Alan J. Davis, Esq.

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 J. Davis, counsel for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania earns a nomination to this Hall of Shame for numerous and egregious violations — of law; his duty as a prosecutor; and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Davis performs his duty as an officer of the court (attorney) with a demonstrated lack of professional integrity.  As a state employee, Davis is subject to the “Basic obligations of public service” as defined in 5 CFR 2635.101. 

Eugene A. Wrona, the real person, has suffered irreparable harm as a result of the insidious and malicious prosecution against his sacred honor, his reputation and his integrity.
Alan J. Davis, acting at all times under color of law, “libeled” and “slandered” Wrona’s good name and reputation with knowledge that many of his statements are false and with reckless disregard for the truth of other statements which later were published in the news media.

Wrona, in order to clear his name and to restore his reputation, brings forward specific charges against Alan J. Davis, the Disciplinary Board, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and others, and demands that the Government of Pennsylvania, on behalf of “We the People“, investigate the    disciplinary action “pattern and practice” of DBSC and the case docketed as [123 DB 2004] and Davis’ authority to act under color of law.

The gravamen of the prosecution of 123 DB 2004 is that Wrona accuses the lower court of “criminal alteration of audio records of court hearings.”
Wrona acknowledges that publication of these accusations may undermine ‘public confidence’ in the integrity of the court. Criminal alteration of audio records undermines the integrity of the court. Wrona chose the lesser of two evils.

Frederick Douglass’ speech, “THE MEANING OF THE 4TH OF JULY TO THE AMERICAN NEGRO”, applies as much today as it did in 1852.  See 

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has refused, for nearly 10 years, to conduct an “official” investigation into the criminal charges brought forward against the Lehigh County courts. Wrona presented irrefutable and uncontested evidence of alterations of audio records of hearings before judges Alan M. Black and William E. Ford.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the Supreme Court, has a vested interest in silencing whistleblowers who may pose a threat to the ongoing corrupt activities in Pennsyl- vania courts. The Disciplinary Board prosecuted Wrona for allegedly making knowingly false accusations about a judge, allegedly violating RPC Rule 8.2(b).
Wrona stands on the TRUTH of every accusation and maintains that he reported the criminal conduct in complaince with Rules of Professional Conduct, 8.3(b).

Disciplinary Board rules require that accusations against a judge must be uttered with the lawyer’s knowledge of their falsity, placing the burden of proof on the Board. Davis made no effort to meet that burden, even failing to conduct an investigation into the criminal edits of audio records. The Disciplinary Board made no effort to prove, or even show that the accusations against Black are false.

It is an impossible task to prove that a TRUTH is a falsehood.  TRUTH is what remains after all other possibilities have been eliminated”. Author Unknown.

PACOURTINJUSTICE will publish relevant materials about the case, 123 DB 2004, shortly. The materials include uncontested and irrefutable evidence, forensic and testimony, of missing dialogue from several court hearings in Lehigh County courts. Wrona maintains that the criminal alteration of audio records reaches the plateau of “pattern and practice” in Lehigh County.

Ironically, the transcribed record [Notes of Testimony] of the disciplinary proceedings were materially edited and do not provide a complete and accurate record of the hearings. Alan J. Davis, as prosecutor, must be held accountable for the criminal alteration of the certified Notes of Testimony in the matter of 123 DB 2004. Beth Strauss, Shorthand Reporter for Esquire Deposition Services (Philadelphia, PA) must be investigated for her participation in the fraudulent certification of the Notes of Testimony.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania empowers the DBSC (Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court) to prosecute attorneys accused of violating Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. Prosecutors have a duty to search for the TRUTH, not merely to seek a conviction, and to assure that the defendant has a fair and impartial trial. Alan J. Davis serves as prosecutor for the DBSC. The Supreme Court (PA) bears responsibility and accountability for the entire prosecution of 123 DB 2004, including allegations of aiding and abetting the criminal alteration of the Notes of Testimony. It is inconceivable that the Office of Disciplinary Conduct would engage in criminal activity without the implied consent, and the ability to cover up the crime, of the Supreme Court. The [U.S.] Supreme Court has long emphasized “the special role played by the American prosecutor in the search for truth in criminal trials.” and …The prosecuting attorney represents a sovereign whose obligation is to govern impartially and whose interest in a particular case is not necessarily to win, but to do justice … . Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999).


For his unlawful actions as a prosecutor in the matter of 123 DB 2004, including criminal alteration of the “official” certified Notes of Testimony, Alan J. Davis should be and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the criminal law. Alan J. Davis qualifies as a nominee for Pennsylvania’s “Michael Nifong” award.

Davis was served Notice of the accusations against him and was afforded the opportunity to DENY via Affidavit the charges brought against him. He chose to remain silent, and by his silence admits the TRUTH of the allegations. He is forever estopped from denying the truth of these accusations. Davis stands ‘convicted’ by his silence.

For his intentional violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and other transgressions, Alan J. Davis should face “disciplinary action” against his license to practice law. Davis’ conduct as ‘prosecutor’ demonstrates the deceit and arrogance of the Supreme Court that employs the Disciplinary Board as a weapon against any who would expose the criminal corruption of the judicial process and the breach of integrity by the court. Disbarment is appropriate.

Based on the uncontested TRUTH of the allegations and accusations against Alan J. Davis, he must be investigated for criminal misconduct for the alteration of the Notes of Testimony and other egregious actions that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. His conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system.

No one is above the Law. Alan J. Davis must be prosecuted under Pennsylvania criminal statutes and suffer the penalties for those crimes.

By his contrived deceitful, evil and malicious actions, Alan J. Davis earns a Nomination to the PACOURTINJUSTICE Hall of Shame as a “despicable person” who tramples the rights of the accused and trashes the Constitution.

Does the deceitful conduct of Alan J. Davis reflect on the Pennsylvania Bar Association?

It is said “the devil is in the detail”. Details supporting allegations and accusations against Alan J. Davis will appear in disciplinary case 123 DB 2004 [coming soon], complete with copies of documents submitted for the record or placed in evidence.

PACOURTINJUSTICE reserves the right to supplement all postings with additional information.

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

Honorable Mention:

Joseph W. Farrell   — Executive Director, Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Elaine M. Bixler  —  Executive Secretary, Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Paul J. Killion  —  Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

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


Eugene A. Wrona (Administrator) offers no apology for any lack of decorum or civility in his description of this Nominee. Details published with the Disciplinary case [123 DB 2004] justify the plain truthful language employed.

6 thoughts on “Alan J. Davis, Esq.

  1. Michelle Creveling

    I previously reported Lehigh County Master Richard Focht to Allan J. Davis for his inappropriate behaivor during a court hearing. Originally he was reported to Judge Devine and Judge Devine instructed myself to contact the board. Today, on 11/9/2015 Mr. Focht contacted myself via phone.

    Mr. Focht presided over a court hearing that I was involved in which is inappropriate and corrrupt at best after I reported him to your office. I would like the following:

    1.) An answer as to why Master Klein was slated to be the court Master and I was told was calling myself, then Master Focht appeared and contacted myself.

    2.) This is a clear conflict and I asked he not contact myself again. I would like a response as to what action will be taken to prevent this from occurring in the future.

    1. Administrator

      Thank you Michelle!
      Your comment will appear on this site as submitted. I ask that you provide details of any perceived misconduct of Master Klein and what you reported to the DBSC (Alan J. Davis).
      It is only fair that Master Klein have an opportunity to respond to your charges as they appear on this site. I look forward to learning more from you.
      Thank You, Again.

  2. Paula Hilley

    I hired a new lawyer Michael Kuldiner to handle my Estate Case. Lawyer Charles Kolver is refusing to give New lawyer Michael the paperwork work. Lawyer Charles is being difficult. I want this case done with lawyer Michael Kuldiner. I heard he is the best.
    Can somebody in your office look into this case? Or give Michael Kuldiner a call about this case?

    1. Administrator

      I am curious … what has your request to do with DBSC and/or Alan J. Davis? As a Rule, I do not recommend one lawyer over another.
      I am unable to contribute to your request, except to suggest that your “new” attorney should know what to do to remove the “old” attorney from the matter.
      Good Luck!


Leave a Reply

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