effort to restore some “honesty and integrity” to Lehigh County courts. Settled Law holds:
“Government officials are barred from bringing charges they would not have pursued absent retaliatory motive, regardless of whether they had probable cause to do so.” MOORE v. HARTMAN, No. 03-5241, (D.C. Cir. Nov. 09, 2004).

Alan M. Black entered into a “criminal conspiracy” with the Disciplinary Board to “falsely accuse” Wrona of making false statements about him. The record shows that neither Alan M. Black or DBSC produced ANY EVIDENCE of a “false statement“ about this corrupt judge. Mr. Hamoui distributed a Flyer that contains a number of charges against Alan M. Black and Lehigh County court. THEY ARE ALL TRUE!
This “Flyer” was used to establish “probable cause” against attorney Wrona. However, the DBSC refused to enter it into evidence! WHY, you may ask???  Because every statement on the Flyer was TRUE!  and irrefutable.  DBSC failed to produce even ONE False statement by attorney Wrona against Alan M.Black.   

The legal doctrine of “estoppel” should have prevented Alan M. Black and DBSC from bringing forward charges against an attorney who raised criminal charges against the court, and was “prevented” from bringing charges against the court administered by Alan M. Black.
Retaliation” (also a “crime”) is a reasonable motive that defines their conduct.

Also, the “alleged” disbarment is unenforceable “under law”. Moore, supra. Unfortunately, statutory LAW offers little or No Protection for those willing to confront dishonesty in government.

FACT: There is NO bona fide ‘Order to Disbar’ signed by a justice of the Supreme Court of PA (SCOPa). One cannot be stripped of a property interest (practice of law) without due process — a court trial — which is almost always DENIED to lawyers who the BAR Association wants disbarred.
SCOPa Denied Wrona’s demand for a de novo hearing, an UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL of “due process”.

2nd — Black’s false accusations emerged 2 years after the Hamoui case; during a case regarding child custody … where Child Support was not in issue. The doctrine of “estoppel” by prior conduct should be a BAR against Alan M. Black raising any issues of Professional Misconduct by Wrona in the Hamoui matter (1999 – 2000) and “estops” him from raising them in 2004, especially after Wrona respectfully offered him the opportunity to recuse himself from the custody matter on his docket due to their prior “hostile and adversarial” history. Alan M. Black appears before the DBSC with “unclean hands”. DBSC (Alan J. Davis and Paul Killion) were aware of this. Nevertheless, they proceeded to retaliate!  

Proof? This website << >> proves that Black recused himself from the Hamoui / child support case, then Black, in violation of “The Code of Judicial Conduct” and Hamoui’s rights to due process and equal protection, withdrew his recusal. Denying Hamoui’s rights is a crime and “judicial misconduct”.
Alan M. Black committed another CRIME. Not only did he violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, Alan M. Black violated 5 USC 2635.101. Basic Obligations of public service. The crimes identified therein are “conflict of interest crimes”.

ALAN M. BLACK, a person with “Unclean Hands”, made false accusations about Wrona. Black admits to his recusal in his letter to Withdraw the recusal. He later DENIED that he recused himself. 
The allegation that Wrona falsely accused a judge of “domestic terrorism” is not mentioned in the “Formal Complaint” against Wrona as prosecuted by the “corrupt” DBSC (Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court) counsel, Alan J. Davis.
This issue WAS NOT raised at the DBSC hearings.
Wrona accuses corrupt judges of “domestic terrorism” generically. The letter to Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts does not identify Alan M. Black in the context of “domestic terrorist”.

Wrona, 65, continues to practice as a lawyer, saying the disbarment on July 29 is invalid and unconstitutional, and plans to file an appeal Monday. He did not specify which court.

Lawyer response:
FALSE!  Wrona ceased to practice law following the void ab initio order of disbarrment. Tina Peng FAILED to do due diligence in her reporting. DBSC Rules provide that a lawyer shall have a “right” to a de novo hearing before the PA Supreme Court when disbarment is the DBSC recommendation. SCOPa Denied Wrona’s “right” to due process. A request to the Morning Call for permission to respond to this False article was DENIED by the MC.

The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board had unanimously recommended Wrona’s disbarment March 31, saying Wrona had violated five rules of professional conduct, including committing perjury and falsely accusing Lehigh County Judge Alan Black and other court staffers of criminal misconduct.

Lawyer response:
False: One member of the DBSC “abstained” from the final vote. Wrona believes that member to be one of the 3-person panel that heard his defense. Further, Wrona was “in compliance” with Rule 8.3(b) of Rules of Professional Conduct — Reporting Professional Misconduct.
Wrona “complied with” Rule 8.3(b)! DBSC found him to be in violation of Rule 8.2.
It appears that reporting “judicial” misconduct is an offense under Rule 8.2, regardless of the TRUTH of the report against a judge. The “formal complaint” fabricated by DBSC and Alan M. Black ”intentionally FAILs” to identify EVEN ONE FALSE STATEMENT by Wrona about Alan M. Black. One vexing question remains.
Is it reasonable to conclude that all 20+ members of the Disciplinary Board are unaware of “Moore”, supra, and that Black had “recused” himself from the Hamoui case without filing a Formal Complaint against Wrona in 2000?  … or was this “outcome” pre-determined? 

Wrona, who was admitted to practice law in 1993, had represented a man in 1997 who was not paying ordered child support. It was his first court case as primary attorney, and Lehigh County Judge William Ford found Wrona’s client in contempt.

Lawyer response:
A FICTION! Therefore false, by Definition!
On September 24, 1997, the date of the hearing before William E Ford, the man (Hamoui) was paying the ordered child support. He had missed several payments because he had been unemployed and had No Income, but resumed payments in early August. The support guidelines excuse (provide for) such failures.
When a non-custodial parent (ncp) without income is unable to keep up with regular payments, he cannot be held in contempt for nonpayment. The arrearages accumulate, to be paid later, but they cannot be the basis for “contempt”.
Title IV-D attorney Susan G. Maurer DEMANDED her pound of flesh.
Ford’s finding Hamoui in contempt is an egregious error by a “so-called” judge. 

Upon entering an appearance for Hamoui, Wrona demanded that the ‘ncp’ sign for wage deductions for support payments which resumed on or about Aug. 8, 1997. Hamoui complied with the prior order after several weeks of unemployment and without income.  
Wrona reported this to Domestic Relations/Child Support, Dir. Rosemary McFee, who confirmed resumption of payments and informed Wrona that the “Contempt” charge would be dropped.
Unfortunately, during the hearing on Sept. 24, 1997, a “corrupt” Title IV-D attorney, Susan G. Maurer, brought up the charges before William E. Ford, an equally corrupt officer for the Commonwealth.
Wrona told his story to the judge, who asked his law clerk, Lisa Ano, to confirm with Dir. McFee..

Even after learning the truth, Ford still held Hamoui in contempt, a “contemptible” action by a judge. Maurer had the opportunity to withdraw the charge, but she refused.
Maurer made other “false statements” to the court at that hearing.
Sadly, MC published the falsehoods fed them by DBSC or Lehigh County Court.
Several years later, Ford had a similar case in which his finding was precisely what Wrona demanded of him on Set. 24, 1997.  

During the hearing, when Ford declared Hamoui “In Contempt”, and ordered him to be handcuffed, the “mother” screamed “No! No! I don’t want him to go to jail!” Her outbursts were “criminally edited” and Deleted” from the audio tapes of the hearing.
Wrona enumerated nearly 2 dozen discrepancies of criminal editing to the audio tape of the Sept. 24, 1997 hearing.
Ford erred as a matter of Law, and as a matter of principle. Further, the audio tape of this hearing was criminally edited from within the Lehigh County Courthouse. This issue will be addressed elsewhere. cf, 18 Pa.C.S. 4911.

Wrona then filed to modify the child support order, and Lehigh County Judge Edward Reibman ordered an increase in support; Wrona requested a new hearing on that petition and came before Black, who affirmed the increase. Wrona appealed Black’s decision to the Superior Court and filed several complaints with that court saying statements had been omitted from the transcripts and audiotapes of hearings and court proceedings.

Lawyer response:
This paragraph is so screwed up … let’s take them One at a Time.
Per Susan G. Maurer, Reibman “allegedly” heard the case and entered a support order (March 1996) that was issued BEFORE Wrona was involved.
Maurer “falsely” told judge Ford that Reibman “heard” the case and approved an increase in Child Support. Maurer LIED to the Ford court, perpetrating a “fraud on the court”, which, under law, forfeits jurisdiction in the matter.
Reibman never heard the case on the alleged date. Reibman’s signature on the Order was a rubber stamp signature affixed from within the Domestic Relations section. Hamoui was Denied a hearing. 
Wrona moved to have the record corrected; Denied by Ford after learning the TRUTH. Despite the court docket confirming Wrona’s allegations, Reibman (& Ford) refused to correct the record.

Subsequently, Reibman heard a Motion to Disqualify Susan Maurer (brought by Wrona). The audio tape of that hearing was also “criminally edited.”
Wrona never appealed the 1996 “support order “ by Reibman, because he wasn’t in the case at that time. The record reveals that Reitman NEVER heard the case in 1996.
Wrona DID Appeal from Ford’s support Order (Sept. 24, 1997). Following the DENIAL of the appeal, Wrona again requested a “modification of child support” for Hamoui.
During this period, Mother placed a substantial “down payment” to purchase a new Home. After Domestic Relations Denied a reduction of Hamoui’s support obligation, Hamoui appealed for a de novo hearing. This time, the case was placed on the docket of Alan M. Black.
Once again, Susan G. Maurer appeared on behalf of Domestic Relations and Plaintiff.
NOTE: Also during this interim, Wrona filed a “criminal complaint” with James Martin, Lehigh County DA. about “criminal alteration of audio records”. Douglas G. Reichley, former deputy Lehigh County DA and state legislator, now serving as a judge in Lehigh County, accepted the complaint and took appropriate action. See Reichley letter.

re Black’s court. At the first hearing, when Wrona attempted to cross-examine the Plaintiff, Black “recessed” the case for several weeks until Jan. 12 of the next year. Upon resumption, Black declared the hearing to be “argument only” which DENIED the RIGHT to cross-examine the adverse party. The Code of Judicial Conduct be damned.

Following this hearing, and with prior experience of criminal alteration of the audio tapes, Wrona appeared before Black (24 Jan., 2000) with a Motion to obtain a copy of the audio tapes from Black’s court. Black DENIED the Motion and refused to say when they might be available. A Shut Out!
On or about 3 Feb., Diane Snell, court monitor in charge of the audio tapes in question for Black’s court called Wrona to say the audio tapes could be copied.

Black denied three motions by Wrona to correct the record.

Lawyer response:
Possibly! Wrona identified material and relevant testimony that does not appear on the N.O.T. (Notes of Testimony) from the courtrooms of judges William E. Ford, Edward D. Reibman and Alan M. Black. Wrona moved to correct the record. Wm. E. Ford DENIED at least ONE Motion to Correct the record.

In 2000 and 2001, Wrona accused court employees of perjury and attempted to have Black disqualified from the case, charging that he had a “personal bias or prejudice” against Wrona’s client.

Lawyer response:
Not accurate! In Fact, twisted out of context. The facts disagree. Wrona DID accuse one court monitor of a knowingly “false statement” >> “PERJURY”.
Alan M. Black knew her testimony to be false and remained silent. … ?? Collusion ?? Subornation of perjury ???
Wrona, with Hamoui, filed a Formal Complaint against Alan M. Black with the Judicial Conduct Board.
Before Wrona contemplated moving for Black’s Disqualification, Alan M. Black had already “RECUSED HIMSELF” from the case. The docket will confirm the following:

During a hearing to correct the record, regarding alteration of audio tapes, Wrona requested a copy of the audio tape for that hearing to be delivered immediately upon conclusion of the hearing.
Court Monitor Diane Snell spoke out “to the judge” saying the machine used to copy audio tapes was broken. Black concurred, saying that he had heard something to that effect. Snell was Not a “witness” under oath, but was a public servant.
Wrona checked into the issue ASAP and learned that the audio tape copying machine WAS NOT BROKEN. Diane Snell LIED to the court … “fraud on the court” / PERJURY! Alan M. Black joined in the charade. Can this be “subornation of perjury”?

Wrona has No reason to believe that Diane Snell AND Alan M. Black had not discussed this issue and that they acted in concert with her testimony as their solution to their anticipated request for a copy of the audio record  from Atty. Wrona. 
Wrona believes, and therefore avers that in His opinion, Alan M. Black and Diane Snell conspired to fabricate the falsehood about a broken tape-copier. Ergo, Alan M. Black should be charged “criminally” with “subordination of perjury”!

A Motion to disqualify a judge requires grounds. “Prejudice” against a litigant, or against an attorney may satisfy the prima facie requirement. These turned out to be “unnecessary” in the Hamoui case. Wrona did not move to disqualify Black until AFTER Black had recused himself, then UNLAWFULLY “withdrew” his recusal.

A Motion to Disqualify Black was Derailed by another LCCCP judge.

There is a larger issue. Wrona refers to it as “S.S.S.” — State Sanctioned Stealing! This issue is a federal matter related to federal distribution of Incentive Payments (45 CFR 304.12 et al) to “political subdivisions”. i.e., domestic relations / Dom. Rel. courts.

At one of several ‘Motion to Correct the Record’ hearings, Wrona demanded the opportunity to cross examine court monitor Diane Snell. Black scheduled another hearing to facilitate the demand. Another court monitor, Kimberly Brader, served as court monitor for this hearing. (Note: the audio of this hearing with court monitor Brader was criminally edited.)

During the examination of Mss. Snell, a “hostile witness”, she admitted that she released an audio tape in question “to the judge” BEFORE it was transcribed.
The chain of custody had been compromised. The next question, a leading question, was intended to establish that after releasing the audio tape to an unauthorized person, she, the court monitor, could no longer authenticate the integrity of the recorded information.
Before she answered, Alan M. Black interceded, and in the most hostile terms accused Wrona of accusing him of ‘altering the audio tapes in his court’.
That was an incorrect presumption on Black’s part, which Wrona denied. Wrona never made such an accusation. Wrona successfully established that the “chain of custody” had been compromised and that the integrity of the audio was in question.
Nevertheless, Alan M. Black announced that he “was recusing Himself” and that this hearing was over … with another hostile comment towards Wrona stating “… I can’t wait to testify!”.
Black then “terminated” the hearing, and terminated the examination of the witness.
Black’s recusal is consistent with the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT: Canon 3. C. (1). However, Black subsequently violated the Code of Judicial Conduct when he “withdrew” his recusal.

He (Wrona) filed complaints with the Judicial Conduct Board accusing Black of “criminal misconduct” and fixing the outcome of the custody case, court records show.

Lawyer response:
Not TRUE! Tina Peng is confused.
Wrona and Hamoui, his client, filed to IMPEACH Alan M. Black (in the PA House of Reps.) for judicial misconduct in a CHILD SUPPORT hearing.
(The  Judicial Conduct Board operates to “whitewash” formal complaints against judges.)  

It was not until 2 (two) years later that Black brought forward the FALSE / fabricated Disciplinary Board complaint against Wrona during an action for child custody in a completely separate matter with a separate Plaintiff v. Defendant. Before entering an appearance in the custody matter, Wrona wrote to Black about their “professional” history inquiring whether Black could preside over an impartial court in the custody matter. Black decided to stay on the case.
Black was unable to preside over an impartial court.
Wrona contends that it is not irrelevant that Susan G. Maurer was also involved in the custody matter. She was “appointed” Guardian ad Litem by the court (Alan M. Black) before Wrona entered an appearance in the matter. Irregularities, including subornation of perjury in this custody case led to charges about the lack of integrity of Susan G. Maurer, Esquire.
According to the disciplinary board’s report, Wrona sent a letter to the Pennsylvania Attorney General in 2003 that accused Black of “domestic terrorism,” and a letter to the governor of Massachusetts in 2004 calling Black despicable and accusing him of doing more harm than the Sept. 11 terrorists. The documents did not give an explanation.

Lawyer’s response: 
Not TRUE! The Morning Call has this segment twisted … A LIE! Unless the Call can produce a copy of any letter by Eugene A. Wrona that specifically accuses Black of “domestic terrorism” the Allentown Morning Call owes Wrona a full apology as well as a full retraction of its 2006 “false-news” article about this Allentown lawyer. This newspaper owes it to the public to publish Wrona’s “rebuttal” to their promulgation of misinformation fed them by the DBSC, a corrupt agency of a corrupt court!
Wrona’s maintains a website << >> that contains a 2004 letter to Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney.  The contents are self-explanatory and are substantially different than the characterization presented by the Morning Call.

Although other lawyers charged with making false accusations have faced five-year suspensions, the board said Wrona “has no background of steady competent legal work to help mitigate the severity of his unwarranted behavior.”

Lawyer response:
The board LIED! Wrona’s behavior was Not unwarranted. To the contrary, Wrona behaved in strict compliance with Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct.

DBSC will never find mitigating facts UNTIL they look for them. e.g.,

On March 15, 2005, Wrona delivered correspondence to Pres. Judge William Platt and judge Lawrence J. Brenner. On March 16, 2005, Wrona received a telephone call from Brenner’s secretary directing him to be in court the next morning at 9:00 (or 9:30) AM. Wrona’s correspondence explains the sequence of judicial error. See website.
On March 17, 2005, just days after the second day of the DBSC hearing against Wrona, Wrona “WON” a case in LCCCP / Domestic Relations court. During the hearing, the only words spoken by Wrona were something to the effect of “Good morning Judge. Happy St. Patrick’s Day”. Approximately 20 minutes later, Judge Lawrence Brenner entered an Order to release Wrona’s client, Elisha Ennis, from prison.
Note: Susan G. Maurer, Title IV-D attorney, failed to appear at that hearing.

The court’s change of position was the result of the “correspondence” to the court on March 15, 2005. See << >> for details of the Ennis case, an example of judicial misconduct in LCCCP.   See Judicial Atrocities / Ennis.

In its 23-page report, the disciplinary board said Wrona was unfit to practice law. “He was prepared to fight his case in any way possible, including making false and injurious accusations against a judge in a persistent manner through a number of years and to a variety of audiences,” it wrote.
Wrona railed against the disciplinary board, Reibman, Black and the “corrupt” Pennsylvania judicial system Thursday, saying he has been denied due process.

Lawyer response:
Wrona pursued government action against the criminal alteration of court audio records in LCCCP (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas). His trail took him to Massachusetts where an audio forensic “expert” determined that the audio tapes brought for his examination had INDEED been edited; and to the Office of state Attorney General in Harrisburg, where he was told he must file the complaint with the Lehigh County District Attorney, which was done.
The Office of Attorney General assigned the government “fox” to guard the “henhouse”.
Fortunately, Douglas G. Reichley, supra, investigated the “Ford court” charges.
Efforts to file the same complaint against Alan M. Black were “thwarted” by the Lehigh County Office of District Attorney, which requested support from the Sheriff’s office to remove Wrona and Hamoui from the courthouse without permitting “us” to file a criminal complaint.
A Deputy Sheriff with his hand on his gun threatened Hamoui and Wrona with physical harm.

Hamoui and Wrona exercised prudent discretion and left the courthouse voluntarily but “under duress”! 

Wrona DENIES that he ever made “false and injurious accusations against a judge”! Wrona DEMANDS that DBSC produce any “false and injurious accusations …”! In the alternative, DBSC owes Wrona an apology, a retraction, and professional restoration.
Wrona appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which has a “fiduciary responsibility” to conduct a de novo hearing in disciplinary matters under RDE 208.
Subsequently, Black was served with an Affidavit by Wrona, and was required to answer point-for-point any statements to which he disagreed.

Alan M. Black FAILED to submit a rebuttal to the Affidavit, thereby “Admitting” to the truth of its contents.

Alan M. Black and Alan Davis (DBSC counsel) brought a False and Malicious prosecution against Eugene A. Wrona. As agents for the Commonwealth Judicial Branch, they deserve equal justice …  as served upon Michael T. Conahan and Mark Ciavarella.

Truth is an unrebuttable and “absolute” defense against false charges.




Prior to Alan M. Black’s formal complaint against attorney Wrona, Wrona and Hamoui had filed criminal charges against Lehigh County Court / William E Ford for criminal alteration of audio tapes with the Lehigh County DA, deputy DA Doug Reichley. Wrona and Hamoui attempted to file criminal charges against Lehigh County court/ Alan M. Black for the same crimes. However, an assistant / deputy DA called the Sheriff to have Wrona and Hamoui physically removed from the courthouse without permitting us to file the criminal complaint.
Alan M. Black acted with “unclean hands” when he brought the formal Disciplinary Board complaint against Wrona.


I, Eugene A. Wrona, attest and aver that the statements entered in response the news article published by the Allentown Morning Call on August 6, 2006, titled “State Supreme Court disbars Allentown lawyer for breaking rule” are TRUE to the best of my knowledge. This response is published under penalty for Perjury.

Date ____________________ _______________________________
Eugene A. Wrona, PAG
2040 Virginia St.
Allentown, PA